Source Water Protection

A:

Drinking water source protection is simply protecting water resources such as lakes, rivers and groundwater, from contamination or overuse. Water is critical to all aspects of our lives. Protecting the sources of our water is important to ensure that there is enough safe water for all our uses - now and in the future.

A:

We need to protect the sources of our water in order to safeguard the public health of our residents and ensure there is enough water for all.

Over two million residents in Ontario get their water directly from surface or groundwater sources and do not have access to treatment systems.

Treating water for drinking is very costly. As a result, conventional water treatment methods cannot always remove many hazardous chemicals.

A:

We do not have an infinite supply of water on our planet. Most of the water we use is recycled through the natural water cycle. It falls to earth as precipitation, is absorbed by plants and soil and then evaporates back into the atmosphere where the cycle begins again. Some of the water we use is thousands of years old.

Our supply of groundwater can be depleted if water is taken out of the ground more quickly than it can be naturally recharged.

A:

We protect sources of water by managing the human and natural influences on them. We need to prevent contamination or overuse of our water resources.

Water flows within watersheds, therefore it is best to manage our water resources on a watershed basis.

As water flows across the watershed, it crosses forests, farmlands, towns and cities. Along the way it is affected by different activities.

The fewer negative impacts on our sources of water throughout the watershed the better the chance that the water coming out of our taps will be healthy.  Protecting our sources of drinking water is absolutely essential to our health.

A:

A number of actions are taken to prevent our water from becoming contaminated and to ensure that it is safe and clean from source to tap.

These include protecting sources of water by monitoring and managing our lakes, rivers and streams, using up-to-date water treatment systems, ensuring that pipes, watermains and storage towers are in good repair, testing water and training water managers.

A:

Both the quality of our water and the amount available can be threatened by different activities. Some of the threats to our water include:

• Natural contaminants
• Irresponsible land use activities which contaminate our water or take too much out.
• Urban development can make it difficult for water to filter into the ground in order to replenish groundwater sources. When this happens, water just flows across the surface of land rather than percolating down to aquifers.
• Air pollution from vehicles, coal plants, industries and other sources fall directly on surface waters or enter water sources through surface runoff.

As a result of climate change, there is also concern that the warming of the Earth's atmosphere will reduce the amount of water available in lakes, rivers and streams due to reduced precipitation and increased evaporation.

A:

Lakes, rivers, streams and other sources of water are best protected with proper planning involving a variety of water users.

A source protection plan is a management strategy designed to minimize the impact that human and natural activities have on the quality and supply of our water resources.

Source protection plans include physical information about our watersheds, identify sensitive areas where water resource supply and/or quality is threatened, provide scientific data about the quality and supply of current water resources, and include up to date mapping, computer projections about future water resources and recommendations to manage the impacts of harmful activities.

A:

Working closely with the province, municipalities, landowners and other local groups, Conservation Authorities already plan and deliver watershed management programs and services for many watersheds in Ontario. This work needs to expand.

Conservation Authorities collect data, carry out studies, map our resources and monitor the state of our watersheds daily.

Conservation Authorities believe in the importance of involving the people living in watersheds in making decisions about the best way to ensure there are healthy and sustainable resources now and in the future.

A: Everyone in our community has a right to clean water and needs clean drinking water to survive.  Unfortunately, history has shown us that if a community is not vigilant, contaminants can enter its drinking water supply, or the supply can be exhausted.  Every community has a responsibility to make sure its children and their children are left with enough clean drinking water.

The Clean Water Act, 2006, is part of the Ontario government's commitment to ensure the sustainability of clean, safe drinking water for all Ontarians and to implement the Walkerton Inquiry recommendations.

The Act establishes a locally driven, science-based, multi-stakeholder process to protect drinking water sources and promote the notion of stewardship‚ the shared responsibility of all stakeholders to protect the integrity of local sources of public drinking water.

