Base Assumption

ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

PART TWO REPORT OF THE WALKERTON INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE POSITION

Vision

Protect drinking water sources based on a precautionary principle on a watershed-basis.

The report recognizes the need for “certain land use activities that could have a negative effect on water”[1].

Regarding a balanced approach rooted in respect for private landowner rights and responsibilities, Justice O’Connor has identified the preamble to the Farming and Food Protection Act, 1998 (FFPA) as a “laudable objective”. [2]

Source water protection must be based on rational risk management derived from best available science balanced with private landowners rights and responsibilities.

This vision is consistent with the goal expressed in the preamble to the Farming Food and Protection Act, 1998m which is as follows:

It is in the provincial interest that in agricultural areas, agricultural uses and normal farm practices be promoted in a way that balances the needs of the agricultural community with provincial health, safety and environmental concerns.

Introduction

1. The government require the watershed-based source protection framework described in the Advisory Committee’s report and recommendations to be used in all watersheds in Ontario.

{Note: Multiple objectives that extend beyond drinking water protection expressed in the Advisory Committee’s report}

Recommendation 1:

Drinking water sources should be protected by developing watershed-based source protection plans. Source protection plans should be required for all watersheds in Ontario.

We support the concept of drinking water source protection plans for all watersheds in Ontario. The focus must clearly be on drinking water protection and not other objectives.

We also believe that societies interests’ are best served if the greatest effort is put forward to protect the greatest number of drinking water users over as short of a time period as possible. For this reason we recommend a tiered approach, starting with an overall scan of Ontario’s drinking water sources to identify vulnerable communities. Following the first tier MOE scan exercise, the mapping of areas and communities that rely on surface water vs. groundwater can be completed. With further analysis, communities that have vulnerable (sand; shallow fractured bedrock) vs. naturally protected aquifers (lacustrine clay; confined aquifer) can be identified. Source Water Protection resources should be prioritized to areas where communities have a vulnerable drinking water supply.

Framework

Fundamentals

Responsibility and Accountability

2. Consistent with Justice O’Connor, the provincial government, specifically, the Ministry of the Environment, has the ultimate accountability for ensuring source water protection, notwithstanding the shared responsibility of all governments and stakeholders to contribute to our collective goal of ensuring a sustainable supply of safe clean

drinking water.

Section 4.3.3 (pp 96 –97)[3]

“There are a number of reasons why the province must take a leadership role in developing the source water protection planning process and ensuring that the process in adequately funded.”

“The Province is the more senior level of government and cannot fairly be bound by a process in which it has not played the lead role.”
“Furthermore, there is a need to ensure a level of consistency among source water protection plans from different watershed, along with the need to ensure that source protection planning is carried out thoroughly and fairly”

We support the Walkerton Inquiry Recommendations and share Justice O’Connor’s concern regarding the need for senior level of government leadership in order to ensure consistency and fairness in the source water protection planning process.

Goal of Source Protection Plans

3. The goal of watershed-based source protection planning in Ontario is to protect human health through the protection of current and future sources of drinking water, including inland lakes, rivers and groundwater, from potential contamination and depletion through locally-developed watershed-based source protection plans.

Section 4.3.1 (pp. 89 –90)[4]

“Because drinking water source protection is one aspect of the broader subject of watershed management, it makes the most sense in the context of an overall watershed management plan. In this report, I restrict my comments to those aspects of watershed management that I think are necessary to protect drinking water sources. However, I want to emphasize that a comprehensive approach is needed and should be adopted by the Province. Source protection plans should be a subset of broader watershed management plans.”

Justice O’Connor clearly recognizes and promotes the concept of multiple barriers in drinking water supply as the means of protecting human health. “The best way to achieve a healthy public water supply is to put in place a multiple barriers that keep contaminants from reaching people”[5]

We support the concept of Source Water Protection Plans as the means of achieving the goal of drinking water source protection.

