ONTARIO'S
ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA
-
AS IT APPLIES TO SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
by Ryan Brown OCPA Production
Issues Manager
Source
Water Protection
Since the Walkerton water contamination fiasco,
there have been many actions initiated. The election of the Liberal government,
over a year ago came with the promise of the implementation of the recommendations,
stemming from the fabled O'Connor report. Even the recent trial of the Koebel
brothers who were responsible for killing 7 people and making thousands sick,
has brought fragmented source water protection information back into the media.
However, it is difficult to piece the information together as it is an agenda
that is not well understood at the farm level. Even the bureaucrats are being
bombarded with requests and loose mandates, and they don't have a good handle
on it either. Currently, there are two committees whose mandate is to advise the
Minister of the Environment on the source water protection issue. They are called
the Technical Expert Committee and the Implementation Committee. Both have members
participating on the committees that represent the agricultural voice. The two
committees are in the process of accumulating recommendations that will address
water quality and how the implementation of source water protection will occur.
The committees submitted final reports to the Minister in early December. Together,
the two reports contain 261 recommendations and it is the plan of the Ministry
of the Environment (MOE) to post these recommendations for public comment by mid-December
2004. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture (OMAF) plans to sort through the final
list of recommendations and pick out those that directly apply to rural Ontario
and agriculture. Keep in mind that when the source water protection legislation
is complete, it will encompass all businesses that could potentially pose water
contamination threats. Agriculture stands to be most directly affected, as farmers
control most of the land in wellhead and intake zones; however, businesses such
as dry cleaners use products that pose significant threats to ground water contamination
and they will be legislated as well. The legislation for source water protection
is expected to be tabled in the legislature some time in February 2005. Once this
happens, two readings will occur and a normal timeline would result in Third Reading
and Royal Assent by the end of June, 2005, prior to the Legislative Assembly's
summer recess. The next step, which is the regulatory phase, will start to flush
out the particulars for what is actually going to be implemented. This procedure
will probably take the course of six months to one year to complete. This places
us at a spring 2006 completion date for these regulations. One of the early expectations
which will occur as a result of source water protection is the requirement for
some farms to complete a farm water protection plan. Again, to reiterate the Liberal
government commitment, part of the multi-barrier approach to protecting water
at its source would be the completion of these plans. O'Connor also touches upon
mitigation through cost sharing. Building on these two points, one of the key
fundamentals to making this work at the farm level will be the ability to build
on the existing programs to avoid duplication. As an example, how does one package
source water protection and farm protection plans with the provincial Nutrient
Management Act or the 'soon to be announced' national Environmental Farm Plan?
Another key fundamental that has yet to be determined, is the objective of source
water protection. The early definition focused on all contaminants (including
pathogens) and the depletion of water. So, what is the specific threat that is
being addressed? Is it the excessive amounts of pesticides applied, or is it improper
applications? It could be application of a specific pesticide. Are the existence
of manure storages the threat to water or is it the existence of poorly constructed
storages? If the Walkerton situation is the identified threat, then the objective
of source water protection is the control of bacterial contamination. Once this
threat is identified, one would think the process should be fairly straight forward,
right? Unfortunately, this is not the case. Sticking with bacterial contamination
as the threat, there are procedures which can be implemented which will decrease
or even kill the undesired bacteria. This would remove the water quality threat;
however, the process that kills the bacteria has other undesirable side effects,
which include public health and increased greenhouse gas emissions. We may succeed
in reducing the threat in one area only to create a problem in another area, which
also has the commitment from government to reduce and correct. Using nutrient
management as another example, manure incorporation is a better system for optimum
nutrient usage, yet may not be the best mortality situation for dealing with bacteria.
