|
5. UPDATE ON THE CLEAN WATER ACT LE
POINT SUR LA LOI SUR L’EAU SAINE
|
Committee recommendations
That Council:
1. Receive this report for information;
2. Endorse the comments from staff previously submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment on the Discussion Paper on Source Protection Committees under the Clean Water Act, 2006;
3. Request
that staff forward to the Ministry of the Environment the minutes of the
committee and Council meetings on this report as further indication of Council’s
position on these matters.
Recommandations du Comité
Que le Conseil :
1. Reçoive
le présent rapport à titre d'information;
2. Entérine les observations précédemment
adressées par le personnel au ministère de l'Environnement de l'Ontario
relativement au document de travail sur les comités de protection des sources
créés en vertu de la Loi de 2006 sur l'eau saine;
3. Demande au personnel de faire parvenir
au ministère de l'Environnement les procès-verbaux des réunions des comités et
du Conseil portant sur ce rapport afin de faire mieux connaître la position du
Conseil sur ces questions.
for the
information of council
The Committee, at its meeting held on 26 April 2007, approved the following direction:
That the Agriculture
and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to the Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority and the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority that the City of
Ottawa have the majority of seats for municipal interests on the Mississippi
and Rideau Valley Source Protection Committee, and be properly represented on
the South Nation/Raisin Source Protection Committee.
POUR
L’INFORMATION DU CONSEIL
Le Comité, à sa réunion du 26 avril 2007, a
approuvé la directive suivante :
Que le Comité de l’agriculture et des
affaires rurales recommande à l’Office de protection de la vallée Rideau et à
l’Office de protection de la nature de la vallée Mississippi que la Ville
d’Ottawa ait la majorité des sièges afin de représenter les intérêts municipaux
au Mississippi and Rideau Valley Source Protection Committee et qu’elle soit
représentée comme il se doit au South Nation/Raisin Source Protection
Committee.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning,
Transit and the Environment dated
5 January 2007 (ACS2007-PTE-APR-0036).
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes 8, Planning and Environment Committee meeting of April 24,
2007.
3. Extract
of Draft Minutes 7, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee meeting of April
26, 2007
Planning and
Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and/et
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité d'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
05 April 2007 / le 05 avril 2007
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment/Service de l’urbanisme, du transport en commun et de
l’environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Dennis Jacobs, Director/Directeur,
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme,
d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613)
580-2424 x 25521, Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°:
ACS2007-PTE-POL-0025 |
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
That the Planning and Environment
Committee and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council:
1. Receive this report for information;
2. Endorse the comments from staff
previously submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment on the
Discussion Paper on Source Protection Committees under the Clean Water Act,
2006;
3. Request that staff forward to the Ministry of the Environment the minutes of the committee and Council meetings on this report as further indication of Council’s position on these matters.
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement et le Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
recommandent au Conseil :
1. de recevoir le présent rapport à titre
d'information;
2. d'entériner les observations
précédemment adressées par le personnel au ministère de l'Environnement de
l'Ontario relativement au document de travail sur les comités de protection des
sources créés en vertu de la Loi de 2006 sur l'eau saine;
3. de demander au personnel de faire
parvenir au ministère de l'Environnement les procès-verbaux des réunions des
comités et du Conseil portant sur ce rapport afin de faire mieux connaître la
position du Conseil sur ces questions.
Provincial legislation to protect sources of drinking water in Ontario has been in the works since 2004, with consultation currently in progress on forthcoming regulations. The inquiry led by the Honourable Dennis O’Connor into the contamination of drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario in May 2000 identified a need for planning to protect sources of water that supply drinking water systems within areas defined by watersheds. In February 2004 the provincial government issued a white paper on this issue and after public consultation and advice from expert panels, it released draft legislation in June 2005. The Clean Water Act was introduced in the provincial legislature in December 2005 and after further opportunities for public input, the revised Act was passed by the legislature on October 19, 2006. The Province is now issuing discussion papers and draft regulations on various related matters.
