THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL WATER DISPUTES IN ONTARIO

A Thesis

Piresented to

The Faculty of Graduate Saidies

of

The University of Guelph

by

DONNA-MAE NERISSA ROBINSON

In partial fhElment of requirements

for the degree of

Masters of Arts

May, 1999

O Doma-Mae Robinson, 1999

National Library Bibïiït hèque natronale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et BiMiographic SeMces services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Weiiïngtm Ottawa ON K I A ON4 OttawaON K 1 A W Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, distniuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts h m it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be prùited or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

ABSTRACT

THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL WATER DISPUTES IN ONTARIO -

Donna-Mae Nerissa Robinson Advisor: University of Guelph, 1999 Professor R de Loë

This thesis is an investigation of local water disputes and their management in

Ontario. Two local water disputes, involving the Town of HaLton Hills (Acton) and the

Village of Winchester, were examine& The two water disputes focused on issues that

relate to both water quantity and quality. Each dispute was managed using different

dispute management approaches and tools. This research explored the factors that

contriiuted to the disputes, and idenmed and evaluated the approaches used to manage the

two water disputes. In both cases, the results indicate that there were a number of factors

that escalated the dispute and impeded their management However, only a select number

of these factors were addressed in the management of the two water disputes.

ACKNOWLFBGEMENTS

The completion of this thesis has been a long and difficullt joumey- Without the

help, patience, and support of many people, 1 may not have corne this far. First, I have to

thank my advisor, Dr. Rob de Loë, who gave me the opportunity to do this research. 1

would also like to thank Dr. Reid Kreutzwiser for being a member of my advisory

cornmittee. 1 have leamed a great deai h m both of than and their enuiusiasm for this

research was appreciated. Of course, this thesis would not have been possible without the

participation of all the interview subjects involved in the research. Thanks for taking the

time to share your thoughts and opinions. I would also WEe to thank the Ontario Ministry

of Agriculture, Food, and Rural =airs for fiinding this raearch.

Special thanks go to my parents who encouraged me to go M e r with my

education, and to my sister, Sherfl, who was always there when 1 needed her. 1 would

also Like to thank Sandy, Michelle, and L a m for your fiendship, support, and patience

during both the happy and stressfbl times. Thanks go to Louise, Korie, Tara, and Sandra

whose long distance phone calls were always a pleasant distraction. Thank you to Becky

and Carol, whose conversations (especially the ones about GH.) 1 always looked forward

to. Thanks also to Clarine and Marie for your grad help, and to Mario, who supplied me

with chocolate.

Enduring the Masters program has taught me a lot about myself, especially what I

can and want to accomplish. 1 have also learned to appreciate the people and things bit

realiy matter. If only for those reasons, 1 have no regrets.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF BOXES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Objectives Organization

CHAPTER 2 - WATER DISPUTES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Introduction Conflicts and Disputes Conflict in Natural Resources Management

Types of Confiict and the Factors That Contnaue to T'hem Dispute Management

Dispute Avoidance Dispute Resolution Principles of Dispute Management

Disputes in Water Resources Management Water Management in Canada

The Govefnment Role in Water Management The Management of Water Resource Disputes

Srimmary

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY Introduction Research Approach Framework Case S tudy Analysis

Pilot Test: The Prelimhary Framework Analysis of m e n t Water Disputes

CHAPTER 4 - ACTON= DEVELOPMENT AND WAmR

Introduction Data Sources

Case Study: Background S tudy Area: Acton The Dispute

Case Study: Analysis Issues Factors That Contnbuted to the Dispute Principks of Dispute Management

S-;iry

C W T E R 5 - TEE VILLAGE OF WINCHESTER'S NEED FOR WATER

Introduction Data Sources

Case Study: Background Study Area: The Village of Winchester The Dispute

Case Study: Analysis Issues Factors That Contributed to the Dispute Principles of Dispute Management

S - q

CHAPTER 6 - THE CASE STUDIES: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

Introduction Case Study Analyses: Acton and Winchester

Issues Factors That Contn'iuted to the Dispute Dispute Management Approaches PNiciples of Dispute Management

Lessons Leamed

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION

Assessrnent of the Framework Research Insights Future Research

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Factors That Contribute to the DSerent Types of Conflict

TabIe 2. Principies of Dispute Management

Table 3. Examples of Factors That Contnbuted to the DBerent Types of Conflict in the Kitchener-Wat~loo/Wilmot Township Dispute

Table 4. Chronology of Events in the Acton Case

Table 5. Chronology of Events in the Winchester Case

Table 6. Similarïties and DBerences Among the Factors That Contn'buted to the Disputes

Table 7. A Cornparison of the Rinciples of Dispute Management

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. Typology of Dispute Management Twls and Approaches

Box 2. Alternative Dispute Management @DR) Techniques

Box 3. Components of the Preliminary Framework

Box 4. Interview Schedule

Box 5. Components of the Refïned Fnunework

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Organizationai Chart for Municipal P l d g Decisïons

Figure 2. Location of Southeni Ontano Cases

Figure 3. The Town of Halton Hills

Figure 4. Acton Urban Area

Figure 5. Map of the Morewood Esker and the Surrounding Mmicipalities

Water is needed for human sunrival, used in many human activities (e-g., agriculture

and industrial production), and is directly related to other systems, both natural (e.g., land

systems) and human, including the economy, politics, and society (Tate 1984; Bruce and

Mitchell 1995). Associated with these multiple uses is a multitude of users, who fiequently

are in cornpetition for scarce water suppiies (Jaakson 1986). cornpetition can Iead to

codiict, especially when water supplies are diminished In addition to quantify issues, the

quality of water supplies can also be a source of coxûîict. Surface and groundwater

resources c m be impacted negatively by a varïety of human activities, including sewage

treatment, waste dispos& and industrial and agricultural production. OAen times, these

confiïcts c m escalate hto major water disputes. In addition, water disputes can be

compounded by factors nich as increasing demands for water, coflstraints on the supply of

water, uncertainties relating to the water resource base, and the complexity of hkitutional

arrangements that are used to regulate water (Dorcey and Riek 1989; Kreutzwiser 1995;

Mitchell 1995).

Throughout Canada, cases such as the Oldman River Dam contmversy in Alberta

illustrate the growing importance of water disputes. The Oldrnan River Dam case is an

example of a dispute over the means by which water should be provided to users in a

semi-arid region (de Loë 1997). A number of water disputes have arisen between and

within municipalities in Ontario. Water shortages and water quality problems are being

faced in both rural and urban areas (Tate 1984). The withdrawal of ground and d a c e

water is an example of a growing concem in Ontano. Commercial water withdrawals, as in

the Clearly Canadian case documented by Honnami and Mitchell (1995), can cause

interferences and shortages in domestic water supplies for rural areas, which can result in

codiict. Cornpetition for scarce groundwater supplies among d mimieipalities and the

f m cornmunity is another source of conflict in water disputes (Meek 1997).

Water disputes have been managed using dispute management tools, such as

negotiation, consultation, and mediation (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek

1989; Hartmami 1989)- In many cases, these tools have enabled the settlement of water

disputes. While mmy authors contend that these tools should be utilized, they recognize

that there are factors that can escalate water resource disputes and impede their prevention

and resolution (Susskïnd and Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek 1989; Hartmann 1989).

For instance, Dorcey and Riek (1989) suggest that an individual's or group's behaviour in a

dispute can influence how the parties interact with each other. These factors cm affiect

both the process and the outcome acbieved in the management of water disputes.

. . Water disputes, pertaining to both quality and qmti ty issues, are occurring and being

managed in southem Ontario. This thesis is concemed with the nature of these types of

water disputes, theh escalation, and their management.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the factors that contniute to the dispute, and to

i d e n e and eva[uate approaches to preventing and resolvhg disputes in water

management. The focus of this research is the Local level. Water disputes at the local level

are not restricted to municipal gove~nments, but also uiclude conflicts among other

govemment agencies, non-goverment organizations, fann producers, and other members

of the public.

Four objectives of thir thesis follow fiom this general aim:

1) From the literature, develop a fiamework that

(i) documents the facton that contribute to disputes, IncIuding factors that

contniute to the different types of conflict (e.g., cognitive, value, interest,

and behavioural);

(ii) identifies tools and approaches for the management of disputes; and,

(ii) specines ge-c principles or criteria for dispute management,

2) Using the dispute management h e w o r k , analyze local water disputes, both

documented and curent cases.

3) Assess the dispute management fiamework.

4) Provide insights into the management of local water disputes.

ORGAMZATION

There are seven chapters in this thesis. Chapter 2 examines the nature of conflicts and

disputes in water resources management, and reviews dispute management tools and

approaches, as well as relevant institutional arrangements involved in Ontario water

management. The preliminary fiamework and its components dso is descnbed in Chapter

2. The research methodology is discussed in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 provide the

results of the case study anaiyses, specficaily the disputes in Acton and the Village of

Winchester area. Chapter 6 draws together lessons fiom the two current case study

analyses. Chapter 7 provides the conclusions of this research and insights that may

improve the management of local watei disputes.

CHAPTER 2

WATER DISPUTES AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

The airn of thïs chapter is to discuss conflicts and disputes within water resource

management in an Ontario context Specincaily, the concepts of conflict and dispute are

defineci; the different types of conflict are classined; and the range of available dispute

management techniques is outlined. A prelllninary version of the fiamework used in this

research is introduced in this chapter. This p r e l i . firamework consists of three

components: different types of conflict and the factors that cont r i ie to them; a typology

of dispute management toois and approaches; and principles of dispute management.

Modifications to this preliminary fiarnework are made in Chapter 3, prior to its use in the

analysis of the two-case studies (Chapters 4 and 5).

This chapter also descnibes a number of institutional arrangements pertinent to Ontario

water management and the two cases that will be analyzed later. These arrangements,

including environmental assessments and land use planning, illustrate some of the conflicts

present withùi water resources management, and the challenges that exist in avoiding and

resolving them.

CONFLICTS AND DISPUTES

Various definitions and interpretations of the terms '%onflict" and "dispute" exist.

Often times, the terms are used interchangeably in the literature @uffj., et al, 1996). Wood

(1976, 142) states that conflict is "a disagreement between two or more parties over a

matter of common interest" An alternative definition cornes h m Johnson and Duinker

(1993) who state that connict is "a clash of interests, values and actions." Both of these

definitions of conflict can also descrie a dispute-

Although the tenns conflict and dispute can be considered synonymous, they are

distinguished as two related but distinct phenornena for the purposes of this study. In this

research, conflict is desmiecl as " a disagreement over values or scarce resources, and a

dispute as an encounter involving a specinc issue over which the conflict in value is

joined" (De, et al 1996,3). W e conniet is a state of disharmony or the fdure to be

in agreement, the dispute is the actual encounter, clash, or confkontation in which this

disagreement and disharmony are expressed. Disputes arise as a consequence of

conflict(s). Therefore, confiicts are components of a dispute. However, not ail conûicts

escalate to the level of disputes (Dm,, et al. 1996).

Disputes cm arise among diffkrent parties involved in an issue and in a range of

different contexts, whether they pertain to issues that affect the community's health and

safety, or decision-makers' responsiibility, authority, and accountability in resources

management (Wondolleck 1985; Waiker 1992). Con£iicts can occur and escalate between

and among people, communities, and nations, and can be atan'buted to human and

community behaviour, attitudes, and perceptions. Conflicts are pcesent in our relationships

and interactions with other~, whether personal or professional (Bustenid 198 1). Bustenid

(198 1) fiirther suggests that conûicts can escalate to the point of violence, or can result in

undesirable economic and social situations. According to Cormick (1980), conflict is the

basis of social change, especially in democratic societies. H e supports this statexnnt by

citing historical examples where conflict has pIayed, and continues to play, a crucial role of

bringing about change. Examples include the abolishment of sfavery, the civil nghtts

movement, unionism and the labour movement, the Amencan Revolution, and

environmental concems (Cormick 1980).

CONEZICT IN NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Interest in conflict withh the field of natural resources management is growing.

According to Mitchell (1989,3), "naturd resources management represents the actual

decisions concerning policy or practice regardhg how resources are ailocated and under

what conditions or arrangements resources may be developed." This definition highlights

the potential for conflicts in resource management.

Conflict can be a factor in a l l four areas of resources analysis identified by Mitchell

(1989). These four areas pertain to the following: the na- resources themselves (i.e.,

mapping and measuring the supply and demand for resources, as weU as characteristics

and properiies); the resources in terms of users, facilities and activities; the biophysical.

technological, economic, social, political, institutional, and legal variables that affect

resources; and the impacts of the specifk resource allocations. Ali four areas of resource

analysis are crucial to understanding the nature and type of conflict involved in a particular

situation. The resource, its users, and impacts of resource allocation are important in any

resource management decision. There are increasing demands, diminishing supplies,

interdependencies, complexity, and uncertainty being encountered in resource management

problerns (Mitchell 1989,282). AU of these factors can generate different types of conflict,

some of which can lead to disputes.

TYPES OF CONFLICT AND THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO T'HEM

This subsection discusses the first component of the preliminary hnework descriid

in the h t objective of this thesis (Chapter 1). First, the types of conflict are identified and

6

differentiated FoIlowing this, factors that contribute to these conflict types are

documented-

Tvpes of Conflict

Four types of conflicts are commody recognized in the resource management literziture

(Lord, et al. 1979; Dorcey 1986; Dorcey and Riek 1989; Mitchell 1989, 1995). These

include cognitive, value, interest, and behavioural confzicts.

Cognitive conflicfs are rooted in the different understandings of the confikt situation

(Lord, et al. 1979). Cognitive conflicts occur when lines of communication between

stakeholders are limited or nonexistent (Johnson and Duinker 1993). In some cases,

decision-makers have misinterpreted public respome to a problem, and subsequently,

conflict has developed (Wood 1976).

Value conflicts stem nom different assessments of the desirabfity of ends to be

accomplished by the action contemplated (Lord, et al. 1979). People, their perceptions,

attitudes and vdues, and their subsequent actions are different (Johnson and Duinker

1993). Hence, this type of conflict is present when stakeholders value the resource

Eerently. Water, for example, may be perceived and valued by some people as a

resource for consumption, while others may place more value on water's utiIity in

hydropower generation.

Interest corrficis occur when there is disagreement concerning the distn'bution of cost

and benefits (Mitchell 1995). Conflicts occur when groups perceive an impact as

significant and take action to protect their mterests (ingrarn, et al. 1984). Emotions become

elevated and many groups are unwilling to concede their position. This type of conflict is

common in inter-and intra-governmental disputes. Interest confïicts c m occur when

decision-rnakers malce critical choices without taking into consideration the public's

opinions (Wood 1976)-

Behawiourai conficts are related to personalitïes and circinnstances of the interested

parties. Often thes , they are a direct r e d t of peoples' past hostile relationships (Mitchell

1995). Although the parties may agree to set aside their differaices, problems may aise as

a result of distrust, historical fkustration, restncted perception, and emotionalism (Mitchell

1989)-

Some theorists have noted that behavioural and interest conflicts tend to dominate

resource disputes (Dorcey 1986; Hartmann 1989). However, it is important to note that

each conflict type c m be observed in isolation, or in c o n j d o n with other conflict types.

Factors that Contribute to the Conflict Tmes

The different types of confiïct, and the factors that contnbute to them, are the main

elements of the fist component of the prelirninary h e w o r k (Table 1). Various factors

contriiiute to the four coaflict types. Examples include misinformation (cognitive

codlicts), different values (value conflicts), the exclusion of relevant stakeholders (interest

conflicts), and personality Merences (behavioural conflicts). For instance, Dorcey and

Riek (1989) recognize that there is limited kmwledge conceming the behaviour of

biophysical and socio-economic systems; thus creatuig uncertainty regarding the resource,

which result in conflict. Limited knowledge is an example of a factor that contriibutes to

cognitive conflicts. With respect to behavioural conflicts, Neal (1996) suggests that

previous relationships can negatively or positively affect the behaviour of participants in a

dispute by reviving residual feelings, mernories, and impressions. Personality differences

are also important contributors to behavioufal conflicts. Castensson (1990) acknowledged

8

that water conflicts o h escalate because arguments are transfmed fkom the original

problem to the opponent's personal qualities.

Table 1. Factors that Contribute to DifEerent Tnes of Conflict

coe- CONFLICTS

different interpretatiom of the data acquired different mderstanding of the laws and policies regulating water misinformation Iack of SuffiCient data co~~munication dificulties inconsistencies in the legal and policy fiamework

VALUE COrYFLICTS

perceptions and attitudes of the participants are différent basic value differences

CONFLICTS

disagreement regarding CO- and the distn'bution of CO*

no compensation offered exclusion of relevant stakeholders tack of direct involvement in the decision- making process nom the outset (i-e., public participation/ input)

BEHAVIOURAL CONFLICTS

lack of trust and respect among the participants pmonality clashes previous hostile relationships preconceived notions about opposing parties (e-g., assumulg that famers are ignorant and acting accordingly)

Each type of conflict and the factors that contriiute to it can dso influence the outcome

of the dispute management process. For instance, Dorcey and Riek (1989) suggest that an

individual's or group's behaviour in dispute settlement processes can innuence how parties

interact with each other. Therefore, ident-g the type and nature of conflict can improve

the understanding of disputes, and can assist in determining the appropriate technique to

manage disputes effectively.

DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

Dispute management involves a series of approaches designed to deal with disputes,

both existing and potential. These approaches can be d e s c n i in a variety of ways,

ta~lging fkom g e n d processes (e-g., discussion) to specific procedutes (e-g., mediation).

Dispute management techniques have been developed over the years by many authors (e.g.,

Lindblom 1965; Busterud 1981; Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Susskmd and Madïgan 1984;

Lewicki and Litîerer 1985; Dorcey 1986; The Law Society of Upper Canada 1996). Each

technique has gaîned support in the fiterature fiom a variety of authors. Some authors

place more emphasis on alternative dispute resolution techniques, such as mediation

Pingham 1986; Blackburn 1988; Rahn 1994), or negotiation and bargaining (Dorcey

1986, 1988; Dorcey and Riek 1989). Other authors look beyond the scope of immediate

disputes to prevenîing potential ones (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment

and Economy 1991; Maguire and Boiney 1994; Commission on Resources and

Environment 1995). Together, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution may be thought of

as "dispute management",

Dispute management is the basis for the fiamework developed and used in this

research, specifically the second and third components of the fiamework. The second

component of the fiamework, which consists of a typology of dispute management tools

and approaches, is discused in this section. A number of tools and approaches in the

typology have been utilized to resolve or prevent a dispute to varying degrees of success in

the case studies (Chapters 4 and 5). Therefore, examùiing the tools and approaches of

dispute management is a crucial component of this thesis. For the purposes of this

research, dispute management is composed of approaches and tools porüayed in Box 1.

The various elements of dispute management (Box 1) are discussed in detail in the next

subsections.

Box 1. m o l o u of Dimute Management Tools and A~~roaches

DISPUTE AVOIDANCE

(0 Planning and Monitoring (ii) Public Partïcipation/ Consultation (iii) Co-ordination and Co-operation

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(i) Collaborative Consensus-Building Techniques Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (negotiation and bargczining; mediution; facüitatedpoky dialogue; joint fact-findntg; and conciZiation)

(fi) Retiance on a Higher Authority/ Adjudication arbitration Iitigation

(iii) Resorting to the Use of Power lobbying

4rikillg elections

DISPUTE AVOIDANCE

Dispute avoidance measures a i . to prevent or avoid disputes. Commonly referred to

as Dispute Prevention, or Preventative Dispute Resolution, these techniques involve the

reduction of the nsk of disputes, andor the organization of relatiomhips to avoid litigation

of disputes that may arïse (The Law Society of Upper Canada 1996). Burton and Dukes

(1990, 161) refer to these measures as provention: "a decision-making process in which the

future is analysed and anticipated, and as a result policy decisions are taken to remove the

sources of Urely disputes and conflicts." The literature has not explored the concept of

provention as a separate and distinct category of dispute avoidance.

Approaches that can be used for avoiding or preventing disputes include planning and

monitoring, co-operation and CO-ordination, and public consuitation and participation.

Planning is a process where a set ofplans are created in orda to control M e actions

(Smith 1993). Monitoring is a measure that helps to ensure that plans are progressing

accordingly; if not, corrective measures can be taken before problems occur- Other

established dispute avoidance approaches, such as co-operation and co-ordination and

consultation and public participation, are more proactive.

Co-ordination and Co-o~eration

Co-ordination and CO-operation provide a format for incorporatmg many different

perspectives on an issue, and for providing an opportunity for involvement of aU

stakeholders, especially in complex decision-making processes. Co-ordination

"emphasizes joint decision-making and colfective action rather than simultaneous

adjustment and is the process whereby two or more organizatios create andtor use existing

decision d e s that have been established to deal collectively with their shared ta&

environment" (Watson 1990,lO). The terms co-ordination and CO-operation are often used

interchangeably. However, there is a distinction between the two (de Loë 1990; Watson

1990). According to Watson (1990, IO), "CO-operation is the establishment of temporary,

informal linkages between organïzations or actors for the mutual satisfaction of theu

separate goals. Co-ordination is the establishment of permanent, f o d linkages for the

achievement of joint goals or objectives."