The Advisory Committee recommendations should reflect drinking water source protection objectives and not broader watershed planning objectives. Justice O’Connor clearly delineates and distinguishes between drinking water source protection plans and broader watershed management planning. As a result, the regulatory framework and powers envisioned for “drinking water” source protection must be clearly distinct from the broader framework of watershed management plans.

Throughout the Advisory Committee report, it is unclear whether the proposed Source Protection Planning framework relates to drinking water protection or broader watershed plans. We recommend that this be clarified, and that the words “source protection” be preceded by the words “drinking water” (“drinking water source protection”) through out the document.

The stated goal of “protecting human health thought the protection of current and future sources of water” is inappropriate. This goal suggests that the human health objective can be protected through source protection planning alone. Source protection must be appropriately recognized as one important barrier in the context of multiple barriers put in place to achieve the human health objective.

Scope of the Framework Regarding the Great Lakes

4. While the source protection planning framework focuses on inland waters, all communities and water users whose source of water is the Great Lakes share in the responsibility for the protection and enhancement of the waters of the Great Lakes, as well as inland water sources. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Environment should require any entity that discharges waste water, rural run-off or storm water to the Great Lakes to manage or improve the quality of its discharges to a standard that meets the objectives of source water protection.

5. As the province negotiates with its Great Lakes partners, it should recognize the benefits of source protection and work to have its principles incorporated into future agreements.

Protecting all water for all users is a laudable objective. With-in the framework of a drinking water source protection planning process, we do not think it is in the public interest to expend dollars and effort in areas to duplicate inland water and Great Lakes remedial activities. It is highly unlikely that any effort expended in drinking water source protection planning activities will ever result in any measurable benefit to drinking water sources from the Great Lakes.

From our perspective, the only plausible reason to include the Great Lakes under the drinking water source protection umbrella is to obtain municipal water user financial support (see Advisory Committee Recommendation 34).

We support a tiered planning process based on an overall scan as discussed in response to the Advisory Committee Recommendation 1.

Requiring the MOE to mandate any entity to meet discharge standards equivalent to drinking water source protection objectives undermines the authority of the MOE and the Province as the senior level of government. Further, suggesting that the province incorporates the benefits of drinking water source protection principles in future agreements goes beyond the mandate and goal of this Advisory Committee as stated in Recommendation 3.

Principles Guiding Source Protection Planning

6. Decision-making that could have potential impacts on human health and affect water quality or quantity be guided by the following

principles:

Sustainability: Water is essential for our health and ecosystem viability and must be valued as finite. Source protection plans should consider historical, existing, new and future land uses when considering how to ensure clean sources of drinking water now and in the future.

Comprehensive: All watershed-based source protection plans must take a precautionary approach that uses the best available science and is subject to continuous improvement as our knowledge increases. The plan must be defensible and have the flexibility to accommodate Ontario’s diverse watersheds.

Shared Responsibility and Stewardship: While the Ministry of the Environment has ultimate accountability for ensuring source water protection, responsibility for specific outcomes is shared among all water managers, users and land owners.

Public Participation and Transparency: There must be open discussion and communication of the source protection planning process and its results, from development to implementation. Stakeholders and the public will have opportunities for meaningful input.

Cost Effectiveness and Fairness: The costs and impacts on individuals, land owners, businesses, industries and governments

must be clear, fair and economically sustainable. Source protection planning must access all information that is practical and reasonable and use technologies and risk management practices to maximize the protection of public health.

Continuous Improvement: Source protection planning is built on a commitment to continuous improvement, including peer review, that requires ongoing support of all stakeholders to ensure successful implementation based on assessment, monitoring, evaluation and reporting, followed by appropriate modifications to the plan.

We do not believe that Justice O’Connor envisioned a precautionary principle for land use decisions.

O’Connor specifically recognized that there is a need for land use activities that could have a negative effect on water, and for this reason he advocated that PTTW and Certificates of Approval (and agriculture) conform with drinking water source protection. O’Connor rejected the concept that criminal and tort liability should apply to anyone who contaminates a source of water.[6]

We support the concept and principles of sustainability, comprehensiveness, shared responsibility and stewardship, public participation and transparency, cost effectiveness and fairness, and continuous improvement. However, we differ in our interpretation and definition of these concepts.