The Act was developed based on three years of consultations, 600 written submissions and, most recently, stakeholder feedback received through standing committee. Key highlights of the Act include:

• Directing municipalities and CAs to map sources of municipal drinking water, especially in vulnerable areas, to prevent the supply from being depleted or contaminated;
• Requiring scrutiny of activities that could threaten water quality or quantity, and proposing actions to reduce or remove those threats; and
• Empowering local authorities to take preventative meansures before a threat to drinking water can cause harm.
  

Key amendments to the Act resulting from clause-by-clause review included:

• Enshrining a financial assistance program in legislation;
• Replacing permits with risk management plans;
• Ensuring that risk management officials have appropriate training and qualifications;
• Allowing source protection plans to include policies to assist in achieving Great Lakes targets established by the Minister;
• Clarifying that municipal decisions under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act must conform to the significant threat policies and the designated Great Lakes policies in the source protection plan and have regard for non-significant threats; and
  
• Clarifying that policies in source protection plans may provide for incentive education and outreach programs.

A number of regulations and guidance materials will need to be developed in both the short and longer term to support the Clean Water Act, 2006. The issues to be covered include:

• Developing content of terms of reference for the development of the assessment report and source protection plan;
• Establishing protocols related to Imminent Drinking Water Hazard Notification;
• Establish a framework and regulation for the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program;
• Developing an assessment report for identifying risks to drinking water sources; and
• Certifying and training officials involved in source protection planning.

The Ministry will continue to consult with internal and external stakeholders as it moves forward with regulations, director's rules and technical guidance materials on key components.

A:

Municipalities and conservation authorities are already working together to undertake the technical and scientific studies including water budgets needed for source protection. The province has committed $120 million for source protection planning to provide the resources to fund source protection costs.  This funding will help municipalities and conservation authorities across Ontario study and assess their watersheds and undertake water budgets to give source protection plans the strongest possible scientific foundation.

A:The Act requires that all present and future sources of drinking water, including inland lakes, rivers, groundwater and the Great Lakes. Key components of the legislation include the following:
 
Part 1: The identification of Source Protection Areas, Source Protection Regions and establishes Source Protection Authorities and local Source Protection Committees.
 
Part 2: Requirements for a local multi-stakeholder source protection committee to consult with municipalities and develop:

• A Terms of Reference laying out planning roles and responsibilities;
• An Assessment Report identifying and assessing threats; and
• A Source Protection Plan, with policies to address these threats.
  

Part 3: Includes:

• Requirements to monitor plan implementation;
• Requirements that municipal decisions under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act and prescribed instruments must conform with the significant threat policies and the designated Great Lake policies in the source protection plan, and have regard to the other policies in the plan;
  
• In the case of a conflict between the source protection plan and other provincial plans, the provision most protective of the quality and quantity of drinking water prevail.
  

Part 4:  Provides legislative authority for municipalities to:

• Agree to or establish risk management plans to address significant drinking water threats in wellhead protection areas and surface water intake protection zones before and after the source protection plan is approved.
  

Part 5: Other provisions including:

• Minister's authority to take action on Great Lakes issues by requesting reports, setting targets, and requiring development of policies in the source protection plan to assist in achieving these targets;
• Enables the use of the Expropriations Act and offense provisions;
• Extensive regulation making authority and complementary amendments to other acts, including the Building Code Act and the Conservation Authority Act.

A:

• The first stage in developing a source protection plan is completing an assessment report, which identifies and evaluates threats to drinking water systems. The second step will be to put together a plan to address those threats.
• The Act provides that, while the source protection plan is being developed, there may be a need to address higher priority significant threats to ensure the protection of public health. Therefore, the Act provides powers for a municipality to address these threats as soon as the assessment report is approved by the Ministry of the Environment.
  
• Based on an approved assessment report, a municipality and a person engaged in an activity that the assessment report identifies as a significant drinking water threat may agree to a  risk management plan to reduce the risk posed by the activity. In circumstances set out in regulation, a municipality could establish a risk management plan for the activity if one cannot be agreed upon. This authority only applies to activities in wellhead protection areas and surface water intake protection zones that are to be prescribed by regulation.
  
