4. COMMENTS ON THE
DRAFT TECHNICAL RULES - ASSESSMENT REPORT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006 AND RELATED TOPICS COMMENTAIRES
SUR LES RÈGLES TECHNIQUES PRÉLIMINAIRES – RAPPORT D’ÉVALUATION EN VERTU DE LA
LOI DE 2006 SUR L’EAU SAINE |
AGRICULTURE
AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That
Council receive
this information report on the draft Technical Rules for the Assessment Report.
RECOMMANDATION DU
COMITÉ DE L’AGRICULTURE ET DES QUESTIONS RURALES ET DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET
DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
Que le Conseil prenne connaissance
du présent rapport d’information sur les règles techniques préliminaires
concernant le rapport d’évaluation.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report Planning, Transit
and the Environment dated 12 September 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0024).
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and / et
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Comité de l'agriculture et des questions rurales
and Council / et au Conseil
12 September 2008 / le 12 septembre 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Carol Christensen, Manager, Environmental
Sustianability Branch, Economic and Environmental Sustainability/Direction de
la viabilité économique et de la durabilité de l’environnement
(613)
580-2424 x 21610, Carol. Christensen@ ottawa.ca
Report Recommendation
That the Planning and Environment
Committee and Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that Council receive
this information report on the draft Technical Rules for the Assessment Report.
RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement et le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales
recommandent au Conseil de prendre connaissance du présent rapport
d’information sur les règles techniques préliminaires concernant le rapport
d’évaluation.
BACKGROUND
Since 2005, technical studies which will form Assessment Reports have been underway and are in progress or completed by the Conservation Authorities. Moving forward, Source Protection Plans are to be prepared by multi-stakeholder Source Protection Committees commencing in December 2008 (The Committees were established in October 2007 and including Councillors Cullen, Leadman and Doucet from the City of Ottawa).
In Ottawa, two Source Protection Committees will prepare Assessment Reports and Source Protection Plans. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Committee will prepare plans associated with the City’s surface water intakes at Britannia and Lemieux and the groundwater municipal systems serving Carp, Munster and King’s Park subdivision in Richmond. The Raisin-South Nation Source Protection Committee will prepare plans for the groundwater municipal systems serving Vars and the Shadow Ridge subdivision in Greely.
Since 2005, the City of Ottawa has dedicated significant resources to participate in and respond to the Province of Ontario’s source water protection planning process.
The following are City activities to date:
§ Completed wellhead protection studies of the Vars, Munster, King’s Park (Richmond) and Carp municipal well supplies (capital costs funded by the Province, studies managed by City staff);
§ Initiated studies of the intake protection zones for the City’s two raw water intakes on the Ottawa River (capital costs funded by the Province, studies managed by City staff);
§ Provided staff to a number of technical committees in the two source protection areas;
§ Provided detailed comments at all opportunities provided by the Province;
§ Provided regular reports to both the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, including presentations to Advisory Committees
§ Convened a meeting between the City of Ottawa, Ville de Gatineau and the Ministry of the Environment to encourage cooperation;
§ Councillors Cullen, Leadman and Doucet were appointed as the City’s representatives to the two Source Protection Committees within Ottawa’s boundaries.
Reports brought forward to Committee are listed in Document 1. Reports have provided background on the process, provided opportunity for Councillor input into the process and documented the City’s input in response to the public consultation process as documents are posted by the Province on the Environmental Registry.
On June 20, 2008, the Province posted a number of documents under three separate notices on the Environmental Registry and for a 45-day comment period ending August 4, 2008:
|
Registry Number |
Title of Notice
|
|
Technical rules proposed to be made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 to establish
requirements related to the preparation of an assessment report. |
|
|
Proposed Assessment Reports regulation made under
the Clean Water Act, 2006 |
|
|
Proposed Definitions of Words and Expressions Used
in the Act regulation made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 |
|
Document Title |
|
Summary of Clean Water Act, 2006 Technical
Rules: Assessment Report
|
|
Draft Definitions of Words and Expressions Used in
the Act Regulation |
These documents can be found at the following web address:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2008/drinking%20water/index.html
Staff have prepared a summary of the Clean Water Act process and the proposed rules for the Technical Assessment Report – Document 2.
Included in the Provincial documents is the most relevant technical document yet released by the Province - the Draft Technical Rules: Assessment Report. This document provides direction on the methodologies for determining significant risks to drinking water. The identification of a significant risk (and therefore the methodology used) is one of the most important elements of the source protection planning process. Once identified, these risks will be considered by the Source Protection Committees in the preparation of the Source Protection Plans. The Clean Water Act 2006 requires that all significant risks cease to be significant risks and that the recommendations of the Source Protection Plans be incorporated into the City’s Official Plan.
City staff, in co-operation with the two local Source Protection Regions, reviewed the documents as posted to the Environmental Registry and prepared and submitted detailed comments within the required time period. A letter of transmittal and comments were forwarded to the Ministry on August 4, 2008 (Document 3 and 4).
As in past instances where the response timing requirements did not allow for direct input from City Council, the notice to the Ministry advised that City staff comments would be reviewed and endorsed by City Committee and Council and that additional comments may follow.
DISCUSSION
Overall Process Summary
The Province of Ontario has been steadily implementing the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry, many of them through the Clean Water Act 2006 and the related drinking water source protection initiatives.
As noted in the Environmental Registry postings:
“The purpose of the Clean Water Act,
2006 is to protect existing and future sources of drinking water, as part of an
overall commitment to human health and the environment. The Act requires the
preparation of assessment reports
that assess the vulnerability of drinking water sources and threats to those
sources, as well as the preparation of source
protection plans that set out protection policies. Assessment reports and
source protection plans will be prepared by the source protection committees.
The supporting regulations and
technical rules for the Clean Water Act, 2006 are being developed in phases.”
The Province has established a time frame for the source protection planning process:
- The Clean Water Act 2006 and its first five regulations came into effect July 2007;
- The first regulations defined Timelines and Source Protection Areas and provided rules for developing Source Protection Committees and Terms of Reference
- The Source Protection Committee Chairs were appointed August 2007 (fact check required);
- The Terms of Reference for the Source Protection Committee must be submitted to the Province for approval by October 20, 2008;
- The Assessment Reports must be submitted for approval within one year of the Terms of Reference being approved (approx. December 2009);
- The Source Protection Plans must be submitted to the Province for approval by August 20, 2012.
The Assessment Report and the Source
Protection Plan
The two principal documents which will encompass all of the source protection planning process are the:
Assessment Report: Through a prescribed technical process including risk assessment and professional judgement, the Assessment Report will identify significant risks to drinking water. This is achieved firstly by the determination of the land area which contributes water to the drinking water source – wellhead protection areas for groundwater sources and intake protection zones for surface water sources. With the area defined, land use is reviewed and a determination of significant, moderate or low risk for conditions or activities on that land is made:
§ “conditions”: known existing conditions which pose a risk to drinking water e.g. known contaminated lands close to a drinking water source;
§ “activities”: land use where permitted uses may pose a risk to drinking water e.g. a landfill site close to a drinking water source.
Source Protection Plan: Will contain land use planning policies and risk reduction strategies such that:
“(in) an area where (a condition or) an activity is or
would be a significant drinking water threat:
i. Ensuring that the activity never becomes a
significant drinking water threat.
ii. Ensuring that, if the activity is being engaged
in, the activity ceases to be a significant drinking water threat.”
(Clean Water Act,
2006, Section 22.2)
The policies in the Source Protection Plan must be adopted by the municipality through amendment of the Official Plan.
The Province has yet to release supporting documents providing the draft rules and methodologies for the preparation of the Source Protection Plan.
Assessment Report: Draft Technical Rules
The main subject of this Committee Report is the City’s comments to the public consultation process for the Draft Technical Rules for preparation of the Assessment Report. The Draft Technical Rules were posted to the Environmental Registry on June 20, 2008. Comments prepared by City staff were submitted to the Ministry on August 4, 2008 (Documents 3 and 4).
