The Clean Water Act and the Regulated Community - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 13
About This Presentation
Title:

The Clean Water Act and the Regulated Community

Description:

The Clean Water Act. and the. Regulated Community. Henry J. Krupa, LL.M. Counsel, Environmental, Energy and Government Relations ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:36
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: york74
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Clean Water Act and the Regulated Community


1

2
The Clean Water Act and the Regulated Community
  • Henry J. Krupa, LL.M.
  • Counsel, Environmental, Energy and Government
    Relations
  • 2010 Winston Park Drive, Suite 301, Oakville,
    ON., L6H 5R7
  • 905 829 3200 ext 2207, 1 800 636 6927

3
Objective
  • Goal of the Clean Water Act
  • to protect existing and future sources of
    drinking water
  • Regulation Proposal Notice, Environmental
    Registry, April 12, 2007
  • Risk
  • Cloud the authority, responsibility and
    accountability for ensuring the protection of
    sources of drinking water.

4
Issues
  • Key Questions
  • How much land will be impacted and where is that
    land located?
  • What additional restrictions will be imposed?
  • How much will this cost?
  • Who pays?

5
Land?
  • Who will be affected by the CWA?
  • MOE estimate of the total land area that will be
    impacted by the CWA (2 or 2,152,790 ha) is the
    equivalent of
  • 39 of Ontarios total farm area (of 5,466,233
    ha)
  • 59 of Ontarios total crop area (of 3,656,705
    ha)
  • Ministry of Environment presentation, 070126
  • www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/agricultura
    l_summary.pdf

6
Land? (cont)
  • Planning
  • The Source Protection Committee structure heavily
    favours those who benefit, with relatively little
    representation from impacted property owners.
  • It is in the provincial interest (to) balance
    the needs of the agricultural community with
    health, safety and environmental concerns. The
    Farming and Food Production Act, 1998.
  • A laudable objective Report of the
    Walkerton Inquiry, Part II, page 136.

7
Restrictions?
  • Implementation
  • Primacy of the CWA
  • Compliance with existing legislation, regulation,
    approvals, standards and guidelines not
    recognized.
  • Authority
  • RMO can order a property owner to prepare and
    implement a Risk Management Plan.
  • RMO/RMIs can issue further orders.
  • Demands in RMPs/work orders can exceed Provincial
    standards in designated zones.

8
Costs?
  • Planning and Implementation
  • The need for the full disclosure of costs
  • Terms of Reference should require the Source
    Protection Plan to include full disclosure of the
    costs of implementation.
  • Implementations costs of Risk Management Plans
    and other compliance instruments could run into
    the 100s of millions.

9
Costs? (cont)
  • Implementation Infrastructure
  • Costs of download responsibilities
  • CWA continues the practice of downloading
    Provincial responsibilities/costs.
  • Establishes a new level of bureaucracy
  • Land Use Planning
  • Application review, compliance and enforcement
    (RMO/RMIs)
  • Legal services
  • Training and support
  • Administration, insurance and other direct
    operating expenses
  • Recovery of costs
  • Municipalities may charge a fee or add a fee to
    property taxes

10
Who Pays?
  • The Missing Link
  • Failure to consider the costs of implementation
    and who will assume those costs
  • Current year Stewardship Fund provides 7 million
    (2 million is allocated to education and
    outreach).
  • Promised Stewardship Fund multi-year funding
    provides 7 million/year for over 4 years (or
    about 368K/yr/SPA for 19 SPAs).
  • Effective expropriation without compensation.

11
Who Pays? (cont)
  • Sound public policy
  • Where a jurisdiction chooses to locate a
    municipal well in a more vulnerable location, the
    responsibility to protect those supplies should
    lie with the public consuming the water and not
    unduly penalize those within the wellhead
    protection zone
  • Land users need to be assured that any
    alteration in land use beyond normal due
    diligence will be compensated as alterations are
    done in the public interest (emphasis added)
  • Sustainable Well Water Initiative, Well Water
    Sustainability in Ontario, Expert Panel Report,
    January 30, 2006

12
Keys to Success
  • Planning
  • Terms of Reference should require the
    determination of the full costs and consideration
    of who will pay.
  • Implementation
  • Commitment to negotiated solutions and practical
    approaches vs the use of orders.
  • Compensation
  • Link municipal implementation of SPPs and RMPs to
    fair Provincial or other compensation.

13
  • Thank you
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com