Cold water

Committee of council rejects attempt to extend regulation of rural water wells

Some homeowners on County Road 19 are nervous. The neighbours live on lots carved out of a farm on a west County road—lots created many years ago under different, less rigorous rules. Now the surrounding landowner wants to create two more lots.

Water supply is always a concern in this part of the County. The wells serving the existing homes tends to run dry during late summer and early fall. They worry that two more homes drawing out of the same aquifer will make their problems worse.

The families went to a council meeting last month to try to block the landowner from creating additional building lots—future homes that might compete with them for precious water.

It is a scenario that plays itself out with some frequency in Prince Edward County—an island surrounded by water but with woefully little to be found residing in the aquifer. Some on council believe County council has a role to play in managing access to the aquifer. They argue that it is the muncipality’s responsibility to ensure both the quality and quantity of well water—as they do with municipal water. But others say that as long as the rural landowner can show their well delivers at least three gallons of water per minute—that is the end of its involvement. They point out that the municipality does not own or control the aquifer, nor does it control the weather.

“Why would you put the taxpayer at risk because somebody doesn’t have water,” said Sophiasburgh Councillor Kevin Gale. “Any policy to do this would be unenforceable.”

It is not as though council hasn’t been down this path before.

During the last council, then-Councillor Sandy Latchford chaired a committee of residents, plumbing contractors, well drillers, a hydrogeologist, a legal expert and County officials to consider and recommend a new well policy for the County. There was some disagreement on the committee but in the end it recommended establishing both quantity and quality standards for the creation of new wells. Council adopted the recommendations, which included the requirement that water had to be potable (safe and drinkable) at the well head—a standard some on the committee warned would likely prevent the creation of any new lots in the County.

“I believe the primary function of this well water policy was an obstructionist policy to try and stop development in the rural areas of our County,” said Peter Sztuke, a member of the committee and former councillor. “There’s more than adequate government resources already available to protect ground water.”

The warnings proved accurate. After a series of consent applications were sidelined due to the new rules, Council repealed its new well policy—reverting to its requirement that the well produce at least three gallons per minute.

Some felt the repealed bylaw ought to be replaced by a more pragmatic and workable policy; others argued that it is equivalent to regulating sunshine or snowfall.

Most members of the committee agreed that water quality is and should be the responsibility of the homeowner—not the municipality.

“The liability of this is unimaginable,” said Sophiasburgh Councillor Terry Shortt. “It is my responsibility to protect my family and take the steps necessary to ensure safe and reliable access to water, not the municipality.”

Hillier Councillor Alec Lunn has been seeking a review of the County’s policy on well water since he was elected in 2010. Lately he’s been agitating for an answer. Planning Commissioner Gerry Murphy says such a review will take time and significant resources in the form of experts, provincial authorities and users.

“The issues are complex,” explained Murphy. “The alternatives will take time to study and will require thorough public consultation.”

Last week Murphy offered to include the consideration of a new well policy as part of the Official Plan review that is currently getting under way in the County. This sounded like another delay to Lunn.

“Any way to speed this up?” asked the Hillier councillor. “Do we have to just sit here and wait?”

But others were uncomfortable going this far and didn’t want the OP review process diluted. North Marysburgh Councillor Robert Quaiff tabled a motion to leave the well policy alone.

Ameliasburgh Councillor Janice Maynard said such action seemed irresponsible.

“Does this mean we can’t even have a look at it?” asked Maynard. “We are saying we don’t care about water quality or quantity in rural areas. It is not acceptable.”

Others argued that it isn’t an issue of caring—but rather one that is beyond the ability of council to fix.

“It was one single planning application that got all this started,” noted Councillor Gale. “Council made a knee-jerk reaction and it turned out to be the wrong response. Since then we have had no major problems. Let sleeping dogs lie.”

Gale says it is up to potential buyers of homes or properties to determine the quality and quantity of water available. He worries about the municipality intervening in these transactions and becoming guarantors of water safety and supply.

But Lunn argued this view is shortsighted.

“It is too easy to fool people who are buying property,” said Lunn. “The seller must be required to prove the quality of water. We cannot ignore this responsibility.”

Ameliasburgh Councillor Dianne O’Brien voted to repeal the well policy and was originally against the creation of a new one to replace it—but the concerns of the folks on County Road 19 have convinced her that the County needs tools to restrict people from building new homes where water is scarce.

Most of her colleagues felt, however, that beyond the current standard of quantity set by the municipality, it was dangerous and unhelpful to pursue a more interventionist policy.

The committee rejected the proposal to consider a new well policy under the Official Plan review process.