With publication of the Draft Technical Rules, a number of the City’s long standing concerns have been reinforced. These concerns have been stated in previous Reports to Committee and submissions to the Province:
§ Ottawa River boundary issues: A significant amount of work is and will be completed to identify threats to the City’s surface water drinking water sources in the Ottawa River. Under the draft rules, that effort will only be completed within the geographic boundary of the Rideau source protection area. Possible threats, and possibly greater threats, immediately across the Ottawa River in Gatineau and further upstream on the both sides of the Ottawa River are not being investigated. (City comment as submitted: Request Ministry action and assistance on this matter.);
§ No direction regarding “clusters”: The Clean Water Act 2006 allows municipalities to designate areas serviced by private wells to fall under the requirements of the Clean Water Act 2006 including preparation of Assessment Reports and inclusion in the Source Protection Plan. The Province has provided correspondence promising guidance on this matter and has advised municipalities to wait for guidance before considering the designation of areas as clusters for inclusion in the process.
With many privately serviced Villages in the City of Ottawa, this is an important issue. (City comment as submitted: Delay approval of Terms of Reference for the Source Protection Committee until direction on clusters is provided and the City can advise the Source Protection Committee.)
§ City participation: A significant level of effort has been expended by the City through provision of staff resources to participate in the source water protection planning process. Also, there have been a number of instances where work has been completed, then the Province has directed changes to the process resulting in a requirement to repeat work and duplicate staff involvement. Looking ahead, municipalities will bear increasing costs to participate in the process and implement the resulting Source Protection Plan requirements. In particular in Ottawa, there are concerns that the two Source Protection Regions will ultimately produce Source Protection Plans with differing requirements – resulting in time consuming implementation steps at the City. (City comment as submitted: Ensure sustainable funding for implementation of source protection initiatives – no downloading.);
The comments as submitted include the issues noted above (Document 4). In addition, the cover letter to the comments brings specific attention to the issues noted above (Document 3).
Publication of the Draft Technical Rules has raised a number of specific and technical issues. These are outlined in detail in the comments provided to the Ministry (Document 4) and include the following general issues:
- Technical and jurisdiction boundaries: The Province has established Conservation Authorities as the responsible organization and Source Protection Areas as the limits of the planning process (the source protection areas are typically the Conservation Authority watershed, and in some instances with additional areas – as example in Ottawa the surface water intakes are included in the Rideau Source Protection Area). Where technically defined areas extend into adjacent source protection areas, the Source Protection Committees will work together on a Source Protection Plan.
Where technically defined areas extend outside of any Source Protection Region, the Clean Water Act does not provide any authority for implementing source protection planning policies. As noted above for surface water intakes on the Ottawa River, significant threats to drinking water sources may not be identified or managed through the present process. Also for groundwater drinking water sources, the technical boundaries of the groundwater resource may not match the surface water boundaries of the Source Protection Area. Each of these results in potential limitation of the effectiveness of the eventual Source Protection Plans.
(City comment as submitted: For the Ottawa River, action by the Province. For groundwater, new technical rules directing technical definition and analysis of groundwater resources which extend outside of the Source Protection Area. See comments under Part I.2 on page 1, 16(1) on page 4, 42 and 70(1)(b) on page 8, 85 on page 9)
- Changes require work to be redone: Through the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region, the City is managing studies to define the intake protection zones for the City’s surface water intakes at Britannia and Lemieux. These studies commenced in advance of the Draft Technical Rules, but with a Terms of Reference approved by the Province.
The Draft Technical Rules present a methodology which is different from the Terms of Reference – additional work will need to be completed, some work will need to be redone and additional funding will be required.
(City comment as submitted: Request the Province confirm the current Terms of Reference. See comment under “Agreement” on page 3);
- Climate Change: The Draft Technical Rules require consideration of climate change, however there is no specific direction on how climate change should be considered.
(City comment as submitted: Provide more direction. See comment under 18 (13) on page 5).
- Process and Timing: The City’s submission includes comments on matters, which, in the opinion of staff, will require either additional clarification by the Ministry or additional time for studies to confirm issues in order to prepare an effective Source Protection Plan. Presently, many processes are proceeding under strict time lines without finalization of legislation or rules, or without a full understanding of important technical issues.
In the formative stages of source protection planning 2001-2004, the Province promoted a process of continuous improvement and a science based approach. The present establishment of strict time lines in advance of conclusion on how work is to be completed and subsequently completion of that work is not in keeping with this intent.
(City comment as submitted: The current process including the Source Protection Plan should focus on real and certain risks. Uncertain risks should be subject to monitoring and additional investigation and future source protection planning processes. See comment under 9.2(f) on page 3 and the climate change reference noted above)
- Inclusion of Treated Drinking Water Quality in Source Protection Planning: The Draft Technical Rules required identification of “issues” in treated drinking water. Add a bit on multi City staff consider this to be a matter under other drinking water management and regulation processes.
(City comment as submitted: Remove the requirement. See comment under 108 on page 11.)
The comments provided by the City also include requests for clarification, advice on terminology and wording to promote understanding, notice of typographical errors and other minor issues.
Other Provincial Documents
Three notices and six documents were posted to the Environmental Registry June 20, 2008. The principal document is the Draft Technical Rules: Assessment Report.
The City reviewed the other documents and where appropriate provided comments:
- Summary of Clean Water Act, 2006 Technical Rules: Assessment Report: This is a summary document – no comments.
- Tables of Drinking Water Threats : A significant concern was identified: that in requiring municipalities to remedy threats to drinking water, the municipality may be put in a position of imposing control of hazardous products which are subject to Provincial and Federal control. (City comment as submitted: The Source Protection Plan must not effectively download Provincial and Federal responsibility.)
- Mapping Symbology for the Clean Water Act, Version 3.0: No comments
- Draft Assessment Reports Regulation: Minor comments on clarity of definitions
- Draft Definitions of Words and Expressions Used in the Act Regulation: No comments
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Publication of draft Regulations by the Ministry, and commenting on those Regulations, does not have a direct environmental implication. There are, however, overall environmental and public health implications of the Clean Water Act 2006 process, of which the published draft regulations are part.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
Publication of draft Regulations by the Ministry, and commenting on those Regulations, does not have a direct rural implication. There are, however, overall rural implications of the Clean Water Act 2006 process, of which the published draft regulations are part.
CONSULTATION
City staff consulted with the two area Source Protection Region staff.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Publication of draft Regulations by the Ministry, and commenting on those Regulations, does not have a direct financial implication. There are, however, overall financial implications of the Clean Water Act 2006 process, of which the published draft regulations are part. This report has noted that considerable staff time is being dedicated to participation in the process.
As directed by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee motion approved by City Council on 9 July 2008, the Deputy City Manager has written to the Premier requesting funding for municipal staff participation in the Drinking Water Source Protection process. A copy of the letter is attached as Document 5. The Premier has acknowledged receipt of the letter and asked the Minister of the Environment or a member of his staff to respond directly.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Listing of Previous Reports to Committee
Document 2 Staff Summary of the Clean Water Act Process
Document 3 Letter of Transmittal
Document 4 Detailed comments
Document 5 Letter to Premier Dalton McGuinty
DISPOSITION
That City staff notify the Ministry of the Environment that staff comments to Environmental Registry postings as submitted August 4, 2008 have been reviewed, including any amendments, by City Council.
