This blog post is my comment that I submitted to the Rural Voice. The journal recently published an article “Karst and Groundwater Protection” in the November issue, written by Mel Luymes. Blog readers can download a scan of the article
Dear Rural Voice,
As the resident who raised the alarm on Karst geology and rural drinking water, I would like to thank Rural Voice for addressing this crucial issue of groundwater quality. Mel Luymes’ top-quality article, along with the tips from the Grey County Federation of Agriculture on drinking water testing, are both very timely.
After my deputations to both Grey and Bruce counties, I was contacted by several other residents who are also facing drinking water contamination. In each case, farmland recently changed ownership, and the new owners are using “contextually inadequate” practices. One landowner trucks in poultry manure from distant feedlots and spreads it on fields, which were recently converted from permanent pasture to cash crop land, This land has only one or two feet of soil above bedrock that cannot filter out contaminants. Another resident is dealing with a neighbor who spreads humanure on similarly shallow soil, creating a stench so strong it made neigbors’ eyes water. Elsewhere, there is a duck feedlot operating with illegal abattoir activities and channeling liquid manure into a stream. Other residents are experiencing chemical contamination from an aggregate operation, or they fear contamination from new aggregate mines. Groundwater contamination is not “an isolated incident” as suggested in Mel Luymes’ article. Rather, the current cases are revealing a systemic vulnerability due to three concurrent factors: susceptible bedrock aquifers with minimal topsoil protection, rural severances that create residential homes on private wells, and intensified agricultural activities—often by new landowners unfamiliar with Karst hydrogeology.
The case of Kewaunee, Wisconsin, further along the Niagara Escarpment, provides valuable insights. First, their scientific investigations are directly relevant to our hydrogeology. Secondly, the region has developed a policy framework that is scientifically robust and stood up in two supreme court challenges. For example, their research shows how rapidly groundwater contamination can travel in Karst – 150 metres per day. This suggests that Ontario’s minimum separation distances (MSDs) may offer insufficient protection. This research also highlights the importance of monitoring nitrates and common pesticides, alongside pathogens. Currently, rural Ontarians only test two groups of bacterial pathogens, while we lack data (and awareness) for nitrate and pesticide levels in groundwater—neither of which is regularly measured or centrally reported. So the current recommendation of local agencies to “have your well tested” (referring only to bacterial pathogens) leaves us in a false sense of safety.
Your article correctly explains how Ontario’s Water Resources Act (Regulation 903) regulates private well construction and plumbing, but this regulation does not cover the aquifer feeding the well. If the aquifer is like a cup of soda and the well is a straw, Regulation 903 addresses everything about the straw—its materials, how to insert it, how to protect the opening, and how to document it all. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) oversees rural homeowners’ compliance with this regulation. However, what happens if everything about the well and water treatment is done correctly, yet the water still contains over 10,000 coliforms or E. coli bacteria, as in our “isolated incident” near Wiarton? What happens if the contamination is not due to the design and construction of “the straw” but because someone poured contaminants into the “cup” itself? In the cases brought to my attention, MECP ensured that the private well was constructed to code and that contamination sources were stopped. But that’s where MECP’s involvement ended – homeowners were left with tens of thousands in financial damage, significant property value losses, and without access to clean water. Rural citizens remained deprived of their basic right to access to drinking water.
If a private well owner seeks justice for damages from a contaminated aquifer, Ontario currently requires the affected homeowner(s) pursue a private lawsuit. This process requires proving nuisance, negligence, or strict liability. Such lawsuits are daunting and costly, placing the burden of proof and all financial risks on the injured party, who must show that the aquifer contamination couldn’t have originated from any other source. This is rarely possible in practice. Yet Ontario’s laws do protect groundwater as a “public good” and assign liability for contamination through the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Ontario also guarantees all citizens access to clean water through its Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR), which applies to rural severances as well. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that “groundwater quality is only regulated through Regulation 903.” In fact, groundwater quality is indirectly regulated through a combination of case law, common law, and several other important acts. If government agencies fail to implement Justice O’Connor’s recommendations for proactive, swift, transparent, and responsible action, rural residents may need to file a class-action lawsuit to establish the right to clean aquifers as a source of drinking water, beyond merely ensuring well construction and plumbing standards.
I would applaud if government agencies and farm organizations recognized that certain “bad apples” are causing considerable harm to their community. Currently, regulatory follow-up leaves homeowners with the brunt of financial losses. Several contamination cases are under investigation, showing that these issues are not “isolated examples.” We face a systemic risk due to historic farm severances, which have created residential homes on private wells, combined with highly vulnerable Karst hydrogeology and intensified farming practices. Farmers originally applied for these rural severances, and government agencies approved them to increase the tax base. Yet, when contamination occurs, rural residents bear the consequences.
Sincerely,
Thorsten Arnold, PhD
Thorsten co-authored the Drinking Water Source Protection Assessment Report for the region of Grey and Bruce, and contributed to the development of policies under the Clean Water Act. He holds a PhD in watershed sciences and agricultural economics, and farms near Park Head in Georgian Bluffs.
.
Leave a Reply