The purpose of the new legislation is to protect sources of existing or planned municipal systems that provide residential drinking water. Source water can be contaminated by various means, including runoff from land uses in the urban and rural areas; industrial emissions and spills; and petroleum leaks from boats, recreational vehicles, and underground storage tanks. As the legislation has developed over the last three years, the general approach has been towards science-based plans led by Conservation Authorities and developed at all stages with extensive public consultation. The process requires an assessment of risks and potential threats to source water, and development of a plan that is implemented largely by municipalities using a variety of tools, many of which are available under the Planning Act.
The legislation has been fine-tuned as it has progressed, generally focussing the scope of the source protection plans and providing more clarity as to how the plans will be completed. Early discussions on the scope of the plans proposed a broad-ranging look at protection of all sources of surface water and groundwater that could potentially serve as drinking water, but this approach has since been targeted to sources of water for municipally-owned drinking water systems. The City of Ottawa operates the large water system drawing water from the Ottawa River at the Britannia and Lemieux Island water treatment plants, plus four municipal wells providing water to Carp, Munster Hamlet, Vars and Kings Park in Richmond.
A municipal well system serving Shadow Ridge in Greely is under construction and is scheduled to be in operation this summer. These systems will be the focus of the source protection plans for watersheds within the city, although there is an option later in the process to increase the scope of the plans.
Individual source protection plans will be prepared for each of the three watersheds within the city’s boundaries. Under the Clean Water Act, the conservation authority’s board of directors is the source protection authority for a plan that covers the same area as the conservation authority’s geographic area. For administrative reasons, conservation authorities have been combined into source protection regions: Mississippi and Rideau have been combined, with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as the lead; and Raisin Region and South Nation have been combined with the Raisin Region Conservation Authority as the lead. Within each region, the lead source protection authority will establish a source protection committee, which in turn will create a source protection plan for each source protection area in the region.
The source protection committee for the Mississippi-Rideau region will prepare source protections plans for the Rideau watershed, which includes the municipal systems in Ottawa (Britannia and Lemieux Island), Munster Hamlet and Kings Park in Richmond; and for the Mississippi watershed, which includes Carp. Altogether, the region includes 12 municipal systems, including Perth, Smiths Falls, Carleton Place, Merrickville, Almonte, Kemptville and Westport. The two watersheds include 27 upper and lower-tier municipalities and take in a portion of the Counties of Lennox and Addington, Frontenac, Lanark and Leeds and Grenville.
The source protection committee for Raisin Region-South Nation region will prepare plans encompassing the municipal systems in Vars and Shadow Ridge plus 13 other municipal drinking water systems in their two watersheds. Altogether, the two watersheds include 21 upper and lower-tier municipalities and take in the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, a portion of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, and a portion of the City of Ottawa.
Different sizes of source protection regions are to receive different levels of resources, according to a discussion paper posted in January 2007 on the EBR. Raisin Region-South Nation is considered a large region, based on its size and complexity; and Mississippi-Rideau is considered a moderate-size region. The Clean Water Act regulations will stipulate the size of the source protection committees and corresponding levels of resources, based on the size of the region. Large committees are proposed to have 16 members and moderate-size committees are proposed to have 13 members.
The source protection authorities are responsible for creating a source protection committee, and regulations are forthcoming regarding such matters as the composition of the committee, the qualifications and roles of the committee chair and members, and consultation processes. The committees are responsible for:
· creating a Terms of Reference for the source protection plans,
· undertaking a technical assessment report that characterizes the watershed and identifies and assesses risks to the sources of municipal drinking water systems, and
· preparing the source protection plan.
Source protection planning in Ottawa will require staff support for various functions. These include participation in working groups established to support the two source protection regions and the technical work now in progress to complete the assessment reports. These groups will continue to support the source protection committees once they are formed. In addition, Ottawa has been assigned the lead role in the study of the two intake protection zones for the City’s plants at Lemieux and Britannia on the Ottawa River, and other tasks may be assigned in the future. Ultimately, Ottawa and other municipalities will play a lead role in implementing the source protection plans once they are approved by the Province.