LISTING OF PREVIOUS REPORTS TO COMMITTEE DOCUMENT 1
Terms Of Reference For Drinking Water Source
Protection Committees /
Cadre de Référence pour les Comités de
Protection des Sources d’Eau Potable
ACS2008-PTE-ECO-0017
PEC June 24, 2008 http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?elist=9668&lang=en
ARAC June 27, 2008 http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?elist=10020&lang=en
Ottawa Representation On Drinking Water Source Protection Committees /
Représentation d’Ottawa au Sein Des Comités de Protection des Sources d’Eau
Potable
PEC October 9, 2007, http://www.ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=8494&lang=en
ARAC October 11, 2007, http://www.ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=8417&lang=en
Update on the Clean Water Act / Le Point Sur La Loi Sur L'eau Saine
PEC April 24, 2007, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=8483&lang=en
ARAC April 26, 2007, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=8403&lang=en
Proposed Matters To Be Addressed In Regulations To Support The Proposed Clean
Water Act, 2005 / Sujets proposés à aborder dans les règlements visant à
appuyer l’avant-projet de Loi sur l’eau saine, 2005
PEC March 28, 2006, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=6542&lang=en
ARAC March 23, 2006, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=6633&lang=en
Proposed CLEAN WATER ACT, 2005
(BILL 43) / Avant-Projet de Loi Sur L’eau
Saine, 2005 (Projet De Loi 43)
PEC January 24, 2006, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=6539&lang=en
ARAC January 26, 2006, http://ottawa.ca/cgi-bin/docs.pl?Elist=6631&lang=en
Other Resources
Mississippi – Rideau
Source Protection Region: http://www.mrsourcewater.ca/welcome/index.html
Raisin – South Nation
Source Protection Region: http://www.yourdrinkingwater.ca/funding_programs.htm
Conservation
Ontario: http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/
Ministry of the
Environment – Clean Water Act: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/water/cleanwater/index.php
STAFF SUMMARY OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT PROCESS DOCUMENT 2
Summary Document
Drinking Water Source Protection including
Draft Technical Rules – Assessment Report
This summary is
provided to facilitate overall understanding of the Drinking Water Source
Protection process and leading up to the Draft Technical Rules: Assessment
Reports posted to the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry June 20, 2008 (EBR Registry Nos. 010-3866, 010-3873 and
010-3893). City staff submitted
comments on the EBR postings to the Ministry on August 4, 2008.
1. Introduction
Following the
Walkerton incident, where a municipal drinking water system became contaminated
causing loss of life, the Province of Ontario embarked on a process of
investigation, reporting and legislation part of which resulted in the Clean
Water Act. The Clean Water Act
promotes the protection of source water supplies as part of a multi-barrier
approach to the delivery of clean drinking water in Ontario.
The Clean Water
Act requires that certain municipal drinking water systems in the Province
prepare an Assessment Report and a Source Protection Plan and that the
provisions of the Source Protection Plan be represented in the municipal
Official Plan. All of the municipal
drinking water systems in the City of Ottawa fall under these requirements.
The Province assigned
the administration of the responsibility for preparation of the Assessment
Report and the Source Protection Plan to Conservation Authorities across the
Province and to Source Protection Committees formed for that purpose. Within the geographic boundaries of Ottawa,
the Province formed two Source Protection Regions:
§
Mississippi Rideau Source Protection
Region: Includes the Carp, Munster and Richmond
(King’s Park) municipal drinking water systems as well as the Lemieux and
Britannia facilities. Councillors Alex
Cullen and Christine Leadman sit on the Source Protection Committee
§
Raisin South Nation Source
Protection Region: Includes the Vars and Greely (Shadow Ridge)
municipal drinking water systems.
Councillor Clive Doucet sits on the Source Protection Committee
2. Source Water Protection
The principles of
source water protection can be summarized as:
- Identify the source of water
for municipal drinking water systems
- Identify existing threats to
the source water and mitigate risk
- Identify future threats to the
source water and prevent risk
- For both existing and future
conditions, water quality and water quantity are considered.
Step 1: Identify specific land areas
- Identify a surface area over
land which contributes source water to a municipal drinking water system:
- A “wellhead protection area”
for well supplies
- An “intake protection zone”
for surface water supplies
- Inventory existing and historic
uses of that land within those areas to identify existing potential risks
to drinking water
- Inventory permitted uses within
those areas to identify possible future risks to drinking water
- Identify other important areas
- groundwater recharge areas and highly vulnerable groundwater aquifers
and identify risks in those areas
Step 2: Make an assessment of the degree of risk
(“significant”, “moderate”, “low”)
- Based on land area, locations
closer to the municipal intake are considered to have higher risk
- Based on land use, uses which
would pose a greater health threat are considered to have higher risk
- Based on land condition,
conditions which would transmit contamination are considered to have a
higher risk
The Province has
mandated the use of the “precautionary principle”. Where there is uncertainty, a higher level of risk is or may be
assigned.
The above constitutes
the Assessment Report process.
The next step in
applying the principles is to develop plans and policies including policies for
land use so that existing significant risks are mitigated and future significant
risks are prevented – the Source Protection Plan process as described in the Clean
Water Act Section 22. The Province
has not released a similar set of “Rules” for the Source Protection Plan
process.
3. Draft Technical Rules: Assessment
Report
Introduction
3.1 Water
Budget (Part III of the Draft Technical Rules)
3.2 Water
Quantity (Contributing Area Risk Level (Part IX) and Drinking Water Threats:
Water Quantity (Part X))
3.3 Groundwater
Vulnerability (Part IV)
3.4 Wellhead
Protection Areas – Water Quality (Part V, VII, IX, X)
3.5 Intake
Protection Zones – Water Quality (Part VI, VIII, XI)
3.6 Highly
Vulnerable Aquifers and Significant Recharge Areas (Parts IV, V, VII)
Introduction
On June 20, 2008 the
Province released a suite of documents, the principal document being the Draft
Technical Rules: Assessment Report. The
documents provide direction on fulfilling the requirements of the Act Section
15: Assessment Reports. The City’s
comments on the documents were submitted to the Ministry on August 4, 2008.
The Draft Technical
Rules: Assessment Report is a complex technical document which describes the
full range of requirements under the Act and for all drinking water systems
meeting the requirements of the Act.
The “Rules” can be better understood by keeping the above outline in
mind and, for the City of Ottawa, keeping the following points in mind:
§
The
City of Ottawa has municipal supplies based on groundwater and based on surface
water. There are different draft
technical rules for each.
§
Drinking
water systems are classified into “types”.
All systems in the City of Ottawa are “type I” – only relevant Rules
apply
§
Intakes
for surface water supplies are also classified into “types”. All surface water intakes in the City of
Ottawa are “type C” – only relevant Rules apply
The organization of
information in Chapters in the Draft Technical Rules can be confusing:
§
Some
Chapters provide information on groundwater systems, some information on
surface intake systems, and some for both.
§
While
included together in Chapters related to groundwater, “highly vulnerable
areas”, “significant recharge areas” and “wellhead protection areas” are
distinct characterizations related to groundwater, of which the Rules
associated with wellhead protection areas are more relevant to the City of
Ottawa and the requirements under the Act.
Certain terms are
used repeatedly for different reasons and inconsistently throughout the Rules:
- As noted above, there are more
than one “type” of drinking water system.
- “Vulnerable” is used to
describe areas (vulnerable areas) and physical conditions (highly
vulnerable aquifers) and risk (contributing area vulnerability,
vulnerability score, vulnerability category)
- “Threats” is used to describe
land use (the Table of Drinking Water Threats) and risk assessment
(“significant, moderate or low drinking water threats”)
- The terms “significant”,
“moderate” and “low” apply to threats assessment and watershed stress
level; the terms “significant” and “moderate” apply to activities
impacting water quantity; the terms “high”, “medium” and “low” apply to
groundwater vulnerability and the terms “high” and “low” apply to
uncertainty analysis
The remainder of this
summary describes, in a basic sense, the requirements under the Rules. The summary does not follow the order of the
eleven Parts (chapters) in the Rules but instead lays out the overall process
to determine significant, moderate and low threats to the water quality and
quantity of source water serving municipal drinking water supplies.
