CREEK SUBMISSION RE BILL 81 -
The NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT, 2001.

Peterborough - September 18, 2001

By Linda Roberts
Chairperson of CREEK (County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition)

CREEK (County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-alition) appreciates this opportunity to present our views on Bill 81, the NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT, 2001.

CREEK consists of a group of residents of Prince Edward County who are concerned about the safety of our water, the quality of our air, and the ecological balance in the County. CREEK is a partner in the Sierra/Alert Coalition and a member of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund..

We realize and support the importance of farming and understand the challenges faced by Ontario’s farmers, but there is a threat to our well-being as a result of mushrooming growth of Intensive Livestock Operations. This is the label for "factory farming", which has very little resemblance to traditional farming. ILO’s are not farms, they are "industries" or "factories". Not only do applications of the liquid manure from these facilities endanger our environment, many of these large "businesses" control everything from food production for the animals to distribution of the finished "product".

History shows that vertical integration in the poultry industry has eliminated independent markets and farmers; starved local businesses of sales to formerly independent farmers who are now just contract employees; unravelled communities . . . . fouled the environment with animal factory stench and sludge; and lowered the quality of consumer products through the exclusive use of mass production facilities.

Many areas of the world, including many states in the U.S., have banned Intensive Livestock Operations. Indeed, as reported by Tom Spears in the Ottawa Gazette, while the government in the Netherlands is paying its ILO operators to leave, in Canada we welcome them with open arms and no meaningful regulatory control.

We believe that factory farms have no business in the Province of Ontario, and would like to see a moratorium on such facilities. However, we realize that the smell of money is stronger than the smell of manure, so we have developed the following submission for your consideration.

The proposed bill includes traditional farms, which are regulated under the Farming and Food Producers Protection and the Environmental Protection Acts, and sewage sludge, septage, and paper sludge which are already managed under waste Certificates of Approval. We believe the legislation should follow the lead of the United States of America where the Environmental Protection Agency has recently announced that large agricultural operations will be required to have permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, as factories already do, and should limit its focus to Intensive Livestock Operations.

We look forward to the development of standards and regulations governing the operation of these industries and commend the Government of Ontario for taking a first step in this proposed legislation, but we are dismayed that the regulations do not accompany this legislation. We are particularly disturbed about the fact that the regulations will not be debated in the house; rather, they will become part of an "Order in Council", and not subject to the democratic process. We demand wide public consultation on the standards to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are taken into account.

In regards to Part II, subsection 5, 2®, it is of vital importance that nutrient management standards require a full hydrogeological assessment. Research has shown that pathogenic bacteria and viruses can travel significant distances under certain geological and hydrogeological conditions (such as those found in Prince Edward County where there is a thin level of topsoil over layered limestone). Conditions at the site must be assessed for depth to the water table, groundwater flow direction, soil type and subsurface geology, and presence and location of field tiles and outlet drains. The present by-laws in Ontario do not require the applicant to provide any background data concerning local water quality, nor monitor water quality at any point in the future.

While the legislation calls for standards respecting minimum distance separation requirements between lands to which materials containing nutrients are applied and properties surrounding the area, there is no mention of water bodies. Hog farms tend to locate near large bodies of water because of the amount of water required. In many cases, these bodies of water are used for recreational purposes, including swimming. The Ministry of Health should be required to test the water and post warnings on a regular basis, as is done at Provincial Parks.

Bill 81 refers to "the establishment and operation of local committees to assist in the doing of any prescribed matters including mediation of disputes in connection with the management of materials containing nutrients on lands". We are concerned that, in many cases, local committees do not have the political will to mediate a dispute between the public and an offending farmer. As an example, the Agricultural Advisory Committee in Prince Edward County, which wrote the local Nutrient Management Bylaw, and through which all amendments must pass, has stated that it will continue with its current membership. The members include two counsellors, two ratepayer representatives, the local head of OMAFRA, and ten farmers, one of whom owns Hay Bay Genetics. They have demonstrated, over and over again, that they are not concerned about the well-being of the general public. Monitoring, enforcement, and mediation should be handled by provincial agents.

The legislation provides for standards "regulating the access of farm animals and persons to lands to which prescribed nutrients have been applied". Nutrients are frequently applied in areas where there is a residential community. How can the province regulate that a child or family pet not come in contact with the nutrients? Studies have shown the detrimental health effects of contact with and inhalation of the odours of such nutrients. The legislation recognizes "harm or material discomfort to any person" and the "adverse effect of the health of any person". Therefore it is reasonable to expect that the legislation mandate that there be no nutrient application within, at the minimum, two miles of a residential area. We understand that these details will form part of the standards, and request that our concern is considered as these standards are drafted.

The legislation recognizes the possibilities of "danger to the health and safety of any person", "impairment or serious risk of impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it", "injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property or to any plant or animal life", yet states that "a provincial officer may exercise a power to enter and inspect land or premises without a warrant or court order if delay in exercising the power would have the aforementioned results. We strongly urge that the wording be changed to read:

a provincial officer shall exercise a power conferred by this section to enter and inspect land or premises on a regular, prescribed basis without a warrant . . .

Without the requirement for detailed records and regular auditing by provincial officials, compliance can be expected to be poor or non-existent. This legislation, and its enforcement, should be in the hands of the Ministry of the Environment; unfortunately, we believe that OMAFRA has a conflict of interest.

"In some areas of the province, many different manure treatment techniques could be practiced and groundwater would not become contaminated. In other cases, anything but the most stringent practices may result in groundwater contamination." Intensive Livestock Operations, which have the potential to have very large impacts on groundwater, should be prohibited in highly sensitive areas. We are pleased that the province intends to set "minimum" standards. We strongly believe, however, that local by-laws be permitted, provided that they are more stringent than the "minimum" standards. The Planning Act allows municipalities to restrict the use of land through zoning by-laws. Section 34 (3.1) specifically addresses groundwater.

For prohibiting any use of land and the erecting, locating, or using of any class or classes of buildings or structures on land that is contaminated, that is a sensitive ground water recharge area or head-water area, or on land that contains a single aquifer.

We suggest a change in wording in Part VII, Subsection 60 (1) to read:

A regulation supersedes a by-law of a municipality or a provision in that by-law if the by-law or provision is less stringent than the regulation

As in any new initiative, incentives and resources must be made available to encourage compliance and to offset the costs to farmers for changes to their farm operations. Ontario would do well to look to Quebec for guidance in this area. Finally, we urge you to look to the future; when these agribusinesses have polluted the land and departed, will we, the taxpayers, be left to pick up the cost of restoration, as in the case of the Deloro Mine?

On behalf of CREEK, I would like once again to thank you for your consideration of our suggestions and concerns.