Co-ordinated approaches are quite usefûl in the prevention of disputes among

government organizatios and agencies at the diffierent levels of govemment - provincial,

regional, and local (Commission on Resources and Environment 1995; Dorcey 1987).

Commonly, inter- and intra-govemmental disputes reflect a lack of CO-operation and

CO-ordination, especially when they involve common or shared resources, such as water,

12

where many levels of government are involved in decision-mahg (Carlisle and Smith

1989).

Consultation and Public Partici~atisn

Consultation and public participation are techniques that promote public involvement in

the decision-making process in order to avoid connicts and disputes (McKinney 1988).

They provide members of the public with an opportunity to voice their concerm and

present arguments in an attempt to influence decision-maker(s), usually through fora such

as public hearings and workshops (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and

the Economy 1991). However, the decision normaUy rem+ in the han& of the

decision-makers-

The public increasingly is concemed that government officiais, both elected and

appointed, are not effectively representing them in public decision-&g (Commission on

Resources and Environment 1995)- As a remit, there has been a shift fiom public

consultation to public participation in the actual decision-making process. "Traditional

agency decision-making and public consultation processes are being replaced by initiatives

designed to exchange information, create partnerships and seek consensus reflecting the

trend towards more open and direct public participation in the administrative

decision-malàng process" (Commission on Resources and Environment 1995).

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Dispute avoidance is one approach for dealing with potentid disputes. However,

disputes do occur, and methods ofresolving them also should be considered. There are

three distinctiy different broad groups of techniques useful for resolving disputes. These

include collaborative consensus-buildingy adjudication, and resoauig to the use of power.

Collaborative Consensus-Building

Collaborati-de Conse~~sus-Building approaches are geared towards reaching some

accord, muhial agreement, or compromise in order to resolve conflicts in a dispute (British

Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1991). In many disputes,

there are numerous issues, interests, and stakeholders. These approaches are co~lllllonly

used to create situations of mutuai benefit for alI parties involved (Le., win-win situation),

to provide more opportunities for public participation, and to advance a shared vision

(McKinney 1988; Walker 1992; SelSi and C'havez 1995). With the direct involvement of

ail relevant parties, there is an increased Wrelüiood that stakeholders will feel a greater

commitment to the decision; greater creativity, increased resources, and a broader range of

potential solutions will be provided; the focus will be on issues, not the people involved;

hardening of positions wiu be avoided; credi'bility of decision will be increased; and

implementation wiU occur (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the

Economy 1991).

Collaboration involves the pooling of intangible andor tangible resources, such as

information, money, and labour, by two or more stakeholders in order to solve a set of

problems which cannot be solved unilaterally (Selin and Chavez 1995). Collaborative

consensus-building includes alternative dispute resolution techniques.

Alternative Dispute Resolution ( D R )

Techniques used in ADR, such as mediation and negotiation, are intended to facilitate

consensus decision-making among disputhg parties (Maguire and Boiney 1994). In

Canada and the United States, some ADR techniques are being institutionalized. For

instance, the Canadian Envz?onmentaZ Assessrnent A d (CEAA) includes the use of

mediation in impact assessrnents (Johnson and Duinker 1993; Smith 1993). Box 2

surnmarizes key characteristics of ADR techniques, including mediation, negotiation and

bargaining conciliation, joint fact-fïnding, and facüitated policy dialogue.

BOX 2. Alternative Disnu te Resolation ( A m Techniaues

Bargaining and Negotiation

Joint Fact-finding

Conciliation

Mediation

Facilitated Policy Dialogue

Bargaining occm when two or more parties decide on what each party will give and take. Negotiation is d e direct exchange between two or more opposing parties with the intentions of readung an agreement,

Joint fact-fïnding involves the stakeholders jointly examining and exploring pertinent information nom the various argumentsy and m a h g recommendations from this. A third party is not involved.

Conciliation is an infonnal process in which a third party acts as a channel of communications between two parties who are unwruing to discuss the dispute face-to-face, with the a i . of re-establishg direct communication.

Mediation is a voluntary, consensual process in which those involved in a dispute jointly explore and reconcile their differences. It pennits the focus on issues, with the assistance of a neutral third party, and allows for different interests and stakeho1ders to reach a compromise that is acceptable to all parties. The mediator does not have the authority to impose a settIement.

Facilitated policy dialogue is a technique that attempts to create a mutually acceptable agreement through the exploration of differences and the search for common ground. This occun with the involvement of a facilitator, who manages the process. The facilitator can be famiiiar with the case and the participants in the process.

ources: Bingham (1 986); Dorcey (1986); Shrybman (1986); Dorcey (1 988); British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1991); Selin and Chavez (1995); and The Law Society of Upper Canada (1996).

Despite the potential benefits of ADR, these processes do not aiways resolve disputes.

llEven ADR enthusiasts caution that ADR is neither a panacea nor appropriate in a l l

circumstances" (Gunton and FlyM 1992, 14). ADR techniques are somewhat limited in

1s

terms of their abiiity to resolve disputes of diffierent magnitudes, and in temis of the time

hune needed to resolve them (McRmney 1988; British Columbia Round Table on the

Environment and the Economy 199 1). Some disputes, especially broad-based ones that

involve a large number of stakeholders, require more political involvement and a longer

tirne period than is available in conseasus-based solutiom (Johnson and Duinker 1993).

Nonetheless, according to many authors (Dorcey 1986, 1988; McKinney 1988; Hartmann

1989; Mitchell 1989,1995), ADR approaches are effective, efficient and successfbi

methods for resolving conflicts and disputes.

Adiudication

Accordhg to the Law Society of Upper Canada (1996, 17A-2), adjudication involves

"any of the fonns of dispute resolution in which the parties to the dispute present proofs

and arguments to a neutral third party who has the power to deliver a binding decision,

generally based on objective standards". The most common adjudication processes are

arbitration and litîgation. These processes are widely use& especially when parties are

confident that a court or a higher authonty, such as a Board, will d e in their favour

(Johnson and Duinker 1993). Once decisions are made, they are typically legaily bhding.

The only alternatives disputants have to reverse the decision involve pst-decision review

and appeal mechanisms, such as interna1 review, external appeals, and judicial reviews

(Commission on Resources and Environment 1995).

Arbitration

Black (1 99 1,70) dehes arbitration as "a process of dispute resolution in which a third

party (arbitrator) renders a decision &er a hearing at which both parties have an

opportunity to be heard." The decision can bey or in the case of binding arbitration, must

bey adhered to by the parties (The Law Society of Upper Canada 1996). The third party

selects a solution proposed by one of the groups, or combines the parties' arguments into a

new solution (Kartmann 1989). However, the dispute is not before the courts, and the third

party has specialized knowledge or familiarity with the particulars of issues involved in a

dispute. The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) is an example of binding arbitration that

deals with planning issues such as officia1 plans, zoning by-laws, plans of subdivisions, and

development charges.

Arbitration is highly adversarial, in contrast to the dispute reSolution techniques

descnied in the previous sections. It is usually applied to disputes that involve rights,

different intqretations of existing contracts, interests, and the allocation of resources

(Burton and Dukes 1990). It is reguiarly used in disputes involving labour grievances,

professional athlete salary fights, insunuice problems, contract disagreements, and

international business agreements.

Litigation

According to Black (1991,645), litigation is a "contest in the court of law for the

purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy." Unlùre arbitration, litigation resolves

disputes before the courts, where the third party is an appointed judicial officer. It is a

formal process that results in legally binding decisions (Kahn 1994). It is also highly

adversarial and is similar to arbitration in its applications.

Resortin~ to the Use of Power

Often times, when disputes escalate, and the focus of the dispute has moved fkom the

issues to the positions and personalities, this final dispute management technique can be

utilized. Resortuig to the use of power is a technique that resolves the dispute by imposing

the will of one party onto another (British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and

the Economy 1991). Methods include lobbying, elections, and strikes. For instance,

lobbying is used to ensure that interests are effectively represented in decision-making-

Many environmental disputes in the U.S. use lobbying in order to solicit support from

politicians and influence govenunent action (Biagha.rn 1986). In labour disputes, strikes

are often utilized when negotiations between the Company and the union reach an impasse.

PRINCIPLES OF DISPUTE MANAGZMENT

Along with descriptions of dispute management tools and approaches in the literature, a

number of authors have extended their theoretical analysis to include pRnciples that are

considered necessary for the resolution and prevention of conflicts and disputes. The third

component of the preiiminary framework used in this thesis, the Rinciples of Dispute

Management, emphasizes these desirable criteria Susskind, et al. (1987), Buckle and

Thomas-Buckle (1 986), Dorcey and Riek (1 989), and Federal Enviromenta1 Assessrnent

and Review Office (1992) identined principles for the resolution and avoidance of

environmental disputes. For instance, Susshd, et al. (1987), dong with many authon,

suggest that a major obstacle to successful mediation occurs when individual parties hire

their own private experts to provide evidence. This can o h escalate the dispute and

prevent resolution because it contravenes the underlying principle in mediation of shared

exploration and joint decision-making. Therefore, the use of mutually approved technical

experts is considered to be a p~c ip l e . The principles of dispute management (Table 2) are

grouped into three categories: participants, process, and outcorne.

Table 2. Princinles of Disnute Management

PARTICIPANTS 1 PROCESS

ail relevant parties included open dialogue between parties participants committed to resolving or avoiding conflict

* proper and consistent representation of relevant stakeholders participants should understand the technical information involved (educationl

consistent and complete process open process (Le., ongoing cornmimication and dialogue) fair and equitable appropriate technical data used process is acceptable to dl parties involved use of approved tecbnicd experts and thkd parties to assist the process efficient process ( t h e and cost) create options for mutual gain easy to use and understand focus on issues, not the participants

OUTCOME

implementation of the decision acceptabillty of the agreement satisfaction of al l relevant parties

The factors identifIed in Table 1 contriiuted to the fomation of many dispute

management principles discussed in the literature. An example of a factor that contnbuted

to a number of disputes is the exclusion of the relevant stakeholders. Many authors have

ernphasized that in order for dispute management to occur, ail relevant stakeholders must

be identined (Fisher and Ury 1981; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek 1989;

Hartmann 1989; British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

199 1 ; Wolf 1993). Therefore, this is a principle under 'Tarticipants" in Table 2. The basis

for selecting these principIes was the observation of a conseIlsus in the fiterature.

The analysis of the local water cases in this research is based on this three-part

preliminary fiamework, consisting of the factors that contriiute to the different types of

conflict, a typology of the dispute management tools and approaches, and the p ~ c i p l e s of

dispute management. Modifications to this preliminary k e w o r k are made in the next

chapter.

19

DISPUTES IN WATER RESOURCES M A G E M E N T

The management of water resources is especially prone to connict There are past,

current and emerging conflicts that o h escalate into major disputes. These conflicts

concem water resource issues such as hydropower generation, groundwater cpIity, water

withdrawal rights, and downstream water quaiïty and quantity impacts. They affect both

m a l and urban water resources-

Water resomce disputes can be directly attriiuted to water's general characteristics, our

perceptions of water, its multiple uses, and the water management process. Water is a

shared and common natural resource that is not restricted by a human set of bomdaries

(e-g., political and property bondaries). It is a component of a complex hydrological cycle

that includes different sources of water Igtound and surface water) (Cass-Beggs 1969)- It

is aiso a basic necessity for swival and, therefore, not substitutable. Finally? water is used

extensively for agcicultural, domestic and industrial processes (Tate 1984). It is the

essential importance of water that makes decision-making regarding its use, avaiiable

supply and quality, a complex and delicate process that has the potential to lead to conflict

(Bankes 1995).

Increasing demand, complexity, and uncertainty have generated confiict in the use and

regdation of water resources (Dorcey and Riek 1989). There are generally two types of

disputes over waterr disputes concemed with cornpethg interests in the quantitative use of

water resources, and disputes concemed with the Werent quality hterests (Castesson

1990). As water supplies become scarce, either due to degraded quality or reduced

quantity, there wilI be increased demand for water resources (KreuWser 1995)- For

example, in the Middle East, water is an issue that affects stability, peace, and progress

20

throughout the region @owney and Mitchell 1993). In the Jordan River watershed, water

disputes emerged primarily because of scarcity in both quality and quantity, and have been

compounded by pressures fiom the industrial and manufaceuring sectors, agrîcuiture's

heavy reliance on ïrrîgation, existing political tensions, and population demands (Wolf

1993). Each of the nations within this region has a stake in the protection of water

resources. This has resuited in interest, value, and behavioural confiïcts that some authors

suggest have the potentiai to escalate into war (Downey and Mitchell 1993; Wolf 1993).

In Canada, water resource issues have not reachd this level of dispute. However, the

potentiai exists for increased conflict Privatization of water services, water pncing,

abonginal water rights, water transfas, hydropower generation, and sustainable water use

are examples of current issues that have the potential to evolve hto large-scale disputes

(Bankes 1995). Currently in Canada, water is used for a number of purposes and in a

variety of activities, including drinLUig water, recreation, irrigation, and hydropower

generation. As pressures on the resource develop. cornpetition for water is inevitable,

which couid lead to conficts among users (e-g., industry and wildlife) and uses (e.g.,

recreation and irrigation) (Jaakson 1986).

Water is perceived to be abundant in Canada. This perception is based on the belief

that due to Canada's srnall population size and large land area, there is a low demand and

high supply for both surface and groundwater sources. However, this is a myth (Shmbsole

1990). Water shortages and water quality problems are being faced by Canadians in a l l

areas, both niral and urban (Tate 1984). There are semi-arid regions in Canada, where

water availability is scarce and is a constraint upon development (Tate 1984). Southern

Alberta and southem Saskatchewan are good examples where water scarcity issues have

created confiicts in water resource management (de Loë 1997; Stolte and Sadar 1998). In

addition to the problems of water scarcity, water quality problems exist throughout Canada

These range from pollution of the Great Lakes (Kreutzwiser 1995). to local contamination

incidents in comrnunities such as Elmira (Neufeld and MulamoottiL1991). Water shortages

and water quallty problems are being faced by Canadians in all areas, both rural and urban

(Tate 1984).

Groundwater resomces may be especially prone to conflict Considerable uncertainty

exists regarding grodwater (Kreutzwiser 1995). Groundwater is extremely important in

some regions for drinking, agriculture, and industry, resulting in competition. For instance,

approximately 47% of Ontario municipalities rely on groundwater as their major water

supply for municipal, industrial, residential, and agricultural services (Kaninen and

McAUister 1994). This o h results in competition for groundwater supplies, especially in

areas where agriculture and municipalities depend on the same water source (MacRitchie,

et. al- 1994).

WATER MANAGEMENT IN CANADA

The complex water management process also contributes to many disputes. Water

management is complicated by the large number of stakeholders that typically are involved.

Zn water resource disputes, numerou issues exist, and a variety of stakeholders and

different iaterests must be involved in decision-making. The stakeholders c m include the

govemment, industry, interest groups, and the public, who may be involved either directly

or indirectly. Water resource disputes occur primarily among the dinerent stakeholder

groups, fkom local, provincial or state, nationd, and international perspectives (Hartmann

1989). Issues, such as water level increases and water pollution, do not simply affect one

22

group. They affect a l l stakeholders, each having their own interests and stakes. These

different interestî may result in conflict. Govemments are a key stakeholder ùi water

management. The following subsections discuss the d e s of the different levels of

govemment in the water management process in Ontario. Specinc refaences are made to

ministrÏes, agencies, statutes, and processes that are relevant to the case studies discussed m

forthcoming chapters.

THE G O V E R N M ' ROLE IN WATER WAGEMENT

Water is a shared resource and involves a multitude of laws, institutions and processes

in its management This requires that different levels of govemment, and agencies within

these levels, intenrct with each other to effectively manage water resources. OAen times,

this interaction does not occur, or occurs in a negative way, and disputes result.

In Canada, under the Constitution, there are a number of provincial and federal

responsibilities for the management for water resources. However, the Constitution does

not make specific reference to responsibilities for water resources (Pearse, et al. 1985).

The Canadian Constitution assigned the provinces responsïbility over most natural

resources, which includes inland waters, public lands and the water within it, and control

over regional and municipal govemments within its borders (Pearse, et aL 1985; Shrubsole

1990). These responsibilities provide the provincial govemments with the major role in

water resources management. The federal govermnent, on the other hand, is mainly

delegated the responsibilities for navigation, fisheries, inter-provincial and international

relations, Native issues, trade and commerce (Pearse, et al. 1985; Kreutzwiser 1995). . This

division creates an overlap in water resource juridiction and requires CO-operation and

CO-ordination between the two levels of govemment.

23

To fiiaher complicate the jurisdictional division within Canadian water management,

the peace, order and good government clause in the Constitution permits the federal

government to interfere in any provincial action or decision-ma.g process (Shmbsole

1990). Thus, additional conflicts are created between the two levels of govenunent

because federal jurisdiction c m override provincial statutes (e-g., the Fishenès Act

ovemdes Ontario Wafer Resources Act), thereby creating the potential for undennining

provincial control. Consequedy, responsi'bility for water resources management is

fragrnented among the federal and provincial govemments (Shmbsole IWO). In this

subsection, the emphasis is on institutional arrangements that figured in the cases analyzed

in Chapters 4 and 5.

Federal Role

At the federal level, numerous departments have sigdicant responsibilities for water

resources, including Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Extemd Aff",

Agriculture, and Natural Resources Canada (Karvinen aud McAllister 1994). Furthermore,

many federal statutes, treaties, agreements, and policies influence the management of

water resources in Canada. These include statutes, such as the Canada Water Act, and the

Fisherïes Act, treaties and agreements, such as the Boundary Waters Treuty and the Great

Lakes Water QuaZity Agreement, and policies, such as the Federal Water Policy (de Loë

1990; Karvinen and McAllister 1994; Kreutzwiser 1995).

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans

The Department of Fisheries and Oc- is a key stakeholder in Canadian water

management because it administem the federal Fisheries Act. This statute is considered to

be powerful in the protection of the aquatic environment (Estrin and Swaigen 1993). The

Fisheries Act, specifically Sections 35,36 and 3 8. gives the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans the power to prohibit any undertaking that results in, or is Wrely to result in, the

alteration. disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, or the deposition of a deleterious

substance in water fiequented by fkh, or in any place where a deleterious substance may

enter such waters, unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries and

Oceans 199 1). Therefore, any party that voluntarïly or involuntarily d e s changes to

water quantity a d o r water quality, thus harming f ih and their habitat, can be prosecuted

under the Fisheries Act. Due to the ail-encompassing nature of this statute, individuals,

private corporations, and even government agencies are bound by this legislation. For

example, if a sewage treatment plant accidentally releases chlorine into a nearby water

body and k a s fish, the owners of the sewage treatment plant (e-g., the province, the

municipality, or private owners) can be held responsible under the Fisheries Act. Penalties

and fines range h m up to $300,000 for a first offense to $1,000,000 and three years'

imprisonment for repeat offenses (Estrin and Swaigen 1993). However, it is important to

note that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the power to authorize an undertaking

despite its harm to fish and fish habitat.

Provincial Role: Ontario

Water resources management at the provincial level is equally complex. The complex

system in Ontario illustrates the diiïïculties that exist when agencies, ministries, and

municipalities try to work together (Carlisle and Smith 1989). In Ontano, several agencies

and provincial statutes that deal with water resources exist Relevant provincial legislation

includes the Ontano Water Resowces Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the

Conservation Authonfies Act, and the Public Lands Act, among m a . others (Percy 1988).

To M e r complicate matters, responsibility for each of these acts is delegated to a

number of d.ifZerent ministries and govanment agencies. Provincial authority for water

resources is mainly delegated to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of

Natural Resources (MNR). Other important players are conservation authorities, municipal

governments, and the Ontario -Cleau Water Agency (OWCA), with other ministries and

agencies, such as the Ministries of Health, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Industry

and Tourism, Culture and Recreatio~ Transportation, Mimicipal AffauS, playing minor

roles (Carlisle and Smith 1989; de Loë 1990; Mitchell and Shrubsole 1994). Each agency

and ministry has its own mandates and responsïbilities. These different goals of various

0rgani;riitions and legislation can create cornpetition among the agencies concerning

resource decision-malcing- In many cases, interest conflicts have resulted.

Ministry of Environment

In Ontario, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) administers a number of key pieces of

legislation related to water quality and quantity issues, includuig the Ontario Water

Resources Act, the Environmental Protection Act, and the Enw'ronmental Assessment Act.

