Feature: Implementation of the Clean Water Act is dogged by uncertainty and inconsistency

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The Act is due come into force in 2013 and 2014, but no one yet knows how many farms will be affected or how the rules will apply

by DON STONEMAN

As few as 1,500 farms and as many as 2,500 across the province have been identified as "significant threats" to drinking water wells and may be subject to restrictive government policies when the Clean Water Act is implemented in 2013 and 2014.

University of Guelph professor John FitzGibbon, co-chair of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC), describes the timetable associated with developing these policies as "tight."

Local source water committees – and there are 17 of them – "have to develop these plans. They have to get them out and get approval from the municipalities," FitzGibbon says. The plans must be put out for public review and then the Ontario Ministry of the Environment must approve them. A target date of June, 2012 has been set to have this work completed.

According to a database supplied by the environment ministry, normal storage and land application of manure is classified as a "significant" drinking water threat on about 1,000 Ontario farms, says Chris Attema, environmental specialist for Ontario's cattle, sheep and pork organizations. There are about 1,000 farms where grazing livestock is deemed a significant threat to a drinking water supply. On 600-700 farms, application of pesticides is similarly classified. Added to that are a number of locations where septage, treated or untreated, is being spread on farmland near water wells supplying drinking water to communities. (See Table 1.)

"It's almost impossible to get a solid number" on the farms marked as a significant threat because of the way they are reported, says FitzGibbon. One farm may be marked down as a significant threat in more than one category.

If your farm has been identified as a significant drinking water threat, OFEC wants to know about it. Farmers have been asked to contact their local federation of agriculture representative if they have received a notice, but "very few people have done so," FitzGibbon says.

At the end of April, only "one or two" source water committees had not sent letters to farm owners, FitzGibbon says and the manner of notification has been inconsistent from one source water committee to another.  Some farmers have been informed in writing as to the nature of the threat posed by farming their properties. Other farmland owners have just been told that a threat exists and to contact their local conservation authority for details.

Equally inconsistent will be the application of rules dealing with the threats. FitzGibbon says the Halton Region and Toronto Region Conservation Authorities have developed their own "model policies" for keeping drinking water sources clean. Conservation Ontario, which represents conservation authorities across the province when dealing with government, has developed its own model policies.

The Coalition task team is working on developing a framework with its own model policies which "we believe would work for agriculture to deal with these significant threats," FitzGibbon says. The model policies will be passed on to the source water committees by the agricultural representatives.

Ultimately, FitzGibbon says, policies may vary from one source water protection area to another. OFEC, however, does not want to see inconsistencies across the province, as was the case with the patchwork of bylaws provincial municipalities developed to deal with livestock building expansion in the 1990s and early 2000s.

"We figure that if agriculture doesn't put something forward on the agenda, then somebody else will be setting the agenda for us," FitzGibbon says.

OFEC wants "as many existing instruments as possible" to be used to regulate land use around drinking water wells. The Nutrient Management Act is one example of an existing instrument. Another is the Transportation Safety Standards Act for fuel storage on farms.

These instruments "do provide for reasonable assurance that the risks won't manifest themselves," Fitzgibbon says. And they don't impose a huge burden on the farmer. (See Table 2.)

There are no instruments that currently apply to livestock grazing, the application of commercial fertilizer, and the handling and storage of manure for farms that do not have a Nutrient Management Act "record of approval." 

Better Farming asked the environment ministry for its ideas on policies that might be implemented. Ministry spokesperson Kate Jordan mentioned setbacks such as those used in the Nutrient Management Act. She says that farm operations that might threaten wells will likely have to get a nutrient management plan. If they don't already have setbacks from water wells, they will have to develop them.

"How this is going to play out in the planning is not clear," FitzGibbon says. The province released a discussion paper a year ago, but there hasn't been more direction since.

The province and OFEC "are not on the same page about funding," FitzGibbon adds.

The province has refused to consider funding farmers for loss or reduced use of their land because of the Act. The coalition is holding out for some sort of compensation.

"The area that produces the water for the municipal water supply is being treated as a part of the utility," FitzGibbon explains. He believes that it's unfair for private landowners to shoulder that cost themselves. He describes that as "a shared responsibility."

Since the imposition of these rules is "cautionary" and not an indication that actual damage has been done, FitzGibbon says a good argument can be made that farmers should be compensated for actions they take to reduce risk of groundwater contamination. However, the province does not agree, he says.

Just because your farm hasn't been marked as a 'significant' threat to a drinking water source doesn't mean you won't be required to change how you farm in the future. OFEC reviewed the completed reports and points to as many as 10,000 farms and 400,000 acres being classified as "low" and "moderate" threats to drinking water.

Source protection committees have authority to develop policy for these situations but are expected to focus on "significant" threats for now. BF