(The Ministry of the
Environment has provided a similar, more comprehensive summary:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2008/drinking%20water/Summary%20of%20Clean%20Water%20Act,%202006%20Technical%20Rules%20Assessment%20Report.pdf)
3.1 Water Budget (Part III)
The Draft Technical
Rules prescribe a process of assessment of water budget and an assessment of
any water budget stresses. Increasingly
detailed procedures are required in any subwatershed containing a surface water
intake or well and where there is a moderate or significant stress level.
§
A
“conceptual water budget” is prepared for the whole watershed (one each for the
Rideau, Mississippi and South Nation watersheds – there is no requirement to
prepare a water budget for the Ottawa River).
The conceptual water budget uses available data (Rule 18)
§
A
“subwatershed water budget”, also known as a Tier One Water Budget, is prepared
for each subwatershed. The subwatershed
water budget uses available data (Rule 19)
§
A Tier
Two Water Budget is prepared for each subwatershed that contains an intake for
a municipal drinking water system – a surface water intake or wells. The Tier Two Water Budget requires
development of computer models of existing conditions (Rules 20-23)
§
A
“contributing area water budget”, also known as a Tier Three Water Budget, is
prepared for each subwatershed which contains an intake for a municipal
drinking water system (a surface water intake or wells) and where there is a
subwatershed stress level of moderate or high.
The Tier Three Water Budget requires development of computer models of
existing and future conditions (Rules 24, 25)
§
A
subwatershed stress level is established based on consideration of stress level
scenarios listed in Table 1- Watershed Stress Level Scenarios (e.g. drought
periods, future conditions, etc.) (Rules 26-33)
§
In
determining stress level, uncertainty in the available data, calculations
methods, etc. is assessed and uncertainty is characterized as “high” or “low”.
The characterization of uncertainty of water budget stress level is
subsequently used to characterize wellhead protection areas (e.g. Rule 55, Rule
76) (Rule 34, 35)
3.2 Water
Quantity (Contributing Area Risk Level (IX) and Drinking Water Threats: Water
Quantity (Part X))
Similar to Water
Budget are consideration of risks to water quantity in Parts IX and X. These Parts apply to both surface intake
systems and well systems.
Part IX -
Contributing Area Risk Level is an assessment of the ability of a subwatershed
with a surface intake or well to sustain sufficient water supply for all uses
under a wide range of conditions including a two year period of drought and a
ten year period of drought. A risk
level of “significant”, “moderate” or “low” is assigned to the subwatershed
(Rules 94 – 102, Table 4 - Exposure Scenarios).
Where a risk level is
determined to be moderate, the risk level may be elevated to significant by
consideration of uncertainty (Rules 103, 104).
Part X – Drinking
Water Threats: Water Quantity and Table 5 lists activities which may impact
water quantity and compares those activities to the risk level established in
Part IX. Where there is an activity
that takes water in a contributing area with a risk level of significant (to
sustained water quantity), the activity is deemed to be a significant threat to
water quantities (Rules 105-107, Table 5: Water Quantity Drinking Water Threats
and Significant Drinking Water Threats).
Once the process of assignment of threats in concluded,
threats will be considered in the Source Protection Planning process which will
ensure potential significant activities never becomes a significant drinking
water threat and existing activities cease to be a significant drinking water
threat.
3.3 Groundwater Vulnerability (Part IV)
The Draft Technical
Rules prescribe a process of assessment of groundwater vulnerability throughout
the watershed. The assessment of
groundwater vulnerability uses existing data and desktop calculation methods
related to ground conditions such as soil type, depth to bedrock, etc. (Rules 36, 37)
The assessment of
“high”, “medium” or “low” vulnerability category is subsequently used to
delineate and assign “vulnerability scores” to sub-areas within wellhead
protection areas, areas of significant recharge and areas of vulnerable
aquifers (Rule 42, 80, Table 2: Wellhead Protection Area Vulnerability Scores).
In addition, the
inherent vulnerability based on ground conditions may be increased due to
anthropogenic factors termed “transport pathways”. Transport pathways are possible shortcuts within a vulnerable
area for contaminants to reach an aquifer (Rules 38-40).
(The consideration of
transport pathways for surface water systems increase the extent of the
vulnerable area, not the degree of vulnerability – Part VI.6)
3.4 Wellhead
Protection Areas – Water Quality (Part V, VII, IX, X)
In the City of
Ottawa, the Villages of Carp, Munster, Vars, Richmond (Kings Park) and Greely
(Shadow Ridge) obtain source water from groundwater and will require
establishment of wellhead protection areas.
Each will require policies to protect source water in those areas.
For each of these
municipal drinking water systems, the wellhead protection areas are within the
Source Protection Region (a different condition exists for the surface water
intakes in the City).
Each requires,
according to the Rules:
Vulnerable areas
- the delineation of successive
and nested wellhead protection areas (WHPA- A, which is inside WHPA-B,
etc.) – generally time of travel to the intake (2 years, 5 years, etc.)
(Rules 47)
- within each area, showing
sub-areas of vulnerability categories “high”, “medium” or “low” (Part IV)
- the assignment of vulnerability
scores to a maximum of 10 being a cross reference between vulnerability
category and the individual WHPAs as shown in Table 2: Wellhead Protection
Area Vulnerability Scores
- the higher the vulnerability
and the closer to the well intake, the higher the score with 10 being the
maximum score (a land area with a “high” vulnerability category within
WHPA-A scores 10)
Activities that are threats within
those areas
- the identification of drinking
water quality threats, being either activities or conditions within the
areas (Table of Drinking Water Threats)
- the assignment of threat
categories of “significant”, “moderate” or “low” threat based on the
Tables of Drinking Water Threats (the Table lists 18 “activities” such as
“storage of pesticide” and “waste disposal site” and assigns a threat
category based on the vulnerability score from above)
Once the process of assignment of threats in concluded,
threats will be considered in the Source Protection Planning process which will
ensure potential significant activities never becomes a significant drinking
water threat and existing activities cease to be a significant drinking water
threat.
3.5 Intake Protection Zones – Water Quality
(Part VI, VIII, XI)
The source water
intakes supporting the Britannia and Lemieux Island facilities will require
establishment of intake protection zones and policies to protect source water
in those zones.
For these systems,
parts of the intake protection zones fall outside of the Source Protection
Region (upstream on the Ottawa River) and outside of the Province (in Quebec),
where there are no requirements under the Act to consider threats to drinking
water
Each requires,
according to the Rules:
Vulnerable areas
- the delineation of successive
and nested intake protection zones (for Type C intake):
o
IPZ –
1 is a 200 m semi-circle upstream (Rule 64)
o
IPZ –
2 is the water surface area 2 hours upstream, and 120 m onto adjacent land
(Rule 67 - 69)
o
IPZ –
3 is the water surface in the watershed upstream of the intake, and 120 m onto
adjacent land (Rule 70)
o
Extension
of the area of IPZ - 2 or IPZ – 3 considering transport pathways such as
drainage systems (Rules 71 – 74)
o
(The
consideration of transport pathways for well systems increases the degree of
vulnerability of the area, not the extent of the area – Part IV, Rules 38,40)
o
IPZ
Q1/Q2 are unique areas within the above areas and related to the subwatershed
stress level established in Part III (Rule 76)
- The determination of vulnerability scores for IP zones, to a
maximum of 10, being a product of:
o
an
area vulnerability factor calculated as described in the Rules and generally
related to proximity of the area to the intake and characteristics of the land
area in the IPZ (factor between 7 and 10) (Rules 87-91)
o
a
source vulnerability factor calculated as described in the Rules and in Table 3
and related to factors such as the depth of the intake below the water surface
(factor between 0.8 to 1) (Rules 92, 93, Table 3 – Source Vulnerability
Factors)
Activities that are threats within those areas
- the identification of drinking
water quality threats, being either activities or conditions within the
areas (Table of Drinking Water Threats)
- the assignment of threat
categories of “significant”, “moderate” or “low” threat based on the
Tables of Drinking Water Threats (the Table lists 18 “activities” such as
“storage of pesticide” and “waste disposal site” and assigns a threat
category based on the vulnerability score from above)
Once the process of assignment of threats in concluded,
threats will be considered in the Source Protection Planning process which will
ensure potential significant activities never becomes a significant drinking
water threat and existing activities cease to be a significant drinking water
threat.