• The risk management plan would detail the site-specific measures that the property owner will take to ensure the risk posed by the activity is reduced by a reasonable amount.

A:The Clean Water Act, 2006, requires that the source protection plan identify activities that constitute a significant risk to drinking water and will contain policies to address those risks.

Where a prescribed instrument is managing an existing activity (e.g. provincial certificate of approval) that consitutes a significant risk to drinking water, and the instrument does not conform with the source protection plan, the body responsible for the instrument could be asked to take the appropriate action so that the instrument does conform with the source protection plan.

Municipalities are required under the legislation to amend their official plans and zoning by-laws to conform with the source protection plan.

The Conflict provisions:  The conflict provisions in the Act are focused to ensure that only when there is a conflict between a provision of a source protection plan and a provision in a plan or policy under other legislation, that may potentially affect the quality or quantity of drinking water in a vulnerable area, the provision that provides the greatest protection to the quality or quantity of drinking water prevails. A conflict is expected to occur very rarely and only where both Acts cannot be met.

a) Growth Plans and the Provincial Planning Act, Oak Ridges Moraine, Niagara Escarpment Commission: Protecting drinking water sources is an important part of protecting natural resources, green spaces and the environment. It fits together with the Ontario government's other efforts such as the Places to Grow Act, the Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine Act.

b) Nutrient Management Act: The MOE recognizes that many agricultural operations have undertaken activities that are protective of drinking water sources, either through the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, or through initiatives such as the Environmental Farm Plan. 

The Clean Water Act, 2006, ensures that if existing regulated  nutrient management actions are assessed as being insufficient to address a significant threat, an approved source protection plan or instruments under it will have primacy over the requirements in the Nutrient Managment Act.

A: The development of the Clean Water Act, 2006, is based on three years of extensive stakeholder consultation with over 300 associations and individuals and close to 600 written submissions. During the last three years, the government has gone through a comprehensive process of developing a source protection framework:

• Considering the recommendations of Justice O'Connor (January 2002);
• Releasing a White Paper to describe the proposed planning components of source water protection legislation (February 2004);
• Undertaking province-wide public consultation;
• Posting the draft text of source water protection legislation, followed by a public comment period (June 2004);
• Establishing two experts committees---the Technical Experts and the Implementation Committees---to provide advice on the implementation of source water protection; and
• Undertaking a series of sectoral round tables to solicit feedback on the White Paper, draft planning legislation, and most recently on the CWA.

Between December 5, 2005 to February 3, 2006, the Clean Water Act, 2006, was posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment and over 90 submissions were received. In addition, during this time the Ministry met face to face with key stakeholder groups to gain their feedback on the Bill.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy held public hearings on the CWA the week of August 21-25 in Toronto, Walkerton, Cornwall, Bath and Peterborough. Feedback was received from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including: ENGOs, agriculture, industry, municipalities, CAs, First Nations and the general public.

A: Municipalities already have extensive authority over the delivery of municipal drinking water and land use planning within their boundaries and are therefore in the best position to determine what protections are required for their sources of drinking water. Municipalities participate through:

• Source Protection Committees & Working Groups (SPC): Municipalities work across the watershed through the Source Protection Committees.
• Source Protection Authority (SPA): The SPA is the Conservation Authority Board (where one exists); the CA Board is comprised of representatives of municipal councils.
  
• Municipal Council Resolutions: The Clean Water Act, 2006, contains a provision that a municipal council may pass a resolution expressing its comments on the proposed source protection plan and may submit the resolution to the Source Protection Authority.
• Responsibilities assigned through the terms of reference: Through the development of a terms of reference the Ministry expects that municipalities will take significant responsibility for delineating surface water intake protection zones and wellhead protection areas and identifying and assessing drinking water threats.
  
• Risk Management Officials: Municipalities have the authority to establish a risk management official to issue orders requiring risk management plans where one cannot be agreed to.

Source Protection Authorities (Conservation Authority Boards where they exist): The Act requires that the lead Source Protection Authority for each Source Protection Region establish a multi-stakeholder Source Protection Committee (SPC) for that region.

