Report
to/Rapport au :
Agriculture & Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des
questions rurales
and /
et
Planning
and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/
Directeur municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Dennis Jacobs, Director
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme,
d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x 25521,
Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Agriculture and Rural Affairs
Committee and Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:
1. Receive the information report on the proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005;
2. Endorse staff’s comments previously submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Environment on the proposed matters; and,
3. Direct staff to submit additional recommendations to the Ontario Ministry of Environment with protocols and procedures to be included in the legislation and regulations to ensure coordination and consistency of technical products and public communications and consultation amongst neighbouring Source Protection Regions.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement ainsi que le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales
recommandent au Conseil de :
1. prendre
connaissance du rapport d’information sur les sujets proposés à aborder dans
les règlements visant à appuyer l’avant-projet de Loi sur l’eau saine,
2005;
2. confirmer les commentaires du
personnel précédemment présentés au ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario
sur les sujets proposés; et de
3. demander
au personnel de soumettre au ministère de l’Environnement de l’Ontario les
autres recommandations de protocoles à inclure dans la loi et les règlements en
vue d’assurer la coordination et l’uniformité des produits techniques et des
communications/consultations publiques entre les régions de protection de l’eau
à la source avoisinantes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
The
proposed Clean Water Act, 2005, Bill 43, was introduced for First
Reading on December 5, 2005.
The proposed Clean Water Act will help communities protect their
drinking water supplies by identifying potential risks to their sources of
drinking water, and taking action to reduce or eliminate these risks.
The
Province has initiated the first in a series of Province-wide
consultations. The initial consultation
provides information on the first three areas to be addressed in regulations:
1) the establishment of Source Protection Areas / Regions and lead Source
Protection Authorities, 2) Source Protection Committees and 3) the Terms of
Reference. The Provincial consultation provides a description of the proposed
regulations and poses a number of questions for the purpose of soliciting
feedback from the public on various policy issues that the regulations address.
The
purpose of this Committee report is to provide a summary of the proposed
content of the regulations, and endorse staff’s comments that were submitted to
the Province on February 17, 2006.
One
subject of the Ministry’s consultation is the proposed Source Protection
Regions. The draft regulations propose that the City of Ottawa participate in
two source protection regions: the
Rideau-Mississippi Region and the South Nation-Raisin Region. There are concerns that if the City is split
between the two source protection regions, different standards and
methodologies employed by the two Regions may be in conflict, possibly
resulting in different implementation strategies across the City's jurisdiction.
Although the proposed structure will offer challenges, staff support the structure of two source protection regions for the City of Ottawa. However, the City must ensure that the two final Source Protection Plans do not produce conflicting recommendations. To address this issue, staff recommend that the City provide the Ministry of Environment with specific protocols and procedures to be incorporated into the legislation and regulations to ensure that coordination is maximized throughout the planning process.
Financial Implications:
The Province has committed to fund the Source Protection planning process up to the development of the Plan. This includes funding to municipalities and conservation authorities for technical studies, and funding to Conservation Authorities for staffing. Significant municipal staffing resources will be required to complete technical studies, participate on various working groups, and support the Source Protection Committees. Through the recent Ministry consultations on the draft Clean Water Act, the City insisted that the Province provide sufficient funding or funding capability to municipalities to pay for the proposed downloaded responsibilities associated with development and implementation of the Source Protection Plans. Financial and staffing implications to the City cannot be assessed at this time until the legislation and regulations are further developed. Staff will bring forward a report to Committee on the budgetary implications once sufficient detail is available.
Public Consultation/Input:
The
proposed regulations in support of the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005
were posted on the Environmental Registry for a 60-day public comment period
(ending February 20, 2006). City staff
from the departments of Planning and Growth Management, Legal Services, Public
Health Branch, Community and Protective Services, Corporate Communications, and
Utility Services provided input into the City’s response to the Province.
The Clean Water Act places a strong emphasis on community consultation and involvement when developing the Source Protection Plans. Future consultation will be completed by the Conservation Authorities, in concert with the relevant municipalities.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
L’avant-projet
de Loi sur l’eau saine, 2005, projet de loi 43, a été présenté en
première lecture le 5 décembre 2005. L’avant-projet de Loi sur l’eau saine
permettra aux collectivités de protéger leur approvisionnement en eau potable
en déterminant les risques potentiels pour leurs sources d’eau potable et en
prenant les mesures nécessaires pour réduire ou éliminer ces risques.
Le gouvernement provincial a lancé
la première d’une série de consultations à l’échelle de la province. La
première consultation donne de l’information sur les trois premiers domaines
qui seront abordés dans les règlements : 1) l’établissement de secteurs/régions
pour la protection de l’eau à la source et d’offices principaux de protection
de l’eau à la source, 2) les comités de protection de l’eau à la source et 3)
le mandat. Dans le cadre de la consultation provinciale, on donne une
description des règlements proposés en plus de poser un certain nombre de
questions dans le but de solliciter la rétroaction du public sur divers enjeux
stratégiques qui seront abordés par les règlements.
Le rapport de ce comité vise à
donner un résumé du contenu proposé des règlements et à appuyer les
commentaires du personnel qui ont été présentés au gouvernement provincial le
17 février 2006.
Parmi les sujets abordés dans le
cadre de la consultation du Ministère, il y a notamment la proposition des
régions de protection de l’eau à la source. Le projet de règlement propose que
la Ville d’Ottawa participe dans deux régions de protection de l’eau à la
source, soit la région Rideau-Mississippi et la région Nation-Raisin Sud.
