Home | WebMail | Register or Login

      Calgary | Regions | Local Traffic Report | Advertise on Action News | Contact

Login

Login

Please fill in your credentials to login.

Don't have an account? Register Sign up now.

Kitchener-Waterloo

Ontario proposes to boost water bottler fee by $500

The Canadian Press has learned that Ontario is proposing to charge water-bottling companies a little over $500 per million litres, up from the current fee of just a few dollars.

The province currently charges $3.71 for every million litres on all water-taking permits

A government source tells the Canadian Press there is a proposal to increase the charge to $503.71 per million litres for water-bottling companies in Ontario.

The Canadian Press has learned that Ontario isproposing to charge water-bottling companies a little over $500 per
million litres, up from the current fee of just a few dollars.

Public outcry erupted last year over the small fee of $3.71 thatthe province currently charges for every million litres on all water-taking permits.

A government source says a proposal to increase the charge to$503.71 per million litres for water-bottling companies who takefrom groundwater will be posted this morning on the regulatoryregistry for a mandatory 60-day comment period.

The government is still reviewing other types of water-takingpermits, such as ones for industrial purposes.

Current fee $3.71 per million litres

The current charge of $3.71 per million litres of water is on topof a fee of $750 for low- or medium-risk water takings, or $3,000for those considered a high risk to cause an adverse environmentalimpact.

The province has already proposed new restrictions for bottledwater companies who want to renew permits and it has imposed a two-year moratorium on permits for new or expanded bottled wateroperations after Nestlpurchased a well that the township of Centre Wellington wanted for its growing community.

The bottled water giant has existing permits to take up to 3.6million litres a day from its well in Aberfoyle, Ont., where it has a bottling plant, and another 1.1 million litres a day from a wellin nearby Erin, Ont.

NestlWaters Canada has said it wants to partner with CentreWellington on the well the company purchased.

A bigger look at the industry

Nestlhas also previously said that it would be prepared to paymore for permits if rates were increased, but only if all companies with water-taking permits face the higher fees.

Premier Kathleen Wynne, however, has spoken over the past severalmonths about the difference between taking water for agricultural or industrial use and taking it to sell in bottles.

"I really think we need to look at the culture around bottledwater," she said in a year-end interview with The Canadian Press.

"Why are we all drinking water out of bottles when most of us don'tneed to?...I think we need to have a bigger look at the wholeindustry, and our role in regulating it."

Total ban won't work

But critics say simply charging companies more won't protect thewater, while some environmentalists are pushing for a total ban on giving permits to companies that remove the water for bottling.

Environmental group Wellington Water Watchers has said thatincreasing the price for permits for bottled water companies won't address concerns about water use.

"No price would be high enough to stop some companies from doingwhat they're doing because the profits are so high," Water Watchers chair Mike Nagy has said

The Canadian Bottled Water Association has said that makingbottled water more expensive for producers would only end up makingit more expensive for consumers.

British Columbia charges $2.50 for every million litres, whileQuebec charges $70.

Municipalities, mines, construction companies and golf courses in addition to the water-bottling companies are allowed to take atotal of 1.4 trillion litres out of Ontario's surface and groundwater supplies every day.

A rare look inside Nestl's Aberfoyle water bottling plant

8 years ago
Duration 2:31
Nestl Waters Canada may not be stealing public water, as some of its more hostile critics claim, but as Colin Butler writes, it is getting away with what some call a steal of a deal when it comes to an essential resource.