The Rural Voice, 2003-05, Page 49Ag News
Many answers still unclear on
By Bonnie Gropp
It became apparent during the
almost two-hour panel discussion at a
recent nutrient management
information meeting in Seaforth, that
while great strides have been taken
since the initial Nutrient
Management Act regulations were
first presented by the province, many
answers are still not clear.
Agricultural leaders who have been
working with the government on the
nutrient management legislation
brought their perspective to farmers
at an information night in Seaforth
Community Centre, April 9.
Some 75 interested people were
present to hear the latest on Bill 81
then had the opportunity to present
input and ask questions. And several
times the comment was made by the
panel that the answers were "opinion,
not definitive."
John FitzGibbon, chair of the
Ontario Farm Environmental
Coalition (OFEC) said, "There are a
lot of questions unanswered, but
we're trying to give the answers we
can."
The first speaker of the night was
Dave Armitage of the Ontario
Federation of Agriculture (OFA)
research department. He provided
some background on the legislation
going back 10 years to when the
OFA, through OFEC, was
approached by a number of
municipal councils concerned about
how to deal with the large livestock
operations.
The result was a nutrient
management strategy which
contained a plan as well as a model
bylaw.
What happened was that once
circulated the bylaw was not adopted
in its entirety. "It was an inconsistent
approach to nutrient management."
The impact of the Walkerton water
tragedy brought in the provincial
government. With agriculture seen as
a contributor to the contamination,
OMAF began working unilaterally
on the nutrient management act
(NMA), resulting in long delays in
finalizing the legislation, said
Armitage.
NMA regulations
After stage two of the draft
legislation was presented, there were
many concerns from the agricultural
community. The Ministry went back
to the table and presented a
condensed stage two "It was a sign
the government was listening,
something we were grateful for."
A new direction was taken and on
March 21 the Minister's nutrient
management advisory committee was
established.
Panelist Chris Attena, a water
quality specialist, hired by the
Ontario Cattlemen's Association,
Ontario Pork Producers and the
Ontario Sheep Producers to represent
the livestock operators' viewpoint
said, "The one comment I do want to
make is that the challenge here today
is to forget everything you heard
about the nutrient management plan
prior to March 21. The old regulation
has been killed, cut and quartered."
Attena said the province has made
significant changes, but what his
groups are concerned with are that
they be science -based, rational and
affordable.
One of the big changes has been
the phasing -in of operations, with all
new and expanding livestock
operations to (or within) category 4
(over 300 nutrient units) being
compliant by July 2003, existing
category 4 by 2005 and 2008 at
earliest for other categories.
A nutrient unit is the number of
animals housed or pastured at one
time that will provide fertility for one
acre of crop.
"This is a new direction. The
compliance regulation is tied to the
nutrient management plan phase-in
schedule. It was something we asked
for that has been acted on."
By the time each category is
expected to be phased -in provincial
funding should be available to assist
operators with the changes.
Interestingly, while the original
regulations would have seen many
small operations go out of business
with the need to comply this year, the
changes have also raised many
questions and concerns.
Until compliant, operators would
be governed by the municipal bylaw
rather than the NMA. However, some
municipalities do not require NM
plans for anything other than new or
expanding operations. Conversely,
some bylaws have greater restrictions
than the provincial act.
Attena said, "What we are going to
end up with is a patchwork, the
downside of consistency and
predictability."
When the question was posed that
if an operator with under 300 NU's
decided to do a plan before 2008
would fall under the municipal
jurisdiction the answer was yes.
Ron Bennett, of Howick asked,
"Might we see smaller ones doing
things the larger ones are restricted
from?"
The answer was a definite yes.
There were many questions
regarding funding. Regarding early
compliance, Attena said he feels
there should be something for
voluntary phase-in. "But you can
understand the dilemma that creates.
You are saying you want the funding
but want to come in quicker."
One attendee noted that many don't
need the funds because they are
"already there".
FitzGibbon said. "The Minister is
quite keen. I'm confident something
will be worked out." However, he
added when questioned that none of
the groups had been apprised of the
funding approach at this time.
One thing FitzGibbon was clear on
was that there would not be any
funding for things already required
under municipal bylaw. "Some
people have already done this
without funding. This is in the name
of equity."
Money is also a reason for the
phasing -in said FitzGibbon. "If
phased -in over a short period of time,
the impact on construction would
result in inflation. Spread out, the
average cost should be more stable.
However, the province is also
concerned about demands on the
public purse."
Attena said there is also no
agreement on what the standards will
Continued on page 46
MAY 2003 45