The Ontario Water Resources Act is the primary provincial statute that directly relates to

the management of gromd and surface water. This statute prohibits the discharge of

polluting materiais that can impair water quality in water bodies (i.e., wells, lakes,

reservoin, and ponds), watercourses (Le., streams, rivers, or creeks), or on their shores or

banks (Estrin and Swaigen 1993)-

Under the Ontario Wuter Resources Act, MOE is also responsible for the licensing,

construction, and operation of water and sewage works (de Loe 1989). This statute gives

MOE the authority to approve, refuse, or set conditions regarding the establishment or

extension of sewage works which directly discharge effluent into watercourses; however,

the Environmental Proterton Act regulates sewage works that do not directly discharge

effluent into watercourses (Le., sewage treatxnent plants and septic tanks) (Estrin and

Swaigen 1993). Water quality concerns can be attriiuted to sewage works in both ofthese

situation.

The Ontario Cleau Water Agency (OCWA), a crown corporation, was established to operate as a commercial enterprise and to charge clients for services, to enter partnerships with municipalities and prÎvate companies. 1t assumed responsiiility for operating 153 provincially-owned sewage treatment plants and 77 water heatment facilities, and 116 municipdy-owned water and sewage fadities. OCWA also will finance and build water and sewage facilities, and provide advice on a cost-recovery basis to communities (Mitchell and Shnibsole 1994,20).

These processes were previously performed by the Ministry of the Enviromnent and

Energy (Mitchell and Shnibsole 1994).

The Environmental Assessment Act is also important in Ontario water management.

Under this statute, environmental assessments are required for specific projects, activities,

and plans (MacRitchie, et al. 1994). Project-specinc environment assessments (individual

EA) are conducted on major provincial and municipal projects, such as landfill sites and

hydroelectric projects, while "class" envkoxunental assessments are applied to recurring

projects, such as public w e k and sewage treatment plant upgrades (Estrin and Swaigen

1993). This statute gives the MOE the power to accept an environmental assessrnent

(individual or class) for waste management sites, public wells, and public sewage systems;

give approval to proceed with an undertaking; and require public hearings before an

Environmental Assessment Board, a decision-making body appointed by Cabinet

(MacRitchie, et al. 1994).

Water quantity issues are also the responsi'biIity of the MOE. In addition to provÏncial

legislation, cornmon law riparian rights and propeay rightsy programs such as the Permit

To Take Water Program (P'MWP). and various provincial policies influence the

management of water resources (Percy 1988; de Loë 1990). The PTTWP is regulated

under section 34 of the Ontario Water Resorcrces Act and a p p b to both surface and

groundwater sources. The PTTWP restricts the withdrawd of water without a permit to a

maximum of 50,000 litres per day, unless the water is for domestic use, f i e fighting9 or

f m purposes (Percy 198 8; Estrin and Swaigen 1993). These pennits are issued by the

MOE and public or municipal input in the issuance of permits is not required. Withdmvds

of d a c e and groundwater, in conjunction with the PTTWP, are sources of conflict in

water disputes. For example, recent concems about the issuance of pennits to commercial

water bottling companies, such as Clearly Canadian Beverage Corporation, have &sen due

to the uncertainties and sustainability of water supplies and the role of municipalities once

permits have been issued (Hofinam and Mitcheil1995). Commercial water withdrawals

can resuit in interferences and shortages in domestic water supplies, leading to interest

conflicts.

Two policy tools are being used by the MOE: Onturio Drinkng Wuter Objecfies and

rater Management: G o & , Policies, O&ectives und lip~ementation Procedures of the

Ministry ofEnMronrnent (Estrin and Swaigen 1993). The Ontario Drinking Water

Objectives, also known as the "green booKY, set the drinking water guidelines, includuig the

maximum acceptable concentrations, interi. maximum acceptable concentrations,

maximum desirable concentrations, and operational guidelines (Estrin and Swaigen 1993).

Water Management= Goals, Policies, Objectives and Impiementation Procedures of the

protection of fish and fish habitat, and therefore, water management, by providing the

authority to penalize offenders for violations of the Fishenes Act. Even though recent

negotiations between the DFO and MNR have ended this agreement, it is pertinent in one

of the cases analyzed.

Municipal Role

Municipal governments are not constituted under the Constitution Act, and receive their

powers directly h m the provincial goveniment (Tmdal and Tindal1995). Two important

provincial statutes that detemine the municipal role in water resources management are the

Municipal Act and the Planning Art.

As detennined by the Munic@al Act, the role of the municipal govemrnent in water

management is the provision of water-related services, such as waste water freatment, local

drainage, planning and developing controls (Carlisle and Smith 1989; Tindal and Tindd

1995). In the case of two-tiered municipal governments, it is the responsïbility of the upper

tier govemment (e-g., regional govemment) to provide a l l or most of the major municipal

services for water supply, wastewater treatment, Iocal drainage, parks, roads, sewage

disposal, and planning and developing controls (Carlisle and Smith 1989; Tindd and

Tindal1995). Lower tier municipal govemments also provide some of these services.

Therefore, duplication and overlap are present, often creaîing conflicts.

Also, under the Municipal Act, municipalities have the right to impose a waterworks

rate on landowners for these services (de Loë 1989). In addition to this, the Municipal Act

gives municipal g o v m e n t s the authority to tax property, both commercial and

residential, in order to provide these services and receive transfer payments nom the

provincial government (Tindal and Tindall995). Unlike other levels of govefnment, the

municipalities are required to balance their cunent budgets every year (Tindal and Tindal

1995). Consequently, municipal govemment revenues and expenditures are luniteci, which

presents constraints on the provision of services.

Land Use Planning and Water Management

The complex provincial-municipal relationship is evident in land use planning and

water management. According to Estrin and Swaigen (1993), land use planning is "the

process that is întended to regulate the private and public use of land and buildings in order

to resolve contlicts between pnvate and public interests and between present and fhture

needs." The Planning Act legislates land use plannùig in Ontario. Under this statute, the

provincial goveniment assigns the administration of land use planning, both current and

fiiîure plans, to municipalities ('Estria and Swaigen 1993). However, appeal and

supervisory roles remai. mainly with the provincial govemment (Estrin and Swaigen

1993).

Land use plans can have a direct impact on the quality and quantity of water resources

(Karvinen and McAUister 1994). Municipalities in Ontario incorporate water management

strategies into municipal officiai plans pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act

(Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources 1992). During the period in which the

disputes in the cases analyzed occurred, the officia1 plan guided the physical development

and relevant social, economic and environmental matters of a municipality, and was created

by the municipality, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Mairs, and implemented by

zoning by-laws, subdivision controls, and site plans (Bkeuawiser, et al. 1992; Mitcheil and

Shrubsole 1994). Under recent changes in the relationship between the province and

municipalities, responsibility for lower tier official plan approval has been shifted down

nom the Ministry of Municipal AffauS and Housing, f o m d y Lnown as the Ministry of

Municipal Mairs, to upper tier municipal governments (Ontario and Association of

Municipalities of Ontario 1997).

In Ontario, provincial ministries and agencies develop broad water management

strategies, while implementation of these strategies occurs at the local level. Therefore,

theïe are a variety of participants with different roles in the land use planning process (refer

to Figure 1). There are parties that provide approvals, including the local municipalities

and regional municipalities, and there are parties that only provide recommendations,

comments, and clearances. The latter group consists of provincial ministries and agencies,

such as the MOE, MNR, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), and

the conservation authorities (Estrin and Swaigen 1993; Karvinen and McAUister 1994).

Muiistry of Municipal M a i n and the Ontario Municipal Board

During the time period of the cases, the Ministry of Municipal Mairs had muItiple

roles in land use planning. This ministry made decisions conceming municipal &airs such

as direct zoning, subdivision approval, provincial policies and interests and official

approvals; provided comments regarding housing such as housing supplies and land

banking; and appealed decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (Estrin and

Swaigen 1993). People, public bodies, or corporations c m appeal a planning decision

(e-g., plans of subdivision, zoning by-Iaws), or the failure to make a decision, to the OMB

(Ontario Municipal Board 1998b). The OMB is "a quasi-judicial administrative tniunal

which conducts its hearings open to the public and makes its decisions on the evidence

heard and presented at the hearing" (Ontario Municipal Board 1998a). On balance, rnost of

the responsibilities for land use decisions are made by the mrmicipalities and the OMB *

(Estrin and Swaigen 1993)-

Figure 1. Omanhational Chart for Munici~al Planninr Decisions

LOCAUAREA MUEIlCiPAUTY dKPd Phn

1

PROVlNClAL MINIÇTRIEYAGENUES Naturai Re30~~reyWefhrgls. F i * Naîucal Features. -Aggregate

Exlraaion AgrkuEure and FkWFimd Land P m s a ~ ~ i M . AgkuRutaI Cornmunilies

HousingHuusütg SqFipI. Land Banking EnvuorunenvSewage Tieatment Seprk S'emr. Waf er Supply. LVasre

O i ~ s a l . Envrionmeniat Protedion and Assessmenr

Source: Estri. and Swaigen (1993)

Conservation Authorities

Conservation authonties, which play an important role in land use planning in Ontario,

are corporate bodies established under the Cornmution Authon'ties Act (Yeager 1991;

Karvinen and McAllister 1994). They are under MNR's supervision. Under the

Conservation Authorr'ties Act, conservation authorities are responsiile for the conservation,

restoration, development, and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and

minerals in a watershed (Yeager 1991; Karvlnen and McAllister 1994). In the pas& flood

control was the major responsLbility of the conservation authonties, with minor roles in

water quality in dnnking water and sewage disposal (Mitchell and Shmbsole 1992).

However, theîr role has expanded h t o a multipinpose and comprehensive management

function, including flood and poilution control, reforestation, water-based recreation, fish

and wildlife protection., open space management, and municipal supply (Carlisle and Smith

1989). In the land use planning process, conservation authorities comment on the

implications of flood control and flood plain management on proposed land use plans .-

(Figure 1).

Class Environmentai Assessments

'cClass" environmental assessments (Class EA) may be required in the planning of

municipal sewage, stoxmwater management and water projects, depending on the scheaule

classification of the project According to the Municipal Engheers Association (1993),

there are three schedules: A, B, and C. Schedule A projects have minniral environmental

impacts and do not require a dass EA. Schedde B projects have the potential to adversely

affect the environment and a screening process, involving all relevant stakeholders (i.e., the

public and govemment agencies), is required. The h a 1 schedule (schedule C) consists of

projects with signincant environmental impacts recphiug a full Class EA, which includes

an Environmental Study Report. A ''bump-up" to an individual EA can be invoked by the

MOE for schedule £3 and C projects ifconcerm raised in the assessrnent process are not

resolved (Municipal Engineers Association 1993). A number of provincial ministries and

agencies, such as the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Naturd Resources and

Health, and the conservation authorities, provide comments in the Class EA process.

TEE MANAGEMENT OF WATER RESOURCE DISPUTES

The complex water management system in Ontario illustrates the diffi.culties in the

interactions of agencies and miniministries tcying to working together (Carlisle and Smith

1989). For example, conse~ation authoritïes work on a watershed basis, whïch

encompasses politicai and administrative boundaries, where a number of government

agencies/ministries claim jurïsdictional rights (Mitchell and Shnibsole 1992). Conservation

authorities, with their broad role, duplicate fimctions performed by other ministries and

agencies, such as MNR and MOE. Duplication and fragmentation in water management

creates public confusion and inefficiencies in the delivery of services on the municipal level

that was estimated to cost over 100 million dollars in a 1993 study (Mitchell and Shnibsole

1994). Consequently, numerous water disputes arise. Under the current legislation in

Ontario, these types of disputes are difïicult to resolve effectively (Leadlay 1996).

In addition to water management issues, the sustainability of both water quality and

quantity is an underlying theme of water disputes in Ontario, and has the potential to

become more prevalent as water resources become scarce. In response to such concerns,

the Canadian Water Resources Association (1994) devised a list of sustainability principles

for water management in Canada- Water management sustainability principles relate to: (1)

practicing integrated water resource management; (2) encouraging water consemation and

the protection of water quality; and, (3) resolving water management issues. It is in

relation to the third group of principles that the CWRA suggests that issues should be

resolved usiug techniques, such as negotiation and medation, and that disputes should be

prevented by encouraging consultation and participation among ail affecteci parties.

Dispute management tools and approaches, such as dispute avoidance and coliaborative

consensus-building, have been advocated as new methods of deaiing effectively with these

types of disputes. These tools and approaches c m be used to avoid and minimize disputes

related to water quality and qwtity of both d a c e and ground water. H0fimu-m and

Mitchell (1 995) suggest that w u t e management techniques, such as public participation,

CO-ordination and CO-operation, dong with ADR techniques, can help to reduce the number

of disputes that aise fiom the withdrawal of water. Susskind (1996) and Federal

Environmental Assessrnent and Review Office (1992) champion the use of variations of

mediation to resolve environmental disputes. On the other han& Dorcey (1986) and Fisher

and Ury (1981) strongly advocate the use of negotiation in the resolution of disputes.

Dorcey and Riek (1989) suggest that alternative methods of dispute management, such as

coiiaborative conseasus-building techniques, recently have been recognized as valuable in

water resource disputes, and that attention should be given to ways in which they can be

fully incorporated and utilized in the govanance of water resources. It may not be

appropriate to advocate one tool exclusively because each technique may be suitable in

specific circumsfances.

Dispute management tools and techniques have been used in a number of water

resource disputes (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek 1989; Hartmann

1989). In many cases, these tools have enabled the settlement of water disputes.

However, despite the use of these tools, there are factors, identifieci earlier in this chapter,

that c m ixnpede the prevention and resolution of water resource disputes (Susskind and

Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek 1989; Hartmann 1989). These factors, as weii as theV

impact on the management of water resource disputes, are analyzed and discussed in the

context of two cases in forthcoming chapters.

Water management disputes are complex involving a number of issues and conflicts,

institutional arrangements, and a wide variety of participants. This chapter examined the

theoretical bases for conflicts and disputes, tools and approaches that can be used to

prevent and resolve disputes, and aspects of water management in Ontario that are pertinent

to this research, in paaicular to the case studies analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5.

A preliminary analyticd fiamework was also developed in this chapter. It consists of

three components, specincally the types of connict and the factors that contnbute to them,

the typology of disput; management tools and approaches, and the principles of dispute

management. As outlined in the objectives section of Chapter 1, this framework is the

bais for analyzing the case studies in the upcoming chapters. In the next chapter, the

research approach for this thesis is briefly examined, and the preliminary fiamework is

refined.

INTRODUCTION

The methodology used in this research consists of the development and refinement of a

dispute management k e w o r k , and case study analyses using the h e w o r k . This

chapter discusses the research approach and the changes to the preliminary frameworlc,

which was desmiecl in Chapter 2. In addition, bnef descriptions of the cases are provided.

RESEARCH APPROACH

The research approach involved both a theoretical and an empirical analysis. The

dispute management fiamework developed in Chapter 2 met the nrSt objective and forms

the basis for the case study analysis (Objective 2). Cases, both documented and current,

were analyzed, and the hmework of dispute management, specificdy the tools and

principles, was renned This helped to iden- additional factors that contn'bute to the

Ontario water disputes, and impediments to their avoidance or resolution. The results of

the analyses aided in making recommendatiom to avoid and resolve local water disputes.

FRAMEWORK

In Chapter 2, the three components of the preliminary hmework were presented (Box

3). The first component of the fiamework is a summary of factors that contnaue to the

different conflict types. A typology of the various dispute management tools and

approaches, both dispute avoidance and resolution techniques, comprises the second part of

the h e w o r k . The final component of the fkamework is the specincation of the principles

of dispute management

38

Box 3. Comnonents of the Pnliminaw Framework

1 Types of Connict and the Factors That Contribute to Them Cognitive Value hterest Behaviourd

II Typology of Dispute Management Tools and Approaches Avoidance Resolution

ï I I PrhcipIes of Dispute Management Participant Process Outcome

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

Case snidy analysis is the main focus of the research. Three southem Ontario disputes

are analyzed. The first case was a dispute documented in the fiterature, while the

remaining two are current disputes. Both the documented and current cases illustrated

different stages of water disputes, different aspects of water management, and rural

disputes (rural-rural and rural-urban). The Kitchener-WaterlooWhot Township case is

the documented local water dispute that was andyzed in the pilot test (Figure 2). This

dispute involved a battle between the Regional Municipdity of Kitchener-Waterloo and

Wilmot Township for scarce groundwater supplies. Information for this case was found

mainly in a Master's thesis writtea by Nancy Hofimm (1996).

The two current cases that were selected for detitiled analysis involve the Town of

Halton HiUs (Acton) and the Vülage of Winchester (Figure 2). The water dispute in Acton

involved water in relation to development issues, and the Village of Winchester dispute

focused on municipal water supply ne& and its impacts on the surrounding fann

39

co~~mrmity. The Acton dispute was identifïed in part h m a recent survey ofconflict and

municipal water issues (Kreutzwiser and de Loë 1998). The Winchester case was

identïfied during the Groundwater and AgrzkuIture Conference (Barrie, Ontario, March

24,1997). More details regarding the case studies are presented in Chapters 4 and 5.

Ficre 2. Location of the Southern Ontario Casa

1 Town of Halton Hill

The data for the curent cases were obtained fiom various sources, including planning

documents (e.g., by-laws, official plans, and council reports), local newspaper coverage of

the water disputes, and interviews with key stakeholders and participants of the disputes

(e-g., farmers, municipal planners, community group organizers). The inteniews provided

most of the data reqWred for the analyses. An i n t e d m schedule was created and

40

consisted of a series of open-ended questions regarding the dispute and their management

(Box 4). Specinc data sources for each current case study analysis are discussed in

Chapters 4 and 5.

BOX 4. Interview Schedule

DEPUTE 1. The nature of the dispute

a) When and how did the dispute develop? b) M a t are the issues and the conflicts in the dispute?

2. The participants of the dispute a) How many parties are involved in the dispute? b) Who are the participants in the dispute and what are their positions/interests? c) What authority does each participant have? d) Are there preconceived notions about the each part-? If so, what are they?

3. The factors that contn'buted to the dispute a) What are the factors tbat contri'buted to the dispute? b) How did each factor affect the dispute? c) How important was the factor to the dispute?

DISPUTE MANAGEMENT 1. Are the channels for comxuunication available? If so, are they being utilized

effectively ?

2. Are there any mechanisms in place to avoid or resolve disputes? If so, what are they ?

3. a) Were m e m e s taken to avoid the dispute? If so, what are they? b) Were measws taken to resolve the dispute? Ifso, what are they?

4. What conditions, positive orland negative, infiuenced the dispute management process?

Case study analysis consisted of two stages. The first stage was a pilot te* which

involved the analysis of a documented dispute, using the preliminary fiamework. This test

was conducted in order to r e h e the hmework that would be used during the second stage,

the analysis of the two current disputes.

PILOT TEST= THE PREZMINARY FRAMEWORK

Prior to using the h e w o r k to analyze the two current local water confiict cases, a

pilot test was conducted. This entded the analysis of a documented local water dispute

using the preliminary k e w o r k . This pilot test enabled rehements and modincaîions to

be made to both the h e w o r k and the approach to analyzing local water dispute cases.

Pilot Test

The pilot test involved the d y s i s of the Kitchener-Water10o/Wihot Township

dispute. The analysis identified the différent types of conflict and the factors that

contnbued to them, dispute management tools used, and principles of dispute management

present in the case. This helped to descnbe the local water dispute. The analysis also

involved detennining the presence or absence of factors, tools, and principles fiom the

preiiminary fiarnework in the case. The fiamework was assessed in order to determine its

usefulness as a mol for analyzing local water disputes. Once the analysis of the

documented dispute was completed, the information gathered was used to refine the

preliminary fkmework.

The documented case selected was the Kitchener-Waterloo/WiImot Township dispute.

Kitchener and Waterloo are urban centres that support Large populations (170,000 and 87,

500 respectively), and are heavily dependent on grodwater @ofiriann 1996). As the

cities have grown over the past five decades, they have had to expand their water supplies

continuously to satisfy the increasing population. Expansion of water supplies has mainly

occurred in, and adversely impacted, groundwater supplies for rural areas in sunounding

townships, specïfïcaliy Wilmot Township (Hofmann 1996). This created a lengthy

ongoing dispute. A nurnber of fztors contributeci to the different types of contlict in this

dispute (Table 3), many ofwhich wae variations of the factors found in the prelimeiary

version of the h e w o r k . These factors inchde communication diff?culties, different

values of groundwater, and a lack of available scientïlïc data.