• The lead SPAs/CAs are primarily responsible for helping to establish the SPC, overseeing and coordinating the planning process and providing administrative, technical and scientific support to the Source Protection Committee.  
• SPAs/CAs have no approval role in the legislation and cannot make decisions on behalf of a municipality.
• The Act does not give CAs new powers to regulate, or enforce matters related to drinking water. Municipalities will retain their traditional role in developing local solutions to local issues.

Source Protection Committees (SPC): The local multi-stakeholder SPC is responsible for preparing the terms of reference, the assessment report and the source protection plan and must ensure that stakeholders and the public in the watershed are consulted.

• The SPC regulations outline the details of committee composition. The aim is that the Source Protection Committee (SPC) will be representative of all key stakeholders in the watershed. Where additional representation is required, working groups and/or sub-committees will be established.
• Through the SPC, local stakeholders work across the watershed, identifying, assessing/addressing risks within their municipal wellhead and intake protection areas.
  

A:Stakeholders emphasized the need for sustainable funding to implement source protection plans. The provincial government listened to them.

The provincial government has established a Drinking Water Stewardship Program in the Clean Water Act, 2006, to provide financial assistance to rural Ontarians, for example, farmers and small businesses, for activities they undertake in relation to source protection plans to better protect drinking water sources.

An expert panel made up of representatives from rural Ontario has been established to provide expert advice on long-term program design.

Initially, $7 million will be available in 2007/08 under the transitional Source Protection Stewardship Program, for early action to protect drinking water in rural Ontario including education and incentive programs.  For more information on education and funding opportunities for property owners visit sourceprotectionstewardship.on.ca.

The provincial committee making decisions on stewardship funding will have to review and approve work around a municipal wellhead, for example in a two-kilometre time-of-travel zone around it. Therefore, the committee is expected to look at land use practices within that circle. In some cases, that land use may be an agricultural practice but in many cases the land use may be non-agricultural (e.g., a service station, paint shop, dry cleaner, etc.). The committee will have to fairly and equitably consider applications for stewardship efforts across all affected sectors in those vulnerable areas. Even where agriculture is the dominant land use, it is possible the major affected landowners in some municipal wellhead capture zones may be non-agricultural. It is not known at this time the percentage of landowners affected on a sector-by-sector basis.

A:The $7 million includes:

• $5 million to support early action to protect land and water surrounding water wells (wellhead protection areas) and close to municipal water intakes (intake protection zones); and
• $2 million to support education and outreach related to source protection planning.

This funding is only one component of the province's commitment to support source protection. The initial $7 million is designed to provide funding for early actions taken by rural Ontarians to protect drinking water sources.

As communities complete their source protection plans, strategies on how to effectively direct sustainable future funding will become more evident. That is why the government established an advisory panel that would provide advice on how to best allocate sustainable funding in the future.

A:

• Neither local taxpayers nor industry will bear the burden of source protection planning costs‚ the province has committed to providing the resources to fund source protection planning costs, including groundwater studies, technical assessments and plan development.

• The government committed approximately $120 million from 2004 to 2008 to support source protection planning. This includes funding to enable municipalities and conservation authorities to undertake technical studies to support their efforts to protect drinking water sources.
  

• The actual costs of source protection implementation will be quantifiable once technical studies and risk assessments for source protection plans are complete and local watershed characteristics and implementation needs can be determined.
  

A:On September 6th, 2006, the government announced the establishment and appointment of an expert panel comprised of agricultural, municipal and conservation authority representatives to provide advice on how funding should be administered and allocated in future years.

The advisory panel has assisted the government in developing a program that best supports water protection in rural Ontario.

Al Lauzon, past chair of the Ontario Rural Council, chaired the panel. Other representatives on the panel included Dale Cowan of the Agribusiness Association of Ontario and Ron Bonnett, past-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. These individuals were appointed to provide their experience and expertise on this important panel. The panel has provided advice on program design to the government.