In particular, we support the concept of continuous improvement through an adaptive environmental management process. This approach implies a commitment to the development of sound environmental monitoring techniques and protocols. We are confident that such a monitoring program will result in fair and reasonable focus placed on various land use activities (including placing the risk of normal agricultural activities in the proper perspective).

We do not support a precautionary approach for source water protection planning jurisdiction over land use, and we believe that this position is consistent with Justice O’Connor’s view. We believe it is significant that Justice O’Connor only specifically mentions the concept of a precautionary approach in Recommendation 19[7], and that this recommendation relates to drinking water standards, not drinking water source protection and land use planning decisions.

It is also noteworthy that in O’Connors discussion related to the precautionary principle[8] is based on a pragmatic notion of safety , rooted in a rational response to persistent toxins and carcinogens. Justice O’Connor states that the “need for a precautionary approach rises where uncertainties about specific hazards are expected to persist and where suspected adverse affects may be serious or irreversible”.

Bacteria pollutants associated with livestock agriculture are serious, but are not irreversible and are not persistent. With-in the context of a multi-barrier protection system including an effective drinking water intake monitoring program, the technology to effectively track and remediate unacceptable pathogen levels is technically feasible and should be further developed and implemented.

Source protection must be viewed as only one important component of a multi-barrier approach.

Legislative Basis for Source Protection Planning

7. A stand-alone piece of legislation for source water protection be developed that incorporates provisions related to source protection from other legislation so that the legislation will be as clear and comprehensive as possible.

8. Where risk to human health is the concern, source protection legislation should supersede other legislative provisions and other considerations, consistent with the hierarchy set out by Justice O’Connor (refer to Appendix A: Justice O’Connor Recommendations 4 and 5). This also requires provincial decisions affecting water quality and quantity, such as permits to take water, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and certificates of approval, etc., to be consistent with source protection legislation in the same way.

9. Other legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act, Municipal Act, Planning Act, Nutrient Management Act, Drainage Act, the

Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act and the Mining Act, etc., be amended where necessary to be consistent with the source protection legislation.

10. Source protection legislation and regulations should include, among other requirements:

a schedule for completion of initial plans that reflects a phased approach that recognizes the capacity of participants and the existing level of risk (watersheds at a higher risk should be required to develop and implement plans more quickly; watersheds with high quality water should be protected from potential contamination; the province should consult with stakeholders when establishing the schedule);
all planning areas must initiate the planning process within two years of the effective date of the legislation in accordance with the legislated schedule and each plan, once started, should generally be completed within three years (source protection plans must be in place across Ontario by the end of the fifth year);
the power for the Minister of the Environment to identify the planning areas to which a specific source protection plan is to apply and to designate the organization with lead responsibility for coordinating plan development for the planning area;
the roles and responsibilities of the key parties involved in source protection planning (see also 3) THE PLANNING PROCESS);
the minimum content of source protection plans (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendation 31);
the process requirements for the source protection plan development, including local consultation, as well as clear public reporting requirements (these requirements would also include those related to the approval process); and

- grounds for appeal related to the content or process used in developing source water protection plans, the entity or body which is responsible for hearing these appeals, associated timelines and other procedures and requirements (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 39 and 40).

Recommendation 68: The provincial government should amend the Environmental Protection Act to implement the recommendations regarding source protection.

===========================

Recommendation 4: Provincial government decisions that affect the quality of drinking water sources must be consistent with approved source protection plans.

Recommendation 5: Where the potential exists for a significant direct threat to drinking water sources, municipal official plans and decisions must be consistent with the applicable source protection plan.

Otherwise, municipal official plans and decisions should have regard to the source protection plan. The plans should designate areas where consistency is required.