Table 3. Exam~les of Factors that Contributeai to the Dwerent Tmes of Conflict in the Kitchener-WaterIooiWiiImot Townshi~ Dispute

COGNïMW CONFLICTS

Iack of available scientific data Iack of clarity regarding the ownership of groundwater in the Township inconsistencies in the laws and policies govemhg groundwater communication difflculties

VALUE COrnCTS

ciifkences in the value of groundwater (consumption versus agrïcultural production)

INTEREST CONFLTCTS

excIUSiOn of relevant stakeholders

BEHAVIOURAL CONFLICTS

preconceived notions about the opposing parties lack of trust and respect among the partkipants previous hostile relations

AdditionalIy, a number of dispute management approaches, identifïed in the second

component of the fiamework, were tried Some approaches aimed to avoid the emergence

of the dispute; others were directed to resolving the dispute. For instance, in 1973, water

scarcity and resulting conflicts led to the formation of the Regional Municipality of

Waterloo, thereby amalgamating water supply respomibilities of the various municipalities

within the region (Hofinam 1996). This planning approach did not avoid the dispute.

The dispute management processes used in this dispute did not adhere to many of the

principles of dispute management suggested in the third component of the pretiminary

fiamework. Principles such as the inclusion of al I relevant stakeholders were not respected,

which ofien escdated the dispute. For example, the attempts to consult with the publlc in

W h o t Township were not successful in the 1980s (Hofinann 1996), and therefore, all

relevant stakeholders were not included in the dispute management proces. The

documented case study analysk idenined areas where the h e w o r k neeàed to be re£kecL

Refinement of the Prelirninary Fmmework

A number of issues arose fiom the analysis of the Kitchener-Waterloo/WiImot

Township case. These issues needed to be addressed in the refinement of the preliminary -

fiamework, specificaily the nrst component of the fiamework. There were other conflict

types identifieci fiom the pilot test that could not eady be categorizd using the preliniinary

fiamework. For example, power-related connicts were recognized as an additional factor

in the Kitchener-Waterloo/ W h o t Township water dispute. Accordhg to Neal (1996).

there are power-based conflicts, resuiting fkom unequal power ciifferences, in addition to

the four connict types. These specifically relate to physicai, psychologicd, political, and

financial factors.

Also, a number of factors contrïbuted to the dispute, but were not associated with a

specific type of conflict. For instance, the media and the duration of the dispute affected al l

codiict types and played a major role in the Kitchener-Waterloo/Wilmot Township water

dispute, These types of factors were crucial in the escalation of the dispute, and therefore,

were recognized as a separate and distinct factor in the renned fkmework.

The refïned fiamework (Box 5) still consists of the three components of the preliminary

framework, but the fkst component is now identified as factors that contribute to the

dispute. This component still encompasses the factors that affect the dament connict

types, identifieci in the preliminary fiarnework. However, it also hcludes conflict types not

identified in Chapter 2, and other factors that contniute to the dispute, but which c m not

be categorized as a conflict-

1 Bar 5. Commnents of the Rcfineà Fnmcrork

II Typology of Dispute Management Tmls and Approaches Avoidance Resolution

III PrincipCes of Dispute Management Participant Process Outcorne

ANALYSIS OF CZTRRENT WATER DISPUTES

The two current local water disputes, which took place in Acton (Town of Halton W s )

and the Village of Winchester, were analyzed according to the renned fkmework. The

data used in these analyses were obtained f?om a wide varïety of sources (e-g., interviews,

newspapers, planning documents, and hearing transcripts), with major emphasis on the

interviews. Using a variety of data sources allowed for the cross-checking of information.

For instance, interviews provided qualitative information such as personal insights into the

water dispute and its management (McCracken 1988). Statements obtained fiom

interviews were then cross-checked with a general newspaper accounting of the dispute.

The analYsis of these cases consisted of three parts and provided information about the

escalation of the dispute, and the obstacles in dispute management. The presence a@

absence of coaflicts and factors that contn'buted to them, as well as their fiequency and

45

impact on the disputes, was detennined m the fïrst part of the analysis. For example, the

number of h e s a factor was mentioned (e.g., persodity clashes) suggested the factor's

importance to the dispute. From this assessment, an indication of the factors that played

major roles in the escalation of the disputes and impeded their management could be

determined. Each dispute will have its own set of factors that may or may not relate to the

List of factors identifid in the preliminary hmework d e s c n i in Chapter 2.

The second component involved the identification and assessment of the toois and

approaches used to manage the dispute in relation to the principIes of dispute management

An examination of disputes assists in determinhg the pnnciples that were absent or

present, and which may have contriied or hindered the dispute management process

(Kartez and Bowman 1993). For instance, the principle that pertains to the inclusion of all

relevant stakeholders rnay be considered crucial in theory (Fisher and Ury 198 1 ; Susskind

and Cruikshank 1987; H a r t i 1989). However, dispute management may be occumhg

successfully without the theoretically desired conditions. Observations such as this are

crucial because they offer insight into how local level water disputes are actually managed.

The h a l part of the analysis involved a cornparison of the two disputes and discusses

the more important factors and principles and their effects on the escalation and

management of each dispute. This provides valuable lessons that can help m the

management of fiiture water disputes, and the use of practical and theoretical approaches

for dispute management. Following the analysis of the disputes, the usefulness of the

fiarnework in analyzing water disputes was assessed (Objective 3). Coiid-üsions were

drawn and insights were made about water disputes, the factors that contribute to these

disputes, and their managanent (Objective 4).

CHAPTER4

ACTON: WAmR AND DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Acton (Town of Halton Hi&) is a small commurÜfy in southem Ontario. Unlike many

of its surromding communities (e-g., Georgetown), Acton's population has remainecl stable

for a number of years. However, recently a nimiber of development corporations have

expressed interest in developing in Acton. Development creates pressure on water

resources and uncertainty regarding the susbinability of these resouces to siipply exktbg

and fùture water needs. In Acton, these pressuns led to a dispute concerning the provision

of water services among the local residents, developers, municipal governments, provincial

and federal govemment ministries and agencies.

This chapter identifies and anaiyzes factors which contributeci to a water resource

dispute in Acton and evaluates the use of tools and principles of dispute management

pertinent to this case. Fint, the data sources are discussed. This is foilowed by an

overview of the case study, including background descriptions of the study area and the

water dispute, and a discussion of the major water-related issues in the dispute. The case is

then analyzed according to the three components of the renned fhmework (Chapter 3).

DATA SOURCES

A number of data sources were usedin this analysis, including interviews, newspaper

articles, municipal planning documents, water management studies, and Ontario Municipal

Board (OMB) proceedings. These sources provlded most of the f a c t d information about

the case. Some of the data sources were more reliable than others, For exampIe, the OMB

proceedings, which consisted of at least seventeen files, were poorly organized and

47

incomplete at the OMB offices. Un the other hand, current hydrogeologicd information,

which was absent during the dispute, was avaiIable for the analysis. However, the

i n t e ~ e w s provided most of the information for the case studies.

The Interviews

Many different interests were involved in this case, including the local conservation

authority (Credit Vailey Conservation). provincial ministries (Ministries of Natural

Resources, Environment, and Municipal Affairs and Housing), federal departments

(Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Environment Canada), consulting firms (Gartner Lee

Limited and Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited), different tiers of municipal

govemment (The Regional Municipality of Halton and The Town of Haiton Hills),

development corporations (Rinarin Limited, Coscan Development Corporation, and Tribute

Development), concerned citizens, and environmental groups.

Fifteen key participants in the case were identifiecl nom the relevant documents and

during the interviews. I n t e ~ e w s were conducted between February and April, 1998. Of

the fifteen interviews, two were brief telephone conversations, mainly to address specEc

questions and to cl- certain points. Another two were with people who were not

directly involved, but who were able to discuss the case, concentrahg more on the

groundwater conditions of the Town of Halton Hills. Also, one of the interview subjects

was not directly involved in the dispute, but comented mainly on more recent

water-related codiict cases in the Town of Halton Hills. An attempt was made to balance

interests in the interviews. U'ortunately, interviews with certain key representatives of the

Ministries of Naturai Resources (MNR) and Environment (MOE), and the OMB did not

take place. This was due to the retirernent and relocation of these people. As a result, they

were no longer atmiated with their respective offices and codd not be contacted. These

key representatives from MNR and MOE were at the forefiont of the dispute and would

have proyided a provincial peqective on this water dispute and its management. The

OMB representatîve could have clarineci some of the confusion in the OMB files, and

could have provided an outside perspective of the situation.

CASE STUDF BACKGROUND

w k disputes are becoming more fiequent in southern Ontario. The dispute in Acton

involved water issues in relation to land use planning. These issues are routinely present in

land use planning. However, in this case, conflicts were generated, and a major water

dispute occuxed. Confiicts in this case involved a variety of issues, including the creation

of both separate and public schools, commercial development, the number of residential

lots, and the sizes of the residential lots. The major dispute in this case centered around

development and the provision of services in Acton. This section provides a background to

the dispute, by descnbing the study area and outlining the events that occurred in the case.

STUDY AREA: ACTON

The Town of Halton Ws, population 38,444 people (as of 1994), is located in the

Regional Municipality of Hdton, near the western outskirts of the Greater Toronto Area

Figure 2) (Town of Halton Hills 1994). Halton Hills is cornposed of two main

communities, Georgetown and Acton, with the remainder of the population dispersecl in

rural areas (Figure 3). Urban growth and environmental protection are concems of the

Town of Halton Hills (Gartner Lee Ltozited 1995a). The Town itself has been undergohg

limited population growth and residential development for a nurnber of years (Town of

Halton HiUs 1994). However, this growth has not been equally distributed among the

49

communities. While Georgetom has undergone major changes in the Ias t decade, Acton,

which is the d e r cornmuni@ of the two, has not changexi much (Sejeantson 1998). At

present, the population of Acton is approximately 7,000 people, and it cannot exceed

10,000 due to the cment capacity of the sewage treatment facility (Town of Halton Hills

1994; Gartner Lee Limited 1995b)-

Figure 3. The Town of Haiton EfiUs

Source: Holysh (1 997)

Acton relies on groundwater for its water supply. A number of other activities in Acton

utilize groundwater. These include recreation, industrial production, agriculture, and

househoid use. Consequently, there are a multitude of competing human users for the

50

limiteci groundwater supplies in the area- Acton's Pennit to Take Water allows for a

maximum withdrawal of 6,768 m3fday; however, the amoimt of water currently used is

approximately 2,800 rnVday (Holysh 1997). Gmundwater in Acton is pumped in three

main areas, the Prospect Park Well, the Davidson WeUs, and the 4th Line A Well, with the

Prospect and Davidson Weils both providing approximately 400/0 of Acton's water supply

(Holysh 1997) . The Prospect Park Well, located at Fairy Lake, is the weU that is pertinent

in this case. Accordmg to Holysh (1997), this weli takes water h m the same aquifer that

is utilized by Georgetown, and therefore, quality and ~uantity-reIated concems can have

implications for the groundwater system in Georgetown.

The commimity of Acton is located witbin the Credit River Watershed. The Acton

sewage treatment plant (also r e f d to as a wastewater treatment plant) is located along

Black Creek, a tributary of the Credit River, and discharges its treated water into this creek

(Figure 3). Black Creek supports a large cold water fishery, consisting of brook trout

(Saivelinus fontinalis), through maintenance of basefiows. Water provides spawning

grounds and habitat for the fish. Grodwater, in particda., is essential for the trout in this

creek, especially in spawning areas, because the groundwater provides protection for the

eggs in the grave1 bed (Martin-Dom 1998). Brook bout are sensitive to changes in their

environment, and this population in Black Creek is located downstream fiom the Acton

sewage treatment plant. Degraded water q d t y and Stream habitat conditions, due to

contamination (e.g., pesticides and sewage effluent), limit the development and survival of

fish communities (Jahn and Schenck 1991). In the last decade, un-ionized ammonia, which

is discharged from the sewage treatment plant, has been identified as toxic to fish in Black

Creek and changes in concentrations have r d t e d in nsh popdation shitts (Gartner Lee

Limited 1995% 1995b).

TEIE DISPUTE

This subsection descn'bes the participants and the events that transformed an everday

land use planning decision into a water dispute. The main dispute analyzed in this case

study centers on development and the provision of water-related services m Acton. The

chronology of events is based on the interviews with key participants and obsenrers, local

newspaper coverage, a review of pertinent planning documents, and Ontario Municipal

Board proceedings (Table 4).

Acton's urban boundary was extended in the Official Plan in the mid 1980s.

Development was proposed withïn this extended urban boundary, with ten to twelve

developers involved. The conflicts peaaining to water resources becarne an issue

especially in the eastern section of Acton, commonly referred as Acton East (Figure 4).

The three main developers in Acton East are Coscan (currently known as Brooffied

Homes), Trilute Homes, and Rinari. Development. These developers purchased lands in

Acton East and proposed residential subdivisions, dong with some commercial

development, during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Their subdivision plans were

reviewed by the Town of Halton Hills and the Regional Municipality of Halton (the

Region) in the early 1990s. Both muninpalities expressed concems about the provision of

services.

Table 4. Chronolm of Events in the Acton Case

DATE

mid 1980s

Iate 1980s and eady 1990s

September 1992

December 1992 - March 1993

April1993

June 28,1993

December 1993

Present day (1 998)

Acton's d a n boundary was expanded and amendments were made to the Town of Haiton Hiils Officia1 PIan,

Developers pmchased lands in Acton and proposed residentiaf subdivisions and commercial development In this dispute, Acton East is an area where residential subdivisions have been proposed.

Plans reviewed by the Town of Halton Hïlls and the Regional Mimicipality of Halton-

Other agencies, such as the Mmistry of Environment, Muiistry of Naturd Resources and Credit ValIey Conservation, were c o d t e d .

Coscan Development Corporation, a developer in Acton East, appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Other developers appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Pre-hearing coderence of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Ontario Municipal Board hearing started and ran over the course of eight weeks.

The Acton Water QuaIiw Stw& began. This study was conducted by Gartner Lee LMited, on behalfof the Region.

The Acton Water @al@ Study was concluded and results were reported to the relevant stakeholders in the dispute.

Ontario Municipal Board made a decision granting the approval for the development with provisions of Acton sewage treatrnent plant upgrades and the protection of fish and fish habitat,

No development has proceeded in Acton East.

Figure 4. Acton Urban Area

Source: Town of Halton Hills (1994)

Acton East is located in an undeveloped area. Consequently, there are no services and

infiastructure (e-g., roads, sewers, water pipes) available in the area. The Region had

concems about water and wastewater services in the proposed area. These concems

54 .

pertained to the effécts of the proposed development on the existing water suppy; the

capacity of the Acton sewage treatment plant to deal with the additionai sewage coming

fiom the new residences; stormwater management issues; effects on the environment,

especially the sensitive fish, creeks and wetlands; as well as the costs of providïng for the

additional senrices, such as the cost of upgrading the sewage treatment plant. Because of

the nature of these concems, a number of agencies and provincial ministries had to be

consuIted for comments, authorizath, and approvak W p t e r 2). These included

provincial govemmmt agencies, particularly the Ministries of the Environment and NaturaI

Resources (MOE and MNR), Credit Valley Conservation (WC), and federal government

agencies, such as the Department of Fisherïes and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada,

The process of consultation among these agencies, ministries, and departments took several

months (Table 4). Correspondence among the various agencies, ministries and departments

resulted in a delayed response by the Region to the developers.

Due to the delays, one of the developers, Coscan, decided to take action agamst the

Region and appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in September of 1992, in an

attempt to resolve the situation expeditiously. This action of appealing to the OMB was

soon repeated by the other developers in Acton East. Developers in other parts of Acton,

who were also affected by these delays, also followed suit with their own appeals. As a

result, a number of individual appeals were made to the OMB. These appeals were not ail

concerned with water-related issues. However, the OMB chose to deal with aii the issues

in one hearing that began on June 28,1993, and ran over the course of eight weeks.

In the hearing, the OMB recommended that a decision could not be made without the

inclusion of ail relevant parties in the dispute. Relevant parties included those who were

directly involved, such as representatives nom the various departments (e-g., Plannuig and

Public Works) of the Region of Halton and Town of Halton Hills, the provincial Ministries

of Environment and Natural Resources, and the federal Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, as weli as interested parties, such as the Credit Valley Conservation, Maple Leaf

Foods, Inc. (owners of the contaminated Beardrnore Tannery lands), and Halton Roman

Catholic Separate School Board. Therefore, -y stakeholders were involved in this

dispute.

During the hearing, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in conjmction with

Environment Canada, under section 37 (l)(b) of the Fisheries Act @SC. 1989), requested

that the Region of Halton undertake a study of Black Creek. This would enable the

Department of Fishenes and Oceans to determine whether or not the proposed development

would negatively impact the quanti@ and quality of the waters of Black Creek, as a result

of the deposit of deletenous substances, or increased water taking at Prospect Park WeU,

thereby harmMy affecthg the fish and theh habitat. If any disturbance, disuption, or

destruction of fish and fish habitat was Iikely to occur, then the mitigative rneasures wodd

be assessed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Acton Water Quality Study

was conducted by Gartner Lee Lnnited and consisted of two parts, the baseline conditions

and the implementation plan. Garher Lee Limited was retained initially as consultants for

the hearing by one of the developers, Coscan. However, they were later retained by the

Region of Halton to complete the Acton Water Quality Study in December, 1993.

Overall, the hearing process, including the Acton Wuter Quality St~dy, was time

consuming and costiy. The study, which started in December, 1993, and ended in January,

1995, significantly delayed resolution of this dispute. In addition to the costs of the study,

which were approxùnately $250,000, the parties had to have representatives, and in most

cases, legai representation, attend the eight week hearing that took place in 1993. At the

end of the hearing, which concluded in April of 1995, the OMB granted approval for the

subdivision development, with the understanding that upgrades to the sewage treatment

plant would occur and that fish habitat had to be protected. To date, minor upgrades to the

sewage treatment plant have been completed; however, no residential development has

occurred in Acton East.

CASE STUDY: ANALYSIS

The dispute in Acton involved a number of different water-related issues and factors. .

These issues and factors varied among the participants interviewed. In this section, the

comments expressed in the interviews are analyzed in order to determine the importance

and relevance of issues and factors in the dispute. First, the issues are discussed. This is

foliowed by a detailed andysis of the factors that contnbuted to the dispute. Finally, the

OMB process is examined in order to determine its effectiveness in managing this dispute.

ISSUES

The issues involved in this dispute were numerous. However, the importance and

relevance of the issues variecl according to the perspective of the interview subject This

difference in perspectives contniutes to the complexity of the dispute and the difiïcdties in

resoivhg it.

When asked to idmm the water-related issues in the dispute, twelve of the interview

subjects responded with similar answers. The major water-related issues identifid were:

the sustainability of groundwata supplies (Le., recharge areas and aquifers), with

particular reference to increased demands (Le., present and hture needs);

the quality of treated water being retumed hto the creeks;

the ability of Black Creek to assimilate increased effluent &charges;

the effits of the water changes, both quantity and Quality, on fish and &h habit*

the provision of water-related services (e.g., stonnwater management, upgrades to the

sewage treatment plant) for development and the distn'bution of costs for the provision

of these services; and

the capacity of the sewage treatment plant to handle increased sewage.

Dependhg on the perspective of the interview subject, some issues were stressed more than

others. For example, a representative fiom the Regional Mimicipaiity of Hdton's Planning

and Public Works department identified more serviceoriented issues, including the

sustainability of groundwater supplies for present and future use, quality of treated water

discharged and its effects on fish and fish habitat, and the capacity of the sewage treatment

plant, as the major water-related issues in the dispute. Other interview subjects offered

different opinions. One of the concerned residenîs suggested h t the main issues involved

the prevention of hamifiil alterations to the environment, specifically relating to fish and

fish habitat, and the protection of recharge areas, tributanes, and the watershed as a whole.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE DISPUTE

Conflicts about water often occur when there is tension over development and the

environment (Grigg 1993). These conflicts have the potential to develop into major

disputes. Water codicts, relating both to quality and quantity, are important in the Acton

case study andysis.

Different Tmes of Conflict and the Factors That Contribute to Them

The fiamework in Chapter 2 identifies the différent types of conflict, and illuminates

some of the conditions that transformeci a routine land use planning issue into a complex

water dispute. In the Acton case, each type of con8ict (cognitive, vahe, interest and

behaviod) was present Factors contn'buting to the different types of conBicts were

identifIed. These are discussed here.

Cognitive Contlicts

Cognitive conflicts are rooted in ditTetent understandings of the conflict situation.

This may result fiom a number of factors. EIeven interview subjects stated that one major

factor in this dispute concerned the availability of information. They descnibed the

available information as limited or insufficient. Lack of information mainly related to the

proposed development and its effects on the watershed- This included the servicing ne&

of the residents in the proposed developments (e.g., the quantity of water needed, the

amount of sewage produced, and when and where these needs would occur); the

assimilative capacity of the creeks, and the ability of the sewage treatment plant to handle

the additional sewage; the capacity of the municipality to service the proposed subdivisions

(Le., infrastructure, technology, and resources); the impacts on the fish and fish habitat in

Black Creek resulting fiom the proposed development; and the effects of the development

on the entire watershed. This lack of sufncient informattion was at the core of many of the

issues in this dispute. Overcoming these issues could have reduced a lot of speculation and

arguments concgning the sustainability of water resouces and potential impacts on fish

populations, fish habitat, and other watershed feahaes.