Certains sont préoccupés par le fait que si la Ville est divisée entre les deux
régions de protection de l’eau à la source, les différentes normes et méthodologies
utilisées par les deux régions pourraient entrer en conflit, occasionnant
possiblement différentes stratégies d’implantation à l’échelle de la Ville.
Même si la structure proposée
occasionnera certains défis, le personnel appuie la structure proposée de deux
régions de protection de l’eau à la source pour la Ville d’Ottawa. Toutefois,
afin de considérer les préoccupations de la Ville concernant la coordination
entre les deux régions de protection de l’eau à la source, le personnel
recommande que la Ville propose au ministère de l’Environnement des procédures
et protocoles particuliers à inclure dans la législation et les règlements de
façon à maximiser la coordination tout au long du processus de planification.
Répercussions financières :
Le
gouvernement provincial s’est engagé à financer le processus de planification
relatif à la protection de l’eau à la source jusqu’à l’élaboration du plan.
Cela inclut notamment l’attribution de fonds aux municipalités et aux offices
de protection de la nature en vue d’études techniques et l’attribution de fonds
aux offices de protection de la nature pour la dotation. Un nombre considérable
de ressources en personnel au niveau municipal sera nécessaire afin de réaliser
les études techniques, de participer à divers groupes de travail et d’appuyer
les comités de protection de l’eau à la source. Dans le cadre des consultations
récentes du Ministère sur l’avant-projet de Loi sur l’eau saine, la Ville a
insisté pour que la province accorde suffisamment de fonds aux municipalités ou
qu’elle leur assure la capacité de financement afin qu’elles soient en mesure
d’assumer les frais des responsabilités proposées dont on s’est délesté
associées à l’élaboration et à l’implantation des Plans de protection de l’eau
à la source. Tant que la loi et le
règlement n’auront pas été définis de façon plus précise, il sera impossible
d’en évaluer les répercussions sur la situation financière et les effectifs de
la Ville. Le personnel soumettra un rapport au Comité sur les conséquences
budgétaires une fois qu’il disposera de renseignements suffisants.
Consultation publique / commentaires :
Les
règlements proposés à l’appui de l’avant-projet de Loi sur l’eau saine
de 2005 ont été ajoutés au Registre environnemental pour une période de 60
jours en vue d’obtenir les commentaires du public (se terminant le 20 février
2006). Le personnel de l’Urbanisme et de la Gestion de la croissance, des
Services juridiques, de la Direction de la santé publique, des Services
communautaires et de protection, des Communications générales et des Services
publics a collaboré à la formulation de la réponse de la Ville au gouvernement
provincial.
La Loi sur l’eau saine est
fortement axée sur la consultation et la participation de la collectivité au
moment de l’élaboration des Plans de protection de l’eau à la source. Les
autres consultations seront menées par les offices de protection de la nature
en accord avec les municipalités pertinentes.
BACKGROUND
The
proposed Clean Water Act, 2005, Bill 43, was introduced for First
Reading on December 5th, 2005. The
proposed Clean Water Act will help communities protect their drinking
water supplies by identifying potential risks to their sources of drinking
water, and taking action to reduce or eliminate these risks. A report on the proposed Clean Water Act
was previously discussed by Planning and Environment Committee and Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee on 24 January and 26 January 2006 respectively
(ACS2006-PGM-POL-0011).
The
Bill provides regulation-making authority to the Minister of the Environment
(Minister) and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (LGIC) in a number of areas.
It also provides rule making authority to the Provincial Director in respect of
risk assessments, risk management plans and any matter authorized or required
to be included in an assessment report.
The
Province has initiated the first in a series of Province-wide
consultations. The initial consultation
provides information on the first three areas to be addressed in regulations:
1) the establishment of Source Protection Areas / Regions and lead Source
Protection Authorities, 2) Source Protection Committees and 3) the Terms of
Reference. The descriptions of the additional areas to be addressed in
regulations and Director’s rules will be posted on the Environmental Registry
in the near future. The Provincial consultation provides a description of the
proposed regulations and poses a number of questions for the purpose of
soliciting feedback from the public on various policy issues that the
regulations will address.
The
purpose of this Committee report is to provide a summary of the proposed
content of the regulations, and endorse staff’s comments (Document 1) that were
submitted to the Province on February 17, 2006 to meet the Province's response
deadline. Below is a brief description
of the contents of the proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to
support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005:
· Altering the Boundaries of Source Protection Areas (SPA): The proposed legislation establishes conservation authority areas as source protection areas for the purposes of the legislation. The proposed legislation includes regulation-making authority that would allow the Minister to make regulations altering the boundaries of these source protection areas, and to designate participating municipalities for a conservation authority if the boundaries of the source protection area are altered by the regulation.
· Source Protection Regions: The Minister may make a regulation consolidating two or more source protection areas into a source protection region, naming the region and designating a lead SPA for the region.
· The Appointment of Source Protection Committees: Source Protection Areas/Regions are required by the legislation to establish a multi-stakeholder source protection committee (SPC) that will be comprised of up to 16 members (including the chair) and will oversee the source protection planning process. The Minister is considering making a regulation that would require the composition of the SPC to be drawn from a variety of interested bodies, and requiring a minimum of 1/3rd municipal representation, 1 member from the general public, 1 member from First Nations and representatives from agriculture, industry, public health bodies, non-governmental organizations and others.
