Managing Nutrients Linked to Source Water Protection
Jamie Boles
(Policy Analyst, Source Water Protection, a position shared equally between four livestock organizations: OSMA, Ontario Pork, Ontario Cattlemen’s Association and AgCare. Funding to support the establishment of the Policy Analysis Source Water Protection was secured through the Agricultural Adaptation Council’s CanAdapt program.)

There have been many meetings in the past few months regarding the proposed Source Water Protection (SWP) and Nutrient Management Act (NMA). While there are many reasons for optimism, we need to pause and properly evaluate the challenges that we may encounter as we move forward. The government, to their credit, has attempted to analyze how these two pieces of Legislation co-mingle, and how exactly they plan on avoiding the inevitable overlap that will result in a process burden for farmers. For the livestock farmer, we can break down these discussions into two categories – what we know and what we don’t know.

On July 1, 2005, the Ontario Government plans to implement its first phase of the regulations that represent the intent of the Nutrient Management Act, but only for those farms greater than 300 nutrient units. Government has allocated $5 million this year and $15 million next year for these Category 4 farms to comply with the new standards. The government is moving ahead quickly on Source Water Protection, however, there have been concerns raised that we may not know the SWP requirements until long after we have invested in NM regulated requirements. There is also plenty of debate over the continued use of municipal by-laws, even with the NMA in place. Out of the proposed draft Legislation on Drinking Water Source Protection, the government plans on utilizing the Conservation Authorities for Source Protection Planning Boards and will be appointing local Source Protection Committees to help coordinate implementation activities on a regional and watershed basis. These local committees will play an integral role in determining the impact on agricultural land, and we have encouraged government to ensure that major landowners, such as farmers, are well represented on these committees. If you add the proposed Greenbelt Legislation and Provincial Policy Statement review to the mix of SWP and NMA, the government has an awful lot of critical environmental items on the agenda. That is what we know.

What we don’t know, and probably the key questions for government will be, how do they plan on harmonizing Source Water and NMA at the farm gate; in the case of conflict, which piece of legislation will supercede; how does the implementation funding flow; and what are the perceived environmental benefits? The last thing that anyone needs is a superficial endeavor that does not achieve positive environmental and economic outcomes, and we have been assured that the government is hearing that message.

The simplest way to consider these initiatives is to explore the ways they contrast. At least initially, NM was based on the notion that all nutrient users, regardless of the size or type of operation, could benefit their own bottom line and the environment by paying closer attention to the agronomic balance of nutrients on their farms. It was a universal approach. From this starting point, NM has morphed into an initiative that is targeted specifically to large farm operations, with an uncertain timeframe for phasing in smaller farms and non-agricultural nutrient users.

Source Water targets are based on risk. Essentially, the most important component with regard to the Source Water Protection process is that they don’t isolate a sector, or target the size of an operation like NMA does. Source Water Protection proposes to focus on a relative risk, by targeting in a non-confrontational way the greatest threats to drinking water. There is a lot to like in that approach. The key question that needs to be answered is which approach can be expected to provide the greatest and most efficient environmental benefit?

We must not lose sight of the fact that properly managed farmland is good for society and good for the environment. The growing urban centers require more and more food production from Ontario’s farmers. The farm community has historically done a great job of being environmental stewards of the land, after all we live, work and raise our families here. We must not get discouraged because of the lack of public understanding of our challenges. This government has shown a willingness to listen and work toward solutions and we must take them up on that offer.

As we move forward into a regulated world, farmers need to be vigilant in their understanding of what may be required by government and the cost benefit analysis of the impact on your operation. The fact is that with all of the trade related border issues, we must prioritize our challenges and plan for the future.