The provincial committee making decisions on stewardship funding had to review and approve work around a municipal wellhead, for example in a two-kilometre time-of-travel zone around it. Therefore, the committee looked at land use practices within that circle. In some cases, that land use is an agricultural practice but in many cases the land use is non-agricultural (e.g., a service station, paint shop, dry cleaner, etc.). The committee had to fairly and equitably consider applications for stewardship efforts across all affected sectors in those vulnerable areas. Even where agriculture is the dominant land use, it is possible the major affected landowners in some municipal wellhead capture zones are non-agricultural.

A:

• The actual costs of source protection implementation will be quantifiable once technical studies and risk assessments for source protection plans are complete and local watershed characteristics and implementation needs can be determined.
• The protection of drinking water sources is a shared responsibility, therefore the costs of source water protection implementation (i.e. protection measures / responses) will be borne across many sectors (e.g., industry, agriculture, property owners and municipalities).
• To date, examples of the costs of source water protection initiatives to water users in Ontario have been relatively low. They have ranged from an implementation cost of approximately 75 cents a month per water system user in Waterloo to around $1.50 a month per water system user in Oxford County over ten years.
  

A:The province recognizes that there may be "hardship" cases, and is proposing to develop a comprehensive approach that will clearly articulate what constitutes the need for assistance and address situations on a case-by-case basis.

A: Approximately 10% of Ontario's population lives in areas not covered by a CA. Most of these areas are in northern Ontario where watershed-wide planning is more difficult because of the diversity of local governance structures, a shortage of technical and financial resources and the size of the watersheds.

The Clean Water Act, 2006, allows for the protection of sources for municipal drinking water systems in non-CA areas through a locally driven, scoped planning process, whereby a municipality (or cluster of municipalities) would be permitted to enter into an agreement with the Minister to develop a source protection plan that focuses on specific drinking water threats in specific areas.

The terms of the agreement would govern the source water protection planning process, and could include a Terms of Reference that would set out the provisions governing the focused planning process.

A total of 132 municipal supplies located outside CA boundaries have initiated a screening process to determine if threats exist and a scoped source protection plan may be warranted.

The Act provides that the province is responsible for enforcing Part IV of the Act in unorganized territory. Therefore, if there is an activity identified in the source proteciton plan as an activity to which Part IV should apply (i.e. the plan requires risk management plans for an activity pursuant to section 58 of the CWA, and designates the areas within a wellhead protection area where section 58 applies) and the activity is located in unorganized territory---then the province would regulate that activity under Part IV.

A: Stakeholders have raised concerns related to the property rights of individual property owners and businesses in the source protection framework. A common feature of legislation which regulates activities on property is the authority to inspect properties.

The Act provides designated municipal and conservation authority employees with the power to inspect property for the purpose of preparing assessment reports, source protection plans and annual progress reports (section 88). However, the legislation provides important restrictions on the exercise of an inspection authority. For instance:

• An inspection of property cannot be conducted unless prior notice is given to the owner or occupant of the property;
• A person who has authority to conduct an inspection under the legislation cannot enter a dwelling without an inspection warrant issued by a court;
• Inspections must be conducted at reasonable times and no force can be used to carry out an inspection;
• Finally, the proposed legislation requires that where property has been adversely affected as a result of an inspection, the person who conducted the inspection must ensure that the property is restored to the condition it was in before the inspection.

Municipalities would only be able to cause work to be done on individual properties under limited circumstances and would be required to provide notice to any affected landowners before any action is taken.

The Clean Water Act, 2006, also ensures that any risk management plan issued to individual property owners, as well as any decisions to refuse to issue or amend a risk management plan may be appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

A:

Landowners have rights under the Expropriation Act if their land were expropriated. In many cases, water protection measures in the most vulnerable areas will not require expropriation at all. In some cases, there might be purchase of land through land conservation funding in the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program. In other cases, formalization of beneficial management practices may create the risk minimization required.

A:The financial assistance program will support farmers, small businesses, and other property owners undertaking activities that reduce threats to drinking water, and support public education and outreach. This should help reduce stakeholder concerns about section 98(6).