3.6 Highly
Vulnerable Aquifers and Significant Recharge Areas (Parts IV, V, VII)
The Draft Technical
Rules state requirements for delineation of areas and assessment of risks for
highly vulnerable aquifers and significant recharge areas similar to the
requirements for wellhead protection areas (the rules for all three areas are
included in the same Parts but differentiated here for clarity).
Vulnerable Areas
- the delineation of areas
- highly vulnerable aquifers are
the area beneath land having high groundwater vulnerability as determined
in Part IV (Rule 42)
- significant groundwater
recharge areas are areas which, in the determination of water budgets in
Part III, demonstrated above average annual groundwater recharge rates
(Rule 44)
- within each area, showing
sub-areas of vulnerability categories “high”, “medium” or “low” (Part IV)
- for each sub-area, the
assignment of vulnerability scores as described in Rule 78, 79 and 80 with
scores ranging from a maximum of 6 to a low of 2
Activities that are threats within those areas
- the identification of drinking
water quality threats, being either activities or conditions within the
areas (Table of Drinking Water Threats)
- the assignment of threat
categories of “significant”, “moderate” or “low” threat based on the
Tables of Drinking Water Threats (the Table lists 18 “activities” such as
“storage of pesticide” and “waste disposal site” and assigns a threat
category based on the vulnerability score from above)
Note that the lowest
possible vulnerability score to determine an activity to be a moderate threat
is 7 and the maximum vulnerability score within highly vulnerable aquifers and
significant recharge areas is 6.
Therefore, activities within highly vulnerable aquifers and groundwater
recharge areas will not be considered moderate (or significant) threats. The policies of the Source Protection Plan
will not speak to these areas.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DOCUMENT 3
Keith Willson, Manager, Source Protection Approvals
Ministry of the Environment, Drinking Water Management Division
Source Protection Programs Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1L5
Re: Technical Rules proposed to be made under the Clean Water Act, 2006 and related topics (EBR 010-3866, 010-3873 and 010-3893)
This letter provides comments in response to EBR Registry Nos. 010-3866, 010-3873, 010-3893 all related to the preparation of an Assessment Report as proposed to be made under the Clean Water Act, 2006.
The City of Ottawa continues to support the Province’s initiatives to protect the sources of drinking water. Attached you will find detailed comments in response to the EBR postings.
We also ask that you give careful consideration to some of the
following broader comments
1. Ottawa River Considerations
1.1: The Act, Regulations and these Technical Rules recognize the unique boundary situation faced by municipalities in Source Protection Regions and obtaining drinking water from the Great Lakes and Connecting Channels. We face similar issues in Ottawa, where the source water for the City’s central system is the Ottawa River
The City of Ottawa has two concerns:
§ Areas upstream on the Ottawa River and in an area which might be considered the IPZ – 3 are outside of the source protection area and will not be investigated, nor are those areas subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
§ Areas in the Province of Quebec and which might be considered IPZ–1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 are outside of the source protection area and will not be investigated.
The City of Ottawa and le Ville de Gatineau, in partnership with Ministry and Source Protection Region staff have attempted to commence a dialogue related to the very specific transboundary issues shared by Ottawa and Gatineau.
On February 10, 2008, Ian Smith, Director Source Protection Programs Branch, and other Ministry staff attended a meeting in Ottawa where issues were discussed among staff from Ottawa, Gatineau, public health bodies and source protection region staff.
The City of Ottawa is prepared to take a lead role in these issues, however we require the direct leadership and involvement of the Ministry to effectively engage Ontario stakeholders and transboundary stakeholders who share the Ottawa River as a drinking water source.
1.2: The City of Ottawa entered into an agreement with the Ministry of the Environment regarding the scope and cost of IPZ studies. The agreement included provisions to limit the extent of the definition and characterization of IPZ – 3.
The Technical Rules would require the City to
complete work not anticipated in our agreement with the Ministry, and at
additional cost.
2. Climate
Change
We acknowledge and support the
importance of including consideration of climate change to possible impacts on
drinking water threats. However, the manner
in which climate change has been inserted into the Technical Rules (18.13) is
inadequate and possibly divisive and confusing.
We request that the Ministry
give a more detailed consideration, including the preparation of a discussion
document, as to how climate change should be considered in the Clean Water Act process. Effective consideration and any planning for
possible impacts and adaptation resulting from climate change require an
integrated and coordinated approach.
3.
Private Systems and Clusters
In the City of Ottawa we have
22 Villages with private wells and septic systems, two Villages with public
water and private septic systems (Vars and Manotick) and one Village with
public sewer and private wells (Richmond).
In addition we have a number of moderately densely developed nodes,
business areas, etc. in the rural area.
Our ongoing ability to comment
effectively on current processes including commenting on the Terms of Reference
for the Source Protection Plan is being limited by a lack of understanding of
the role and authority of municipal Council, the Source Protection Committee
and the Director in specification of systems.
On this matter, we also
encourage the Province to consider and implement initiatives including
financial assistance programs to help ensure that the large number of Ontarians
including approximately 80,000 residents in the City of Ottawa who rely on
individual private wells are provided with an improved level of protection as
anticipated by the Clean Water Act for our central and Village municipal
systems. Here in Ottawa, our Rural
Clean Water Program is a good example of how targeted investment can have a
great impact on the integrity of rural private water supplies and source water,
however the municipality’s abilities to fund – or consider expanding – such
programs is very limited.
4. Municipal
Costs
Finally, we wish to state
again our concerns regarding the on-going and significant costs being incurred
by the City of Ottawa and the many other municipalities in Ontario who have
been required to participate in the source water protection process.
At this point in the process,
we have accepted that the Province will not fund the cost of municipal
participation in preparation of Assessment Plans.
However, the process to
implement the Clean Water Act is at a turning point – Assessments Plans
are being completed and Source Protection Plans are commencing. This is an opportune and appropriate time
for the Ministry to inform Ontario municipalities regarding how the significant
costs of participation in preparation and then municipal implementation of
Source Protection Plans will be funded by the Province.
Thank you for your careful
consideration of our comments and recommendations. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (613) 580-2424 x 21610 and Carol.Christensen@ottawa.ca.
Carol Christensen, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Environmental Sustainability
Planning, Transit and the Environment
DETAILED COMMENTS DOCUMENT 4
Comments on behalf of the City of Ottawa
EBR Registry Nos. 010-3866, 010-3873 and
010-3893
This memo provides comments on five documents all in response to EBR Registry Nos. 010-3866, 010-3873, 010-3893. The City of Ottawa has provided important general comment in a cover letter to this submission.
Technical Rules – Assessment Report
Consultation Draft June 2008
The following comments bring attention to issues of concern to the City
of Ottawa. They are followed by
editorial comments.
Part I: General
Part I provides an overview of the content of the Assessment Report and
references the Parts and the Rules in the document.
Part
I.2: Assessment Report Contents
The organizational structure for the Province’s implementation of the Clean Water Act is based on watersheds and Conservation Authorities. Section 15 of the Clean Water Act limits the responsibilities of source protection committees in a number of ways, including:
- The source protection committee for a source protection area must prepare an assessment report for the source protection area (Section 15(1)); and,
- All surface water intake protection zones (IPZs) and wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) within a source protection area must be identified in the assessment report (Section 15(2)(e));
- Similarly, Rule 5(1), 36 and other Rules suggests a limit to the extent of vulnerable area definition to “across/within the source protection area”.