We feel that existing legislation already deals with the issue of source water protection. According to O’Connor, existing authorities and regulations dealing with source water protection should be strengthened and their funding increased to ensure this issue is adequately addressed. We feel that O’Connors recommendations about source water protection planning should be incorporated into the existing the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Further, a “Source Protection Strategy” ought to be adopted that brings all existing legislation into line and recognizes source protection as one important component of a multi-barrier approach. It should be accompanied by appropriate training and funding for MOE personnel to insure compliance, enforcement, and province-wide consistency.

We do not support the concept of new, stand-alone legislation for drinking water source protection. We do not believe that such a radical change in the governance of water and water systems is necessary, and concur with O’Connor’s recommendations that amendments to the EPA will be sufficient for drinking water source protection. Furthermore, we feel that incorporating source water protection into the EPA will help increase stakeholders’ ease of compliance due to the increased clarity and familiarity of the EPA as well as decrease the overall cost of regulations development.

Other existing legislation, including the Nutrient Management Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and others already address most of the issues outlined Source Water Protection Advisory Committee mandate and it is our view that adjustments of existing Acts through clearer regulation would better address the goals of drinking water source protection.

==================================================

The Livestock Agriculture groups support Justice O’Connor’s Recommendation 5. Where the potential exists for a significant direct threat to drinking water sources municipal plans and decisions must be consistent with the applicable source protection plan. ‘Significant direct threat’ is a phrase that must be defined in the context of rational risk management. Risk is a relative thing, and all potential risks can never be eliminated. Objective decisions about the definition of risk ought to be made at arms’ length by qualified experts, subject to an appeal mechanism.

We do not support the Advisory Committee recommendation for source protection legislation superceding other legislative provisions based on vaguely defined ‘risk to human health’ criteria. We believe that this recommendation goes beyond the spirit and intent of O’Connor’s recommendation, and does not provide further clarity or direction to task of identifying ‘significant direct threats’. ‘Risk to human health’ is a vague and poorly defined phrase, and implies legislative supercedence based on a precautionary principle and beyond the area that poses a ‘significant direct threat’.

The call for drinking water source protection superceding other legislative provisions on a broad scale is also, very clearly, inconsistent with Justice O’Connor’s realistic view that recognized that there is a public and societal need for land use activities that could have a negative effect on water (see comments in response to the Advisory Committee Recommendation 6.)

New Powers for Municipalities

11. The province work with municipalities and other stakeholders to identify the appropriate types and scope of new municipal powers that should be made available for the purposes of source water protection, including dealing with funding issues. Then, the province should take steps to ensure that the agreed-upon list of new municipal powers is provided to municipalities so that they may use them to better protect source water and implement watershed-based source protection plans (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and 34).

{The recommendation appears to relate to funding issues – the text of the document states the following ...

“Municipal ability to regulate existing land uses is even more limited. Some municipalities have made progress working with landowners and industry on a voluntary basis to protect drinking water sources. However, municipalities cannot make this type of co-operation mandatory”

We do not support the recommendations for new powers for municipalities to regulate existing land use for the purposes of drinking water source protection. We feel that the MOE has greater expertise and objectivity to deal with this issue. The effect of the recommendation would give rise to different enforcement and compliance mechanisms in each municipality. Decentralization is also more costly and less efficient. We recommend that MOE and its personnel receive appropriate funding and training, and perform the mandate recommended by Justice O’Connor.

Regulating existing land use based on a precautionary principle or a vaguely defined concept such as ‘risk to human health’ is completely and totally unacceptable to livestock agriculture, and is contrary to the spirit and intent of the recommendation of the Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry and Justice O’Connor’s Recommendation 5.

Further, based on the Cost Effectiveness and Fairness principle espoused by the Advisory Committee Recommendation 6, existing land use must be recognized as an existing right. If these rights are impinged upon through drinking water source protection or any other legislative measures, there must be appropriate compensation.

This position is completely consistent with the livestock agriculture position of the issue of the proposed Nutrient Management Act regulations with-in the two-year time of travel of municipal wells. Our position is that in these areas, any requirements over and above normal responsibilities under the Nutrient Management Act must be compensated by public funds (which includes farm tax contributions), as the required activities benefit all of society. The rational risk management precautions have been addressed through compliance with the Nutrient Management Act.