A:

• The development of the Clean Water Act, 2006, was based on three years of extensive stakeholder consultations with over 300 associations and individuals and close to 600 written submissions.  The government has made consultation with stakeholders its priority, in order to get source protection right. 
• Since the introduction of the Act in December 2005, the Ministry of the Environment has continued to consult with key stakeholders and partner ministries to gauge reactions to the legislation and to identify stakeholder concerns. 
• The government made amendments to the Clean Water Act, 2006, before it was passed  to ensure that stakeholder concerns are addressed and to develop a comprehensive legislative approach to source protection that is both protective of drinking water supplies and responsive to the needs, concerns and perspectives of Ontarians.

A:

• Throughout consultations and standing committee hearings, stakeholders identified the need for a more collaborative and negotiated approach to managing drinking water risks, one that recognizes voluntary initiatives undertaken by property owners.
  
• In response, the government amended the Act at Standing Committee to replace the previously envisioned permit regime with a process that will ensure opportunities for local risk management officials to negotiate with local property owners (e.g. farmers and small business) to develop site specific risk management plans. 
• The amendments will ensure that a negotiated approach is pursued, recognizing voluntary work already undertaken, and enforcement is used only as a last resort.

A: Following introduction of the Act, stakeholders identified the need for explicit requirements related to training and qualifications for officials (including training in biosecurity protocols).
In response, the government amended the legislation at Standing Committee to explicitly require that an inspector or official must receive proper training specified by regulations before entering property. This will include training in biosecurity, health and safety and other relevant protocols.

A:

In order to provide source protection for First Nations' communities, the government amended the Act at Standing Committee to allow a First Nation's drinking water system (on a voluntary basis) to be considered as part of the source protection planning process.

This amendment provides the Lieutenant Governor in Council with the authority to prescribe for the purposes of source protection planning, a drinking water system that serves a First Nation reserve if the First Nation has requested the system be included in the process (through band council resolution).

Additionally, the government added a new section to the Act stating that nothing in the Act abrogates or derogates from the protection provided for the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The addition of this section is not intended to affect or expand the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights provided under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is simply an acknowledgment of those protections.

A:

Prior to Standing Committee, the Clean Water Act, 2006, provided the Minister with considerable authority in relation to protecting the Great Lakes. For example, it provided the Minister the authority to establish advisory committee(s) to provide advice on any matter relating to the use of the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water and establish targets related to the Great Lakes.

Some stakeholders highlighted the need to strengthen requirements and enforcement of targets related to the Great Lakes.

To better protect the Great Lakes, source protection plans will now require policies to assist in achieving Great Lakes targets established by the Minister (where the Source Protection Authority has been directed by the Minister to prepare a report recommending policies for inclusion in the plan).

Decisions under the Planning Act and Condominium Act and prescribed instruments will be required to conform to designated Great Lakes policies set out in a source protection plan.

A:

Several stakeholder groups identified concerns with the costs and administrative processes involved in altering instruments to conform to a source protection plan. They requested clarity regarding which aspects of the plan will require conformity.

To address these concerns, the government amended the Act to clarify that conformity will only be required for measures addressing significant threats and designated Great Lakes policies in the source protection plans.

Policies addressing non-significant threats (low, medium) will not require conformity and decisions in relation to the issuance or amendment of a prescribed instrument (e.g. CofA) are now required to "have regard" for non-significant threat policies.

These amendments help to clarify where and when land-use decisions must conform to the policies set out in a source protection plan.

A:Prior to Standing Committee, the Act already allowed municipalities to add drinking water systems to the planning process through council resolution.  However, environmental and rural stakeholders have identified the need to better ensure these systems are not overlooked.

In response, the government introduced amendments to provide the Minister with the authority to amend a terms of reference or source protection plan for a particular Source Protection Area, to require that the plan consider other drinking water systems.

The government also amended the Act to allow regulations to limit the systems that may be included in the planning process through regulation.