The City’s two surface water intakes are in the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River watershed upstream of the City of Ottawa is approx. 95,000 square kilometres and extends well outside of the source protection areas for the local Source Protection Region. Only 3% of the watershed, being the Mississippi River watershed, is within the local Source Protection Region. Sixty-five% of the Ottawa River watershed is in the Province of Quebec.
If the Rules for establishment of IPZ – 1 and IPZ – 2 are extended across the Ottawa River into Quebec, the vulnerable areas would encompass historic industrial developments, urban lands, golf courses, a horse racing facility, etc., all in the Province of Quebec.
Technical Rule 70 would require parts or the whole of the watershed to be identified as IPZ-3. The City of Ottawa has specific concerns regarding potential threats upstream on the Ottawa River and in Ontario – existing waster treatment plants and the nuclear facility in Chalk River are examples. However a complete inventory of threats as defined in the draft Technical Rules for the whole of an IPZ-3 on the Ottawa River is not practical.
The City of Ottawa has concerns that a significant level of effort will be undertaken to establish IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 areas in Ontario, however potential real risks to source water quality will not be investigated or regulated. Also that a significant level of effort could be spent delineating and investigating risks throughout IPZ-3.
The City has attempted to address this concern and initiated a meeting between representatives from Quebec and representatives from the Ministry. On February 10, 2008, Ian Smith, Director Source Protection Programs Branch, and other Ministry staff attended a meeting in Ottawa where issues were discussed among staff from Ottawa, Gatineau, public health bodies and source protection region staff. There have been no specific actions following the meeting and the City requests that the Ministry of the Environment use its authority to initiate discussions with the Province of Quebec on these matters.
In a similar, though not as serious, matter related to Source Protection Region authority, water for Vars is obtained from the Morewood Esker, which also provides water to a number of other municipalities.
The Raisin – South Nation Source Protection Authority is preparing a study of the esker complex and may find that the complex extends across or outside the Source Protection Area.
Agreement with the Ministry regarding scope of IPZ studies:
The City of Ottawa entered into an agreement with the Ministry of the Environment regarding the scope and cost of IPZ studies. The agreement was to consider local contributing area and identify any chronic or point sources of contamination, as well as to develop monitoring and sampling plans, should point sources be identified. Given the geography of our entire watershed, we consider this was a reasonable approach to identification of risk to source water. This methodology was consistent with the 2006 Guidance Module 4 – Surface Water Vulnerability Analysis.
For Type C intakes (inland rivers) the Draft Technical Rules and in particular Rule 70 direct the City of Ottawa to delineate IPZ-3 as the area which “may contribute water to the intake.” The Draft Technical Rules would require the City to complete work not anticipated in our agreement with the Ministry, and at additional cost.
Rule 9.2 (f), and related Rules – Uncertainty Analysis:
The City of Ottawa has considerable concern regarding the Rules, methodologies and instruction provided for “uncertainty analysis”.
In particular, we find that the Rules do not provide for the spirit of the Guidance Modules, as exampled by the following quote from Guidance Module 6 regarding “additional data collection and/or analysis within the current planning cycle, or provide focus for the continuous improvement plan to improve the level of confidence (and uncertainty rating) for these areas within future planning cycles.”
The Rules do not make any reference to planning cycles or continuous improvement and provide direction on how the Assessment Report can maintain a focus on real identified threats and defer actions regarding uncertain threats to a future planning cycle.
We also have concern that an apparently technical process, in making a determination of “low uncertainty”, may be misleading to non-technical participants and stakeholders in the process. Also, that the application of an “uncertainty” factor to an already complex technical processes of factors and considerations will be cause for considerable confusion. In addition we have concern that there will be inconsistent application of determination of uncertainty across the Province.
Rule 9.2 (g): and related Rules – Uncertainty Analysis:
This rule requires the statement of rationale advising an element of the preparation of the Source Protection Plan under Section 22 of the Act. It is inappropriate for the work completed as part of the Technical Assessment to undertake or make recommendations regarding work in the Source Protection Plan. Please consider rephrasing this clause by removal of “the rationale” and replacing with:
“…is or would be significant, elements to consider at the preparation of
the Source Protection Plan if it would be advisable…”
Part II – Watershed Characterization
Part II describes, in general terms, the elements which will be
included in the characterization of the watershed.
Rule 16 (1): Boundaries of the Watershed
The organizational structure for the Province’s implementation of the Clean Water Act is based on watersheds and Conservations Authorities. The Rules for watershed characterization include requirements to show watershed boundaries.
Groundwater resources to not always mirror watershed boundaries. The characterization of the “watershed” should include information about groundwater resources in addition to that required under Rule 17 and include mapping of geological features of aquifers even if those features extend outside of the watershed and the Source Protection Area. The information would better represent groundwater resources, and be of benefit in Part III – Water Budget.
Part III – Water Budget
Part III describes the calculation of conceptual, Tier One, Tier Two
and Tier Three water budgets, watershed stress levels and uncertainty analysis.
We understand there is no requirement to prepare a water budget for the area contributing to the City’s surface water intakes on the Ottawa River.
Rule
18 (13): Climate Change
We acknowledge and support the
importance of including consideration of climate change to possible impacts on
drinking water threats. However, the
manner in which climate change has been inserted into the Draft Technical Rules
(18.13) is inadequate and possibly divisive and confusing.
We request that the Ministry
give a more detailed consideration, including the preparation of a discussion
document, as to how climate change should be considered in the Clean Water Act process. Effective consideration and any planning for
possible impacts and adaptation resulting from climate change requires an
integrated and coordinated approach.
We propose that the Ministry
consider that possible risks related to climate change are encompassed by the
uncertainty analysis and the sensitivity analysis already provided for in the
Rules. Perhaps some additional instruction
by way of a Rule to consider increased scope of sensitivity analysis could
substitute for the current requirements and not raise concerns and confusion
regarding each Source Protection Region’s interpretation of requirements. (See also comment under Rule 29(3))
Rule 24: Contributing
Area
The Rule states that a Tier Three Water Budget decision is based on the stress level in the subwatershed where the surface water intakes or wells are located. In the case of wells drawing water from a confined aquifer, esker, etc. the contributing area may be in a different subwatershed and possibly outside the source protection area. The direction to prepare a Tier Three Water Budget should, presumably, be based on the stress level in the contributing area and the Rules should allow for such an assessment. This comment reflects on previous comments on Section I.2 and Rules 16 and 17.
Rule 29 (3): Stress
Level in Subwatershed
The City of Ottawa supports the concept and recommends expanding the use of the concept of sensitivity analysis over uncertainty analysis. We fully understand and recognise, and have provided considerable input to Technical Committees on the matter, that the two are different. However, we consider that the current phase of planning including our concerns regarding the public’s understanding of the source water protection process would benefit from adopting a focus on a mathematically defined sensitivity analysis as a methodology to establish a “risk” factor similar to that anticipated by uncertainty analysis.
For example, the Ministry would make a Rule whereby “envelopes” of sensitivity analysis are completed using the available data. The envelope would then be used to determine if a risk assessment should be elevated. The concept is easy to explain (“we increased values by 10% and the score changed”) and will be better understood by members of the public who wish to participate and provide input.
Also, there are no parameters provided for the sensitivity analysis (as in Rules 33, 34 and 35).