· Contents
of the Terms of Reference: The proposed
legislation requires all SPCs, in consultation with participating
municipalities, to develop a terms of reference to govern the assessment and
planning process for the purpose of ensuring that the SPC has a work-plan in
place for the completion of the assessment report and source protection
plan. The EBR posting provides a
preliminary list of the issues to be addressed in the Terms of Reference.
The full Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR) posting is contained in Document 2.
DISCUSSION
The
proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to support the proposed Clean
Water Act, 2005 was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR)
Registry for a 60-day public comment period, ending February 20, 2006. The feedback gained from this posting will
assist the Ministry of Environment in the development of draft regulations to
support the proposed source protection legislation. The Ministry of Environment will undertake consultations on the
legal drafts of the regulations through the Environmental Registry at a later
date.
Through
the EBR consultation, the Province posed a number of questions for the purpose
of soliciting feedback from the public on issues related to the proposed
regulations. City staff from the
departments of Planning and Growth Management, Legal Services, Public Health
Branch, Community and Protective Services, Corporate Communications, and
Utility Services provided input into the City’s response to the Province. Staff’s submission in response to the
Environmental Registry posting is attached for review and approval by Committee
and Council (Document 1).
Source
Protection Regions
One
subject of the consultation is the proposed Source Protection Regions. The
draft regulations propose that the City of Ottawa participate in two source
protection regions: the
Rideau-Mississippi Region and the South Nation-Raisin Region. There are concerns that if the City is split
between the two source protection regions, different standards and
methodologies employed by the regions may be in conflict, possibly resulting in
different implementation strategies across the City's jurisdiction. The City of Ottawa is not unique in this
situation. The Regional Municipality of
Durham and several smaller municipalities will be required to work with more
than one source protection region.
Although
the proposed structure will offer challenges, staff support the structure of
two source protection regions for the City of Ottawa for the following
reasons:
· The City has been a strong supporter throughout the development of the Source Protection legislation that source protection planning should be completed on a watershed basis. Watershed-based planning is strongly supported by the City’s Official Plan, Environmental Strategy, and the Provincial Policy Statement. In some circumstances (e.g. villages of Vars and Marionville), Source Protection Planning for wellhead protection areas will require coordination with municipalities beyond the City of Ottawa boundary, emphasizing the importance of watershed based planning.
· The City has a long-standing relationship with Conservation Authorities for development and implementation of programs such as watershed planning, Ottawa septic system office, development review, and Rural Clean Water Program. The City will work closely with the Conservation Authorities through the Source Protection Committees and technical working groups to ensure coordination and consistency between the two regions.
· The two regions have different unique and widely variable bedrock geology, physiography and soils. As such, it is expected that there will be differences in the approaches and methodologies required for the technical assessments. The Ministry of Environment’s pending regulations will detail the requirements for technical studies, thereby providing a degree of consistency and coordination in approaches.
While
staff support the current proposed structure of two source protection regions
for the City of Ottawa, the City must ensure that the two final Source
Protection Plans do not produce conflicting recommendations. To address this concern, staff recommend
that the City provide the Ministry of Environment with specific protocols and
procedures to ensure that coordination is maximized throughout the planning
process. The following procedures are
recommended to be included in the legislation and regulations to ensure
consistency with technical products and public communications and consultation:
· Participation in monthly meetings with project managers across the province, including Ministry and Conservation Ontario staff;
· Establishment of an Eastern Ontario Conservation Authority working group for technical staff;
· Development of Terms of Reference for technical studies in tandem with those of the neighbouring Regions, and ensure that boundaries for technical work overlap;
· Establishment of a communications strategy for eastern Ontario, including protocols and procedures to ensure consistent and coordinated communications and consultations activities amongst the neighbouring Regions;
· Attendance of both watershed regions
at meetings where shared responsibility exists;
· Distribution of all relevant
materials and correspondence to counterparts;
· Ministry to provide technical guidance modules for all technical studies that must be followed, for example wellhead protection strategies; and intake protection zones; and,
· Ministry to define elements of risks and threats through legislation and regulations.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Clean Water Act ensures that communities are able to protect their drinking water supplies by identifying potential risks to their sources of drinking water, and taking action to reduce or eliminate these risks. The regulations will prescribe the content of the Terms of Reference that will guide the development of the Source Protection Plan.
The
full impact of the regulations cannot be assessed until the legal draft of the
regulations is released for public consultation. Following is a summary of the potential rural implications of
the proposed regulations:
· A locally based, multi-stakeholder Committee will ensure that the source water protection plans address local drinking water concerns. The membership and role of this committee are expected to be prescribed through the regulations.
· The resulting regulations will prescribe operating procedures for the Source Protection Committee that will ensure transparency and public involvement.
· The Ministry of Environment will post all draft regulations associated with the Clean Water Act on the EBR Registry for public consultation.
CONSULTATION
City
staff from Planning and Growth Management, Legal Services, Public Health
Branch, Community and Protective Services, Corporate Communications, and
Utility Services provided input into the City’s response to the Province.
The Clean Water Act places a strong emphasis on community consultation and involvement when developing the Source Protection Plans. Future consultation will be completed by the Conservation Authorities, in concert with the relevant municipalities.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Province has committed to fund the Source Protection planning process up to the development of the Plan. This includes funding to municipalities and conservation authorities for technical studies, and funding to Conservation Authorities for staffing. Significant municipal staffing resources will be required to complete technical studies, participate on various working groups, and support the Source Protection Committees. Through the recent Ministry consultations on the draft Clean Water Act, the City insisted that the Province provide sufficient funding or funding capability to municipalities to pay for the proposed downloaded responsibilities associated with development and implementation of the Source Protection Plans. Financial and staffing implications to the City cannot be assessed at this time until the legislation and regulations are further developed. Staff will bring forward a report to Committee on the budgetary implications once sufficient detail is available.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document
1 Letter to the Ontario Ministry of
Environment from the Planning and Growth Management Department of the City of
Ottawa containing staff comments on the proposed matters to be addressed in
regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005.
