Food and Water First
Food Water FirstNestlé backs out of Hillsburgh water battle
- Details
- Published on Monday, 14 October 2013 02:32
- Hits: 1919
Nestlé Waters Canada is withdrawing an appeal surrounding how much water it is allowed to draw from its Hillsburgh well during times of drought.
Set to see conditions found in its recently renewed water-taking permit reviewed further by an Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) panel, Nestlé’s request to have the proceedings cancelled has been granted.
The reasons for Nestlé’s decision not to move forward boils down to cost and timing, according to John Challinor, the company’s director of corporate affairs.
“The cost to us, and Ontario taxpayers, because the (province) was with us on this one,” Challinor said, adding Nestlé’s current water-taking permit expires in 2017. “We looked at the cost and the timing and we decided not to proceed any further.”
Meanwhile, the Wellington Water Watchers, Ecojustice and the Council of Canadians are heralding Nestlé’s withdrawal as a significant triumph.
While satisfied by recent events, Emma Lui, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians, said it is unfortunate the three groups were forced to get involved the Ministry of the Environment’s (MOE) water-taking permit process.
“We, essentially, were doing what the ministry should have been doing,” Lui said. “Nestlé has backed down, but at the same time, it really highlights the role of the ministry in this case.”
The controversy surrounding Nestlé’s well in Hillsburgh began when its water-taking permit was renewed by the MOE in September, 2012.
The permit, which extended Nestlé’s water-taking privileges to August of 2017, allowed the company to draw a maximum of 773 litres per minute, or 1.113 million litres per day.
The permit forced Nestlé to reduce water taking during Level I and II drought declarations. Prior to that, reductions were considered voluntary.
In the past, Challinor stated Nestlé has voluntarily reduced its water takings during Level I and II drought declarations, “and that will continue,” he added.
Citing unfairness, Nestlé argued the mandatory reduction conditions weren’t applied to water takers uniformly across the Grand River watershed.
“We’re definitely the only one,” Challinor said.
After Nestlé appealed those mandatory conditions to the ERT, the company and the MOE drafted a proposed deal that would have relieved the company of those obligations.
Urging those stricter conditions stand, the advocacy groups challenged that proposed deal. In August, an ERT panel ruled the matter be subject to a full environmental hearing.
“It is hard to say why Nestlé dropped it,” Lui said, referring to its recent decision to withdraw from the proceedings. “When the public learned what Nestlé was doing ... it raised a lot of public concern.”
Nestlé’s opponents are now arguing the MOE failed to protect the Hillsburgh community’s water sources by negotiating a settlement with the water bottling company.
“Community groups shouldn’t have to put time and money into challenging the ministry to do its job,” Mike Nagy, chair of the Wellington Water Watchers, said in a news release. “Sadly, the (MOE) failed to protect our communities’ water sources by negotiating a questionable settlement.”
When contacted by The Banner, MOE spokesperson Kate Jordan said the proposed settlement did protect and safeguard the local water supply.
The deal required formal testing and monitoring ensure any change to water taking wouldn’t have an adverse impact, she said.
“This was a precautionary, science-based approach,” Jordan said in an email. “Experience and studies have shown that Nestlé Water Canada's water taking is being done in a way that is sustainable for the surrounding environment.”
Meanwhile, the three water watchdog groups have also sent a letter to the MOE urging reforms to Ontario’s water taking-related laws and policies are undertaken.
In that letter, the groups are recommending the MOE prioritize water uses and conduct cumulative impact assessments of water takings.
“It is the government’s duty to protect groundwater and to prioritize water taking in favour of reasonable community use,” Lui said. “We hope to see more mandatory restrictions on the water takings throughout the province.”
Although the letter raises concerns about the way the MOE approves water permits in Ontario, Jordan said current provincial policies are sound.
“Water taking in the province is well controlled,” she said. “The ministry approves Permits to Take Water only after thorough scientific and technical reviews demonstrate the water taking will not have adverse effects.”
By Chris Halliday
Published in the Orangeville Banner, Oct. 9, 2013