Feature Article April 24, 2002
LAND O' LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
OMYA and the Tay River Watershed - Part 1OMYAs application to take water from the Tay River has been a volatile issue for the past two years. It has generated many articles, letters, and editorials in the local and national media. Because of the local interest, I will devote a column or two to this topic.
First, let me share with you that I have a personal interest as president of the Greater Bobs & Crow Lakes Association. Our Association, while not appealing the permit, was a formal participant in the Tribunal hearings, and was represented by myself and Joe Slater, who also provided extensive expert testimony.
The Tay River is a small stream that runs from Bobs Lake through Perth and ultimately empties into the Lower Rideau Lake. The Federal Department of Public Works took control of Bobs Lake in 1871, and manages it as a reservoir for the Rideau Canal. Today, Parks Canadas Rideau Canal Office in Smiths Falls manages the water levels of the lake by means of the dam at its outlet. During the summer navigational season, the lake level drops by 1.4 metres, as water is discharged for the canal. The streamflow in the Tay River varies significantly depending on rainfall, snow cover, temperature, and navigational needs throughout the year.
Although the water is committed to canal operations and the dam operations are managed by a federal agency, a provincial agency, the Ministry of Environment (MOE), has the authority to allow water to be diverted from the river between Bobs Lake and Perth. It does so by issuing permits to take water. Permits have been issued to the Town of Perth, the Links OTay golf course, Ducks Unlimited, and other users.
In the past OMYA, had been using wells to supply water for its operations. However, in late 1999, the company applied to take water from the Tay River to support expanded requirements. OMYA would build an intake structure in the river downstream from the Bowes Road bridge and a pipeline from the river to the plant. The MOE sought public comments on the application in the spring of 2000, and approximately 300 people responded, almost all expressing a variety of concerns. Nonetheless, the MOE approved a permit in mid 2000.
The Ministry recognized that there were uncertainties, and therefore issued a two-stage permit. They felt that there was low risk, and so authorized the company to take a limited amount of water while additional environmental studies were conducted. Among other things, the studies were to analyze potential effects on fish habitats and measure flow rates in the river. The Ministry would review the results of those studies before authorizing a larger draw from the river. The total duration of the initial permit was to be ten years.
A number of people who were concerned with the uncertainties about potential environmental impacts and the terms of the permit, requested the Environmental Review Tribunal to grant them leave to appeal. The Tribunal found that the concerns had sufficient merit to approve a formal appeal. Thus, OMYA could not proceed with its water taking plans until the Tribunal held hearings and made its decision. In addition, concurrence from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal agency, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority was also required before they could move ahead.
Key issues at the hearings were: the uncertainties regarding the available quantity of water and the potential environmental impacts; whether the MOE had complied with its Statement of Environmental Values when it issued the initial permit; and deficiencies in the permit itself.
The Tribunal chair reviewed all the testimony, and rendered her decision in February 2002. She felt that there were many uncertainties, and decoupled the two stages of the permit, while calling for additional environmental studies as had been originally required. She authorized a five-year permit for OMYA to take the limited amount of water that had been approved in phase 1 of the initial permit. In addition, she directed changes to the permit that addressed omissions and inherent weaknesses. These latter changes were agreed to by OMYA. Finally, she charged the parties to embark on a watershed study to establish a water budget that would balance the available water in the Tay River Watershed with the anticipated demands in coming years.
OMYA has since decided to appeal that decision to both the Minister of Environment and to the Ontario courts. They maintain that the decision was flawed, and that there were procedural errors as well. The appellants in the Tribunal hearings will respond to the OMYA appeal, and The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) has agreed to represent the respondents in the pending hearings.
In the next article I will present additional information on the issues related to the OMYA permit which will specifically address the concerns that we on Bobs Lake share, and the deficiencies that were addressed in the revised terms of the permit.