Document 2 EBR Registry Number RA05E0022 on the “Proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005”
DISPOSITION
1. Planning and Growth Management
Department will forward a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Environment stating
Council’s endorsement of staff’s comments on the proposed matters to be
addressed in regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005,
and providing additional recommendations with protocols and procedures to be
included in the legislation and regulations to ensure consistency of technical
products and public communications and consultation amongst neighbouring Source
Protection Regions.
2. Planning and Growth Management Department will forward report(s) to Committee on the matter to advise Council as the process continues.
Greg Mouchian, Policy Analyst
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Ave. West, 11th floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5
Re: Proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005 (EBR Registry Number: RA05E0022)
This letter provides comments in
response to EBR Registry No. RA05E0022 on the Proposed matters to be addressed
in regulations to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005 as
recommended by City of Ottawa staff. Please note that these
comments will be considered by the Agriculture and
Rural Affairs Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee of Council
at their meetings to be held on 23 and 28 of March respectively. Council will ratify the comments
presented here, as well as any input from the Committees, at their next meeting
scheduled for April 12, 2006. Any
changes or additions to the comments resulting from Council’s discussion will
be forwarded to your attention as soon as practical after this meeting.
In
response to the specific questions put forward in the EBR posting, the City of
Ottawa provides our preliminary response for consideration by the
Province. The City intends to provide
additional feedback when the legal drafts of the regulations are posted on the
EBR Registry at a later date.
Source Protection Regions
What processes
should be considered in appointing members to the SPC? For example, should membership be determined
at the local level through existing mechanisms (e.g. agricultural associations
shall nominate members to be considered by the SPA)?
- What is the role of an SPC member - should they be
representative of a sector?
- Should the SPC member be allowed to have alternates?
·
The Province,
through regulations, must develop a standard terms of reference for the Source
Protection Committees (SPC). The Terms
of Reference should outline the duties, common membership and procedures that
must be implemented by each local Committee.
However, the Terms of Reference should also include some flexibility to
allow the local Source Protection Authority (SPA) to establish their membership
to address local issues. For example, if agriculture is a key local issue, the
membership of the local SPC should be amended to reflect this issue. This will ensure that the SPC is capable of
addressing local concerns when developing the Source Protection Plan.
·
Committee
membership should consist of the following:
o
In the EBR
posting, it is suggested that a minimum 1/3 of the SPC membership be municipal
representation. The City of Ottawa
suggests that due to the financial implications, risk, and liability to be
downloaded to the municipalities for the development and implementation of the
Source Protection Plan, municipalities should have a majority of representation
on the SPC.
o
Under the
proposed structure, the City of Ottawa is split between two Source Protection
Regions. For each Region, there are
between 25 and 27 upper, middle and lower tier municipalities involved. The proposed structure allocates a minimum
of 1/3 municipal representation on the SPC equating to five municipal
representatives per SPC. Therefore, the
majority of municipalities will not have direct representation on the SPC. There are various levels of expertise,
standards and capacity across municipalities.
A methodology for allocating these spaces to municipalities is
required. The City of Ottawa recommends
an approach where representation is based on population. It should be noted
that larger municipalities will bear a larger risk, greater financial
implications and liability, and as such, should be provided with more than one
member on each SPC.
o
Public Health
must have at least one member on each committee. It is recommended that this member be a Medical Officer of
Health. For municipalities where the Public Health Branch is part of the corporate structure (e.g. City of Ottawa Public
Health), this member is not to be
considered part of the municipal representation.
o
Non-government
organizations (general public, First nations, agriculture, industry, NGO and
others) would constitute the remainder of the committee membership. NGO members should be compensated for their
time and travel associated with Committee meetings to ensure they can actively
participate without financial hardship.
o
Land development
is the 2nd largest industry in Ontario.
For this reason, it is recommended that the local Home Builders
Association be represented on the SPC under the category of ‘NGO/other’. This member should be a Registered
Professional Planner or Professional Engineer.
Due to the large rural implications of this Act, it is recommended that
this member possess extensive experience in rural development.
What level of
transparency should be required in the selection and appointment of members to
the SPC and what process should be used to ensure that transparency?
How should SPCs be composed in order to ensure that they appropriately reflect
the inhabitants/activities of the area?
·
Source Protection
Committee members will have a significant responsibility to represent their
member organization and the sector that they serve. To ensure accountability, members should be an elected member of
Council/Board of Directors, and appointed by their Council/Board of Directors to
serve on the SPC. The Terms of
Reference for the SPC should include a responsibility for members to regularly
update and consult with their Council/Board of Directors.
·
The draft Act suggests that
the Source Protection Plan will be locally developed and implemented to ensure
that it addresses local issues and meets the needs of the local residents. As such, the Province must find a balance
between ensuring consistency between the various Regions, while allowing for
local needs and issues to be appropriately addressed. The Terms of Reference for the SPC must be carefully developed to
ensure this balance is achieved.
How should the
SPCs govern their rules of operation? Individually developed or standardized
across the province? Explain.
·
The SPC will have
a daunting mandate, and will need to be operational within a short amount of
time in order to complete the Source Protection Plan. For this reason, it is recommended that the Province dictate the
rules of operation for the local Committees, with no room for variability. Robert’s Rules of Order are recommended.
