I am a consultant who has…

I am a consultant who has worked in the forestry and aggregate sectors in Northwestern Ontario since the 1970s and I’ve been involved in the preparation of aggregate permit site plans and applications for over 25 years. My comments are in regards to the maximum predicted water table report only and are specific to my experience in preparing those applications in Northwestern Ontario west of Thunder Bay.

Previous to the amendment of O Reg 244/97 in 2020 the water table policy and procedure was outlined in A.R.4.01.04 issued in 2006. Initially the 2020 maximum predicted water table report does not appear to be all that different from the 2006 A.R.4.01.04 policy with the main change being the current requirement for monitoring of the water table for one year. However, a few months after A.R.4.01.04 was issued in 2006 an addendum developed by the MNR was added to A.R. 4.01.04 with the purpose of modifying an inappropriate regulatory burden that produced an unintended bias against parts of the Province, primarily the north where there were very few existing wells, few to no conflicts with other water users, few to no hydrogeological impacts from aggregate sites and little to no risk to the groundwater table.

The addendum to A.R.4.01.04 provided an alternative methodology for determining the water table level that did not involve the drilling of wells and it was specific to category 9 and 11 permits (pit and/or quarry above the water table) and did not apply to category 10 or 12 permits (excavation below the water table) or any category of licence. Northern Ontario is almost all permits and Southern Ontario is almost all licences so this addendum was clearly intended for the north.

Even though it doesn’t appear that A.R.4.01.04 or it’s addendum have been rescinded (neither is on the aggregate policies to be rescinded list), the contents and intent of the addendum are completely missing from the current water table policy.

In 2020 the newly created Aggregates Section started to reject applications that utilized the addendum methodology, claiming that a well drilling program was required. These were applications that were initially submitted through the MNR Districts prior to the 2020 transfer of all aggregate authorizations from the Districts to the Aggregates Section located in the Southern MNR Region. Ultimately the Aggregate Section did reverse their position and approved those applications but, despite assurances they would continue to consider the addendum methodology, they claim a well drilling and monitoring program is required for all new applications.

To my knowledge no one has every challenged the accuracy of the addendum methodology and it has been used extensively in the northwest over the last 15 – 20 years. Prior to 2020 it was accepted by the MNR 100% of the time. It has worked exceptionally well in this part of the Province where aggregate sites are relatively remote with no source water protection areas, no municipal water sources, no conflicting municipal water regulations and no conflicts with water users (of which there are usually none). These are above the water table sites that have never impacted the water table or water quality in any way. The addendum methodology is completely consistent with local water protection policies in other sectors (e.g.. forestry). Contrary to ERO 025-0216 this policy is not “outdated, redundant or inaccurate”. The addendum was developed by the MNR in 2006 for a reason and those reasons haven’t changed. It works and there is absolutely no reason to get rid of it.

Determining the level of the water table has never been an issue in this part of the Province and aggregate sites do not pose any danger to water quality here.  While we understand that the opposite might be true for Southern Ontario, it is ridiculous to impose policies developed to address Southern Ontario concerns on areas of the Province where those concerns do not exist and the environment (natural, hydrogeological, socio-economic) is completely different.

Perhaps most importantly, the cost of a well drilling program is more than 100 times the cost of previous water table reports and it will increase the total cost of applications by at least 500%. It adds no value to the permit and provides zero added protection to water resources.

ERO 025-0216 states “The anticipated social consequences of the policy proposals are neutral to positive.” That is certainly not the case in Northwestern Ontario. This policy change will create massive costs increases with not a single benefit. It will reduce the number of new applications by at least 80% as potential applicants who do not have significant resources to risk (individuals, small contractors) are essentially shut out of access to Ontario’s aggregate resources.