In addition to extending thanks for the timely and much appreciated Real protection of watersheds, please allow me to try to add some information.

In May, 2009, Conservation Ontario conducted an excellent symposium on Integrated Watershed Management (IWM), including updates from Europe, Australia, the US, and western Canada. Presentations can be found at http://www.iwmsymposium.ca, with additional research to be posted shortly.

During and shortly after the symposium, the Ontario government indicated that its committee of water directors is contemplating the future application of IWM in Ontario. Then, in October of 2009, Ontario endorsed CCME’s Canada-wide Vision for Water. The Ontario Headwater Institute (OHI) was pleased to see that the Vision includes a commitment to protect watersheds through community-based IWM, and is pursuing more information on its implementation plan, due in the fall of 2010.

On another front, the OHI, the Water Caucus of the Ontario Environment Network, and groups such the Water Guardians Network are pursuing improved collaboration between large and small water-based NGOs in the province. Legal and policy staff in the former tend to focus on issues such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Clean Water Act, with limited awareness of regional permitting practices or which local creeks or wetlands may be running dry. Small, volunteer groups, meanwhile, try to champion local ecological integrity while sometimes being unable to cite provincial regulations or command attention in an arena too often influenced by the allure of development and increased taxes. Better coordination would benefit all of society.

The nice thing about IWM is that it includes collaboration on science, policy, governance, economics, and social engagement. We think it deserves expanded discussion in Ontario and thank you again for the article.

Andrew McCammon
Executive Director
Ontario Headwaters Institute

I read your recent article on Source Protection in Ontario with great interest. I am a Source Protection Committee member, and it is frustrating work. The process is so prescribed that it doesn’t really permit the local committee to protect its watershed. For example there is a quarry in our watershed that has been in operation for so long, that they have broken through the aquitard into the aquifer that a nearby large municipality uses for its drinking water. The City wants the quarry to stop digging, but they and the Source Protection Committee are powerless. You would think this is readily identifiable as a threat to water quality, since contaminants (e.g. bird droppings) from the surface water of the quarry can come into contact with the groundwater used as drinking water. But quarrying is not on the MOE’s list of activities that represent significant threats to water quality or quantity.

Another example is water bottling. A large water bottling operation draws 1.5 billion liters per year of water from the same aquifer as a nearby city. This water is mainly exported out of the watershed, often out of the province, and occasionally out of the country! Yet the Source Protection Committee is powerless to stop this. Water bottling is not listed as a significant threat to water quantity! Water bottling is also contrary to all of the Statements of Environmental Values in the Environmental Bill of Rights (i.e. Conservation, pollution reduction, benefit of public resource for current and future generations, etc.)

The SPC process is also painfully slow; the committee is so large and diverse in terms of stakeholder constitution, that it is difficult to get anything done. In addition, the documentation produced is so large, it is virtually impossible to read all the consultants’ reports unless one devotes oneself to the task full-time. But committee membership is a volunteer appointment, and almost all the members have full-time jobs.

Sorry for venting, but your article struck a chord with me about how the outcome of the Walkerton tragedy and the excellent report by Justice O’Connor has created an ineffective policy and program.

Happy New Year!

-Anonymous