·
Under the
proposed regulations, the City of Ottawa will be split between two Source
Protection Regions. It will be
important that the two Regions employ similar approaches, timelines and decision
making rules to ensure a consistent approach across the City. The Province must ensure that the SPC Terms
of Reference includes procedures and protocols to ensure coordination amongst
neighbouring watershed regions. The
Province also must commit to regularly monitor the individual SPC’s to ensure
that a consistent approach is being followed.
The City insists that these safeguards be developed and enforced to
ensure that the two final Source Protection Plans provide a consistent
technical methodology and implementation recommendations across our municipal
jurisdiction.
This issue will be discussed in further detail by
Committee and Council at their upcoming meetings, and additional comments on
this issue will be submitted to the MOE as soon as practical following those
meetings.
How should the
SPC conduct its operations to ensure transparency?
- Should all SPC meeting be conducted in public?
- Should each SPC meeting provide a “public input” session?
- Should the SPC function by consensus or vote?
·
The Source
Protection Planning Process must be a public process. All meetings of the SPC should be open to the public, and should
include an opportunity for public input.
Meeting notices and minutes should be available through the web.
·
Source Protection
Committee decisions should be reached by majority vote.
·
Working Group
meetings do not need to be public meetings. Working group recommendations
should be reached by consensus. To ensure accountability and transparency,
Working Group minutes, reports and recommendations should come before the full
SPC for consideration and approval.
Should the Severn
Sound and Black River watersheds be designated as source protection areas,
requiring the establishment of source protection authorities for each area or
should these areas be included in the larger proposed Lake Simcoe source
protection area?
The City of
Ottawa has no comment on this issue.
Terms of Reference - Questions for Public Comment
Should the process for the development of assessment reports and source
protection plans envision the establishment of working groups to undertake many
of the activities? Should the province provide guidance on their establishment?
Should the province establish minimum requirements?
Source Protection Planning will be a very complex and
technical process. As such, it will be
necessary to establish technical working groups to undertake many of the
aspects of Plan development. It
is not possible at this time to specify membership and expertise requirements
of the working groups until the draft regulations associated with the
requirements of the assessment reports and the Source Protection Plan are
released. The Source Protection
Committee should be given the responsibility of determining the membership of
the working groups, and the level of expertise required for each working group
based on local issues and capacity.
How should the
division of labour for assessment and planning work be established between
municipalities and Conservation Authorities? It is anticipated that generally
municipalities would be responsible for developing the technical work required
to prepare the assessment report and source protection plan in respect wellhead
protection areas and surface water intake protection zones. Should this
responsibility be assigned by regulation to all municipalities or only to some
municipalities based on serviced population and/or staff capacity and technical
expertise?
Although
the Conservation Authorities will facilitate the planning process, the EBR
posting implies that municipalities may be responsible for completing some of
the technical studies in support of the Plan.
The responsibility for completing the various aspects of the technical
work to support the Source Protection Plan should be left to the discretion of
the municipalities in cooperation with their Conservation Authority, and will
depend on staff capacity and technical expertise of the two partners as to
which is best equipped to complete the work.
The
Province has committed to fund technical studies (both municipally and CA led)
and CA staff associated with the Plan.
To date, the Province has not proposed funding
to assist municipalities with their additional staffing requirements. The completion of technical studies,
participation on various working groups, and support to the SPC will require
significant staffing resources at the municipal level. The City insists that the Province provide
funding to municipalities to support the increased staffing required to develop
the Source Protection Plans.
How should the
province ensure that individuals or groups that are required by the terms of
reference to undertake planning activities in relation to the preparation of
the assessment report and source protection plan (e.g. characterizing
watersheds, producing water budgets) are appropriately qualified? For example,
should the government require a particular level of education, professional
designation or level of expertise / experience?
·
The City insists
that the Province demonstrate its commitment to Source Protection Planning by
prescribing within the regulations a requirement for the Province to provide
technical expertise to the working groups for the purposes of developing the
Source Protection Plans. This commitment
will include providing staff from various Ministries (e.g. Environment,
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Agriculture and Rural Affairs) to be dedicated
to assisting the working groups in developing the technical studies and
implementation plans. Ministry staff
must be mandated to attend all working group meetings, upon request – either in
person or through video/teleconferencing.
This commitment by the Province would ensure consistency throughout the
Province in developing the Plans. It
would ensure the availability of technical expertise to the working groups.
·
The Province must
commit to funding all costs associated with the Source Protection Committee and
the various working groups. This would
include payment to all members for the substantial time commitment that the planning
process will involve. This funding
commitment will also allow smaller municipalities or organizations that do not
have adequate technical capacity to hire staff and/or consultants to represent
their interests on the various working groups.
How much time should be available for SPCs to prepare
a Terms of Reference and submit it to the SPA?
Since the
regulations detailing the requirements for the Terms of Reference have not yet
been released for consultation, it is premature to address this question at
this time.
Thank you
for your time and consideration of our comments and concerns. Should you have any questions or comments on
source water protection issues within the City of Ottawa, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (613) 580-2424, extension 25659, or Cynthia Levesque,
Program Manager, Environmental Sustainability Division, at (613) 580-2424,
extension 23463.