One of the critical areas where data were insufncient, according to the interview

subjects, was hydrology. Steve Holysh, a hydrogeologist for the Region of Halton,

descnied groundwater studies in the past as concentrating on short temi analyses of

groundwater only in the Acton area As of 1997, he has completed an aquifer management

study that attempts to take a long-term watershed approach to groundwater management, so

that fbture potentid problems can be anticipated However, this kind of infodon was

not available in 1993, when the dispute was occurring.

This lack of information contn'buted to speculation, arguments, and tension among the

disputing parties, and resulted in different hterpretations of the severïty of the effects of the

proposed development on the present and fiiture water resources, fish and fish habitat. For

example, two intewiew subjects viewed water as a limitation on development and growth,

despite the lack of conclusive and consistent information on the available water resources

in the Acton area. One of the developers suggested that water was believed to be a Limited

resource by the developers, and that this redted in a fight for water among the developers.

The fight for water entailed both availability of water supply and smitary servicing

capacity in the sewage treatment facility. In a raidentid implementation study for Acton

conducted prior to the hearing, it was suggested that without the approval nom the MOE to

utilize the full capacity of the -Prospect Park WeIl, there was only enough water supply to

service an additional 138 units of development, or 108,052 m2 of industnd commercial

land within the designated urban area of Acton (Walker, No& Dragicevic Associates

Limited 1993). All three developas in Acton East had proposed a number of units in their

subdivision plans. For example, Tnbute Homes, the smaiier of the three, had proposed 165

units in its plan (Murphy 1998). Therefore, al l three deveIopers were in competition for the

"iimited" water resources needed for their individual proposais.

It was also recommended in the residential study that a seryicing docation program for

sewage be implemented by the Town of Halton Hills and the Region of Haltoa This

would aiiow Corncil to make strategic decisions regarding the distributon of available

s e ~ c i n g capacity and the timing of its utilization ('Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates

Limited 1993). The Acton Sewage Treatment Plant has a popdation capacity of 10,000,

and the fidl development of lands within the urban boundary would exceed this Limitation

of (Wallcer, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited 1993). Therefore, water, with respect to

the capacity of the sewage treatment plant and supply issues, was also considered to be a

limit to an individual developer's plans-

Another cognitive conflict occuned because of a limited understanding of the scope of

the laws and policies that regulate water and those who administer them. Five interview

subjects recognized this to be a major issue that dennitely compounded the problems and

resulted in different understandings of the situation. This limited understanding occuned

mainly among the developers in this case. The developers were not aware of the lengthy,

complex process for approvals and comments nom those with jurisdiction over these issues

(e.g., comments and approvals fiom MOE, MNR, and DFO). They became increasingly

agitated throughout the process, and consequently, thought that an OMB hearing would

expedite the decision-making process.

In addition to awareness of the water resource management issues, five interview

subjects discussed the lack of awareness of the water issues in relation to planning, and the

scope of the Iaws and policies that regulate them- Three of the intentiew subjects desgibed

the water issues and the roles of those adminrstering them as unclear, which resulted in a

different understanding by the developers. One of the developers descri'bed how the

developers as a group became aware of the importance of water and its relationship to the

fisheries in this case.

The fïrst day, as 1 said, of the pre-hearing ... the Minisûy of the Environment showed up. Nobody had ever had any contact with them, with the exception of course that all the plans get circuiated to them. They had not even cornentecl, That first day [ of the OMB hearhg] ... 1 forget the gentieman's name, he is now retired, stood up and said he abjects to ... And we ai l feu off our chairs. Because, one, we had never been advised of a concem about water or a concem about fish or anything. Everybody went off the deep end fiom that point on. Anyway, so at that point, a l l of us were in the same boat. It was no longer an interna1 battie from the developers inside vmus the Acton East cornmunity trying to get status. AU of a sudden we were now fighting with the Ministry of the Environment.

This statement illustrates how the limited understanding and awareness of the laws and

policies that govem water, and the agents that admjnister hem, created confusion among

the developers, and reinforceci the divisions among the parties (e-g., the developers vernis

the environmental agencies and ministries).

In this dispute, poor cornmimication was also considered to be a factor that contributed

to the escalation of the dispute. Six interview subjects indicated that the dispute was

complex because communication among the participants, especiaily the environmental

agencies and ministries, was very poor. One interview subject's observations also referred

to the communication difliculties expdenced with the municipalities. Three of the six

interview subjects specined that communication in its written form nom the ministries was

slow, and therefore, hindered the decision-making process. Also, two interview subjects

described cornmULLication as poor because of inconsistent representation of the relevant

stakeholders, especially within government organizations, in the decision-making process.

One participant, who regularly interacts with the MNR and MOE, said that communication

has been a red problem. You get fiom MNR, a biologist that would show up and give his/her opinions and then they would get the engineers involved three months d o m the road in reviewing something- There was no consistency because times have certainly changed in what they c m get involved in. So that has always been a problem for us. We would sort our issues out in here, in temis of people's professional opinions and we would corne up with one corporate position. This has not been the case with MNR, not been the case with MOE, and certainly not witbin the municipality, where you have the public works people, you have the planning people, you have the parks and recreation people, al l with their own specinc concems and that has been a real red prob1ex-a.. We've always tried to be h e l y with our comments and that's been a major problem with both ministries and MOE] in getting their comments in on the .

Poor communication can lead to cognitive conflicts conceniing the availability of

information or insuflicient data. Poor communication limits the exchange of information

between the disputing parties and results in different understandings of the situation

Value Conflicts

Value conflicts stem fiom different assessments of the desirabiiity of ends to be

accomplished by the action contemplated. There were a number of value conflicts present

in this case. The perceptions, attitudes and values of people often are different, resulting in

different actions. There were a number of different perceptions identifieci in the inte~ews,

including perceptions of water, the disputing parties, and growth and development in

Acton.

The interview subjects clearly had different values and perceptions regardbg water.

Different users of water (e.g., recreational, household, industrial, and commercial) value

water dif£etently. For exarnpIe, four of the interview subjects, a group which included

concemed residents/environmental groups and the Mayor of Halton Hills, perceived a

ciifference between groundwater and surface water for co~l~~lllption. They all had a very

63

strong preference for the groundwater in Halton Hills, in cornparison to the surface water

fiom Lake Ontario for drinking water supplies, and placed a high value on the

groundwater. In this case, different values and perceptions of water resulted in changes in

the behaviours and actions of the disputing parties. For iastance, in the case of the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), water was viewed as crucial to fish habitat,

which was reinforcecl in the federal Fr'sheries Act. This forced the DFO into a fixed

position, especiaily in the OMB process, which made the resolution of the dispute more

difficult to attain,

Another party descriied water as the Iimiting factor to growth and development by

comparing the slow growth of Halton W s to rapid growth of surrourtding areas, such as

Brampton and Mississauga, which are lake-based services. Comments were also made in

the local newspapers comparing Acton's slow growth to the rapid growing communities of

Erin, Rockwood and Georgetown, and the need for development despite water limitations.

Len Tuitman, a local businessman who was pro-development, stated that "When 1 came

here 15 years ago I was told Acton had a few problems in the way of water and sewage.

Now 15 years later, we have the same problems. As if that's not enough, all of a sudden,

sorneone's thought about fish" (BuheI 1993a).

In addition to water, obsemations were made about desire for growth and development

in Halton Hib. Six interview subjects thought that growth and development was desired

by the residents of Actoa Of the six, four interview subjects made m e r comments.

Three added that they believed that the residents of Halton Hills wanted controlled

development, in which Iimits were set in ternis of size and timing of growth. Another

perceived that the residents of Acton supportecl development, but only ifit is was desirable

to the community. Two other intemiew subjects aiso supported growth and development,

but not at the expense of the environment.

Cornments fkom the local residents in the local newspapers during the dispute both

supported and contrastecl the opinions ofsome of the intemiew subjects. In the H&n

Hills This Week, one resident of Halton W s suggested that

If the community wishes the Don River in their back yards and al l its pollution, degraded water quality and fkagmented enviro~ltnents, so be it ... 1 have worked with the development industry, wiîh the fdd and provincial govemmenis and municipalities both regional and local. It can be done, you can have your cake and eat it too ... but you need objective information, not rhetoric and posturing -of 1993).

Other residents were more vocal with their opinions and expressed them at the public

meeting of the OMB hearing- Mike Rowan, a Georgetown resident and former president of

the Fly Fishemian's Club of Mississauga, supported the Black Creek water studies and

suggested that "Growth is necessary, but it has to be sustainable" (Tallyn 1993a). Mr.

Edward Tyler, an Acton businessman, stated that he "feels that Acton needs the

development which is before the board. We need some stimulation, industrial and

residential-wise" (Tallyn 1993a). With respect to the environment, three of the seven

interview subjects suggested that parties believed that the support for the environment was

being used by some to deter or limit growth and development in Halton Hills. At the

public meeting, Mrs. M. Turner, a local resident, dso supported this view and suggested

that the ministries should permit development in Acton, and instead, concentrate on larger

concems, such as the Great Lakes (Buhel1993a).

The values expressed throughout the eight week OMB hearing r e k t e d a vast number

of interests in this dispute and created confiict. This is especially evident in the wide array

of comments made by the local residents in the public meeting of the OMB hearing. These

65

value codicts created a tense division of stakeholders into d e r groups of those with

similar values. As a result of this tension, the dispute escalated.

Interest Conflicts

Interest conflicts, which occur when there is disagreement conceming the distrîbution

of costs and benefits, domïnated this dispute. The various stakeholders could not reach a

consensus on the distriiution of a number of different costs, including the sewage treatment

plant upgrades and the studia. This created tension and antagonian, and prolonged the

dispute. The parties were not willing to abandon their positions and interests.

There was a strong disagreement regarding distriiution of the costs for the upgrades to

the Acton sewage treatment plant between the developers and the Region of Halton. This

was a prominent source of an interest confiict identifid by eight of the interview subjects,

especially among the subjects representing the Town, Region and the developers. The

confUct centred on who should pay more for the costs of the upgrades to the Acton sewage

treatment plant: the developers or the municipalities. Accordhg to the Acton Water

Quality Study: Implemenîation Plan, the total cost of upgrading the sewage treatment plant

was estimated at approximately 2.3 million dollars, at the least (Gartner Lee Limited

199%). The upgrades include minor improvements to the system involving sewage and

water use reduction approaches, major iuhstnicture improvements, and an environmental

assessrnent review, which included a public open house.

One interview subject suggested that the assigned regional water rates did include the

costs of upgrades and changes to the existing plant, and that these cost have enabled other

plants, including Oakville, Burlington, and Halton Hüls (Georgetown) to be upgraded

recently. The Region's perspective focused on the idea that ifproposed development

66

results in the need for the expansion of the sewage treatment plant's capacity, then the

developers shodd contribute more to the costs of these upgrades thmugh development

charges. The developers interviewed, on the other han& believed that it is the Region's

responsibility to provide services, such as sewer and water supply, for the community.

They considered the high development charges, which were a cost per unit figure, to be a

double levee because in addition to the development charges, they still had to install all the

services within the imdweloped area of Acton East (SchofieId 1998). These costs could be

recouped by increasing the selling prices of the houses, making them less competitive in

the housing market. Observations fkom other interview subjects noted that this conflict

added considerable tension to the dispute, especidy among the developers and the Region.

Also, three interview subjects discussed the disrnbution of costs for the stomiwater

pond among the developers in Acton East The stormwater pond was necessary for

development in Acton East and very expensive to build and maintain (approximately one

million dollars) (Murphy 1998). Because neither of the three sites had been developed, it

was agreed by ai l three developers that the pond was going to be placeci on the most

southerly property, owned by Tnbute Homes. This also happened to be the d e r of the

three properties, which meant that even less u~.Üts would be built on the site. This was

viewed to be a potential conflict because deveiopment in Acton had not yet been approved.

Another disagreement about the distniution of costs among the parties in the dispute,

identified by five interview subjects, concerned the distniution of costs for the studies

conducted to compensate for the lack of basic information, identified earlier. According to

Deborah Martin-Dom of Gartner Lee Limited (1998), the c o d t a n t s hired to conduct

the studies, the total cost of the reports was approximately $250,000. Although ai l of the

disputing parties agreed to the need for the studies, there was a disagreement regardhg who

should pay for the studies. This created tension among the disputing parti*es because some

people believed that specinc groups were responsible for the studies, and therefore, should

pay for them. Although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorized that the studies

be conducted under section 37 (I)(b) of the Fishen'es Act (ILS.C- 1989), other parties

attributed the need for the studies to specific stakeholders, such as the Mi- of

Environment and the developers. Therefore, it was believed that these parties should

contnbute more flnancial support to the studies. However, any tension was quickly

dissipated because contniutions were made to finance the studïes by the major disputing

parties, with Smaller agencies involved in the dispute, such as the Credit Valley

Conservation, having the option to contribute d e r amounts.

Cornpetition among the developers contniuted to interest conflicts. Five interview

subjects commented on this topic suggesting that some of the conflicts among the

developers were a result of too many developers cornpethg for too small an area.

Although they presented themselves as a united fkont, there was competition and division

among the developers conceming which areas were going to develop bt, urban boundary

restrictions, the allocation of resources, and which plans of subdivision best suited the

needs of the co~~~munity. One developer discussed the competition among the developers

in the following terms:

So, nght off the staa there was some concems about the developers intemal to the city which were s m d local people with only very srnail developments versus us three outside [Acton East]. So there was a bit of a play going on there ... . We were all fighting for that allocation because there was ody going to be a certain amount being allocated. So, untü the Town came up with their equal distriiution amongst all of the developers and saying 'okay, everybody can have a piece of the pie', we were a i l fighting over each 0 t h saying 'we want to go W. We kept saying, 'who's got the money to proceed?, 'who's got the services in the ground?' , 'whds

really going to proceed?'. And, of course, we were ai l pushing for that. Of course, we were making the argument 'we've got the school, we've got the commercial block and we're going to proceed and put our M o n the ground tomorrow if we pet draft of approvai' (Schofield 1998).

This cornpetition resulted in conflicts because the individual developers were protecting

their own interests.

In addition to the conflicts among the developers, each parties involved in the dispute

had different agendas and d e s , which led to interest conflicts. These often reflefted a

party's interests, mandates, and jurisdiction- Five of the interview subjects mentioned this

as a factor that contributed to interest conflicts. One of the interview subjects descnbed the

dispute as one that had to do with agendas. Other interview subjects suggested that the

agendas of many of the disputing parties had to with the interests and positions they

represent. For example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans role in this dispute is to

protect the brook trout population and its habitat in Black Creek fÏom any harmful

alteration or destruction- This role is mandated under the federal Fisheries Act (R.S.C.

1989), specincaüy sections 29 (protection of fish in or near fish-ways), 32 (destruction of

fish), 35 (destruction of fish habitat), 36 (pollution of fish habitat) (Fisheries and Oceans

1991)- Two of the five i n t e ~ e w subjects made reference to the agendas of the developers,

commenting that because of the nature of their business, economic development drove thei.

actions.

In conjmction with agenda related issues, there was considerable confunon conceming

the roles of the stakeholders in this dispute, resulting in hterest conflicts. Six interview

subjects noted this confiision by commenting that some of the stakeholders had clearly

defhed mandates due to legislation (e.g., Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the

federal Fisheries Ac& whüe other parties did not have clearly denned roles (e-g., Credit

69

Valley Conservation). Four of these interview subjects made specific reference to the

Credit Vdey Conservation (WC) and the confusion peaaining to their role in this water

dispute. The general manager of the CVC, Vickïe Baron, clarifiecl her vision of the CVC7s

role, noting that section 24 of the Conseniafion Authorities Act is broad enough to allow

the involvement of the CVC in groundwater disputes of this nature in the Credit Riva

watershed (Chapter 2). The presence of participants with roles that are not clearly de-

compounded the dispute by creating antagonian towards the parties and their mvoivement.

This made the dispute more complex.

Behavioural Conflicts

Behaviomal con.fEcts are relzted to personalities and circumstauces of the interested

parties. Although the majority of the interview subjects alluded to persodity differences,

only six made specinc references to personality ciifferences playing a role in the dispute.

Three of the six interview subjects made specinc reference to certain individuals.

However, it should be noted that the co~nments made by the three interview subjects

suggested that the personalities of the individuais identified created an obstruction,

especially in the resolution of the conflict, instead of an escalation of the conflict. Often

times, personality conflicts can escalate a dispute, creathg mistrust. Only one interview

subject discussed the need for ûust in water disputes with no specinc reference to the

Acton case. Trust will be M e r discussed in an upcoming section on the principles of

dispute management.

One of the major behavioural con£Licts in this dispute resulted fiom some of the

relationships that the disputhg parties had with each other in the pst When interaction

among the parties is renewed, residual feelings, impressions, and mernories created fiom

past relationship can a e c t the conflict by altering the behaviour of the parties, negatively

or positively (Neal 1996). Six of the interview subjects discussed the good relaatioonships

they have had in with other parties involved in the dispute. The Mayor of Halton Ws, for

example, descriaed a positive relationship between the Town and the Region. Glenn

Wellings, Development Review Manager for the Town of Halton Hills, also descnbed a

good w o r h g relationship with Credit Valley Conservation in the pcist Two went even

furtber, discussing past relationships with kdividuaIs within an organization that were

renewed in this dispute.

Not ali past relationships in this dispute were considered to be positive. Six of the

interview subjects discussed the dEculties they have had in the past in working with some

of the govemment agencies, specincally the Ministries of Natural Resources and

Environment. Of the six interview subjects, two suggested that the problems in the past

were associated with persomel. They noted that they were constantly dealing with

different people in an organization regarding the same issue. This inconsistency resulted in

confusion which prolonged the situation. Another difficulty experienced in past

relationships with these two ministries and identifiecl by three interview subjects involved

the lengthy review process for comments and approvals. One of the developers discussed

previous relationships with a municipty, specifically the constant lengthy negotiations

that they have been involved in prior to this dispute. This can result in negative changes in

the behaviour of the disputing parties.

The behavicur of the disputing parties affited the dispute in a number ofways, bot.

negatively and positively. At least five of the interview subjects noted that exnotions were

high both pnor to and especially during the OMB hearings. This resuited in negative

behaviour by some of the disputing parties, including name ca lhg and wacnùigs. One

local resident, Ted Tyler. cded the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)

representatives "bureaucratic jackasses" at the public meeting of the OMB hearing (Buhel

1993a). Also at this meeting, Mike Rowan, a Georgetown resident and representative of

the Fly Fisherman's Club, forewarned the Region that if Black Creek became polluted as a

result of development, the fisherxnan's club would contact the DFO in order to ensure that

charges against the Region would be laid. Behaviour such as this promoted antagonism

and the protection of interests among the disputing parties.

The developers appeded to the Ontario Municipal Board to expedite the process due to

the lengthy ministry and agency review. According to five of the interview subjects, these

actions taken by the developers were considered to be a factor that contn'buted to the

dispute. These five people indicated that this action was initially viewed as negative.

Being placed in a formal dispute resolution setting forced people into positions where they

protected their interests. However, this action also was describecl as instigating a change of

behaviour that dissipated the dispute, making dispute resolution attainable. This will be

discussed M e r in an upcoming section focusing on the principles of dispute

management,

Other Conflicts

As identifid in the refined fkamework (Chapter 3), there are conflicts that are not

easily categorized into the four types of conflict. Power-related conflicts and conflicts

within conflicts are examples of other types of connicts analyzed in this dispute.

Power con£Licts are one of the major types of connict present throughout this dispute.

In this case, the political and monetary elements of conflicts involving power dominated

the dispute. Only two interview subjects discussed the use of financial resources as a

source of connict One subject suggested that in terms of the power balance among the

disputing parties, the developers had the fiancial power in this dispute. Development

corporations are profit oriented, and therefore, may have more hancial resources at their

disposal. Any extraneou CO-, such as the OMB hearnig and development charges, could

be recovered within the selling pnce of the residential units. This put the developers in a

better position in the disagreements regarding costs and theïr distriiution (interest connict).

However, it can also be argued that govemments and their agencies have a strong fiuiding

base. Other stakeholders, such as mernbers of the public, do not have these financial

resources.

Six interview subjects discussed the constitutional power of the government

organhtions, with most desm'bing the federal Fisheries Act as a powerful tool and the

strongest piece of environmental legislation in Canada. The reasons offered for assigning

this description to the Fisleries Act involved its strict enforcement policy, where violations

and convictions result in major penalties and fines ($10,000 - $1,000,000 per &y), and no

one, including the government, is exempt Ed DeBruyn of the Department of Fishenes and

Oceans (1998) referred to the complexity that the legislation added to the dispute by

suggesting that

the MOEE couldn't be issuiug a ceriifkate of approval to pump water out of Prospect Park because it would count as an offense here PFO]. We couldn't give them an authorization to destroy habitat in Fairy Lake because in effect we would be counseling an offense against our own legislation because of Section 36.