The source protection plans will be implemented largely through municipal planning responsibilities for official plans and zoning. In particular, implementation of the plans will likely entail restrictions on activities in areas around municipal wells or at intake points from rivers where there is evidence that the activity poses a significant risk to the drinking water source. Where such activities exist or are proposed, a risk-management approach will be used to identify the measures the owner can take to ensure the source water is protected. This risk-management approach replaces a “building permit” model that was discussed in previous consultations as a possible tool for implementing the source protection plan. The Clean Water Act continues to provide the municipality and conservation authorities the right to access properties to assess risk and monitor implementation of any management measures. The Province has provided more information about the Act and how it affects property rights at http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/cwa-factsheets.htm.
In addition to the move towards risk management, the other significant change in source protection planning since the introduction of the Clean Water Act has been the creation of the Drinking Water Stewardship Program. This fund will provide financial incentives for landowners in wellhead protection areas and intake protection zones to take early action on measures to protect source water. The Province has allocated $7 million dollars to the fund for 2007 with the latest provincial budget pledging an additional $21 million over the following three years (2008-2010). Details on this new program will be released following the report of a citizen advisory panel this spring.
DISCUSSION
Ottawa Council has commented at several stages in the development of the Clean Water Act, raising the following issues:
§
Financial support.
Although the Province has committed approximately $120 million to
support source water protection from 2004 to 2008, the City is concerned about
the costs it will incur to participate effectively in the process and to
implement the plans once they are approved. The funds from the Province to date
are to support the creation of the source protection plans, not their
implementation.
§ Interprovincial relationships. Close to 750,000 Ottawa residents receive their drinking water from the municipal system that draws water from the Ottawa River. The Province needs to lead discussions with Quebec and coordinate management of the resource among all municipalities that take their drinking water from the river. The discussions will need to involve multiple regulatory boards, the National Capital Commission, several provincial departments in Quebec and Ontario, and several federal departments.
§ The need for uniform policies for source protection across the municipality. The City will be implementing three plans within its boundaries and these plans need to set uniform policies. The source protection authorities are aware of this issue and are working with the City to address it.
A series of regulations will be issued over the next year, with opportunities to comment before the regulations are finalized. Among other matters, regulations are expected regarding establishment of the source protection authorities and committees, the terms of reference for the source protection plans, and the assessment report. Staff will continue to comment to the Province on these matters, seeking Council endorsement beforehand where time permits or providing opportunities for additional comments after the fact.
Comments on the Discussion
Paper on Source Protection Committees Under the Clean Water Act, 2006
Document 1 contains a letter sent to the Ministry of the Environment, commenting on a discussion paper on source protection committees, which precedes issuance of draft regulations. Key comments include:
§ The chairs of the two source protection committees acting within Ottawa will need to liaise with each other and in Mississippi-Rideau, will also need to work with Quebec and other municipalities drawing water from the Ottawa River.
§ Municipalities should occupy the majority of seats on the source protection committees, rather than the currently proposed shares of at least one-third municipal members; one-third sectoral members from agriculture, industry or commercial interests; and one-third “other members” representing academics, professionals, residents, and non-government organizations.
§ Given the level of consultation proposed and the number of meetings involved, committee members who are not participating as part of a paid position require compensation for lost earnings, likely a sum greater than the $2500 honorarium proposed. Where committee members are participating as part of a paid position, the employer could incur overtime costs.
§ The consultation process proposed in the discussion paper is extensive and potentially very expensive. The source protection authorities and committees will need professional staff and funds to deliver this program, rather than drawing on municipal resources as suggested.
§ The discussion paper indicates that municipalities will likely be tasked with planning for intake protection zones, wellhead protection areas, and areas with potential to provide future supplies of water. These requirements will create new costs and responsibilities for the City.
