GLENGARRY COUNTY — There’s a growing fear among some Ontario farmers that a new environmental law will become a creative way for government to put restrictions on farming while effectively taking some of their land without paying for it.

"It’s called expropriation without compensation," said Shawn McRae, a Glengarry County crop farmer and president of the Glengarry Landowners’ Association, who is fighting the power of the Clean Water Act passed by the province in 2006. McRae sits on a committee that has been asked to look at how the Act can be implemented at the local level, an area covered by the Raison River and South Nation River Conservation Authorities. There are 13 committees (each have three agricultural representatives) across the province and all answer to the Ministry of Environment (MOE), the master of the Act.

As it stands, there is little to fear from the Act when it is first implemented several years down the road, McRae said. The issue is that the Clean Water Act, supercedes every other act, including the Nutrient Management Act, and has the potential to increase its power because municipalities will have the right to decide to expand restrictions around clustered wells (private wells located close together). Moreover, land use activities that are considered a "specific threat" to drinking water are expected to be identified this summer. Fears are that farmers within 100-metres of a municipal well head or a cluster of private wells could be prevented from spreading fertilizer or pasturing cattle. "There are so many unknowns right now," McRae said.

Eastern Ontario farmer Stephen Sangster has 10 acres that will be affected by the Clean Water Act. "There is no guarantee the circle (of protection) won’t get bigger. We have no assurances.We’ve got experience working with government agencies. The tendency is to start small and get bigger."

Along small rivers, a 200-metre radius around intake pipes for municipal water will face land use restrictions, as well as significant recharge areas (where significant amounts of water pool and seep into the ground) and vulnerable aquifers (where water reaches quickly from the ground surface), said project manager John Meek, of the Cornwall-based Raison River Conservation Authority, noting that restrictions are yet to be determined. "We’re three years away from saying you can’t do this or you have to modify your activities."

He added that there are likely fewer than 100 farms in the Raison River and South Nation River area that will be affected by their proximity to municipal drinking water systems.

Alarm bells began to go off across the province and now the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is seeking legal advice on how to handle the provincial government on issues whereby a farmer pays but society benefits.

OFA president Geri Kamenz told Farmers Forum that while farmers are dealing with numerous new environmental laws and regulations, the Clean Water Act has pushed the OFA to seek legal advice. "We have real concerns around the issue of compensation."

The question for lawyers, he said, is: "Does the government have authority to pass legislation without committing itself to a compensation model?"

Unlike the first news report aired on the issue, Kamenz noted: "We are not suing the government."

Kamenz makes the crucial point that at the local level a municipality can pass any law that it wants until it is challenged at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

McRae said that his committee recognizes that compensation is necessary if restrictions affect land use and re-sale values. He hopes they will vote to recommend that MOE needs to recognize financial injury in a case-by-case basis and at least record a financial cost analysis in the hope that down the road "something will change at the provincial level" and financial injury will be addressed.

"We’re talking about something as fundamental as people’s property," he said. "They put their life savings into it. When the livelihood is damaged it should be repaired. Our committee supports compensation. But there are those that say the people have spoken and that (The Clean Water Act) is what people want. The legislature says that we will not recognize financial injury so we are in a bit of a pickle. The MOE is hearing about this issue loud and clear."

As it stands, says McRae: "A person charged with murder gets his day in court to defend himself and be judged by his peers. But with the Clean Water Act you will never get that day. Section 98 says we don’t recognize their grievances and we don’t want to hear about it."

The Ministry of Environment’s director of the source protection programs branch, Ian Smith, argues that a landowner’s "financial assistance" for compliance is dealt with through a four-year $7 million annual stewardship program and if farmers want some wiggle room "let’s agree to have a dialogue on how to run the stewardship program," he said. "Every year we will expand how the program is delivered."

In fact, the program will now increase payment for projects – such as decommissioning old wells – from covering 50 per cent of the costs to 80 per cent of the costs.

"Everyone’s up in arms about compensation," said Smith. But the fund can be expanded to cover loss of land use and other property owner issues, he said: "Instead of a farmer not being able to grow some corn on a small corner of his property, the municipality buys the land at fair market value and there’s no longer an impact on the farmer."

The call is out now to property owners, he said. "You tell us what you want financial support for and we’ll rebuild the program."

Farmers Forum relayed to McRae the above explanation to expand the program. "This is the first time I’m hearing something of this nature and it’s encouraging," McRae said. "The heat’s being turned up across the province."

But he added cautiously: "The uncertainty has to be dealt with," noting the impact on farmers won’t be felt until the restrictions of the Act are determined.