New Responsibilities for Conservation Authorities

12. Conservation authorities be the organization given responsibility for coordinating the development of watershed-based source protection plans wherever possible.

13. The resourcing of conservation authorities recognize their new role in source protection planning and provide for new sources of funding in specific instances related to source protection planning (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and 34).

14. The province requires all municipalities and local services boards to participate in source protection planning.

Recommendation 2. The Ministry of the Environment should ensure that draft source protection plans are prepared through an inclusive process of local consultation. Where appropriate, this process should be managed by conservation authorities.

Recommendation 8. Conservation Authorities (or in their absence, the Ministry of the Environment) should be responsible for implementing local initiatives to educate landowners, industry and the public about the requirements and importance of drinking water source protection.

The Livestock Agriculture Groups support the concept of draft drinking water source protection plans be prepared through an inclusive process of local consultation.

The issue of conservation authority involvement in the process hinges on the definition of ‘managed’. If ‘managed’ is interpreted to mean special powers for Conservation Authorities as outlined in the proposed Source Protection Planning Governance Structure we are adamantly opposed. (see our comments in response to the Proposed Governance Structure, Recommendations 22 –27).

If ‘managed’ means a role in facilitating meetings and communication, and a role in education, monitoring and annual reporting activities with-in the context of a democratic and fair governance structure with strong MOE facilitator technical support, we can support the recommendation.

We differ with Justice O’Connor’s comments rationalizing the appointment of conservation authorities as the lead agency for this task.[9]

Although some Conservation Authorities may be a source of data and information, final authority should reside with the MOE in all instances. Conservation Authorities generally lack the funding and resources to take on this undertaking. Furthermore, the recommendations suggest decision-making power that is clearly slanted in favor of municipalities and Conservation Authorities, rather than the broader stakeholder group. This greatly concerns livestock agriculture in that we could become unfair targets for source water protection endeavours while dealing with septage and other issues are avoided.

The requirement for final MOE approval on the Draft Source Water Protection Plans will not adequately address the concern related to the inconsistency of application of source protection in different watersheds.

Enabling local input into the governance structure is critical to demonstrate goodwill. In areas where Conservation Authorities are respected they will naturally fall into the role of leadership. In areas where, based on local opinion, the Conservation Authorities are not respected or trusted there may be a lesser role.

First Nations

15. Recognizing current agreements and relationships with conservation authorities, provincial ministries and other jurisdictions, First Nations (and their technical designates) and the Ministry of the Environment establish a working relationship with respect to source protection planning as soon as possible.

16. The province pursue a strategy with the federal government and First Nations that would support the ability of First Nations (and their technical designates) to be full participants in source water protection planning and implementation. This would include ensuring their involvement in the development of the plan, including participation on the source protection planning committee and in the consultation process, and in the implementation of watershed-based source protection planning through agreements.

Recommendations 88 -93[10]

Livestock Agriculture groups support the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and Justice O’Connor regarding First Nations.

Interim Risk Management

17. The province, municipalities and conservation authorities use their available powers to manage potential threats to human heath and protect sources of drinking water by taking action with respect to high-risk activities and land uses until source protection plans are approved and implemented.

18. Conservation Ontario and the province provide a model source protection plan, based on existing source protection plans, that will be used as a guide in the interim by those without source protection plans. This model would establish a common platform that would be informed by details particular to each area.

Livestock Agriculture groups support the spirit and intent of these recommendations. We are not comfortable and do not support the use of vaguely defined terms such as ‘high risk activity’ and ‘threat to human health’.

We recommend the text be revised to be consistent with Justice O’Connors Recommendation 5.

The province, municipalities and Conservation Authorities use their available powers to manage situations where a significant direct threat exists to drinking water sources until source protection plans are approved and implemented.

Financing Initial Source Protection Plans

19. The province substantially funds development of all initial watershed based source protection plans.

20. Contributions from sources in addition to the provincial government, consistent with Justice O’Connor’s report, be negotiated to support ongoing source protection planning (refer also to Advisory Committee Recommendations 33 and 34).