A:

During standing committee hearings, stakeholders identified the need for the inclusion of incentive, education and outreach programs in the source water protection framework.

To respond to stakeholder needs and to provide more flexibility in the types of policies to address threats to drinking water, the Act now allows policies governing the inclusion of incentive, education and outreach programs.   Regulations shall provide the detail on the inclusion of these programs.

By allowing these kinds of policies to be included, it provides for a more holistic approach to addressing threats to drinking water by complementing the policies that are already required to be included in source protection plans.

A:

Stakeholders have highlighted the need to allow more flexibility in the size of source protection committees.

The Clean Water Act, 2006, no longer restricts the size of the source protection committee for each source protection area / region to 16 members.  Instead, the size of the source protection committees shall be determined by Minister's regulation, allowing the government to consult with stakeholders to determine the appropriate formula for area/region representation.

The change to the size of the source protection committees will allow source protection areas/regions to establish committees that address local needs for stakeholder representation, which will create a higher degree of local buy-in and support for the development and implementation of source protection plans.

A:Since the introduction of the Clean Water Act, 2006, stakeholders (primarily agriculture) have expressed concerns that smaller operations (e.g. single family farms) will find it difficult to prepare appeals in a short time frame.

The government amended the Act at Standing Committee to extend the appeal period (during which time a person must prepare written notice to the permit official and the ERT) from 15 to 60 days. This will provide a more reasonable time frame for operations with limited resources/capacity to prepare appeals.

For source protection planning to work, it will need to consider the views of local municipalities, property owners, businesses, industry, environmental groups and others. As such, the source protection framework allows for extensive consultation at all stages throughout the process. Where disputes do arise, dispute resolution techniques will be available throughout the process.

Hearings
In some cases, the Minister of the Environment may appoint a hearing officer to hear representations on the proposed plan and report back with a recommendation. The hearing officer would prepare written recommendations, with reasons, recommending what action the Minister should take with respect to the proposed source protection plan within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing.

Appeals of Risk Management Plans and Orders
If a risk management plan official and a person fail to reach agreement on the plan, the risk management plan official may by order impose a risk management plan with respect to that activity.  That order could be appealed to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

Where a prescribed instrument such as a certificate of approval is amended to make it conform to the source protection plan, and an appeal is provided for the decision to amend that instrument, this appeal provision continues to apply. However, the tribunal hearing the appeal will also be bound to ensure that the instrument conforms with the source protection plan.

A:

The Ministry of the Environment is already working to develop the proposed content of director's rules, guidelines and regulations. The MOE intends to consult with stakeholders throughout this process through EBR postings and focused consultations, where appropriate, across key sectors in Ontario.  Some regulations are already in place, and more will follow.

A:

The source protection framework under the Clean Water Act, 2006, is an integrated approach that aims to build upon, rather than replace, the existing work that municipalities and local stakeholders have undertaken to protect their drinking water.

The Act is designed to ensure that all critical information, both current and historical, may be considered in the development of policies in the source protection plan. People engaging in activities that are identified as significant drinking water threats, will have every opportunity to demonstrate that they have already taken action such as adopting best management practices to mitigate the risk.

Municipal Work: The province recognizes that municipalities have already undertaken a great deal of voluntary work, or have exercised their existing authorities under the Planning Act (e.g. zoning), to protect source waters. In many cases these measures may prove to be sufficient.

Agriculture Work: It is intended that the requirements under the legislation will not duplicate farmers' requirements for managing nutrients. However, the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) does not address other potential agricultural and non agricultural sources of contamination including pesticides, fuel/chemical storage and septic systems. The NMA does not currently require the preparation of nutrient management plans or strategies for all farms that exist in vulnerable areas around drinking water supplies. These farms need to be assessed and addressed. Accordingly, there may be some instances in which additional measures will be needed to address a specific risk.

Industry Work: The ministry recognizes that most industries and developers already have to consider source water in the development of site plans. The legislation should not be a burden; it is one additional step to consider vulnerable sources of drinking water when planning for the development of a particular site.