Sincerely,
Ned
Lathrop
Deputy City Manager, Planning & Growth Management
|
cc: |
Brian Rosborough, Director
of Policy, Association of Municipalities of Ontario / Rural Ontario Municipal
Association Cynthia Levesque, Planning, Environment and
Infrastructure Policy, City of Ottawa Dixon Weir, Utility Services Branch, City of
Ottawa Leslie Vanclief, Planning, Environment and
Infrastructure Policy, City of Ottawa Dennis O'Grady, South Nation Conservation |
NOTICE
OF PROPOSAL FOR REGULATION
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2005
December 30, 2005: This notice was originally
published on December 22, 2005 with a comment period ending on February 20,
2006. It has been re-published to include the French version. This does not
impact the comment period, nor has the balance of this notice been altered.
Proposal Title:
Proposed matters to be addressed in regulations to
support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005
Short Description:
The proposed Clean Water Act, 2005, Bill 43,
was introduced for First Reading on December 5th, 2005. The Bill provides
regulation-making authority to the Minister of the Environment (Minister) and
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (LGIC) in a number of areas. It also
provides rule making authority to the Director in respect of risk assessments,
risk management plans and any matter authorized or required to be included in
an assessment report.
The purpose of this document is to provide a description of proposed
regulations in respect of various aspects of the source protection planning
process and to pose questions for the purpose of soliciting feedback from the
public on various policy issues that the regulations will deal with.
This document is the first in a series and will provide information on the
first three areas to be addressed in regulations: 1) the establishment of
Source Protection Areas / Regions and lead Source Protection Authorities, 2)
Source Protection Committees and 3) the Terms of Reference. The descriptions of
the additional areas to be addressed in regulations and Director’s rules will
be posted on the Environmental Registry in the near future.
Altering the Boundaries of Source Protection Areas
The proposed legislation establishes conservation authority areas as source
protection areas for the purposes of the legislation. There are currently 36
conservation authorities (CAs) across Ontario.
The proposed legislation includes regulation-making authority that would allow
the Minister to make regulations altering the boundaries of these source
protection areas established by subsection 4(1) of the Bill, and to designate
participating municipalities for a conservation authority if the boundaries of
the source protection area are altered by the regulation (see clauses 99(a) and
(b)). The composition of the conservation authority for the purposes of the
Conservation Authorities Act would not be altered. In altering these source
protection areas, existing conservation authority boundaries will generally be
retained except where it is necessary to expand the area to include new lands
that contribute to the source waters within the watershed. The alteration of
the boundary of a source protection area would affect municipalities either by
including them in the source protection area or by expanding or reducing the
portion of the municipality that is included in the source protection area. As
a result of being integrated into a source protection area, these additional
municipalities/counties would become involved in the development of terms of
reference, assessment reports and source protection plans developed by the SPC.
This is in contrast to the ability of municipalities outside source protection
areas to enter in an agreement with the Minister to develop a focused source
protection plan. As well, those municipalities that have additional portions
included in the source protection area may be responsible for assessment and
planning tasks in the newly added portion. (see the discussion below relating
to the allocation of work in the terms of reference).
Table 1 below sets out the municipalities that will be affected by the
Minister’s proposed alterations of the boundaries of source protection areas
that are conservation authority areas. The Table does not list all the boundary
alterations that will be made by the Minister’s regulations; only those
boundary changes that are significant. Additional minor boundary alterations
may also be made by the Minister’s regulations. Some municipalities identified
in the table have an asterisk. This is to indicate situations where the area of
a municipality that is within a source protection area is being enlarged or
reduced as a result of a boundary change to the source protection area. The
municipalities that do not have an asterisk are municipalities that were not
previously within a conservation authority area and are being included in whole
or in part in the source protection area as a result of the boundary change.
Table 1 - Municipalities affected by proposed alterations to Source Protection
Areas’ Boundaries ( Click
here )
The Minister’s regulation-making authority also includes the authority to
designate for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, 2005, the
participating municipalities for the conservation authority that is serving as
a source protection authority (SPA). Under the Conservation Authorities Act a
participating municipality is authorized to appoint a specific number of
representatives to the conservation authority board based on a formula
specified in that Act, or as negotiated by the participating municipalities
within a conservation authority. The ministry will be considering which
municipalities should be participating municipalities in these situations and
will consult with the public on a proposal for this issue at a later date.
Source Protection Areas where there are no Conservation Authorities (CA)
In parts of the province that are not covered by a source protection area
established by subsection 4(1) of the Bill (i.e. where there are no CAs), the
Minister may make a regulation establishing and defining the boundaries of a
source protection area. There are many parts of northern Ontario and some parts
of central Ontario that contain municipalities but are not be covered by a
conservation authority area (see Appendix A). It is in these areas that it is
expected that the Minister may exercise this authority. Additionally, the
Minister will also have broad authority to designate a person or a body to
assume the responsibilities of a SPA for these newly established source
protection areas. In most cases, it is expected that the Minister would
designate a municipality within this area to assume the responsibility of an
SPA.
The regulation may:
- establish source protection areas where there are no CAs and designate a
person or body for a source protection area to exercise and perform the powers
and duties of an SPA (see clause 99(c)) and name that source protection area.
- establish the quorum and voting requirements for meetings of a person or body
designated as the SPA for a source protection area.
In parts of Ontario that are not covered by conservation authority areas, the
Bill also gives the Minister the authority to enter into an agreement with one
or more municipalities to prepare a source protection plan for a source
protection area established by a Minister’s regulation (see section 23). The
rules governing the preparation of the source protection plan will be governed
by the agreement and not the legislation and regulations. This will allow for
the preparation of more focused source protection plans in such areas.