Rules 33 (4), 34, 35:
Uncertainty
The consideration of “uncertainty” applies only to Rule 33 (4) and an option to assign a stress level of “moderate” where all previous analysis has indicated that a stress level of “low” should be assigned. The Rules do not provide specific direction on the consideration of “sensitivity”, the term “suggests” and how “factors” should be considered. The Rules appear to use the terms “sensitivity” and “uncertainty” as the same term. The lack of proper technical definitions and resulting confusion is not worth the minimum potential for increased safety of source water by elevating stress level. (See also comment under Rule 9(2)f)
Table 1 – Watershed
Stress Level Scenarios
The Official Plan of the City of Ottawa contains land use plans for a period of 20 years. Table references to “25 years” should be adjusted to “20 years or the term of the present municipal Official Plan” (Also under Rule 18(13)).
Part IV – Groundwater Vulnerability
Assessment
Part IV references methods to calculate
groundwater vulnerability and provides a scoring methodology to determine high,
medium and low vulnerability. The Part
also describes a process to increase vulnerability based on transport pathways.
We understand that the assessment of vulnerability of groundwater within the Source Protection Area is aimed toward an eventual consideration of land use and threats within the source protection area. However, there may be threats outside the Source Protection Area, and in particular for groundwater where recharge areas are remote.
Rules 38, 39, 40: Increase in Vulnerability
We understand that there is no regulated requirement to include consideration of vulnerability increase due to transport pathways.
Rule 40: Increase in Vulnerability
Rule 40 provides inadequate direction regarding factors to be considered. This may lead to inconsistency of interpretation and confusion. A document similar to the Table of Drinking Water Threats could be prepared. As an example, in Ottawa and across the Province, there is the question whether wells drilled into an aquifer represent preferential pathways for contamination from surface – such a factor could easily be quantified and advice provided.
Part V – Delineation of Vulnerable Areas (groundwater)
Part V describes the methodology to determine wellhead protection
areas. Also methodologies to determine
areas of highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas.
Rule 42: Vulnerable Area is over a Vulnerable Aquifer
Rule 42 should be extended to note that the vulnerable aquifer, as first identified by Rule 42 as an area beneath an area of high groundwater vulnerability, is the geological and geophysical extent and function of the aquifer.
Rule 52: Type II and
Type III Systems
If relatively few properties are involved, the methods suggested in Rule 52 are considered appropriate. However, if a large development area in a village environment is considered, the requirements of Rule 52 may not be appropriate.
Part VI –
Delineation of Vulnerable Areas – Surface Water IPZs
Part VI describes the methodology to determine Intake Protection Zones
– 1, 2 and 3. The Part also describes a
methodology to increase areas based on transport pathways.
Rule 70(1)(b): Delineation of IPZ 3
The Rule requires that the limits of IPZ-3 for an inland river system (i.e. type C intakes) be established as the area that "may contribute water to the intake". Section 70(2)(a) further requires that, where the area delineated abuts land, "a setback of not more than 120 m inland along the abutted land...that encompasses the area where overland flow drains into the surface water body " be included in IPZ-3.
In the case of the City of Ottawa intakes, the upstream watershed encompasses an area of approximately 95,000 square kilometres (larger than the Province of New Brunswick) with countless rivers, lakes, streams and drainage areas. Defining IPZ-3 within an area this large and assessing vulnerability is impractical and would far exceed what would be considered a reasonable and appropriate level of effort.
The MOE and the City of Ottawa had previously agreed to use a Local Water Contributing Area approach to delineate IPZ-3, wherein IPZ-3 would encompass an area outside IPZ-2 that may contribute to chronic or storm event based contaminant loadings that may reach the intake, and may include one or more subwatersheds or sewersheds. IPZ-3 would include areas with known chronic issues only, and would not include areas where a spill event could potentially occur or may have occurred in the past. In the event that there are no known chronic issues, there would be no need to delineate IPZ-3.
As noted in comments on Part I.2 above, further clarification is needed on the specific regulatory requirements to include or exclude areas outside of the Source Protection Area in the Assessment Report, and the flexibility for the Source Protection Authority to consider related issues
Rules 71, 72: Transport Pathways
We understand that there is no regulated requirement to include consideration of transport pathways.
We have commented previously regarding the extent of IPZ-3 for the Ottawa River intakes. Conducting any inventory of transport pathways in this area would require a tremendous level of effort and results would have a high level of uncertainty.
Part VII – Vulnerability (groundwater)
Part VII provides a methodology to assign vulnerability scores within
wellhead protection areas. Vulnerability is related to risk to source water
quality. Scores of between 1 (low
vulnerability score) and 10 (high vulnerability score) are calculated and are
subsequently used in risk assessment.
No comments.
Part VIII – Vulnerability (surface
water)
Part VIII provides a methodology to assign
vulnerability scores within Intake Protection Zones. Vulnerability is related to risk to water
quality. Scores of between 1 (low
vulnerability score) and 10 (high vulnerability score) are calculated and are
subsequently used in risk assessment.
Rule 85: Vulnerability Score
We have commented on the unique situation
regarding intakes on the Ottawa River but not being categorized as / considered
the same as Type B intakes. Given the
size of the IPZ – 3 outside of the City of Ottawa and the proportion of flow at
intakes derived from inside the area under the authority of the Source
Protection Authority (generally the Mississippi River), the listing of areas
within the Source Protection Area and the determination of vulnerability scores
may provide little benefit to source water protection.
Part IX – Contributing Area Risk Level
This part describes a methodology to determine significant, moderate
and low risks (not threats) to continuous water quantity for both surface water
intakes and wells. The Part also
describes a methodology to increase the risk category based on uncertainty.
We do not understand the rationale behind identification and use of the term “contributing area” and the associated assignment of a different risk level and uncertainty analysis compared to risk and uncertainty as assessed in delineating vulnerable areas and establishing vulnerability factors and risks in vulnerable areas:
- The definition of contributing area is similar to but not equivalent to the concepts and definition of IPZs and WHPAs;
- The subtleties of those differences do not seem to justify the additional level of effort and possible confusion which may result in comparison to the possible potential for increased safety to drinking water;
- Other examples include:
- Determination of WHPA-QI included both a stress analysis similar to scenarios listed in Table 4 and further a sensitivity analysis;
- For surface water intakes in the City of Ottawa, Rule 98 relates Part IX to the work to be completed in preparation of a water budget. Other rules and in particular Rule 4 and agreements between the Ministry and the City release the requirement for the City of Ottawa to prepare a water budget or delineate IPZ -3.
Part X – Drinking Water Threats – Water Quantity
This part describes a methodology to determine significant, moderate and low threats to water quantity for both surface water intakes and wells.
This Part provides a methodology to determine threats to drinking water and in this case significant and moderate threats to water quantity.
Table 5 provides a straightforward methodology to use the derived information to establish significant and moderate threats and demonstrates the type of clarity in procedure which would benefit other aspects of the Rules.
However and as noted in previous comments, we find the methodologies to delineate areas, then apply uncertainty to those methodologies, then apply risk to be confusing and the assessments of “uncertainty” or “risk” to be redundant.
Table 5 – Column 1: Along with the definition of “consumptive activity” and “reduces infiltration” the activities listed will result in a list of very common activities being considered “significant threats”. For column 1, a quantification or range of quantification of “consumptive activity” (perhaps 1% of water budget) and “reduces infiltration” (perhaps by greater than 20%) would benefit the analysis by helping identify real threats to quantity.
Part XI – Drinking Water Threats –
Water Quality
This part describes a methodology to determine significant, moderate and low threats to water quality for both surface water intakes and wells. Threats include “activities” on land and “conditions” on land.
Rules
108, 109 (and 126, 133): Issues in Treated Water
We are not clear on the purpose of the Rules or the use of the information developed by detailing “issues” as treated water quality. The inclusion of rules pertaining to raw and treated water quality implies a departure from the concept of “source water protection”. In addition, the frequency of water quality sampling as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act does not lend itself to trend analysis. And depending on the purpose of these rules, other parameters may be more relevant to treatment of raw water, such as phosphorous – which promotes algae growth and may affect the treatment process, taste and colour of treated water.