The Province has indicated that the Technical Assessment Reports must be completed within two years of appointment of the source protection committee. Given the large amount of work required, the Ministry of Environment has been funding source protection regions to work on components of these technical reports. However, City staff have expressed concern that this work has started before the Province has clearly spelled out its requirements. The Mississippi-Rideau report is targeted for completion at the end of 2008, with the initial watershed characterization component nearing draft completion. The Province recently awarded the Mississippi-Rideau approximately $594,300 to complete a threats inventory and preliminary risk assessment for the intake and wellhead protection zones of its 12 municipal systems.
In addition, the City has received a $178,008 grant to lead the Intake Protection Zone Study of the City’s two surface water intakes on the Ottawa River for Lemieux and Britannia. The City had requested $212,000 for this work. The zones identified in this study will be used to focus the threats and issues assessment, which will be managed by Mississippi-Rideau. The completion of the intake protection zone study is planned for summer 2008, to allow for the threats and issues assessment to be completed before the end of 2008.
The Raisin Region-South Nation has two working groups on intake protection on the St. Lawrence and Ottawa Rivers, and one working group on municipal wells in the interior. It has received $390,000 for a detailed study of the esker that provides water to the municipal systems in Vars and Winchester.
To date, Planning, Transit and the Environment and Public Works and Services have assigned several staff with a broad range of skills and knowledge to participate in the Clean Water Act activities. Staff estimates that the equivalent of two full-time staff positions have been allocated in 2007. In addition to managing the Intake Protection Zone Study of the Ottawa River, Public Works and Services staff is also participating in the Mississippi-Rideau threats inventory and preliminary risk assessment and are keeping abreast of other ongoing work in that region. Staff in Planning, Transit and the Environment is participating in eight projects in the two source protection regions, including participation on working groups on conceptual water budgets, watershed characterization, and threats inventory and preliminary risk assessment. The department is also managing a project to refine the basis for wellhead protection areas in Mississippi-Rideau and has assisted with the data transfer and other work on the Raisin-South Nation esker study. The City will also be represented on the municipal well working group in Raisin Region-South Nation. Senior staff in both departments has been involved in commenting on draft regulations and coordinating City participation in the process; their involvement will increase once the source protection committees are established and as a schedule for inter-governmental discussions is set. Allocation of staff in both departments to this initiative has delayed completion of other projects.
The conservation authorities expect the first set of draft regulations this spring, regarding the establishment of source protection committees and the terms of reference for source protection planning. Once in place, these regulations could permit the creation of source protection committees before the end of 2007.
The conservation authorities have asked for advice from the City on how to select the municipal representatives for the committee. There are more municipalities in each planning area than there are municipal seats at the table; on a “population served” basis, city staff believe Ottawa would warrant at least one of the four municipal seats on the Mississippi-Rideau committee. With only one municipal well in the Raisin-South Nation region, Ottawa is not a large presence but will need to find ways to ensure that plans for this area of the municipality are consistent with plans from Mississippi-Rideau.
Subject to confirmation through the regulations, a combination of open nomination and self-selection (for some sectors) is envisioned to solicit stakeholder and general membership for the source protection committees. Stakeholder groups will be asked to nominate members and provide information about their qualifications. City staff propose, with respect to municipal representation, that a senior manager from Planning, Transit and the Environment or Public Works and Services be nominated to ensure that the committee benefits from their knowledge of the City’s drinking water systems and the planning implications of their decisions.
Although the Clean Water Act and source protection planning in Ontario is targeted towards protecting sources of municipal drinking water, the associated regulatory initiatives and the studies they entail will add to our knowledge of groundwater and surface water within the municipal boundaries.
The Clean Water Act and the process it requires to protect the source of municipal drinking water will safeguard the sources of drinking water in rural communities that draw on municipal well supplies, as well as increase public awareness of the issue through public consultation. Most rural residents rely on private wells as the source of their drinking water. The Clean Water Act will benefit these residents by identifying vulnerable aquifers and recharge areas within the subwatersheds and adding to the City’s understanding of how these areas must be protected. The Clean Water Act also allows municipalities to expand the terms of reference for source protection plans to include additional drinking water systems, and this possibility can be explored once the regulations are issued and consultation begins on the terms of reference for the source protection plans.
