Regulatory changes for accelerating and improving protections for Ontario’s drinking water sources

Ontario is committed to ensuring that existing and future sources of drinking water are protected from contamination and depletion through the Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA) and its regulations.

The ministry is proposing minor amendments to the Clean Water Act, 2006 to streamline the way sources of drinking water are protected. Details on proposed legislative changes can be found under ERO posting 025-1060 which also contains a brief summary of the source protection planning framework, including source protection plans and how they protect sources of drinking water.

In addition to these proposed legislative changes, the ministry is proposing the following regulatory changes:

• amendments to the General Regulation (O. Reg. 287/07) under the Clean Water Act, 2006
• development of a new Minister’s regulation under the Clean Water Act, 2006
• amendments to Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas (O. Reg. 205/18) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002

The process to amend a source protection plan is lengthy and contains duplicative processes, causing unnecessary delays and hindering rapid protection. We are proposing to adjust the steps required to complete an amendment, while recognizing the maturity of the program and the comprehensive protection already in place for Ontario’s 38 source protection areas.

Under O. Reg. 205/18 under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (SDWA), in combination with provisions of O. Reg. 287/07, when a new well or intake is needed to supply water, and the owner of a municipal drinking water system requires an amendment to the system’s drinking water works permit to install the well or intake, the application for an amendment must include information showing that the technical work (that will involve changes to the assessment report) to support a source protection plan amendment has been completed. This regulation was put in place to ensure that source protection plans are kept up to date and continue to protect new and altered municipal sources of drinking water. The regulation does this by requiring the SDWA Director to include a condition in the municipal drinking water permit that prohibits supplying drinking water to users from the new or altered well or intake until the source protection plan amendment has been approved. However, applying this strict prohibition in every case without exception has proven to be unnecessary, and can slow down development for growing communities. The purpose of the proposed change to these regulations is to give greater flexibility so that the prohibition is not automatic but will be applied based on advice the SDWA Director receives from the source protection authority.

Changes are also proposed to prescribed instruments which are generally approvals issued by the province and can govern significant drinking water threat activities. O. Reg..287/07 sets out the list of “prescribed instruments”. In some cases, a prescribed instrument is created by the person engaged in the activity, such as certain instruments under the Nutrient Management Act – for example, a nutrient management plan. Additionally, significant threat policies, as described in ERO posting 025-1060, may require the prescribed instrument decision-maker to prohibit an activity from being engaged in at that location or require that activity be managed through provisions of the instrument so that it ceases to be or never becomes a significant drinking water threat (i.e., to “manage” the threat).

The proposed amendments to the regulations referred to above would support more timely approvals by easing unnecessary burden on municipalities seeking to provide water service to new development in a timely manner, while continuing to ensure appropriate safeguards remain in place to protect drinking water sources.

The government is committed to maintaining a high standard of protection for drinking water sources, while:

• allowing local source protection authorities to approve certain routine updates to source protection plans
• allowing additional minor plan amendments (such as modifications that are administrative in nature) to proceed without approval or consultation
• set clear timelines for approvals by the Minister of source protection plan amendments
• simplify consultation requirements on plan amendments while ensuring the right people are engaged
• enabling the use of new drinking water sources (such as wells and intakes) faster where protections are already in place
• changing how policies affecting “prescribed instruments” (such as approvals, permits and licences) can be used to manage risks to drinking water

Proposed amendments

To support the legislative proposal in the Building a More Competitive Economy Act, 2025 (ERO notice #025-1060) the Ministry is proposing to make amendments to the supporting regulations of the Clean Water Act, 2006.

The proposed changes are outlined below under the following three categories:

• proposed amendments to the General Regulation (O. Reg. 287/07) under the Clean Water Act, 2006
• development of a new Minister’s regulation under the Clean Water Act, 2006
• proposed amendments to Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas (O. Reg. 205/18) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002

Details of proposed amendments

1. Proposed amendments to the General Regulation (O. Reg. 287/07) under the Clean Water Act

Proposed changes to General Regulation (O. Reg. 287/07) would support streamlining the source protection amendment process. The proposed changes to O. Reg. 287/07 include:

• specifying circumstances where the source protection authorities would be the approval authority for a source protection plan amendment such as when the plan amendments would:
  • delineate a new or modified protection area around a well or intake and apply the existing source protection plan policies in that area
  • remove a prohibition policy (for example when allowing an activity will result in better environmental outcomes than prohibiting it)
• specifying the process for how a source protection authority approves a plan amendment such as:
  • before the source protection authority can approve the plan, approval of the assessment report by an Minister of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) Director would be required to ensure the assessment report is completed in alignment with the technical rules under the CWA.
  • once a plan amendment is approved by the source protection authority, the authority would need to send a notice of the amendment to the MECP Director and every person or body that is responsible for implementing a policy that is affected by the amendment stating that an amendment to a source protection plan has been approved
  • along with the notice that the plan amendments have been approved, other information would be submitted to the MECP Director such as a summary of the plan amendments and consultation, the amended source protection plan, technical studies, copies of the explanatory document, copies of municipal resolutions, comments received during consultation and mapping information
  • the regulation would also include transition provisions for source protection plan amendments that are in progress when the regulatory amendments take effect
• when an amendment is being submitted for Minister approval, specifying documents and information (such as technical studies, copies of the explanatory document, mapping, etc.) required to be included by the source protection authority to constitute a complete submission, for the Director to determine the amendment package is complete and accurate
• streamlining consultation on plan amendments into one phase, from two, through the removal of the requirement for pre-consultation with implementing bodies (currently required in sections 35 to 39 of the regulation). Consultation requirements are also proposed to be updated to reflect modern practices, including the removal of mandatory newspaper notifications. This would apply to any plan amendment, whether the approval authority is the Minister or the source protection authority
• additional types of minor plan amendments would be able to be made using the existing streamlined process set out in section 51 of the regulation (which does not involve consultation or approval). This is proposed to include plan amendments that:
  • clarify the narrative sections of the source protection plans, without changing the policies themselves
  • change policy implementation timelines in the source protection plan where the Minister or his or her delegate has provided an extension to a deadline in a source protection plan policy
  • address a well or intake that is replacing an existing well or intake, if:
    • amendments to the source protection plan would result in only a slight change to the delineation of the corresponding wellhead protection area or intake protection zone due to the replacement of the well or intake, and the revised delineation does not capture new activities that are considered significant drinking water threats that are currently occurring
    • the plan has already incorporated the most recent technical rules
    • rationale is provided to the ministry that the amendment would only require re-delineation of the protection area immediately adjacent to the well or intake (i.e., a wellhead protection area A or an intake protection zone one)

Changes are also proposed in the General Regulation (O. Reg. 287/07) to address the interaction between source protection plan policies affecting prescribed instruments and other policy tools. These include:

• source protection plans can use the risk management plan tool (section 58 of the CWA), which prohibits a person from engaging in an activity where it would be a significant threat except in accordance with a risk management plan, which is agreed to or established by a risk management official. Under section 61 of O. Reg. 287/07) a person can obtain an exemption from the requirement for a risk management plan if the person can show that their activity is already governed by a prescribed instrument and provides the risk management official with a statement that provisions have been included in the instrument to ensure that the instrument conforms to the significant threat policies set out in the source protection plan
• changes are proposed to set out circumstances where Part IV risk management plan policies and prohibitions (under s.57 and 58 of the CWA) cannot be used by a source protection plan to deal with significant drinking water threat activities, due to the activities already being subject to the requirement for a prescribed instrument. O. Reg. 287/07 already prohibits a source protection plan from using Part IV of the CWA for waste disposal sites and sewage works that require an ECA. The Ministry is considering adding to this list so that if a prescribed instrument can deal with a significant threat activity – it be used as the tool rather than using Part IV of the CWA

Changes are proposed to provide that in these situations, if a statement is provided and the prescribed instrument is not issued by a provincial body but created by the person engaged in the activity (e.g., Nutrient Management Plan), the risk management official may review the prescribed instrument to determine if the provisions meet the same test for establishing a risk management plan under section 58 of the CWA. If the risk management official determine after their review that this is not the case, the risk management official may require a risk management plan for the activity.

