Changes recommended for Waterloo Region’s groundwater interference complaints process

Waterloo Region is changing the way it responds to well water complaints and issues. CTV’s Jeff Pickel explains what’s being considered.

Waterloo Region is working to change the complaint process for well interference.

Recommended policy updates were presented to councillors at a special council meeting on Wednesday following multiple public feedback sessions, surveys and analysis by the consulting firm AECOM. They examined how the region deals with complaints from residents who believe regional actions have negatively impacted their private wells.

“This initiative was prompted by community concerns – particularly in the Township of Wilmot – regarding the independence, transparency and effectiveness of the current process for addressing well interference issues and a motion from Regional Council,” an executive summary included in the AECOM report said.

• Waterloo Region council votes to rescind water taking policy with Wilmot

A delegate from the Township of Wilmot also appeared at the meeting to share her experience.

“It’s time to fix the problems the region has created,” Martha Bricker said.

Bricker has previously raised concerns about the well on her property. She said it has failed in the past.

“The Brickers are still in stress mode, worrying if we still have water in our well another day,” she said.

Township of Wilmot Mayor Natasha Salonen said well interference wasn’t really on her radar until the regional water issues began.

“An then people started realizing, wait a minute, we live in that area, and they’ve been pumping more water than we thought for the last five years, and we’ve had interference issues.”

Salonen said the township has received approximately 30 complaints so far this year.

As those complaints starting coming in, regional staff also noticed issues.

“So, in January, we started going through some of those appeals processes and started to realize that the 2015 policy was significantly out of date,” Amy Shaw, Waterloo Region’s director of water and wastewater, said.

Under the 2015 policy, regional staff handled the complaints.

“The thing we heard was to remove the staff who are receiving the complaint from the actual technical evaluation. So, the goal of that was to move back to a committee style appeal process.”

Some of the key issues raised during the public feedback sessions included transparency and a need for more involvement from residents.

Report recommendations

The report from AECOM included several recommendations to improve the current complaints process.

Some of them included:

• Moving to a flexible, science-based screening model instead of using static geographic boundaries
• Developing documents using clear language that is easier for residents to understand
• Requiring hydrogeological investigations from qualified third-party professionals for all eligible complaints
• Removing fixed compensation limits
• Transitioning to a multi-member, independent committee to address complaints
• Establishing a regular formal review policy to ensure the complaints process remains effective

What would the new complaints process look like?

A draft policy for groundwater interference complaints included several steps to address any issues.

1. A complaint is filed. During this phase, regional staff would gather information about what happened and send those findings to an independent consultant. If the well owner doesn’t have access to water from their well, temporary emergency water would be provided at the region’s expense.
2. The independent consultant would then conduct an interview with the resident. They would learn when the problems started and find out more about the property and the well.
3. The consultant would conduct a preliminary assessment of the data and determine if regional actions possibly affected the private well. If the consultant determines interference is not likely, the region takes no further action, but the complainant can appeal the decision.
4. If the consultant believes there is potential for interference, they, and a licensed well technician, will go to the property and look at all accessible components of the well and any other relevant equipment. They will also try to inspect the inside of the well.
5. The consultant will begin a technical evaluation and determine if regional activities likely caused or contributed to the well disturbance. The draft policy states, “The burden of demonstrating that regional pumping is not likely the cause of the issues experienced by the resident lies with the region, not with the resident.” Within 21 days of the site visit, an evaluation will be completed and sent to both the resident and the region.
6. If the consultant determines the region caused the well interference, the evaluation will also include a recommendation for how the issue can be fixed and propose compensation for the complainant. However, if the problem was caused by a mechanical failure, the licensed well technician will provide the resident with a cost estimate for the repair. The resident does not have to hire the technician to do the work.
7. The region will consider solutions to fix the problem. The draft policy states, “The preferred method to resolve well interference complaints is to connect the residence to municipal water supply, as this provides a long-term secure water source. Where the region and corresponding area municipality agrees municipal connection is an option, connection to municipal supply will be offered and compensation will include completing the connection up to the home.” Otherwise, alternative avenues will be considered, including well deepening, modifications to the pump or a well replacement. The resident will be required to arrange for a contractor to complete the necessary work, and the region may ask for multiple quotes to ensure they are receiving a competitive cost. The work should begin as soon as possible.
8. If the complainant is not satisfied, they can appeal the decision.

Appeals committee concerns

The document from AECOM recommended the formation of an appeals committee that included the regional chair, a councillor from the municipality where the complaint originated from, two other councillors and the chair of the sustainability, infrastructure and development committee. The independent consultant would also attend the meeting to provide professional input.

“[The consultants] are not working for the region, we are funding it, but they are bound by professional obligations and their licensing,” Shaw said during the meeting. “There’s also a licensed well technician under the province who would be included in the evaluation. They will be attending the appeals hearing and will be providing their recommendations in writing.”

However, several councillors raised concerns about why a member of the public was not included on the committee in a non-voting role.

“It is a quasi-judicial process based on technical evidence rather than more of a public consultation process,” Shaw explained. “There are also privacy concerns which we considered. During the jurisdictional scan done by AECOM there was not one well interference committee that did have members of the public on it.”

During AECOM’s research, they considered the composition of appeals committees in other jurisdictions, including Guelph, Peel Region, York Region, Durham Region, Sydney, N.S., Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon. An AECOM representative said none of those committees included a member of the public.

However, several councillors still expressed a desire to have a member of the public sit on the committee, even if they don’t vote on the final outcome, to ensure the process is transparent.

Next steps

The draft policy has not been finalized.

Another drop-in public information session will be held at regional headquarters on Frederick Street in Kitchener on Aug. 20 from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m.

A final draft policy is expected to return to council on Sept. 9.

“We will take all of the feedback that we heard today and make sure that when we do come back in September that we kind of hit those pieces, or if we’re not able to, make that recommendation why,” Shaw said at the conclusion of the meeting.