Rural residents participating in the City-sponsored Rural Settlement Strategy Workshop on March 24, 2007, raised several issues regarding private wells and servicing options for the rural area and these issues, plus policy options, will be furthered developed as part of the Official Plan Review.
Proposed restrictions on land uses within wellhead protection areas in the rural area have been controversial in the past. Discussions in Ottawa and elsewhere in the province to date have considered such options as restrictions on certain land uses such as gas stations in the wellhead protection areas and risk assessment and risk management regarding intensive livestock operations and fuel and chemical storage on farms.
How these risks will be managed in Ottawa will be subject to public consultation once source protection committees are established and the planning process is underway.
The Province and the conservation authorities have undertaken considerable public consultation on source water protection over the last three years. No additional consultation occurred for this report.
Participation in the Clean Water Act has cost implications for the City now and in the future, costs that will become more clear once the source protection committees are established and the scope of work is defined through the terms of reference. In 2007, the equivalent of two full-time staff positions have been engaged in various aspects of source protection planning; the staff time commitment will increase substantially when staff are called on to participate in working groups, inter-governmental discussions, and public consultations throughout the planning area. Implementation of the source protection plans has been flagged as a municipal responsibility and will require resources to prepare and implement new land use regulations. Staff will continue to raise concern about these municipal costs in their communications with the Province.
Document 1 Letter dated 29 January 2007 to Ministry of Environment
Due to its' technical nature, this
attachment is available in English only. The City of Ottawa may translate this
document or parts thereof on request. Requests for translation should be
forwarded to Judy Flavin at Judy.Flavin@ottawa.ca, by phone: 613-580-2424, ext.
27886 or to the French Language Services Division at DSF-FLSD@ottawa.ca or
613-2424, ext. 21536.
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to provide the minutes of the meetings of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, Planning and Environment Committee and Council to the Ministry of Environment.
LETTER DATED 29
JANUARY 2007 TO MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT DOCUMENT 1
James
Scott, Senior Policy Analyst
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 11th floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5
PHONE: (416) 314-4130 FAX: (416)
314-2976
Thornhill, Ontario L3T 7N4
Re: Discussion
paper on source protection committees under the Clean Water Act, 2006
This
letter provides comments in response to EBR Registry No. PA06E0013 on the
discussion paper on source protection committees, made under the Clean Water
Act, 2006. The Ministry will use
the feedback on the discussion paper to develop regulations and guidance on the
size, appointment and operations of source protection committees. The paper also solicits comments on the role
of the committee in developing terms of reference, assessment reports and
source protection plans, all of which will be the subject of other consultation
leading to regulations.
At the outset, we would like to express our concern about the costs that municipalities will incur as a result of their participation in the process proposed through the Clean Water Act.
The City of Ottawa does not have sufficient staff to complete the tasks and serve the roles suggested in this discussion paper without substantial reallocation of resources, and may need to hire new staff to ensure that the required skill sets are available to participate effectively in the process. While we understand that the Province will fund technical studies through the Source Protection Authority, we are seeking a provincial commitment to fund the municipal costs related to the planning and implementation processes of the Clean Water Act. Provincial funding is critical to our ability to participate fully and appropriately in Source Water Protection planning and implementation.
We have provided general comments below as well as answers to specific questions posed in the discussion paper.
2.1 Size of the Committee
The discussion paper proposes that the size of committees and the resources allocated to it reflect the size and complexity of the source protection region. More information is required regarding the factors used to determine size and complexity. For example, do the factors reflect geography? Number of wells? Number of municipalities? Population dependent on municipal drinking water supplies? Flow rates? The level of resources proposed to be provided to committees of different sizes, in terms of chair remuneration and staff support, warrant a closer examination of these factors.
Relative resource requirements may be more appropriately determined using a sliding scale of several factors (e.g. number of drinking water systems, number of municipalities) rather than division into three categories.