As a result, the Department of Fisherks and Oceans, which administers this legislation, is

d e s c r i i by other disputing parties as the party with the most power in this dispute and in

the dispute resolution process.

One interview subject mdicated that local politicians were used to gain poIitica1 support

by the disputing parties. Whether or not this use of power was effective was not identifid

in the interview. However, in the local news, politicians were often noted to be at the

forefiont of the dispute* HaIton-Peel Member of Parliament (M.P.) Garth Tutner, who was

approached by the Town of Halton W s Chamber of Commerce for help in resolving the

developrnent issue, accused the Region of u&g the Fisheriies Act as an excuse to stall

development, and discussed a memo he obtained dated July 6,1993 nom the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans that suggested the studies were no Longer required (Tdyn 1993b). It

was suggested that the UP. was m g to get ahead of his competition in the upcoming

eiection that year (Buhel1993b).

In this dispute, there was a hierarchy of conflicts, with conflicts occurring within

conflicts. This particdar issue was noted by three interview subjects. Conflicts within

conflicts cannot be easily categorized according to the refined fÏamework (Chapter 3), but

are crucial to this disputes. For instance, the developers, as a gcoup, were in contZict with

the Region conceming the distribution of costs for the upgrades of the sewage treatment

plant; however, conflict &O occurred among the individual developers (interest)

conceming competition for the available land and water. Often these types of con£licts

lengthen the duration of the dispute and the dispute management process. Although

mentioned, more in reference to the dispute resolution process, the extended length of the

dispute resulted in behaviourd changes such as the elevation of emotions of the disputing

parties and the protection of interests.

Surnmary

Four types of conflicts were identifid in this case shrdy analysis: cognitive, value,

interest, and behaviouraL In addition to these four, a fXh group of conflicts, 'other', was

also identifieci in this case, comisting of factors and conflicts that cannot be easlIy

categorized into the four types. Cognitive conflicts included a Iack of information,

insufncient data, and a limited understanding of the Iaws and policies regulating water, and

those who anminister them. Value codicts consisteci of different vaInes and attitudes

about water, growth and development, and the other disputing parties. Interest conflicts

were mainly a result of disagreements regarding the distributon of costs, cornpetition, and

jurisdiction. Behaviod factors created conflicts conceming personalities, previous

relationships, and the actions of the disputing parties. The other coneict types identifleci in

this dispute mainly related to power and the hierarchy of conflicts.

Other Factors

A nurnber of other factors have been identifîed as contniuting to this water dispute.

These factors can not be easiiy descriied according to the different types of conflicts.

Because of the complexity of a dispute, some factors cannot be linkëd to a specific type of

conflict, and in some cases, they relate to more than one conflict type. However, they can

be directly attn'buted to the escalation of the dispute. In the Acton case, there are factors

that contniute to alI four types of conflicts. Factors, such as the changing political

environment, jwisdictional issues, and the duration of the dispute, played major roles in the

escaiation of aU four types of conflict, the development of the dispute, as well as

hindrances in the resolution process. In today's environment, these factors are crucial to

the development of a dispute. Ln this section, these factors and their relevance to the

dispute are discussd

Changes in the political environment, such as staff and financial cutbacks, shifts in

respomibilities, and provincial downloading of respomibilities onto muxücipalities, were

identined by four of the interview subjects as contn'buting to the dispute. The

cornmunication difficulties among the agencies (cognitive conflicts), ciiffirent perceptions

of and valws for water (value conflicts), and the disagreements regarding CO- and their

distribution (interest conflicts) were attri'buted in some respect to changes in the political

environment, One interview subject, for example, descnbed the limited involvement of the

provincial government in local water issues, and the delegation of the responsibilities to the

municipalities, crediting both circumstances to decreases in human and financial resources.

JiLisdictional issues was also a major factor in this dispute, hinderuig the

decision-making process. A number of agencies and ministries were d e s d e d by the

interview subjects as becoming involved in issues that were not within their mandated

jilrisdiction. When stakeholders did go beyond their mandate, this caused confusion among

the participants involved in this dispute and create a number of different conflicts. Three

interview subjects discussed incidents where this occurred. For instance, one interview

subject stated that

there was a lot of overlap and people were extending their mandates beyond what they were suppose to be doing, getting involved in things that other people said were okay but they stiU kept requirements going that really shouldn't have been their requirements. There was a lot of overlap problems, issues lïke that- A lot of it was dragging that out, over and over and over. Al1 the diffkrent agencies trying to figure out who needed exactly what, to know what, and why.

This comment refl ects a cognitive confiict pertaining to the Merent understandings of the

- . agencies' and ministnes' requirernents and responsibilities in this water dispute.

76

Although some of the positions of the parties are entrenched by their mandates, six

participants noted that there was overlap and duplication involved in the respom'bilities,

jurisdiction, and bctions of some of the disputing parties. AU six made reference to

overlap and duplication among the govemmeot agencies, rninistries, and departments (e.g.,

MOE, MNR, DFO, CVC) that deal with water resources, fisheries, and other

environmental issues, while o d y two of the six mentioned the overlap and duplication in

the planning sections of the different tiers of municipal government (Le., the Region and

the Town of Haiton Hills). One interview subject also discussed the duplication of

responsibilities in stormwater management by the Credit ValIey Conservation and the

Town of Haiton Hills. This created confusion when determining what action to take and

who has the authority to make such a decision.

One of the very complicated events in the dispute that illustrates the confusion resulting

fkom overlap and duplication is the nofication and involvement of the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). At the time, under the Canada-Ontario Fisheries Agreement

(COFA), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) would review projects to detemine

their effects on fish and fish habitat. If a project resulted in a harmful alteration or

destruction of fish and fish habitat, the DFO would be notifieil in order to provide

authorization to do the project PeBruyn 1998). Despite this, a number of interview

subjects indicated that M N ' was not the agency which instigated the direct involvement of

the DFO. Five interview subjects mentioned that it was the Credit Valley Conservation

(CVC) that contacted the DFO, instead of the MNR. Another mentioned that concernai

residents and local environmental groups had notifïed the DFO. One interview subject

describeci MNR's position, durhg the DFO's initial involvement in the dispute, as one that

was not extremely concerned with the effects of the development on fi& and fish habitat.

This jiinsdictional misunderstanding added to the confusion surmunding the presence

of the DFO at the OMB hearings and antagonism towards the parties responsïble for their

involvement in the dispute. AIthough COFA mandated the responsïbility of notifjing the

DFO in the event of hann to fish and fish habitat to MNR, the Fisherks Act (R.S.C. 1989)

stipulates under Section 38 (4) that any pmon responsible for damage or danger to fish or

fish habitat has the duty to report this to the proper authorities. Due to the broadly defhed

mandate of the conservation authorities regardhg fish and fish habitat issues, and their

knowledge of Fishenks Act, the CVC felt that involving the DFO at the start would bring

about a quicker resolution to the dispute (Breton 1998). Because of the overlap with

MNR's responsibilities and the subsequent action, perceptions of the CVC changed. It was

mentioned by at least six interview subjects that the CVC's actions (Le., instigating the

presence of the DFO in this dispute) were not well regarded by the other disputing parties.

Two interview subjects descriied the organizational structure of some of the disputing

parties as a major complication in the dispute. Jurisdictional issues and communication

difnculties were credited to the organizational structure within govemment ministries and

municipalities. For example, the Town of Halton Hills has a complex organizational

structure with a variety of departments, includùig planning, padcs and recreation, and

public works, each dealing with their interests and responsibilities. According to one of the

i n t e ~ e w subjects, this type of structural organization made it more difncult to keep all of

the relevant individuals within the organization infonned and to present an integrated

position. Externally, it was said to complicate the communication process among the

disputing parties because instead of sending correspondence to the orga-tion, it was

sent to a number of individuais withùi the organization. In addition to this another

interview subject indicated that the hierarchy withi. an organkation contributed to the

dispute because different organi7ations bad representatives nom différent levels w i t h the

hierarchy, creating a power imbalance. Senior officiais represented their organisations

(e.g., WC), while other organi7atiom were represented by junior persomel (e.g., MNR).

Other environmental issues in the Town of Hahn Hü1s7 past or cunent, dso played a

role in the dispute, as was identifieci by four interview subjects. These included issues

pertaining to the Beardmore Tannery lands in Acton, a proposed landfiil, and aggregate

extraction. According to one interview subject, involvement in other environmental issues

sparked interest in the dispute anaIyzed here, r d t i n g in a more unified fiont for the local

environmental groups.

Three interview subjects noted that decisions concerning development made in the past

affected the development of this dispute. The expansion of Acton's urban boundary and

the granting of the Certificate of Approval, which was rated for 10,000 people, to the Acton

Sewage Treatment facility, are two examples of past development decisions that have

implications on this dispute. Benson Leung (1998), a representative of the Region, offers

the Region's perspective on the urban boundary expansion. He indicated that the ''Region

has already made the cornmitment to expanding the urban envelope, the urban boundary.

Weli then you are stuck. Legally, you have to provide services for those people ... Once we

draw the bormdary of the urban centre, you cannot cut it back"

The role of the media, specifically the local newspapers, such as Halton HilLr mis

Week, Guelph Mercury, and the Independent, was discussed by two interview subjects as

influential in this dispute- As suggested by oEe interview subject, the media were used as a

way to make people aware of the issues in the dispute- Another desmied the media's role

as one that contriiuted negatively to public perceptions and opinions of some of the

disputing parties. The f%al interview subject did not think that the media played a major

role in the dispute. Notwithstanding the comments fkom the interview subjects, the weekly

coverage prior to, during, and foilowing the OMB hearing, not only documented the

development of the dispute, but it aIso provided a forum for opinions and criticisms, both

negative and positive.

PRINCIPLES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

The dispute management process selected in this case was a hearing at the Ontario -

Municipal Board (OMB). According to the second component of the fiamework, the

typology, this is adjudication, specif?cally a f o m of binding arbitration (Chapter 2). In the

third component of the fkamework, a number of principles were identified as desirable for

dispute management (Chapter 2). The OMB hearings in many respects promoted some of

the principles of dispute management, including the identification, inclusion and consistent

representation of relevant stakeholders. Other p~ciples , such as efficiency in both time

and cost, were not adhered to in the OMB hearing.

Interestingly, alternative approaches to resolving the situation, prior to the OMB

hearing, were unsuccessfiil. According to one interview subject, meetings involving

negotiations were established in attempts to reach some form of consensus among the

governent agencies and municipalities involved conceming the impacts of the proposed

development. These meetings may w t have been successful because of the foilowing

factors: all the relevant parties in the dispute were not present (Le., the developers);

80

representation was inconsistent; the personalities mvolved clashed; a neutral third party to

assist the process was absent; and decisions made were not enforcd These reasons

provide a better understanding of why the OMB procedure was more successful.

Participants

In this dispute resolution process, several principles, relating to the participants, were

evident. These included the inclusion of al l identifid relevant stakeholders, consistent

representation of the stakeholders, and for the most part, proper representation of relevant

stakeholders. AU relevant stakeholders (e.g., the government representatives, deveIopers,

and the public) were identifid prior to the hearing. Most were included by a formai OMB

request as participants directly involved, or summoned as witnesses and experts, therefore

ensuring their participation in the hearings, Participants descriied their involvement in the

hearing as a situation of being forced to work together. In this case, it initially created

antagonisrn towards the other disputing parties; however, the longer the process went on,

the more the relevance of the various parties was acknowledged.

As mentioned earlier in this case analysis, having inconsistent representation within an

organizattion, such as the govemment ministries and agencies, created a nurnber of

connicts, involving communication difficulties, confusion and power imbalances, AU of

these occmed prior to the OMB appeal, Therefore, having a consistent group representing

the disputing parties was crucial to creating a constructive environment in which to resolve

the issues in this dispute. Improper representation of the disputhg parties, in terms of

qualifications and howledge, was not necessarily an issue; however, in two interviews, the

selection of more suitable representatives was mentioned. In general, al l the participants

had some understanding of the information presented in the hearuig (e-g., hydrogeology,

biology, economics, etc.). Most, with the exception of the memben of the general public,

had a support system availabIe, either within their organisrations or fiom other outside

sources. For instance, Gartner Lee Limited, an environmental consulting f h , was initially

hired to act on the behalfof Coscan Development Corporation for the hearing.

Process

When analyzhg the actual dispute resolution process, a nimiber of phciples have been

identified as pertinent to this case, including openness, faimess, and efficiency. This

provincial, quasi-judicial process was selected by the developers, who wanted to resolve

the situation expeditiously. The fact that one developer unüateraüy decided to go the OMB

was not favoured by al l parties in the initial stages of the dispute resolution process.

According to the developers interviewed, they believed that the OMB was their only

avenue, under the Planning Act, to quickly resolve this situation. However, the other

participants in this dispute, who were present by OME3 request, noted that by appealing to

the OMB, negotiation was eliminated as an option to resolvhg of the dispute, thereby

complicating the process. For instance, one interview subject commented that once in the

setting of an OMB hearing, the mandates, policies, and legislation of the govemxnent

agencies, ministries, and departments are no longer flexible.

The OMB hearing is a consistent, structureci process. The formal structure of the

Ontario Municipal Board entails specinc procedures for precoderence hearings, mediation,

hearings that bring motions to the Board, exhiits, presentation of evidence, and the use of

expert witnesses. This provided a stable, thorough resolution process in a situation that

was often descri'bed as chaotic by the interview subjects, but offered no guarantees to any

of the disputhg parties. However, mirent participants in the dispute came nom different

backgrounds and this initiaiiy created confusion about this particular dispute management

process. As noted by one ofthe interview subjects, rnany outside of the planning field

were imfamiliar with the OMB hearing process.

Nine of the interview subjects commented that the OMB hearing brought everyone

together to discuss the issues face to face. This is considered to be an important principle

of dispute management in the literature (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Dorcey and Riek

1989; British Columbia Round Table on the Enviromnent and the Economy 1991; Selin

and Chavez 1995)- One of the principles of dispute management is to focus on the issues

rather than the individual. The interview subjects indicated that this was not an easy task.

However, there was a general consensus that the boundaries of the OMB process forced the

participants to concentrate on working together and discussing the issues to come to a

solution. One interview subject desdeci it as

a sledgehammer process. 1 mean, it's forcing all the parties together through legal means. 1 don't know if it is the best way for conflict resolution to take place or not. 1 mean it seemed like it was necessary for that to occur to get everyone together to

resolve these issues in a short order. Because once you're called in fiont of the OMB and you need expert witnesses, you do your homework and all the various planner and engineers of all sides have to r e d y sit down and know their s t u E and resolve i t There's an independent, judge alrnost, in fiont of you making sure that your position is always clear and concise and makes sense. So it did force us, all the parties, to tallc and come up with solutions.

Another participant agreed with this descniing appealing to the OMB as 'hot always a

negative thing now. The Board c m reaily serve to b ~ g focus to issues and basicdy get

people on with job."

The principle regarding the use of technical experts suggests that experts not approved

by the disputhg parties can disrupt the dispute management process (Chapter 2). Technical

experts in this case, the environmental consulting fhn., Gartner Lee Limiteci, were used to

83

conduct the studies, that provided the technicd data needed to resolve this dispute. There

was only a short t h e h e available to select the experts and conduct the studies. Gartner

Lee Limited was initially hired ti, act on behalf of one of the developers (Coscan),

However, when the need for the studies arose, the disputing parties agreed that Gartner Lee

Limited would be awarded the job. Two interview subjects suggested that Gartner Lee had

gained the trust of the key stakeholders in this dispute through its reputation, previous

working relationship with some of the disputing parties, experience, and kmwiedge of the

Credit River watershed.

In general, the process was believed to be fair for many of those involved in the dispute

(e.g., the developers and municipalities). However, the procas was not completely fair

and open for the members of the public, who did not have the same resources to participate

in the procas (i.e., financial, technical, and legal) as the municipalities, govemment

agencies and developers. Members of the public included the environmental groups, local

business people, residents and communïîy organizations. One local resident said that in

addition to these resources, time was also an issue. Attending the d d y hearing

proceedings for eight weeks takes a considerable amount of time away h m work, and

therefore, results in a loss of wages. Although the hearings were open, the public's

participation was limited. Local residents were only given an opportunity to comment at

the public meeting of the Ontario Municipal Board However, only a h a n a of local

residents voiced their opinions and concerns at the public hearing (Tallyn 1993a).

Aithough the Board does not require participants of a hearing to have legd

representation, most participants do (Ontario Municipal Board 1998b). In a courtroom

setting , participants in this dispute, with the exception of a select few (e-g., Credit Valley

Conservation and members of the public), retained the services of a la- to protect their

interests and maintain a fair playing field The involvement of lawyers often pertains to the

testimony being presented uader oath and the opportunity for the opposing parties to

cross-examine testimony during the OMB hearing (Ontario Municipal Board 1998b).

Legal representation in îhis case cornplicated the resolution process in a number of ways.

The adversarial nature of lawyers was considered by nine interview subjects to be the major

contributor to the Lengthy and costly resolution process. A number of comments r e f e e g

to this were made. One participant commented that the

Lawyers enjoyed if 1 am sure. They got paid weii for the whole summer. And they get a pretty good hourly wage .... So it was expensive for everybody and nobody wanted to be spending the money on lawy ersers... 1 mean, sure, it was almost interesting to see how the different lawyers battled each other and everyone tned to get their points in. 1 mean, it is an interesthg dynamic but it is a lot of money to be watchùig something interesting. You might as weii watch Melrose Place [a television drama] or something if you want to be interesting.

Interview subjects also suggested that the presence of lawyers and their adversarial nature

in the OMB hearing created mistrust among the participants, which made the resolution

process slow. One interview subject descnïed lawyers as foilows:

They thrive on confkontational relationships. That's why there are lawyers. No cofiontation, then you don? need lawyers. So you get all these lawyers wanting to make sure that everything is documented a certain way. We would have a discussion and the whole thing would be transcriied... . That' s when you don't have trust.... So they have to have things [documented]. So it takes forever to get this done.

Consequently, most of the participants descriid the hearing as neither efficient nor

effective in both time and costs.

Outcome

The outcome of this hearing was contingent on the studies, and therefore, there was a

considerable delay between the end of the OMB hearings (September 1993) and the

85

decision date (April1995). The studies, which took h o s t a year and a half to complete,

recommended major and minor upgrades to the sewage treatment plant estimated at 2-3

miilion dollars, with the development of the subdivisions o c c ~ g simultaueously (Table

) (Gartner Lee Limited 199%). Subsequentiy, the OMB ruied that development in Acton

East could proceed, but under revised subdivision plans. This niling was generally

accepted by the disputing parties. One of the interview subjects implied that the signing of

the studies was evidence of the disputmg parties' approval of the nxling-

Some parties, such as Credit Valley Conservation, were satisfied with the niling.

However, other parties were discourageci by the nilùig. Each party made a considerable

investment in the resolution of this dispute because of legal fa, contributions to the

studies, and the salaries of the individuals representing the disputing parties. The

developers had additional costs, over and above the legal fees, etc. According to the

developers interviewed, most of the proposed plans of subdivision were revised

considerably as a remit of the ruling- Therefore, they considered development in Acton

East to be feasible, but not profitable. In essence, they believed that they had lost their

window of opportunity. To date, some upgrades have been made to the sewage treatment

plant; however, no housing uni& have been developed in Acton East.

Acton is a small commdty under considerable pressure to grow, where recent interest

in developing in Acton has been expressed by a number of parties. Associateci with

accommodating this growth are typical land use planning concerns, such as the provision of

water related services and infkastructure (e.g., water and sewer). Difficulties in

accommodating these necessary services are at the core of this dispute. However, a number

86

of factors have contributeci to the escalation of this dispute. These inchde two types of

factors: factors that affect the ciBiirent types of confiïct (e-g., cognitive, value, interest,

behavioural, and other), and factors that affect all aspects of the dispute. From the analysis

of the dispute, many factors have been identifiecl as escalating the dispute. However, only

a select few were identifieci as hinderhg the dispute management process (OMB hearing).

By focusing on the more relevant, crucial factors and conflicts in the Acton case, the

situation was rectified and the dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of most of the

stakeholders*

C H A P T E R S

TEIE VILLAGE OF WINCHESTER'S NEED FOR WATER

INTRODUCTION

The Village of Winchester is a rural community in Eastem Ontario that is located in a

predominantly agicdtural region. Both dairy farming and dajr-related companies are

found in this area. Hence, the dairy sector comprises a signiscant portion of the local

economy. Ault Foods Limiteci, presently known as Parmdat Canada, is located in the

Village of Winchester. For many years, the village, which relies on groundwater, has been

forced to deal with inadequate water supplies for both industnal and municipal use. A

series of water restrictions and water table reductions within the village have led to a

concerted search for a reliable source for a municipal water. The search culmiaated with

the identification of a potential municipal water source that would meet the Village's needs.