Once the plans have been submitted and approved by the Minister under the
legislation, it is the Ministry’s intention to then make a regulation for the
purpose of designating those municipalities that are party to such an agreement
as the SPA for that area. This is necessary so that other provisions in the
legislation, such as those governing amendments, annual progress reports,
reviews and monitoring programs, continue to apply to such plans.
A map of the non-CA areas in Northern and Central Ontario may be viewed in
Appendix A ( Click
here ).
Source Protection Regions
To facilitate efficient use of resources and coordination of source water
protection planning, individual source protection areas could be grouped into
source protection regions. Establishing source protection regions would help
ensure that source water protection planning is efficient and effective.
The Minister may make a regulation consolidating two
or more source protection areas into a source protection region, naming the
region and designating a lead SPA for the region (see clauses 99(h) (i) and
(j)).
Table 2 – Proposed Source Protection Regions. ( Click
here )
A map of the proposed source protection regions may be viewed in Appendix B (
Click
here ).
The Appointment of Source Protection Committees
SPAs are required by the legislation to establish a source protection committee
(SPC), or in the case of a source protection region, the lead SPA is required
to establish a SPC for the region. SPCs are intended to be a multi-stakeholder
committee that will be comprised of up to 16 members (including the chair) and
will oversee the source protection planning process.
The details of, and requirements for, the appointment and composition of SPCs
(excluding the chair) will be established by Minister’s regulation and may
include:
- Requirements governing composition of SPCs. The Minister is considering
making a regulation that would require the composition of the SPC to be drawn
from a variety of interested bodies, and requiring a minimum of 1/3rd municipal
representation, 1 member from the general public, 1 member from First Nations
and representatives from agriculture, industry, public health bodies,
non-governmental organizations and others.
- Requirements governing the appointment process of the SPCs. The Minister of
the Environment may establish requirements in the regulations and a set of
guidance material to assist in determining how representatives become members
of the SPC.
For example, the regulation or guidance documents may provide that the SPA and
the SPC chair may consult with local interest groups directly to determine
appropriate representation. The SPA could be required through regulations to
announce the creation of the committee through various media opportunities and
advertise a period when persons may submit a statement of interest to
participate on the committee along with letter(s) of endorsement from
identified stakeholder groups indicating why s/he is a suitable representative
for their group.
Alternatively, a process involving the nomination of potential SPC members
could be developed.
- Authorization for the Minister, on application, to grant exemptions from the
requirements of the regulation concerning the appointment of SPCs, subject to
conditions and restrictions determined by the Minister.
Questions for Public Comment
What processes should be considered in appointing members to the SPC?
For example, should membership be determined at the local level through existing
mechanisms (e.g. agricultural associations shall nominate members to be
considered by the SPA)?
- What is the role of an SPC member – should they be representative of a
sector?
- Should the SPC member be allowed to have alternates?
What level of transparency should be required in the selection and appointment
of members to the SPC and what process should be used to ensure that
transparency?
How should SPCs be composed in order to ensure that they appropriately reflect
the inhabitants/activities of the area?
How should the SPCs govern their rules of operation? Individually developed or
standardized across the province? Explain.
How should the SPC conduct its operations to ensure transparency?
- Should all SPC meeting be conducted in public?
- Should each SPC meeting provide a “public input” session?
- Should the SPC function by consensus or vote?
Should the Severn Sound and Black River watersheds be designated as source
protection areas, requiring the establishment of source protection authorities
for each area or should these areas be included in the larger proposed Lake
Simcoe source protection area?
Contents of the Terms of Reference
The proposed legislation requires all SPCs, in consultation with participating
municipalities, develop a terms of reference to govern the assessment and
planning process for the purpose of ensuring that the SPC has a work-plan in
place for the completion of the assessment report and source protection plan.
It is proposed that the LGIC regulation would include the following provisions
with respect to the content of the terms of reference:
- An identification of the source protection areas to which the terms of
reference applies.
- An initial delineation of the vulnerable areas intended to guide the
establishment of responsibilities for assessment and planning work
- An identification of drinking water threats that impact more than one
municipality within a source protection area/region, and identify those
drinking water threats that originate in one municipality, area or region and
pose a risk in another
- A list of the members of the SPC as appointed by the SPA.
- A list of the working groups proposed to be established by the SPC and
comprised of stakeholders of the areas/regions (e.g. agriculture, industry,
etc) to undertake activities in the preparation of the assessment report and
source protection plan.
MOE would provide guidance on how working groups would be established and how
local stakeholders would participate on such groups.
- Requirements for the content of a work plan for the preparation of the
assessment report and source protection plan for the source protection area,
including:
- list and detailed description of existing studies and reports relating to the
water resources in the source protection area which will be used to inform the
preparation of the assessment report. In compiling the list, the source
protection committee must have regard to the Director’s rules governing the
preparation of the watershed characterization in addition to other components
of the assessment report;
MOE would provide guidance on the type of studies, reports and other
information that should be obtained.
- A detailed description of the additional technical and scientific work that
must be completed to prepare an assessment report. In preparing this
description, the source protection committee must have regard to the Director’s
rules governing the preparation of risk assessments;
MOE would provide guidance on the specific technical and scientific work that
would be needed in order to assist in the preparation of the assessment report.
- A detailed description of roles and responsibilities for the completion of
each component of the assessment report and source water protection plan to be
completed by municipalities, conservation authorities, working groups or
others, accompanied by a description of how the various components would be
coordinated and integrated, including:
- responsibilities would be negotiated in the terms of reference. It is
anticipated that municipalities would be assigned responsibility to lead
assessment and planning in wellhead protection areas and surface water intake
protection zones. However, the regulation may provide that the municipality may
request conservation authorities to do some or all of the work on their behalf.