On the other hand, winter spreading may increase pathogen mortality by exposing
them to sunlight and freezing temperatures. However, nutrient losses at this time
of year will be greater due to runoff from spring melts and rains. Once the threat
is established, another key piece to the source water protection puzzle will be
the definition of 'sensitive' areas. As it currently stands, all large farms and
all farms located in these 'yet to be determined' sensitive areas will fall under
the legislation and would need to comply with the regulations. The size of these
sensitive areas would directly impact the number of farms that would be regulated.
A forth element which will need to be examined is the provincial approach of source
water protection and its ability to take localized situations into account. The
point here is that different regions will contain geographic differences that
will impact certain details within source water protection planning. To illustrate,
a farm in Northern Ontario will have a different depth to bedrock measurement
than a farm in southwestern Ontario. Another example would be the nitrogen levels
in ground water; these will vary from region to region. This will have a significant
impact on some of the threat calculations, and it will be very important to have
localized input to address these specific issues. It was mentioned earlier that
there are questions around how source water protection will complement other programs,
such as nutrient management. The Nutrient Management Act was intended to apply
to all farms; however, it currently applies only to newly established livestock
operations and livestock operations that are expanding either into the 300 Nutrient
Unit (NU) category or within the 300 NU category. All existing livestock operations
with more than 300 NU will have to comply by December 31, 2005. The provincial
government has given no indication as to when other farm categories (e.g., existing
livestock operations with less than 300 NU, or farms without livestock) will be
phased in; however, it is completely conceivable that source water protection
legislation could include elements of the Nutrient Management Act, that farmers
would need to comply with. It is also possible that areas of the province not
captured by source water protection legislation, would have municipal by-laws
impose nutrient management regulations on producers. Further concerns in this
area include looking at these specific control measures (i.e. source water protection)
and their affect on programs such as the national Environmental Farm Plan. There
is a concern that these pointed programs will undermine a national stewardship
program like the highly successful Environmental Farm Plan and to further support
this argument, some farm animal groups are threatening to walk away from the Environmental
Farm Plan. Lastly, a potential sticking point in the farm community could be that
of disclosure. Under the O'Connor recommendations, a farm water protection plan
would be a public document. There is still much debate around this issue and there
has been no clarity on whether or not they will remain private (as they have been
in the past), become entirely public or possibly private with some components
available to the public.
Nutrient Management
I am sure by now most of you are aware
of the amendments announced in October, with respect to the Nutrient Management
Act. The deadline dates were relaxed to December 31, 2005 to match up with the
newly available $20 million Nutrient Management Financial Assistance Program (NMFAP).
In order to access this funding, producers who fall within the 300 nutrient unit
category and greater, must submit their nutrient management strategy by March
31, 2005. The NMFAP is retroactive to May 18, 2004 and will share costs of certain
eligible items/projects that will be completed by the end of 2005. The Ontario
Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) is contracted to deliver the funding
program for OMAF All nutrient management strategies for producers that will fall
under this regulation will have to be submitted by July 1, 2005. One of the main
reasons mentioned for the relaxation of the timeline had to do with the announcement
of funding support. There was a realization that it would be unfair to ask for
compliance in July 2005, when government support had not been finalized. There
were natural constraints as well; asking a producer to upgrade or replace non-compliant
manure storage could not complete construction under winter conditions to be ready
for July 2005. Therefore, both government and farm groups worked hard to arrive
at this compromising situation. Up till now, nutrient management regulations have
focused on livestock producers and how they manage the manure they produce. Keep
in mind though that the original intent of nutrient management was regulation
of all nutrients applied to land. Something you may not be aware of was a study
performed in April 2004 in which the George Morris Centre looked at the economic
impacts of nutrient management regulations on the agriculture industry in Ontario.
The analysis examined the compliance costs on different agricultural sectors that
were most likely to be affected by Nutrient Management Act regulations. This definition
would include the field crop industries in Ontario. The categories of particular
interest include the traditional grain and oilseed crops (corn, soybeans and winter
wheat) as well as perennial forage crops. This study developed representative
farm models to understand the potential economic impacts. In the case of cash
crops, four categories were used which included small operations (500 acres) receiving
manure, large operations (1,500 acres) receiving manure, small operations (500
acres) receiving no manure and large operations (1,500 acres) receiving no manure.
