CREEK (County Regional Environmental Evaluation Ko-Alition) consists of a group of residents of Prince Edward County. It was formed in the winter of 2000/01 in response to concerns about the safety of our water, the quality of our air, and the ecological balance in the County. There is an Intensive Livestock Operation (3000 hogs) in our area, immediately adjacent to Lake Ontario, Prinyer's Cove, and a "provincially significant environmentally protected wetland." Trenches from the ILO run directly into the Lake and the Cove. Most residents and cottagers draw their water from shore wells, and many boaters moor and swim in the Cove.
CREEK made a submission to the Standing Committee on General Government in September 2001 in Peterborough, to the Committee on General Government conducting a clause-by-clause reading of Bill 81 at Queen's Park in May 2002, and to the consultations on Stage One of the regulations.
We appreciate the opportunity to attend today, and will endeavour to state our case in the five minutes allowed.
We are pleased to note that there have been some positive changes to the regulations since the Stage One consultations, namely:
that there be a requirement for a hydrogeological or geotechnical investigation of a proposed site for the construction or expansion of a permanent liquid storage facility (s.8.9)
that application of nutrients during the winter is considered undesirable because there is no growing crop to absorb the applied nutrients and there are often conditions that could lead to the runoff of applied materials into surface water (s.9.4), although we do not believe that winter application should be allowed at all
gradients are specified in order to regulate runoff potential, with no application allowed on land with a slope greater than 12%
I draw your attention to Justice O'Connor's comments in Walkerton Part II: he believes that the Ministry of the Environment should take the lead role in regulating the potential impacts of farm activities on drinking water sources, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food should provide technical support (p.130). The regulations as written give no indication that this recommendation of Justice O'Connors will be "implemented". The Ministry of Agriculture and Food continues to be the lead Ministry in the implementation of the Nutrient Management Regulations.
We are very concerned about the composition and roles of the Local Advisory Committee as laid out in Section 12 of the Regulations. The Committee is mandated to have a majority of members from the farming community or representatives of agricultural operations in the municipality, just one member who is not a farmer of representative of an agricultural operation, and NOT ONE MEMBER REPRESENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY. At the very least one would hope that there be a requirement that "at least one member of the committee shall be a representative of the local Conservation Authority."
The principal role of the committee appears to be one of mediation; it has no role in guiding the municipality or interpreting the regulations. Additionally, in Section 12.8, the members of the committee may engage in educational activities and "may consult with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food regarding the presentation and content of educational seminars." Why "may" they not also consult with representative of the Ministry of the Environment? Additionally, the word "may" should be replaced with the word "shall" in order to increase the possibility of acquiring impartial, or less partial, information.
Finally, the "mediation protocol" suggests that the system will continue to be "complaint driven". Members of the public will have to continue to be the most responsible monitors or overseers of the safety of our water. This procedure invites repeated confrontation and possibly expensive corrective measures. 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.
The regulations deal with the incorporation requirements for manure based on how odorous it is. The dangers of exposure to the odours from a hog factory are well documented, but there is no regulation dealing with the reduction or treatment of odours emanating from the barn. Particularly on hot summer days, the odours from inadequately ventilated barns can be quite overpowering.
We continue to be concerned about the following:
a category IV farm unit has until 2004 to implement the new regulations unless he is expanding; according to the regulations, expansion means moving from a lower to a higher category. There should be a cutoff number for expansion of category IV farms at which point the 2003 date would apply,
the agricultural operation is not required to own any or part of the landbase that is used for nutrient application; we believe that the farm unit should own at least 50% of the land receiving nutrients generated by that farm unit in order to ensure a sufficiently large landbase for the nutrient supply,
there are no maximum Nutrient Unit restrictions on a farm unit; we believe that a reasonable level must be set, particularly in areas where there is a muncipally approved residential development nearby,
a NMS needs to be updated only when the farm unit has an increase of 20% or more in the quantity of nutrients required to be dealt with in the NMS; 20% of 3000 pigs is a lot more than 20% of 50 cows, and there must be a fairer way of determining the amount of expansion requiring an updated NMP. The 20% cut-off is also a loophole that can allow repeated expansions of 19%,
If manure nutrients are modified due to the use of feed additives, the impact of the additive on the nutrient content of the manure must be reported. There is no reference in the regulations to the use of antibiotics or growth hormones which are considered to be endocrine inhibitors,
there is no requirement for NMP's to be made available to the public; those who are directly affected by the operation of Category IV "farms" must have the "right to know" the plans for the use of nutrients in their immediate area, particularly if compliance is going to be "complaint driven".
We continue to believe that the Municipality should have the right to override the provincial regulations. We are pleased that the province intends to set "minimum" standards. We strongly believe, however, that local by-laws be permitted, if they are more stringent than the "minimum" standards.
Thank you once again for considering our comments in Stage Two of the consultations on the Bill 81 Regulations, and we look forward to to meeting with you during the Stage Three Consultations.
Sincerely
Linda Roberts
Chairperson
CREEK