2. New Minister’s regulation under the Clean Water Act

To support the legislative proposal for the new approach for policies affecting prescribed instruments, a new Minister’s regulation is required and is proposed to:

• establish standardized wording for policies that affect prescribed instruments. The standardized wording would need to be used in source protection plans if these types of policies are included in the plans. Standard policy wording would place responsibility on the issuer/creator of the prescribed instrument to achieve the objective that the threat ceases to be or never becomes a significant drinking water (i.e. the threat is managed) threat by including provisions in the instrument
• increase transparency and consistency by requiring documentation of how a prescribed instrument decision maker reviewed and amended the instrument to ensure the significant threat activity ceases to be or never becomes a significant threat. Requirements would also be included to ensure prescribed instrument decision-makers report annually to the source protection authority to assist in their preparation of an annual progress report. The purpose of this change is to streamline and make consistent these reporting obligations. This would remove the need for such policies in a source protection plan, as these obligations would be set forth in regulation
• require that the review, removal and/or replacement of existing prescribed instrument policies in plans and their associated reporting (i.e., “monitoring”) polices take place within a proposed timeframe of 2 years as well as providing notice to the MECP Director when this has been completed
• with respect to the review by prescribed instrument decision-makers of existing prescribed instruments affected by a source protection plan amendment (e.g. where a new vulnerable area is delineated), establish a timeline of three years for such reviews. This ensures a timely and consistent review of existing instruments to consider whether the instruments require modification to manage risks to the source. As is current practice, it would be up to the issuer/creator of the instrument to determine whether the prescribed instrument needs to be amended

3. Changes to O. Reg. 205/18 (Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas) and O. Reg. 287/07

Changes to O. Reg. 205/18 Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in Source Protection Areas are proposed to allow the supply of drinking water when an amendment to a drinking water works permits or municipal drinking water licence is granted, before an amendment to a source protection plan is complete, in certain circumstances.

When the source protection authority provides the municipal drinking water system owner with the notice under subsection 48 (1.1) of O.Reg 287/07 indicating that technical work for the plan amendment is complete, the provision would be amended to give the source protection authority the ability to indicate in the notice to the approving Director for drinking water works permits and municipal drinking water licences under the Safe Drinking Water Act that a condition is not required to be included in the permit or licence to prohibit the supply of drinking water before the source protection plan amendment is approved. In this case, if the Director grants the amendment to the permit or licence, the Director would not be required to include a prohibition on supplying water in the permit or licence as is currently the case but rather the approach would be more flexible to reflect the circumstances. The source protection authority can set out in the notice the timeline for which the plan amendment could be approved, but this can not be more than three years.

The source protection authority would be enabled to include an indication in a notice to the Director that a condition to prohibit the supply of drinking water does not need to be included in the permit or licence only if at least one of the following circumstances are met. The source protection authority would make this determination with advice from the municipality.

Circumstances are proposed to include:

1. Where the application for the permit or licence is for a proposed alteration to an existing drinking water system, and the source protection authority outlines its rationale for why the supply of water does not need to be prohibited until the plan amendment is complete, including consideration of the vulnerable area mapping, an assessment of threats identified, the application of existing policies to manage the threats within the vulnerable area, any additional plan policies that may be needed to mitigate threats, and the timelines needed to implement them.
2. Where the plan amendment that would be advisable to make is one that can be completed through section 51 under O. Reg. 287/07, such as where a replacement well or intake is occurring.

Currently, changes to a municipal drinking water licence for an existing municipal residential system—such as an adjustment to the volume supplied—do not require an amendment to the source protection plan before water can be supplied, even though such an amendment may be advisable. Changes to O. Reg. 205/08 are proposed to require that a condition prohibiting the supply of water be included if an amendment to a licence is granted, until amendments to the source protection plan, where advisable, are complete. The condition would not need to be included if similar circumstances are met as outlined above.

Analysis of the regulatory impact

Ontario is facing a housing shortage, and more infrastructure will be required to meet rising residential development needs. This will result in many source protection plan amendments, a high workload and wait times for water to be available to residential developments.

The proposal would save source protection authorities, municipalities, developers, ministries, communities, and businesses time and money and reduce red tape for key sectors such as housing development and infrastructure.

The changes would allow for source protection plans to be updated faster and more efficiently by consulting with the right people at the right time and reducing plan approvals by up to 12 months.

We are working to develop a Regulatory Impact Assessment to determine potential costs or estimated savings related to this proposal.

By implementing streamlining procedures, we anticipate there may be some cost savings for source protection authorities in the long-term, through standardization of certain policies, fewer plan submissions to the ministry for approval and a more efficient consultation process.

Through this posting, we welcome comments on anticipated benefits or costs to better help the Ministry understand the real costs or cost savings associated with these proposed changes.