2.2.1 Chair Qualifications
The last bullet listing the chair’s qualifications states, “willingness to travel around the source protection region”. The bullet should read “willingness and ability to travel around the source protection region”.
2.2.4 Chair Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities should reflect the chair’s qualifications described in section 2.2.1, where leadership skills are required. In the fourth bullet delete “Act as a neutral member” while retaining the idea of voting only when breaking a tie vote, and in the sixth bullet add words to the effect that the chair will provide leadership to the committee through the planning process.
An additional responsibility should be added, “Wherever a municipality is located in more than one source protection region or area, the chairs must liaise regularly with the specific goal of ensuring coherence of source protection plans for such municipalities.” Ottawa is part of two source protection regions and it is therefore critical that the two regions and their chairs coordinate source protection activities within the municipal boundary.
The discussion paper states that the chair of the moderate-size committee should spend 2-3 days every 2 weeks working on committee matters. This does not reflect the roles and responsibilities a chair will have in the Mississippi-Rideau source protection region within the City of Ottawa. Additional tasks specific to Ottawa include coordinating the planning between two source protection regions, and possibly liaising with the Province of Quebec and the National Capital Commission. In response to the question on the selection of alternate chairs posed in the discussion paper, we believe the source protection committee should select the alternate chair when replacement is required on a temporary basis.
2.3 Composition of the Source Protection Committee
The municipal members should have the majority of seats on the committee. Municipalities should occupy seven seats in the Mississippi-Rideau region and nine seats in the Raisin Region-South Nation region.
Comments in the City’s letter dated 16 February 2006, responding to the EBR Registry No.RA05E0022, state:
“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 representatives on the SPC.”
2.3.1 Municipal
Please provide a guidance process on how municipal seats are apportioned within a source protection region. The municipalities that have municipal drinking water systems should have priority for membership on the committee.
The comments in the discussion paper on remuneration suggest that the municipal representatives will be either staff or councillors, but clarification would be helpful. Also, see comments under 2.4.
2.4 Qualifications of Members of Source Protection
Committee
City staff agree with the proposal in the discussion paper that members of the source protection committee should be resident or employed in the source protection region.
In a source protection region, it is reasonable that a Conservation authority board member from the non-lead source protection authority should be eligible to serve as source protection committee member. Conservation authority board members on the source protection committee should not be regarded as municipal members.
2.5 Solicitation and Selection of Sectoral and Other
Members
The call for sectoral and other member applications should be as general and accessible as possible. The discussion paper proposes that associations select candidates who meet the membership qualifications, and notes that the association may submit written applications. We propose that more than one association may be approached to nominate a candidate to represent a specific sector and that the final selection should be made by the source protection authority based on the relative qualifications of the candidates. In all cases (association nominations or individual applications) submission of written materials describing the individual’s qualifications and experience should be mandatory.
2.6 Individual Member Responsibilities
Amend first listed responsibility to read, to “prepare for and attend meetings of the committee”.
3.2 Quorum
Participation by teleconference should be permitted only in extenuating circumstances.
3.3 Minutes
Sufficient budget should be provided by the Province to allow for French translation. This is a major expense, affecting all advertisements, web site content and published reports.
3.7 Public Notice and Public Input
The discussion paper proposes that meetings of the source protection committee include a public input session and that records of these representations may be included in the minutes at the discretion of the chair. We suggest that the records of the representations be made available to the public and that the means of doing so be determined by the chair (e.g. available on request from the secretariat, or attached to the minutes, or through some other means).
3.9 Removal of Members
The discussion paper proposes two approaches to removing members from the committee for various reasons (ie, failure to attend meetings, breaching the committee code of conduct.) We support option 1 for removal of members from the committee, which would leave the decision with the source protection authority in consultation with the committee chair and affected member. The alternative leaves the process largely with the committee and could be unduly divisive.
4.3 Chair/Lead of Working Groups
A municipal working group should be established in source protection regions where the municipalities (at least those with municipal drinking water systems) cannot all be members of the source protection committee.