The cost of compliance calculations were determined by summing all applicable
costs (both the direct cost of compliance and the indirect costs that may result
from the regulations) for the management options within a representative farm.
The most obvious requirements for cash crop farmer compliance under nutrient management
legislation would be the establishment of 3 meter buffer strips around water ways
and the completion of a nutrient management plan. Taking all the above information
into consideration, the estimated cost of compliance for manure-receiving farms
ranged from $8,447 to $40,000 and $6,447 to $31,500 for non-receiving farms. Keep
in mind that these are average costs that a cash crop farmer would incur when
subject to the Nutrient Management Act. The other conclusion reached from this
study was that when the farm profitability calculation was performed using the
nutrient management compliance expense numbers as part of the liability, the sector
could afford these costs. Of course, this study was completed using much stronger
crop prices then we are seeing now. The study also revealed that the impact of
compliance costs with no resulting profitability or ability to pass on costs would
cause a negative impact on the relative competitiveness of Ontario Agriculture.
This is especially true when looking at U.S. producing commodity states that have
some sort of environmental legislation and accompanying cost share programs. It
is also reasonable to believe that if Ontario is to maintain its current market
share and level of competitiveness, it would require a cost share program of some
kind.
Ontario Farm
Environmental Coalition (OFEC)
OFEC is a group which represents approximately
30 farm groups and is co-chaired by a steering committee of 4 lead groups; the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned
about Resources and the Environment), Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario
(CFFO) and the Ontario Farm Animal Council (OFAC). The mandate of this group is
to take control of Ontario agriculture's environmental agenda. Their activities
have evolved around particular environmental issues and now focus on working groups,
two of which OCPA is an active participant. They are the Water Quality Working
Group and the Nutrient Management Working Group. In addition to OCPA and other
farm groups, these working groups draw on expertise from government, research
and researchers (i.e., University of Guelph), agri-business and environmental
agencies. Recently, OFEC has made a request of OCPA to consider what actions (if
any) would be suggested for regulation for corn producers under the new source
water protection legislation. This request has been taken back to the OCPA Environment,
Technology and Research committee for consideration.
Conclusion
There has been a lot of fragmented information
presented above. It is not really clear how existing legislation will fit with
proposed source water protection, and there are still missing details around the
national Environmental Farm Plan which requires completion for provincial nutrient
management funding. It is the belief of some that nutrient management 'plus' the
Environmental Farm Plan will 'equal' source water protection. However, in light
of the Walkerton tragedy, and the fact that that scenario included an Environmental
Farm Plan, society's view of the situation may show that the stewardship plan
was not enough to stop the tragedy from occurring. As a producer, you should be
collecting as much information as you can. One way this can be accomplished is
to attend information sessions as they occur. The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement
Association (OSCIA) recently hosted sessions (targeted toward the large livestock
producers soon to fall under nutrient management regulation) which clarified information
covered under the recent nutrient management announcement. There is another session
swinging across the province that is being supported by the Ontario Cattlemens'
Association and the Ontario Pork Producers. The intention is to build on the OSCIA
sessions by providing information so their members can make informed business
decisions that are best for the environment and the economic viability of their
farm. As you can see, many associations such as the OCPA are working as hard as
possible to make sure our membership is as well informed as possible about the
issues. If clarification on Ontario's environmental agenda was your reason for
reading this article, then I have probably clouded the waters further. One thing
is for sure; over the next couple of years, there stands to be the convergence
of many initiatives. This should hopefully make life somewhat simpler for those
who will fall under the regulations, whatever they end up looking like.
Reference: George Morris Centre.
2004. Economic Impact Analysis of Nutrient Management. Regulation 267/03.