Responsibility for assessment and planning in respect of highly vulnerable
areas and groundwater recharge areas would be negotiated through the terms of
reference.
- a description of the human resources that will be required to prepare
Assessment Reports and Source Protection Plans for the source protection areas,
including scientific, technical and administrative staff.
MOE would provide guidance on how roles and responsibilities should be
distributed for the purposes of planning (e.g. what persons or bodies are
qualified to undertake specific activities).
- An estimate of the anticipated cost of the additional technical and
scientific work required to support the preparation of the assessment report.
- A description of the process to be used to address drinking water threats
that impact more than one municipality within a source protection area/region,
those drinking water threats that originate in one municipality, area or region
and pose a risk in another. This would include mechanisms and work-sharing
arrangements by municipalities and areas with Great Lakes intakes to
collaborate on assessing and addressing common regional issues and threats
related to the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water.
MOE would prepare guidance on how municipalities should consider addressing
inter-municipal risks to drinking water.
- A timeline with an estimate of the timing for the completion of the required
components of the assessment report and source protection plan.
- Alternate dispute resolution approaches to negotiate issues that may arise in
the assessment and planning process;
MOE would prepare guidance on the suggested alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) approaches that should be considered when negotiating and resolving disputes
that arise during the planning process.
- A description of the consultation process and the outreach and education
activities, including requirements for the SPC to consult with specific persons
or bodies within the area, that will be used during the development of the
assessment report and source protection plan to provide people within the
source protection area with opportunities to become informed and involved in
the processes;
MOE would prepare guidance on consultation processes and outreach and education
activities that the SPC should consider when undertaking consultations.
As well, regulations respecting the terms of reference may set out:
- The required date by which the terms of reference would be submitted to the
SPA.
- In order to ensure that information gathering and sharing is done in
accordance with existing privacy law, the regulation may contain requirements
for the handling of documents and information, including: how data is created,
stored or submitted by an SPA, SPC, municipality, permit official or permit
inspector; the location at which documents or data must be created or stored;
and the format in which documents required by the proposed legislation must be
submitted in.
Questions for Public Comment
Should the process for the development of assessment reports and source
protection plans envision the establishment of working groups to undertake many
of the activities? Should the province provide guidance on their establishment?
Should the province establish minimum requirements?
How should the division of labour for assessment and planning work be
established between municipalities and conversation authorities? It is
anticipated that generally municipalities would be responsible for developing
the technical work required to prepare the assessment report and source
protection plan in respect wellhead protection areas and surface water intake
protection zones. Should this responsibility be assigned by regulation to all
municipalities or only to some municipalities based on serviced population
and/or staff capacity and technical expertise?
How should the province ensure that individuals or groups that are required by
the terms of reference to undertake planning activities in relation to the
preparation of the assessment report and source protection plan (e.g.
characterizing watersheds, producing water budgets) are appropriately
qualified? For example, should the government require a particular level of
education, professional designation or level of expertise / experience?
How much time should be available for SPCs to prepare a terms of reference and
submit it to the SPA?
Purpose
of the Proposal:
As part of the Government's commitment to implement
all of the recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry, the Government is
developing source protection legislation to require that drinking water source
protection plans be developed and implemented across the Province. The proposed
content to be addressed through regulations provides an opportunity to comment,
and therefore assist in the development of source protection regulations.
Other
Relevant Information:
The Ministry of the Environment will be posting fact
sheets regarding the source protection planning process for public comment on
the Environmental Registry. These fact sheets will assist in describing the
process that should be followed when fulfilling the requirements of the
regulations. The feedback gained from these postings will assist in the
development of draft regulations to support the proposed source protection
legislation.
Other
Public Consultation:
During the last two years, the government has gone
through a comprehensive process of developing and consulting on the proposed
framework including:
- In December 2003, the government established two multi-stakeholder expert
committees to provide expertise and assist with the development of provincial
policies for watershed-based source protection planning. Their reports were
posted on the Environmental Registry until February 14, 2005.
- On June 23, 2004 draft text for source protection
planning legislation that addressed the planning aspects of source protection
was posted on the Environmental Registry for 60-days.
- The ministry released a White Paper in February 2004 to describe the planning
components of source protection legislation and the government's intent to
undertake improvements to the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) program.
- In addition, the ministry held seven sectoral roundtables in February 2005,
with a range of stakeholders to solicit feedback on the reports.
- During the month of March 2004, the ministry held eight regional consultation
sessions to solicit feedback on the White Paper which was posted on the
Environmental Registry for 60 days.
Regulatory
Impact Statement:
It is not anticipated that there will be any regulatory
impact at this time as this document merely contemplates the proposed matters
to be addressed in regulations or Director’s rules to support the proposed Clean
Water Act, 2005, Bill 43. MOE will undertake consultations on the legal
drafts of the regulations through the Environmental Registry at a later date.
Comments
should be directed to the following Contact Person:
Greg Mouchian, Policy Analyst
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Ave. West, 11th floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5
PHONE: (416) 314-5134
Additional
material in support of this notice is available by clicking the following
hyperlink(s):
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2005/Table1.pdf
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2005/Table2.pdf
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2005/AppendixA.pdf
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2005/AppendixB.pdf
All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the Ministry if they:
- are submitted in
writing;
- reference the EBR
Registry number; and
- are received by the
Contact person within the specified comment period.
Please Note: No acknowledgment or
individual response will be provided to those who comment. All comments and
submissions received will become part of the public record.