7.1 Chair Financial Compensation
The financial compensation for the chair should be commensurate with the position’s responsibilities. A commitment of 2-3 days every two weeks for the medium-size committees—assuming the job could be done within that time--constitutes a level of involvement that requires more than a token honorarium. Further, the discussion paper sets a high standard for qualifications and a considerable level of responsibility. Altogether, the time commitment, qualifications and responsibilities indicate the need for compensation that reflect these requirements.
All chairs should be paid the same per diem. The responsibilities of the chair do not vary depending on the size or complexity of the source protection region, to the extent suggested elsewhere in the paper (i.e., that a medium-size committee requires one-half the level of effort of a large committee and a small committee requires one-quarter the level of effort.) Payment on a per diem basis will allow total compensation to vary with actual time commitment rather than arbitrary categories. If required for budgeting purposes, caps could be set (e.g. $X for large; 70%X for moderate; 50% X for small).
7.2 Member Financial Compensation
The Province makes no provision for the cost of participation of members who are participating as a function of their paid employment. Municipalities will be charged considerable overtime for staff to attend evening meetings and public consultations at distant locations within the source protection region. The City acknowledges that staff travel costs are to be compensated, but requests that the Province also fund the staff time.
Members of the committee who are not attending as part of their responsibilities in a salaried position with another organization should receive compensation for lost earnings on a per diem basis. An annual honorarium of $2,5000 is unlikely to compensate for lost earnings.
7.3 Support Person Stipend
The discussion paper proposes that large regions have a full-time support person, medium-size regions have a half-time support person, and small regions have a quarter-time support person. However, many of the functions of the support person (ie, the taking of minutes, scheduling meetings, administering claims) will not change to the extent suggested in the paper, regardless of whether the committee is 10 members (small) or 16 (large).
7.4 Travel Expenditures
The discussion paper proposes that authorities set compensation for travel to align with existing standards of practice for committees, or to align with the Ontario Public Service standards where no other standard exists. The City supports this approach.
It is understood that the remaining sections 8-10 of the Discussion Paper are intended primarily to stimulate discussion on the role of the source water protection committee in leading the preparation of the terms of reference, assessment report, or source protection committee. The proposed contents of these documents will be the subject of a future posting on the Environment Registry.
8.1 Consultation / Communications
The discussion paper proposes that municipal communications staff may be used to manage and facilitate this process. The proposed consultation is significant (see below) and will require staff assigned to this function, as well as the provincial funding for the process indicated in the discussion paper.
8.1.1 Terms of Reference Consultation, 8.1.2 Assessment Report Consultation, 8.1.3 Source Protection Plan Consultation
The proposed consultation is extensive and potentially very expensive. The “watershed community” described in the discussion paper is geographically dispersed in many regions and difficult to reach through published notices and information meetings. While the discussion paper indicates that adequate and appropriate notification is required, further clarification of these terms is needed. The committees will need to have the flexibility to construct a consultation program that meets the needs of their regions, rather than being bound to a province-wide program. For example, the four staged consultations proposed for the assessment report might be more effective if reformatted to combine more than one stage in one consultation. Also note that although the City is working hard to facilitate high-speed internet access throughout its rural area, portions of the rural community lack this access and web-based consultation does not serve everyone.
8.2 Work planning, 8.2.1 Work planning for Vulnerable Areas and Future Municipal Supply Areas
These sections make clear that the source protection authority and committee will assign tasks and deliverables to the municipality. These responsibilities will require additional staff time and most likely the hiring of new staff and consultants. The City objects to this downloading of responsibilities and re-iterates the statement made in its letter dated 30 January 2006, responding to the EBR Registry No.AA05E0001, that the City demands that the Province provide sufficient funding or funding capability to pay for the proposed downloaded responsibilities.
This letter will be presented to for endorsement at a future meeting of Council’s Planning and Environment Committee and additional comments may be forwarded to you as a result of that meeting. If you would like to discuss these comments further, please contact me at (613) 580-2424 extension 25521or Carol Christensen at (613) 580-2424 extension 21610.
Dennis Jacobs
Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy
Planning, Transit & the Environment