A:

Under the Act, a community works together to develop practical, effective plans to address significant risks to their drinking water, such that they cease to be significant risks. A community has many tools at its disposal such as municipal by-laws and land-use planning controls which could be used to mitigate risks. 

To a large extent, existing regulatory requirements or voluntary initiatives may be sufficient to address these risks (e.g. continued use of best management practices).

However, source protection committees may decide that existing programs and activities, voluntary or otherwise, may not be enough to address some significant threats to municipal drinking water supplies. In these cases, site specific measures may be needed and the risk management official will enter into negotiations to develop a risk management plan with the property owner.

Negotiated site-specific measures for a rural property owner may include the adoption of best management practices such as creating buffer strips, double-lining a chemical storage tank, laying a concrete pad beneath a storage area or relocating a septic tank.

A:

Regulations, director's rules and technical guidance that  support the Clean Water Act, 2006, contain clear, consistent and science-based procedures for municipalities, CAs and others to follow for source water protection planning and provincial government oversight will be on-going.

In order to ensure consistency, all assessment reports will be submitted to the MOE Director for approval and source protection plans will be approved by the Minister of the Environment.

The objective of a source protection plan is not to require that identified threats to drinking water be reduced to 'zero risk'. The Act requires that action be taken so that every significant threat ceases to be significant. This approach leaves some flexibility for local decision makers to determine what is best in their own communities.

A:

The legislation and accompanying regulations will set out a framework for source protection planning aimed at ensuring appropriate controls are placed on activities that pose significant risks to drinking water sources.  This may be achieved through a provincial approval scheme, official plans and zoning by-laws, voluntary actions, or finally a risk management plan. 

The Act states that following the approval of a source protection plan a municipality will have the authority to establish risk management plans for prescribed activities inside wellhead protection areas and intake protection zones that have been identified as significant drinking water threats.

The municipality or its delegate would be granted powers of entry for inspections, as well as, order powers to compel compliance, cause work to be done where a property owner fails to do so and to recover costs.  Municipalities would also have the flexibility to delegate their enforcement authority by agreement to another municipality, health unit, the province, or CA.

Many stakeholders have contended that all activities in a wellhead protection area or surface water intake protection zone would need a site-specific risk management plan. This is not the case. The risk management planning scheme is much more focused.

First, a risk management plan may only be negotiated if an assessment report has concluded that an activity poses a significant risk to a drinking water source.

Risk management plans would only be needed for activities authorized by regulation.

Finally, it is up to local communities through the source protection committee and planning process to determine if site-speicific risk management plans should be used. The legislation does not compel them to use risk management plans to regulate an activity that poses a significant risk. The Clean Water Act, 2006, compels source protection committees to develop policies in a source protection plan that ensures significant risks are no longer significant---and requiring risk management plans is only one option.

A:

The provincial government has stated publicly that it has no intention of requiring meters on private, individual wells. The Clean Water Act does not require meters on private wells and the Ontario government has publicly stated many times that it does not have any intention of metering private wells. On May 10, 2007, the Environment Minister stated in the Ontario Legislature that the government has no plans to meter private residential wells. The Ontario Water Resources Act requires anyone taking more than a total of 50,000 litres of water in a day to obtain a permit. Takings by an individual for ordinary household purposes are specifically exempted.

A: The legislation benefits users of privately-owned wells that are located in vulnerable areas through the identification of threats to local municipal systems and the actions that are taken to protect them from becoming contaminated or depleted.  

As part of the assessment of municipal drinking water sources, private wells situated in wellhead protection areas or surface water intake protection zones would be assessed as a potential pathway to the aquifer. If the well is found to be properly constructed the outcome of the assessment would provide assurances to the property owner regarding the quality of water in their well.
 
A local municipality may also pass a council resolution requiring that the terms of reference include other existing or planned drinking water systems in the source protection planning process (other than municipal residential systems which the legislation already requires be addressed by the planning process).
 
In addition, the Act provides the Minister with the authority to require an amendment to the terms of reference in order to add another drinking water system.