However, accessing this source led to a major dispute involving local farmers, village

residents, municipal governments, and provincial agencies and ministries.

This chapter identifies and analyzes factors that contnaued to a water dispute

involving the Village of Winchestery and evaluates the use of tools and p ~ c i p l e s of dispute

management pertinent to this case. It begins with a discussion of the data sources,

specincally the interviews. This is followed by an overview of the case study, including

background descriptions of the study area and the water resource dispute, and a discussion

of the major water-related issues in the dispute. The case is then d y z e d according to the

three components of the refined fiamework (Chapter 3). The chapter concludes with a

discussion of the relevant factors and principles idenaed in the development of this water

dispute.

DATA SOURCES

This analysis involved the use of a vaxïety of data sources. These sources included

interviews, newspaper articles, water management studies, municipal planning documents,

letters of communication, and Class Enviromenta1 Assessment environmental study

reports. Water management studies, the Class Environmental Assessment environmental

reports, newspaper ariicla, letters of comtnunïcation and the municipal planning

documents provîded much of the factuai iaformation. However, the interviews provided

the majority of the infoxmation used to analyze the disputes.

The Interviews

This dispute involved a wide variety of parties. These parties Uicluded the concemed

residents, the conservation authority (South Nation Conservation), different branches of

provincial ministries (Ministries of Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture,

Food and Rmal Mairs) and agencies (Ontario Clean Water Agency), consulting f5rms

(J.L. Richards and Associates Limited; Golder Associates Limited), different municipal

govemments (The Village of Wmchester; Winchester Township), and local fanners in

Winchester Township (Morewood Esker Landowners Association). A number of other

parties had a vested interest in this dispute including industries, such as Ault Foods Limited

(presently h o w n as Parmalat Canada) and Winchester Cheese (no longer in winchester),

other mimicipalities (Morewood and Chesterville), and landowners in surromding areas.

A variety of individds rqresented the interests of the di.Eerent parties in the dispute

and in the dispute management process. At least one representative for most of the parties

was intervïewed; 15 key representatives fkom these parties wen identitied. Twelve

i n t e ~ e w s were conducted during the month of June in 1998. Of the tweive interviews,

one subject did not represent a party that was directly involved in the dispute. However,

this subject had a vested interest in this dispute as a landowner and commenteci on disputes

occumiig within that municipality and the region.

I n t e ~ e w s with three key representatives h m the MimMinrstry of Environment did not

take place- Although numerous branches of this muiistry were contacted, one potential

interview subject was consistently identifid However, this subject had been relocated and

could not be contacteci. Other people, such as the journaliurnalists h m the Winchester Press,

offered opinions about the water dispute, but were not on record in formal interviews.

CASE STUDY: BACKGROUND

Communities in the southeasteni portion of Ontario are facing water probiems,

involving both water quanti@ and quality concems. The dispute involving the Viage of

Winchester is an example of this. The main issue was that the Village of Winchester

wanted water to satisQ its municipal needs. However, this issue escalated fkom a simple

conaict to a major water dispute that not only involved a wide variety of participants (e-g.,

the Ministry of Environment, the village councl, and landowners), hterests (e.g.,

municipal and industrial), issues (e-g., water quality issues, land use restrictions, and

property rights), but also took a great deal of time to manage. A background discussion of

the case, including the description of the study area and an account of the events, is

presented in this section.

STUDY AREA: VILLAGE OF WINCEESTER

The Village of Winchester, with a population of 2,400 people (as of 1995), is a

community in the recently amalgamated mmicipality of North Dundas, southeast of

Ottawa in the eastem part of southem Ontario (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and

90

Golder Associates Limited 1995a). North Dundas is comprised of the fornier

mimicipalities of the Village of Winchester, Whchesta Township, Village of Chesterville,

and Mountain Township. This amalgamation wül have implications for fuhne municipal

water issues. However, for the purposes of this reseârch, the Village of Winchester is

desïgnated as the study a r a At the time of the dispute, the Village of Whchester was a

separate mimicpality, located withui the Township of Winchester Figure 5) (J.L. Richards

and Associates Lmiited and Golder Associates Limited 1995a)-

The Village of Winchester relies on groundwater for its water supply. Groundwater is

used in a variety of activities including househ01d use, recreation, ike fightùig, and

industrial production. The village has been using a communal water system sùice 1960, but

has expanded its system to include six wells, two of which are no longer in use (JL.

Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limited 1995a). AU six weils are

located in and around the village. In addition to municipal uses, the municipality supplied

water to other major water users, such as Ault Foods Limited, Winchester cheese, and the

Winchester District Hospital (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates

Limited 1995a)- These multiple uses and users created considerable pressure on existing

water supplies. As a result, the municipality decided to search for an additional 2600

m3/day to satisfy its present and nmire needs (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and

Golder Associates Limited 1995a).

THE DISPUTE

A description of the events and the participants in this dispute is presented in this

subsection. Table 5 presents a detailed chrowlogy of the events in this dispute.

Figure 5. Map of the Morewood Esker and Surroundinr Munici~ilities

Aquifer I Winchester Township

Municipalities

Source: Egan (1995)

Table 5. Chronology of Events in the Winchester Case

DATE

September 1990

Early 1992

Summer 1992

September 1992

Late 1992

Early 1994

May 1994

January 1995

March 1995 l

June1995

September 1995

Present day 1 (1998)

Restrictions placed on new development in the Vülage of Winchester because of limited mimicipal water supplies.

Gromdwater stndy commeences d e r the vilIage realizes the sixth well is an insufficient water source.

The village hires J.L. Richards and Associates Limited to conduct a study. Afta unsuccessfbl test drülùig and negotiations, the shidy was stalled-

The study resumes wiîh a public meeting.

Studies find a potential well site on the property of Mr. D. S t Piene and tests begin.

Class Environmental Assessrnent begins.

Public Meeting - Grst public consultation.

Negotiations with Mr. St. Pierre to purchase well site lands begin.

Negotiations with Mr. St. Pierre are unsuccessful.

The village is offered the option to purchase Provost property as a potential well site.

Municipal water is restncted, durhg which Auit Foods Limited purchases water from the open test weli on the St. Pierre property.

Public Meeting-

Public Meeting.

Public review of Environmental Study Report. Application to the MOE for a bump-up request to an individual EA is fled and later denied.

Oil was poured into the test weii on the Provost property, contaminating the weil.

The new officiai well (Provost property) is up and nuining siipplying water to the Village of Winchester-

The Village of Winchester reiies on groundwater for municipal needs, including

residentid, municipal, and industrial services. In the last few decades, the village has been

experiencing water supply shortages due to over-pumping of the four existing wells, and

93

due to extensive dry periods. More recently, these shortages have had a severe impact on

many of the activities in the village, both present and friture- For instance, restrictions on

new development w i t h the Village of Winchester have been in place since 1986 because

of limited municipal water supplies in the village (JL. Richards and Associates Limited

and Golder Associates Lixnited 199%).

Water shoaages also affectecl the local industry because a large portion of the

municipal water suppIy is used by Auit Foods Limited (presently known as Pamialat

Canada). In 1988, Ault Foods used municipal water for 96.3% of its water needs;

however, in 1994, Ault's municipal water use was restricted to approlomately 54% of its

total water use (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and GoIder Associates Lmiited

199%). Consequently, the Company had to haul in the remaining 46 of the water which it

needed that year. Hauhg water increased the operathg costs, makùig that facility less

cornpetitive (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limited 1995a).

h addition to industrial ne&, water shortages also affected fïre control, limiting the

village's ability to deal with future fies (Hummell 1990). These eEects, dong with

continuing daily household needs, led to a proposal to search for a new municipal water

source.

The groundwater study, sponsored by the MOE, initially identifiecl a sixth welI as a

new supply in 1985; however, it did not satisfy a l l the municipality 's needs, and therefore,

the study was resumed in 1988 to h d the remaining supplïes needed (1,950 m3/day) (J.L.

Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limited 1995a). The goal of this

study was to h d adequate water supplies within a reasonable distance of the village at a

low cost. The municipality hired J.L. Richards and Associates Limited, an engineering,

architecture and planning consulting to conduct the study in 1989; in tum, these

consultants retaïned the services of Golder Associates Limited, a subsurface engineering

k n , as sub-codants.

Test drilllligs and investigations were done in areas that were owned by various sectors

of the govemment, and that were close to the village. These were unsuccessfûl in

producing the necessary water. Investigations were then directed towards other areas.

Ultimately, the Morewood Esker was the water source identifieci for the Village of

Winchester's municipal water supply (Figure 5). Due to the esker's location, a number of

issues emerged during this aspect of the process, involving property rights, purchasing

rights, and effects of the well on nearby farm operations. MOE prefmed to have an

agreement to purchase a well site in place pnor to any investigations, as a way to alleviate

any fùture problems. However, many landowners had concerns, especially regarding the

implications of the well on the surrounding farm operations.

The concerns of the landowners were brought to light during negotiations to purchase

the weli sites. These negotiations resulted in an impasse, which stalleci the study until a

September 12, 1990 public meeting (J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and Golder

Associates Limited 1995a). The meeting was organized to update the residents on the

study and address their concems. The Class Environmental Assessrnent (Class EA)

process was referred to by the c o d t a n t s as a venue for addressing these concems. There

was disagreement among some of the participants as to whether the concems were being

adequately dealt with, thus generating conflict AAer this meeting, these concems soon

became stumbling blocks in the search for water, specincally regarding the negotiations for

the purchase of potential well sites. The conflict soon acalated into a dispute.

During this tirne. it came to the attention of the cod tan t s that there was a new

potential groundwater ana, near the Morewood Esker. A h , a newspaper in the

ApriI12,1989 edition of the Winchester Press entitled ''VilIage sitîhg on needed water",

identined and iliustrated the property of Mr. Denis S t Pierre, near the southem point of

the esker, as a potential adequate municipal source of water (Awnymous 1989). The

option was initially dismissed as too expensive becaw of its location, which was

considered to be too far nom the village. However, over t h e this option became

economically feasible. A written agreement was made between the Village and Mr. D. St-

Pierre to conduct a pumping test on a weil located in a grave1 pit on the property in early

1992, but Mr. St. Pierre refiained fiom agreeing to an option to purchase agreement

because of his agriculhirelated concems (J.L. Richards and Associates Limiteci and

Golder Associates Limited 1995a). The studies concluded that groundwater fiom this well

was of good quality and quantity, and could satisQ the needs of the municipalîty.

With the groundwater stuây ended and a proposed area for gromdwater found, the

Class EA process for municipal water and wastewater projects began in the sumrner of

1992. A Class EA involves a specific procedure depending on the type of project being

undertaken (Chapter 2). The Schedule C process was selected and the environmental study

began. This study. a requirement of this process, consisted of inventories. designs, and

mitigative measures. A public information meeting was held on September 12, 1992,

markhg the beginning of the Class EA public consultation process.

During this time, the village was undergoing negotiations with Mr. D. St. Pierre to

purchase the test well site. These negotiations took a considerable length of time, beginning

in late 1992 and ending in early 1994 -- stalling the Class EA process. Often times, talks

broke down primariy due to disagreements regarding compensation- Mr- St Pierre wanted

compensation in the event that land use restrictions and weii head protection measmes were

placed on bis farm operations in the fiiture- Wellhead protection measures are applied to

areas immediately around an individual weil or weii field in order to prevent groundwater

contamination (Meyer 1990). These measures can include monitoring, land use zoning,

delineation of capture zones, and emergency preparedness plans in the event of

groundwater contamination, However, the village negotiated with only the intention of

purchashg the well site, not compensation, believing that its offers were more than

adequate to purchase the lands. Ultimately, the negotiations were unsuccessful.

In May of 1994, the village was offered an option to purchase another site, the Provost

Cartage pit, which was located near the S t Pierre property. Once the testing was

conducted on that property, the Class EA process resumed. During the time period of this

testing in the fall and *ter of 1994, there was a serious water shortage (J.L. Richards and

Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limited 1995a). In September of 1994, the

village sent out an urgent water conservation notice, saying that the village was facing a .

emergency supply situation and needed the CO-operation of the commuuïty in conserving

water. Mr. St- Pierre, whose test welI was not closed, sold water to Ault Foods Limited,

whose operations were severely affected by the restrictions. This action angereà the village

which had developed the test weil sirictly for municipal purposes, not for private use-

Two more public meetings were held in January and March of 1995 as part of the -

Schedule C assessrnent process. Landowners and farmers, including Mr. St. Pierre, under

a newly formed group hown as the Morewood Esker Landowners Association (MELA),

still felt that their concem were not addressed and voiced these concerm at the public

meetings. Despite theîr opinions, the Class EA contmued and the Environmental Study

Report was completed and avaüable for a thiay day review* At the end of this review, in

June of 1995, MUA reqyested a bump-up to a full environmental assessment, so that

agriculturai concems could be properly dealt with, The request for a bump-up was denied

and the project proceeded. In September of 1995, oil was poured into the test weli on the

Provost property, contaminating the weil (Anonymous 1995)* No one was charged for this

action, although accusations were made. Decontamination costs were estimated at

$10,000. The total project, including the studies, engineering and construction, came to

$4,300,000 (Dingwall 1998). As of early 1999, the new officîal municipal well on the

Provost property has been drill& and cmently supplies the village with water.

CASE STUDY: ANALYSIS

There were a number of issues and factors in this dispute involving the Village of

Wiichester. Most of the issues pertaineed to water. The factors were more complex and

varied among the interviews. In this section, the comments made by the interview subjects

are andyzed in order to determine the impurtance and relevance of the issues and factors in

this dispute. In the k t subsection, the issues are identifid. The second subsection

consists of a detaüed analysis descriiing the different factors and their contrîîutions to the

dispute. The h a 1 subsection discusses the management of the dispute. An examination of

these processes helps to assess the effectiveness of the various dispute management

approaches used in thïs case, specincally the Class Environmental Assessrnent process.

ISSUES

This dispute involved a variety of issues, a number of which were identifieci by the

interview subjects. The importance of issues varied among the differing participants.

98

Some interview subjects offered similar viewpouits, while others provideci opinions that

were in complete contrast to each other. The major water-relateâ issues related to the

following :

the provision of secure supply of water for municipal purposes (e-g., drinlong water,

fighting fies, and industrial production);

the sustainability of groundwater supplies (Le., recharge areas and aquifm) in the

Morewood Esker, with particuIar reference to Iong texm needs ofthe community;

the use of land use restrictions and well head protection to protect groundwater quality;

compensation to Iandowners in the event of a loss of agricultural production due to

potential fbture land use restrictions and well head protection;

liability of agricultural producers in the event of contamination of the municipal weU

due to existing and/or fiiture farm practices;

resource allocation and propeEty rights (private versus public); and

ownership/control of water resources.

Depending on the perspective of the i n t e ~ e w subjecf some of these issues were

stressed more than others. Water-related issues, specifically the provision and protection of

a municipal water source, dominated this dispute. For example, representatives from the

municipal offices of the Village of Winchester noted that securing a reiiable water source

was the priority of the village in order to provide for present and fùture ne&. Many other

interview subjects agreed with this viewpoint. However, for the landowners and farming

community near the well site, the withdrawd of water for municipal pinposes was not the

major issue in this dispute. In fact, they did not oppose the actual water taking. Instead,

the landowners were more concemeci with compensation issues. They feared that in the

event of water quality issues, land use and well head protection restrictions rnight be placed

on lands near the new municipal weli. If this reSuIted in the loss of production, the

landowners wanted to ensure that they would be adequately compensated. Throughout this

dispute, it seemed as though the parties involved were contiawlly focusing on different

issues. Depending on the issues, some parties (eg., the Village of Winchester and its

residents) were thinkmg of satisfjring the urgent present needs, while others (e-g-, the

landowners) were thinking of fbture implications. Most of these issues wi l l be discussed

fuaher in the upcomiog sections.

FACTORS T'KAT CONTRIBUTED TO TBE DISPUTE

In southem Ontario, municipalities are in competition over rural groundwater supplies

with other users of water, including agricultural, rural residential, and industrial

(Kreutzwiser and de Lot 1998). Cornpetition such as this can lead to water disputes. In

this case, confiicts relatiag to both water quaiity and quantity were present.

Different Tmes of Confikt

The different conflict types (e.g., cognitive, value, interest and behavioural), which

were present in the Winchester case, highlighted conditions in the controversial water

dispute where agriculture and municipal needs were at odds, Factors contributhg to the

diff'erent types of conflicts are identifiexi and discussed in this section.

Cognitive Conflicts

Cognitive conflicts are rooted in the different understandings of the conflict situation

(Chapter 2). In the Winchester case, cognitive conaicts were not at the heart of this

dispute. Most of the data regarding general hydrology and geology of the region was

obtained fiom previous studies done in and around the area, as well as fiom the

environmental study required as part of the Class Environmental Assessrnent process.

However, there was a lack of data conceming the hydrology of the entîre Morewood Esker.

specincally the impacts of increased water withdrawal on the esker. This was at the core of

many of the cognitive issues in this dispute. Six of the interview subjects identifieci this as

a major cognitive contlict in the water dispute. Insufficient data contributed to speculation,

confusion and arguments concemÎng the severity of the cumulative effects of withdrawing

water fiom the esker, and the implications on the suf~ounding mmiicipalities and

landowners. Other municipalities, such as C h e s t d e and Morewood, were withdrawing

water or displaying an interest in water withdrawal fiom this source. Ail six interview

subjects suggested that data concerning the entire Morewood Esker would assist in making

sound planning decisions regarding water use of the esker. However, this conflict was not

addressed in management of this dispute because the scope and hding of the water project

was limited to the Village of Winchester's docation of water.

There was a disagreement concerning the need for the extensive search that was

conducted for the water. Two intewiew subjects suggested that the search to find the water

was not necessary because maps and studies had already estabfished the Morewood Esker

as a viable option for a water source. One interview subject stated that this infommtion

was cornmon knowledge in the area.

They 've been doing the studies for years.. . What.. . previous administrations have been doing was looking for places that didn't cost us any money to drill holes. But unfortunately, there was no water there, and I think.. that ail the engineers that 1 got to know. .. 1 think that they were pretty sure about that. They' re s t i l i going to do what the boss says and the boss of the &y is the council that you're working for. 1 talked to the engineers. I talked to a lot of other people. 1 talked to people who worked for the Township Road Superhtendent, or Drainage Superintendent, and they've got maps. Everyone's got maps, You know we didn't start making maps

five years ago, These maps are there and they outline where a l l the underground sources [of wated are.

Therefore, some intemiew subjects believed that the extensive search for water conducted

by the consulting f k m did not provide any new information in terms of the identification of

a water source. One stated that They spent a fair bit of money hding the obvious." This

resulted in mistrust among the participants, as well as mistrust by some of the codtants.

On the other hand, the more recent studies, which provided additional information about a

specifïc water source, were supportai by other interview subjects.

Other data, specincaily the agricuihiral inventories, were descnied by two interview

subjects as difEcuit to obtain and limited. Both stated that these inventories had to be

perfonned fiom the roads because they were not permitted on the pnvate property of the

landowners. Although there was a limiteci kmwledge conceming these inventories, it was

the restricted access to the agricultural lands by the landowners that was descnied as

escalating the dispute, not the inventory redts. This wilI be discussed fuaher in the

behavioural conflict subsection of this chapter-

Two interview subjects suggested that some of the participants involved in the dispute

did not have a clear understanding of hydrology, specincally groundwater. Mitigating this,

they stated that the public reports fiom the enviro~mental study helped to alleviate this

problem. A lack of understanding of basic hydrology can create confusiion in the dispute

and complicate the dispute management process.

Value Conflicts

A number of factors contributed to value conflicts in this water dispute. Value conflicts

stem fiom different assessments of the desirability of ends to be accomplished by the action

contemplated (Chapter 2). The perceptions, attitudes, and values of people often are

102

diBerat, resulting in different actions. Various factors were identifieci in the interviews,

including ciiffirent values placed on water, and the importance of agriculture in the

economy.

Different users of water (e-g., household, i.dustrialy recreational, and commercial)

value water differently. This was illustrated in the varïety of respomes when factors

contrïbuting to value conflicts were discwed in the interviews. Tai interview subjects

suggested that the residents of the Village of Wmchester placed a high value on water

because they needed i t While al l ten acknowledged the importance of water for drinkingy

five of the ten interview subjects also offered other reasons for the value differences. Two

valued water, specincally groundwater, as the major commodity in the region because of its

iimited availability and acces~ibility~ as weU as its use in numerous activities. One

interview subject perceived water as important in industrial production, while another

discussed the critical water needs for other municipal services, such as tire fighting. The

last of the five subjects stated that water restricted growth and development in the village,

in terms of supply and sewage disposal. Despite the high value placed on good q d t y

water, five of the ten stated that acquUing and supplying this water to the residents of the

Village of Winchester had to be conducted in an inexpensive way. One participant

explained this by saying, "They [the residents of the Village of Winchester] wanted water.