We anticipate this rule will result in a significantly longer list of significant threats across a larger vulnerability area. Clarification is required where natural conditions result in exceedance of the ODWQS in a surface water intake or well, the frequency of ODWQS which would trigger an issue, etc.
Table of Drinking Water Threats
The majority of Part XI provides direction on the use of the Table of Drinking Water Threats in assigning significant, moderate or low drinking water threats. We have a number of concerns with the Table and the methodology:
- The majority of drinking water threats listed in the Table of Drinking Water threats constitute regulated activities, in particular the management, handling, storage and use of materials.
Section 22.2(5) of the Act requires policies regarding the monitoring of significant activities. We have concerns that, through the source water protection process, preparation of the source protection plan and implementation of the source protection plan, the Province is essentially downloading responsibilities under other Acts related to hazardous products, material handling, transportation of goods, etc.
- Threat activities listed in the Table are prescribed at a contaminant level according to “circumstances” which may require detailed site investigation (e.g. “in quantities that result in concentrations of <0.5 units per acre). This level of on-site investigation was not anticipated to be required to determine threats.
- The Table lists activities but not land uses. A similar tool is required so that land uses can be assessed accordingly.
- The Table does not list transportation corridors as threats. The assessment report should identify transportation corridors and inventory materials being transported in corridors.
- The Part requires a comparison of the activities listed in the Table within defined vulnerable areas. “Highly vulnerable aquifers” and “significant groundwater recharge areas” are vulnerable areas. The lowest possible vulnerability score to determine an activity to be a moderate threat is 7 and the maximum vulnerability score within highly vulnerable aquifers and significant recharge areas is 6.
Therefore, activities within highly vulnerable aquifers and groundwater recharge areas will not be considered moderate (or significant) threats. The assessment will require a considerable level of effort, however the policies of the Source Protection Plan will not speak to these areas.
The previous comments brought attention to issues of concern to the City of Ottawa. The following comments are editorial in nature, but considered important to the clarity and consistency of the document.
General Terminology: We find terminology both inconsistent and confusing throughout the document. Examples include:
- There are more than one “type” – intakes and systems
- “Vulnerable” is used to describe areas (vulnerable areas) and physical conditions (highly vulnerable aquifers) and risk (contributing area vulnerability, vulnerability score, vulnerability category)
- “Threats” is used to describe land use (the Table of Drinking Water Threats) and risk assessment (“significant, moderate or low drinking water threats”)
- The terms “significant”, “moderate” and “low” apply to threats assessment and watershed stress level, the terms “significant” and “moderate” apply to activities impacting water quantity, the terms “high”, “medium” and “low” apply to groundwater vulnerability and the terms “high” and “low” apply to uncertainty analysis
- Part IV makes reference only to “high, medium or low”. Table 2 uses the term “vulnerability category”. Should the term be used in Part IV?
- Rule 24 uses the term Tier Three Water Budget different from the section title. Should terminology be consistent? Should the first sentence read “A contributing area water budget, also known as a Tier Three Water Budget…”
Part I.1 – Definitions: A more comprehensive listing of definitions would benefit the document. (We also note the separate Regulation titled Definitions, but only containing four definitions.)
Rule 4: This rule provides an exception to the City of Ottawa by inclusion of the Ottawa River along with other major bodies of water / river in the Province. This is an example of the issue noted above, the concerns on behalf of the City of Ottawa regarding Assessment Report requirements and land area outside of the Source Protection Region, where the Ministry has recognized the unique aspect of the Ottawa River. Other Rules need similar recognition and provisions (e.g. Rule 85).
Rule 9: Reword “An assessment report shall include as a minimum the following.”
Title Part I.4: State only as “Uncertainty analysis” as is typical in Part III.6 and IX.5
Rules 13 & 14 (and 34/35, 103/104, 125): We find the Rules and direction regarding uncertainty seem inconsistent:
- 13 & 14: Determination of uncertainty in Rule 13 and 14 is followed by assignment of that factor to each vulnerable area. This uncertainty factor is not used again.
- 33, 34, 35: Determination of uncertainty in Rule 35 makes cross reference only to Rule 34, which in turn makes cross reference only to Rule 33 (4).
- 33 (3), (4) and 34: These sections mix sensitivity analysis with uncertainty analysis and in the end do not provide advice. In either case of 33 (3) or 33 (4) if uncertainty is high, stress level is deemed high. Please provide examples to illustrate the use of these Rules.
- 102, 103, 104: Determination of uncertainty in Rule 103 makes cross reference only to Rule 102 (1). In this case, the cross referencing logic is not to a clause requiring “sensitivity analysis” and different from 33, 34, 35.
Section numbering – Part V.6 should be renamed Part V.5.
Rule 77: Makes reference to WHPA instead of IPZ
Rule 105: Missing word after “vulnerable”?
Rule 130: Definition for B notes “vulnerability of the score” instead of “vulnerability score”?
Rule 131: Makes reference to a “hazard score of a condition” instead of “hazard rating”. The term “threat ranking” is also used. Consistent terminology is required.
Rule 134: Guidance is required on the ranking of threats where the risk score is exactly 80, 60 or 40. Also, there is text following Rule 135 which should be numbered Rule 135.
Assessment Reports Regulation
Consultation Draft June 2008
“low / moderate drinking water threat”: The definition makes reference to “a risk assessment”. Adjust to make reference to “the” risk assessment required under the Draft Technical Rules or as reference in the Act. Why is there no definition of significant threat?
Clause 2: As the Conservation Authorities have been given the responsibility of administering the Source Protection process, they are perhaps better named regarding preservation of records.
Clause 4: Details the requirements under Section 15.2.i of the Act. The clause significantly expands what would typically be expected in an “Other requirements” section. Some of the content might better be contained within the Draft Technical Rules.
Definitions of Words and Expressions Used in the Act
Consultation Draft June 2008
No comments.
Table of Drinking Water Threats
Consultation Draft June 2008
The majority of drinking water threats listed in the Table of Drinking Water threats constitute regulated activities, in particular the management, handling, storage and use of materials.
We have concerns that, through the source water protection process, preparation of the source protection plan and implementation of the source protection plan, the Province is essentially downloading responsibilities under other Acts related to hazardous products, material handling, transportation of good, etc.
Mapping Symbology for the Clean Water Act, Version 3.0
Consultation Draft June 2008
No comment.
LETTER TO PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY DOCUMENT 5
August 7, 2008
Premier Dalton McGuinty
Dear Premier:
Re: Funding for Municipal participation in the Drinking Water Source Protection process
At the July 9th, 2008 meeting of Ottawa City Council, Council directed that I write to you concerning the City of Ottawa’s funding requirements related to our participation in the Ontario Drinking Water Source Protection program.
In previous Ministry of the Environment consultations on the draft Clean Water Act it has been Council’s position that the Province provide sufficient funding to municipalities to pay for the proposed downloaded responsibilities associated with development and implementation of Source Protection Plans.
I acknowledge that the Province has committed to fund the Source Protection planning process up through the development of Source Protection plans through funding to municipalities and Conservation Authorities for technical studies, however funding for staff resources has only been made eligible to Conservation Authorities.
Briefly, the Corporation has determined that within its existing staff complement it is unable to manage effectively the volume of work entailed in participating in the Raisin-South Nation and the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Source Protection Committees within our municipal boundaries. The increasing volume of work and the need to secure a consistent approach between the two committees for land within the municipality now warrants dedication of a full-time staff resource. Additional resources are needed to respond to the Ministry’s draft regulations and advise Council on such matters as the inclusion of other drinking water systems in the Source Protection plans. In the longer term, the City needs to coordinate consistent policies in the two Source Protection areas that can be implemented through the City’s zoning by-law and Official Plan.
Your consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Nancy Schepers
Nancy Schepers,
Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment
City of Ottawa
|
cc: |
Hon. John Gerretsen,
Minister of the Environment Members of Council |