Changes Made to the Clean Water Act

by Jackie Fraser, Executive Director, AGCare

The Clean Water Act has been amended and as this update was being prepared, was currently moving through Third Reading. Significant concerns remain and the true impact of the amendments is unknown. The devil will be in the details, or in this case, the regulations. However, there is a touch of good news to report.

Agriculture was well-represented in a series of public hearings held in August, with well over half of the presenters speaking on behalf of various provincial and local farm organizations with a fairly consistent message – farmers are obviously supportive of clean water, but please don’t leave us with the entire tab.

Although it may seem subtle, one of the most important proposed amendments is to specify “drinking water” rather than just water in some
places within the proposed legislation. Agricultural stakeholders and others have been concerned that the legislation could be interpreted to protect all water everywhere, which is simply unrealistic.

The system of permits and permit officials that was originally proposed has been replaced with a proposed negotiated risk management approach. As stated by Minister Broten, “this change recognizes the tremendous work that's already being done on a voluntary basis and it is similar to the stewardship activities that are now common in a number of regions.”

The Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Fund has been announced. While the exact use of this Fund has yet to be established, it is at least a step in the right direction. It is not anticipated that the Fund will be used for compensation purposes, but may be useful for researching, promoting, and implementing beneficial management practices (BMPs), technical research, or capacity building.

There is now an opportunity for a Source Protection Plan to set policies around incentive programs, education, and outreach. In agriculture, we know that carrot-type programs, such as the Environmental Farm Plan, are much more effective than stick-type regulations.

There is opportunity for greater public input. The proposed terms of reference and assessment report for each Source Protection Committee will be released for comment prior to approval. While this does not replace a proper socio-economic impact analysis as was requested, it does
allow greater opportunity for landowner input.

Biosecurity issues have been addressed. No one can enter a farm property unless they have received training prescribed by regulation.

Some minor changes that could prove quite beneficial to farmers include changing the wording in a definition from “groundwater recharge area” to “significant groundwater recharge area”. A qualified person other than a “Risk Assessment official” can conclude that an activity is not a “significant drinking water threat”. The length of time one has to appeal a Source Protection Plan has been increased from 15 days to 60 days.

During the public hearings, a few interest groups were asking for the precautionary principle to be embedded in the Clean Water Act. This proposed amendment was defeated. Agriculture has recognized that this isn’t necessary, as the Clean Water Act is only one piece of the multi-barrier approach to protecting water as recommended by Justice O’Connor.

Of course one of our biggest concerns is that the Expropriations Act, which requires compensation, should apply if restrictions are put on farmland. This has not been addressed.

It is interesting that the proposed Clean Water Act set the record for the McGuinty government for the most amendments of any piece of legislation since they came into power over three years ago. Over 100 government amendments were adopted after second reading which speaks volumes about the original problems with the Act.

The proposed regulations will soon be released and agriculture will need to focus very carefully on them. The Premier stood up at the International Plowing Match in Peterborough and admitted they got it wrong and that they need to listen more to farmers and rural Ontarians. Let’s hope they do.