Recommendation 7. The provincial government should ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete the planning and adoption of source protection plans.

The Livestock Agriculture groups support the Advisory Committee Recommendation 19 as it is consistent with Justice O’Connor’s recommendation.

We also support the Advisory Committee Recommendation 20. In particular, we endorse the concept that those who can reasonably expect to derive environmental or economic gain from the drinking water source protection planning process should contribute, to some degree to the costs of source protection. We strongly believe that the definition of ‘reasonable expectation of environmental or economic gain’ should very specifically exclude the communities that obtain their drinking water from the Great Lakes as a source of financial support for drinking water source protection plans.

The Planning Process

Planning Areas

21. For the purposes of developing source protection plans, there should be approximately 16 planning areas in southern Ontario and approximately 8 in Northern Ontario. This recognizes that the grouping of watersheds into planning areas may enable more effective and efficient sharing of resources.

Livestock Agriculture Groups support the concept of drinking water source protection areas based on a grouping of watersheds.

The planning area approach is consistent with the livestock agriculture position that the SPPC be a separate entity from the Conservation Authorities, and should in fact be an ad-hoc group with a specific task and a defined life span.

Source Protection Planning Committees and Governance

22. Consistent with Justice O’Connor, the plan development process is coordinated by a conservation authority, or the Ministry of the

Environment (or designate) in areas where there is no conservation authority. Where a conservation authority is in an area adjacent to large areas of Crown land, the conservation authority should play a coordinating role alongside the Ministry of the Environment.

23. The SPPC will act as an advisory committee to the board of directors of the conservation authority. It is the board(s) of directors that submits the recommended draft plan to the Ministry of the Environment for approval. A parallel process will be established for areas that do not have a conservation authority.

24. The chair of the SPPC will be appointed by the Minister based on a recommendation from the board(s) of directors of the conservation authorities. The chair may be a full-time position in some areas.

25. Membership on the SPPC be distributed as follows: one-third municipal representatives; one-third provincial, First Nations and federal representatives, and; one-third local public health and other stakeholders. At a maximum, SPPCs will be made up of 18 individuals plus the chair. Note, that each stakeholder or group of stakeholders would select its own representative(s) to the SPPC. In addition, the

SPPC may establish working groups as necessary, providing another opportunity for direct involvement of others in the plan development process.

26. SPPCs must define in their terms of reference what constitutes sufficient municipal support for the draft source protection plan to be recommended for approval to the Ministry of the Environment. This must be agreed to by the board of directors of the conservation authority (or authorities) and forwarded for approval by the MOE as one of the first steps in the plan development process.

27. Each planning area will, as part of their responsibilities, constitute an expert panel made up of individuals that would, at key milestones, assess the appropriateness and validity of the approach, science and operational / management practices, and its advice will be used to inform the planning process.

Livestock agriculture groups are adamantly opposed to the proposed governance structure. With the proposed governance structure, the Conservation Authority Board of Directors will effectively control the governance of the SPPC through;

Exclusive capacity to recommend the SPPC chair to the MOE
Structuring the governance so that the SPPC acts as an advisory board to the Conservation Authority board
The Conservation Authority board will consider the SPPC draft, but will retain the authority to prepare and submit a recommended draft to the Minister of the Environment for approval.
There is some protection for municipalities to counter the Conservation Authority control of the SPPC planning and approval process through Recommendation 26; SPPCs’ must define in their terms of reference what constitutes sufficient municipal support for the draft source protection plan to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. Similar protection is not offered to other stakeholders.

This proposed governance structure does not reflect the principles of sustainability, comprehensiveness, shared responsibility and stewardship, public participation and transparency, cost effectiveness and fairness, and continuous improvement as put forward in the Advisory Committee Recommendation 6.

We recommend a model similar to the structure that was used in the development of Remedial Action Plans be considered.

1. The MOE appoint a senior, experienced MOE facilitator to advise the elected chair and to guide the development of the drinking water source protection plan, similar to the manner in which the MOE guided and facilitated the development of the Remedial Action Plans. The MOE facilitator would not have approval authority or voting privileges, but would be a resource person to assist the elected chair in completing their duties.

2. The MOE facilitator, municipalities and Conservation Authorities identify stakeholder groups.

3. The number of stakeholders must be proportional to the dominant land uses in the area. For example, where the planning area is highly urbanized areas, urban stakeholders should be proportionally represented. In areas with agricultural land use, proportional representation from agriculture groups is required.

4. The stakeholder group will name and elect a chair for MOE approval.

5. With the guidance of the MOE facilitator, the stakeholder group will set the terms of reference and identify the technical requirements.

6. The ad-hoc group must be task oriented with a specific life span. This will avoid the tendency of the SPPC to morph into a bureaucratic entity or empire.

7. With the guidance of the MOE facilitator, the report writing and technical requirements should be tendered out to the private sector for completion. This is consistent with the objective of obtaining the best possible data and planning recommendations at the lowest possible price from unbiased sources. Conservation Authorities would be free to bid for such a contract if they had the internal capacity to complete the required tasks.

8. The final report, once endorsed by the ad-hoc SPPC Committee, will be submitted to the municipalities, Conservation Authorities and other stakeholders for comment. The revised SPPC Committee report, along with the written comments from all stakeholders, will be submitted directly to the MOE for approval.

9. The Conservation Authority Board of Directors and municipalities will have the opportunity to provide comment on the SPPC recommendations without special status or authority as compared to other stakeholders.

Technical Expertise

28. Planning areas must have access to the necessary technical expertise to support the development, implementation and ongoing enhancement

of source protection.

Agriculture agrees with the recommendations and through the proposed bid process, the specific technical requirements could be specified in the project Terms of Reference. There is no need to expend public funds in building Conservation Authority sector capacity when there is sufficient expertise in the private sector to complete the required tasks.

Planning Area Consultation Process

29. The minimum requirements for a transparent local consultation process in a planning area will include having:

meetings of the Source Protection Planning Committee that are advertised and open to public attendance;
draft plans and proposals published widely;
adequate time and information to ensure a range of views are fully canvassed and considered;
invitations for public comment in writing;
documentation of responses to public input, as appropriate; and
involvement of other affected local parties, including municipalities, local services boards, elected officials, land users, water system operators, First Nations, off-reserve Aboriginal communities, local public health officials, and the public, in its important role of drinking water consumer.

30. All Source Protection Planning Committees define in their terms of reference a plan for local consultation that meets minimum requirements and this must be agreed to by the board(s) of directors of the conservation authority early in the planning process.

We support the minimum requirements for the planning area consultation process, and envision the possible role for Conservation Authority provision of these services in areas where the Authority has both the capacity and the most attractive bid for providing the public consultations contract.

In response to Recommendation 30, we do not believe that the Conservation Authority Board of Directors should have approval authority regarding local consultation minimum requirements. These requirements can be specified by the SPPC in cooperation with the MOE, without the need for another layer of bureaucracy in the form of the Conservation Authority Board of Directors.

RECOMMENDATION 31: The components to be included in a source protection plan integrating Justice O’Connor’s list of “key ingredients” are as follows:

· objectives and targets of the Source Protection Plan.

· technical information including:

· a water budget, including future water needs;

· a fate of contaminants model, including assessment of future pollutant loadings and cumulative impacts;

· maps, based on provincially prescribed definitions and methodology, that identify areas of high, medium and low vulnerability areas and sensitive water resources (refer to 4) Risk Management section);

· a baseline map to establish the state of the watershed at the outset of the planning process and an overlay map of existing and potential land uses;

· identification and delineation of natural features such as various types of wetlands, woodlands and riparian zones that contribute to the protection of drinking water sources;

· identification of areas where a significant direct threat exists to the safety of the drinking water supply;

· maximum contaminant loads to meet water quality objectives;