I think that's the key. Of course, they wanted it as inexpensive as you can get i t But they

wanted water. They needed water."

Another perception regarding water involved values placed on grouudwater. One

interview subject suggested that there was a value difference between groundwater and

d a c e water. He explaineci this by using a personal story to illustrate the importance of

groundwater.

Weil, anybody that grows up on a ground water systern ... like 1 grew up in the country and we had a well and that. .. Weil first of all when 1 first got marrieci, we had a house with a cistem, so 1 had to buy water. You had to redy be carefid with that. But the bottom line is that anytime there is a well, you know you leam to use water diffiently, much more wisely. And then when you go to the city, it's lüre Yeah. Tum on the tap and leave it there. And you leave it running. You'U brush your teeth and all these kinds of thhgs that people just do. And you look at people when they corne to your house and they do things like that, and.. why do they do that? They have no due,

In addition to the value of water, agricultural production was identified in three of the

i n t e ~ e w s as an important component of the Canadian economy, as well as of the local

economy; however, the interview subjects believed that its value is severely

underesthated. One of the h e e suggested that fiom his perspective, agriculture

is a vital industry in Ontario. Farmers of Ontario are the fanners of Canada. You have to check the statistics. The famiers of Ontario go on a $25 billion shopping spree every year in tenns of fertilizers, seeds, and tractors and gas and ai l the inputs twine and feed. 25 billion dollars. That's a lot of money. 1 out of every seven jobs in Ontano is directly or indirectly related to food production, transportation, processing, or retail.

He added that 'Teople recognize the value of the land to produce food. They just don't

recognized the value of the industry that does it." Dinerent values and perceptions, such as

those expressed about water and agriculture, changed the behaviour and actions of the

disputhg parties. This will be fiirther discussed in the upcoming subsection descr i ig

factors that contrïiuted to behavioural coaflicts.

Interest Conflicts

A number of factors contri'buted to interest conflicts in this dispute. Interest conflicts

occur when there is a disagreement concerning the distriiution of costs and benefits

(Chapter 2). There was a disagreement regarding the costs and the distriiution of these

costs for the test well and purchase prke of the property where the weii was drille& This

was descnbed as a factor that contriiuted to the escalation of the dispute. The

municipality, through fiinding provided by the Ministry of Environment, drilleci a test well

on Mr. St, Pierre's property. However, a contentious issue was who should receive the

benefits of that water. Eight interview subjects made comments in their interviews with

respect to this disagreement. Five of the eight subjects suggested that the initial costs of the

wefl was not the issue of this conflict, Instead, they believed that the issue was who

maintiiins possession of the well and the water fiom the well. Possession also involved the

property rights and, therefore, there was a disagreement regarding the costs of purchasing

the lands fiom Mt. St. Pierre. Five interview subjects stressed that the lengthy,

unsuccessfiil negotiations involving the purchase price were a major stumbling block in the

acquisition of water f?om that well. There were a variety of opinions about this subject

Some suggested that the pnce was too high, while others claimed the pnce .offered was

substantially lower than the value of the land. One of the eight interview subjects stated

that

they drilled a well on his property. It was a good well and he had maintainecl possession of that well and [the] village diilled it at our expense. Then when they tned to negotiate to buy it, they couldn't come up with a reasonable price. And he was putting, fiom what 1 hear before he came he was putting a fair number of conditions on that sale that was making it so inhibiting for the municipality. They couldn't a o r d it. So a neighbor around the corner said, 'Hey, come around and drill on my place. If you find water, it's yours at this price.' They negotiated ahead of time. The municipality did not close the well off ikom Mr. St. Pierre's property. He st i l l maintah it at our expense.

This is an important factor because a number of other conflicts, including other interest

coilicts, arose as a result of possession of the open test drill, This will be fiirthet

discussed in the next subsections,

Another fdout fiom this disagreement regarding costs involved compensationn

Compensation was identifiai as a prominent source of interest confiict by seven interview

subjects, especidy among the landownas and the muni~ipality~ The conflict centred on

the idea that compensation for the loss of agricdtural production, in the event that land use

restrictions and well head protection wodd be placed on lands adjacent to the well, was not

discwed. Compensation was not offered to these landowners. Three interview subjects

wanted thÎs incoprated in the negotiations for the pmhase of the property, as well as in

the Class Environmental Assessmeat process, as a fomi of insurance. They supported their

argument with documented intemational cases where landowners' practices were restricted

because of weU head protection. On the other haad, the rernaining four did not believe that

compensation was relevant. They did not anticipate any friture problems and used the

history of good water quality in this predorninantly famillig area to illustrate their

viewpoint. One of the four discussed compensating landownem in the following tams:

They had a concem that their famiing operations would impact our well, and therefore, they may be held responsible, which is a concem they should have. Then the other side ... the engineers, and consultants were saying, 'WeU, you have been famiing there for over a hundred years and the water table has not been affected. So why is it now that feel you are going to impact that water supply? There wasn't a good answer given. Operations have changed, t h e is no doubt.., but now famiers are getting more into natural fertiliPng and that kind of thing to complement their crops. So the chemicals are changing a lot So you won't have the chernical impact maybe that was there fifteen years ago ... 1 think they were just trying to protect their own interest-

Compensation was a major issue and source of conflict that also created an obstacle in the

management of this dispute. This wili be discussed later in the Dispute Management

section.

Competition was also describeci by a select few interview subjects as an important

factor in interest conflicts. Two interview subjects suggested that there was competitio2

106

among the municipalities for the fiinding provided by the Minktry of Environment for

water projects in this region. Although the Village of Winchester was in need of water,

other municipalities in the area also needed bding for municipal projects. This limited

the fun& available to acquire a new muaicipal water source, and added pressure to an

already tense situation.

In addition to competition for fimding, there was also cornpetition for water resources.

Although the multitude of water uses, discussed in the case study background section, plays

an important role in the escalation of this dispute, only two interview subjects made

specific reference to this factor. One interview subject discussed the cornpetition for water

fiom an industrial standpoint. The other person discussed the competition for water

supplies fiom the Morewood Esker by the other municipalities and the potential cumulative

impacts of water taking on the hydrology of the esker. This was previously discussed in

the cognitive factors subsection of this analysis.

A number of different interests were present in this dispute. As discussed in the case

study background section, there were a number of different parties in this water dispute,

each having their own interests. Conflict often resulted because parties were constantly

trying to protect theu interests. These interests were acknowledged by a.U the interview

subjects. However, some interests were expressed in the interviews more strongly than

others. For example, six interview subjects made statements regardhg the multiple

interests of the Village of Winchester The Village was said to have interests in the

provision of water and water-related services for its residents, but also an interest in local

economic development.

The water situation added a great deal of pressure on the local economy. Accordmg to

one of the interview subjects7 water supplies in the diage were so inadequate that the

Ministry of Environment had placed a fieeze on development Four interview subjects

made specinc reference to the impacts ofreduced water supplies on Ault Foods Limited,

which was a major player in the local economy. The municipality, throughout this dispute,

was responsible for providing a portion of Ault's water needs. Mr. Rob Edwards of

Parmalat Canada (Ault Foods Cimite, mentioned that they had hauled in 3.7% of their

total water requirements in 1988; however, as the water situation became more serious,

their hauled water requirements increased to 55.2 %* costing $393,000 in 1992 (Edwards

1998). This created a tremendous impact on this faciiity's operations and could have had

detrimental impacts on the local economy if water was not found

The Morewood Esker Landowners Association (MELA) was another group mentioned

by seven interview subjects as having very different interests in this dispute. Two of the

seven interview subjects, who were not landowners, went fbrther to acknowledge the

relevance of MELA's involvement in the dispute. Although they were not necessarily in

agreement with MELA's views, they suggested that MELA was the landowners' and

fmers ' way of protecting their interests, and in many ways, that was what every party was

doing.

The different interests in this dispute also had different roles and agendas. This was at

the core of many interest c o ~ c t s . They influenced the actions and behaviour of many of

the participants in this dispute. The South Nation Conservation's role was called into

question in this dispute by two interview subjects. Although its uiterests were pertinent, its

role was not completely understood by all the disputantS. The representative fiom the

South Nation Consemation descriied its role as assisting 'bur member mUL1iCipalities,

municipalities within our watershed in water management issues, including water quality

and water qyantity issues" (Vanclief 1998). One mtenriew subject thought that the

Conservation Authority's role duplicated that of the Ontario Clean Water Agency, but this

duplication did not present a real problem at the the . In addition to duplication, another

interview subject stated that various branches of the Ministry of Environment (e-g.,

environmental assessment branch and regional. offices) were involved in this dispute,

creating some confusion among the disputants.

Two interview subjects suggested that the Ontario Mhïstry of Agriculture, Food and

Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) had a dual role in the dispute because its mandate encompassed

both agricultural interests and nwl affairs. This dual role created confusion, especially for

the fanners who requested support, Despite its mandate, OMAFRA's support to the

f&g community, and its direct involvanent in the dispute, was limiteci. Even though

this dispute involved both key naal and agriculture issues, OMAFRA had no jurisdiction in

water issues. Along with minimal support fiom OMAFRA, four interview subjects

discussing the landowners' situation also mentioned that Little support came nom the major

agricultural groups, such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Fami

Environment Coalition. Two of the four interview subjects attri'buted this to established

partnerships with other organizations, govemments, institutions, and universities,

Therefore, providing support might create a coaflict of interest for some organizations.

Behavioural ConOicts

Behavioural factors, both positive and negative, contributed to a number of conflicts

witbin this water dispute. Conflicts existed that were related to personalities and

circumstances of the interested parties. Although most of the behavioural factors had a

negative impact on the dispute. four interview subjects noted some behaviours that

positively influenceci the dispute. For example, interview subjects descnbed the behaviour

of the community, past relationships with the consulting firms, and the good relationship

the Village of Winchester had with other municipalities, as positive innuences.

In contrast to these positive b e b v i o d factors, there were those that compounded and

escalated the dispute. Personatity merences, for instance, were identifÏed by six

i n t e ~ e w subjects. Often &es, personalities were described as a major issue in the

escdation of the dispute and an obstacle to its management. Four of the six made specinc

references to several individuals involved in the dispute. Behavioural conflicts involving

personalities can often lead to mistrust- A lack of trust was recognized by three interview

subjects as a factor in this dispute. One attributed this to a negative previous experience

with one of the parties, while the other two suggested that mistrust was present in this

dispute because of newly fonned associations involving several parties. Due to the lack of

trust, a number of misperceptions were made by some parties regarding other parties.

Although this was aüuded to in many of the interviews, only four interview subjects

specincally referred to this. The two targeted groups identifieci in the four interviews were

the famiersAandowners and the engineers fiom the c o d t i n g thm. Two subjects stated

that the engineers were perceived as environmental criminals, while the remaining two

suggested that the fanners were considered to be uneducated.

Emotions were very high and the situation was very tense throughout this dispute. The

emotion rnentioned most frequently by six interyiew subjects was fear. Despite attempts

to subdue their fears, five of the six interview subjects indicated that there were fears of no

water, fears of potential land use restrictions because of weli head protection, and fears that

opposition would stop the water project and leave the village without water. Fear caused

parties to be more cautious and mistnistfal, forcing people to emphasize protecting their

own interests. Bittemess, anger, and animosity were identifid by three of the six people,

who specincally discussed behavioural factors, as other emotions that created tension and

hostdity- Kgh emotions such as these redted in accusations of wrong doing, name

calhg, and a series of incidents that contributeci to behaviowal conflicts and escalateci the

dispute.

There were quite a nimiber of incidents or actions by an individual or individuab that

sparked conflict The nfit incident that was identifid by six interview subjects was the

private sale of water to Ault fÎom the test well driiled on Mi. St. Pierre's property. This

action angered many of the parties involved in this dispute. One of the interview subjects

offered an explanation for this anger by saying that the Village of Winchester

did not close the well off fiom Mr. St. Pierre's property. He still maintains it at our expense. And while the village couldn't supply Ault Foods with suflicient water, he was seliing truck loads of water to them. But yet he didn't want us to develop a well around the corner so we can have water.

Most of the respoasibility for this action was directed towards Mr. St. Pierre, rather than

Auit, the recipient of the water. Four of the six athibuted this anger to the use of

municipaVMinistry of Environment fun& to drill the well. However, due to private

property nghts, nothing could be done to stop the sale. Roperty rights will be discussed

The creation of MELA in 1995 by the Iandowners was considered to be another action

that resulted in additional tension. Although five interview subjects recognized that the

association was beneficial to the landowners, its creation did not help the situation because

111

it created M e r division in an already tense dispute. One of the five suggested that it was

MELA against everyone else. Another two i n t e ~ e w subjects suggested that MELA's

lobbying attempts to gain support h m other agencies, such as OMAFRA and South

Nations Conservation, added to this division, La addition, incidents hvolving individuai

landowners were mentioned by four interview subjects. Incidents included pennItti~g

access to lands and then retracting it, even after money was exchanged, and resistance to

test drilling- This not ody caused m e r division, but also created stumbling blocks to the

search for water. This is not to Say that the actions of the individuai landownecs, who were

protecting their interests, were the only ones identifid during the interviews. Two

inteniew subjects descriied the agreement made by the village with the landowner of the

existing municipal well, instead of Mr. St- Pierre, as another incident that generated tension

and conflict among the disputants.

Another incident that happened Later in the dispute was desmied in the newspapers,

but not identified by the interview subjects. This incident was the ~ c i o u s contamination

of the Village of Winchester's official test well in the summer of 1995. Someone had

poured lubncating oil into the wellhead, which was expected to be operational by spring of

1996, thereby contaminating it (Anonymous 1995). This test well tapped into the

Morewood Esker and was located on lands bought ftom Ray Provost by the Village.

Consultants discovered the problem on August 17,1995, and estimated the cleanup to cost

approdately S 10,000. Accusations were directed towards MELA members because of

their opposition to the project; however, MELA denied its involvement, stating that its

members did not support such actions- This resulted in firrther division and mistrust among

the parties in this dispute.

Other Conflïcts

The category entitled 'other conflicts' encompasses those conflicts that cannot be easily

categorized according to the four types (Chapter 3). The only other conflict mentioned in

this dispute is related to power-

There are different types of power-related conflicts, involving financial,-political,

psychological, and physical power differences. In this case, the two types of power

conflicts related to Gnancial and political factors. Ten interview subjects remarked on this

conflïct type. Eight descnbed financial power imbalances as a factor in this dispute. The

Ministry of Environment (MOE) h d e d the water project, and therefore, was considemd to

be the powerhouse in this dispute. While many did not believe that this was a major issue,

four interview subjects did. Two of the four suggested that because MOE fûnded the

project, it also controlled the timing of the project Parts of the project were contracted out

so that they would qualw for MOE fiindhg. The power possessed by MOE added more

urgency to the water search and constrained the development of the project The Ontario

Clean Water Agency (OCWA) was also identified by three interview subjects as important

in this dispute because of its association with MOE.

The other power-related factor involved politics, as was identined by fou. interview

subjects. One of the foin interview subject descnied power imbdances with respect to

jurisdicti0m-d issues. These issues involved the limited power of the Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) in ruraI water problems hvolving

agricultural issues, in comprison to those of the MOE. Two suggested that political

powers was used to control the whole process. No names were mentioned, but it was

iasinuated that those who wanted the water controlled the power in the dispute. The nnal

i n t e ~ e w subject recognized both as power differences. This mibalance ofpower was

considered to diffcdt to overcome, as evidenced in the upcoming section of dispute

management.

Summary

Cognitive, value, interest, and behaviod conflicts were evident throughout the case

study analysis. The 6Ah group of conflicts, 'other', were also idenfiecl in this case.

Cognitive confiicts revolved around the effects of increased withdrawals on Morewood

Esker. Value conaicts mainly involved Heren t values of water and the importance of

agriculture. Interest conflicts consisteci of different interests, compensation issues, and

different roles and agendas. Personality differences, emotions, and the actions of

individual parties drove the conflicts invoirring behaviour. Power connicts, involving

financial and political issues, were at the essence of the 'other' conflict category.

Other Factors

A variety of factors could not be categorized as conflicts, but were important

contnbutors to the dispute. Some of these factors related to more than one codlict, or to

no conflicts. However, they were crucial to the escalation of this dispute. There are factors

that encompass both in the Winchester case. These include the need for water, changes in

the political environment, other water disputes, and the duration of the dispute. These

factors and their relevance to the dispute are discussed in this subsection.

Everyone interviewed for the case recognized that there was a need for water in the

Viiiage of Winchester. However, seven interview subjects stressed that this need was a

factor that contributed to this dispute. The need for water had made the village very

sensitive to scarce watkr supplies and other water-related issues. For example, municipal

water use was r d c t e d a number of times throughout this dispute. These restrictions not

only afEcted the residents, but also the local industry. This created a sense of urgency for

the municipality to fïnd water.

One of the m j o r factors in this dispute involved property rights, according to nine

interview subjects. Rivate property, specifically, was considered to be a major limitation

to the search and acquisition of water, and issues pertaining to this resulted in connicts.

Access to private properties to find water was very dif3icult to obtain fiom the landowners.

As a result of limited access to properties, confusion was created among some of the parties

about ownership of water found on private lands. It also resulted in anger and bittemess

towards the landowners, who were denying the consultants access to their property. To the

landowners, theïr actions were jus@ed because they were trying to protect their interests-

Dealing with pnvate property issues severely delayed the search for water and the

collection of idormation for the environmental studies required for the Class EA-

There was great interest in the Morewood Esker by other municipalities, and this raised

concerns for sustainability of the source. This factor was identifid by six interview

subjects. They believed this could cause a serious drain on water resources. They

discussed that the Morewood Esker aiready supplied water to residents in Chesterville and

Russell Township. They also noted that the esker was being investigated as a municipal

water source by other municipalities who were in a sunilar situation as the Village of

Winchester. Russeli Township, whose 12,000 residents have relied on water fiom the

esker for the last ten years, had a vested interest in the Winchester water dispute and

expressed its concems to the Ministry of Environment (Edwards 1995). In an article in the

Winchester Press, a Russell Township council representative stated that 'We're not tryi.ng

to prevent, or get in the way of Winchester's plans, we just want to malce sure the ministry

knows we are concerned about the future of the aquifer" (Edwards 1995). Two of the six

i n t e ~ e w subjects mggesteci that this was the factor that generated fear and cornpetition,

and heightened the urgency to fkd water.

Other cases also were used to influence the actions and interests of the disputants.

Seven interview subjects discussed this as an important factor in the dispute. All seven

identifieci a variety of cases, includmg cases mvolving local (e-g., Moeburg and

Mountain Township), regional (e-g., Cornwall). provincial (e-g., Quebec), and international

(e.g., United States and Great Britain) water issues. Some cases simply idenifieci other

present and emerging water issues. . However, four intemiew subjects went M e r ,

discussing situations similar to the Winchester case in order to illustrate some of the

potential problems that have been faced as a result of water disputes in other areas. These

cases often helped to substantiate the concerm of some of the disputants, particularly the

landowners,

Changes in the political environment, such as financial cutbacks and provincial

downloading, also contriiuted to this dispute. A number of changes were specined by six

of the interview subjects. Two interview subjects made general comments that there have

been changes in the political environment diaing the dispute. Four made specific

references to budgetary cuts being faced by the provincial minÏstries, such as the Ministry

of Enviromnent (MOE), the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and R d AiTiairs

(OMAFRA) and the South Nation Conservation. As discussed by two interview subjects,

the MOE .de& with budgetary constraints by downloading responsibilities to other

ministries and agencies. South Nation Conservation also underwent budget cuts. Two

interview subject describeci the cuts as their opportunity to defme a position in local

water-related probIems. The OMAFRA representative interviewecl stated that OMAFRA

expenenced a signiscant reduction in its budget, and as a result, its staff lacked available

technical support (e.g., hydrogeologists) in a time when water was a major issue in the

region (McTavish 1998). One interview subject commented that the impact of OMAFRA's

cutbacks on the famiing commUILity is seen through the reductions in the provision of fiee

services.

The media also played a role in this dispute. Five interviews included references to this

role. Duriog ali five, it was suggested that the dispute was continually being play& in the

various newspapers throughout the dispute. Depending on the interests of the parties, some

newspapers were considered to be more favourable to some parties than to others. For

example, the f m - related publications, such as the Valley Famer's Forun and the

A@Naus, were considered to be more supportive of the farmers' and landowners'

position, while the Winchester Press was seen as more sympathetic to the mun,icipality's

viewpoint. One interview subject also said that a television station had done a

documentary on the water dispute. Although the media were reporthg this dispute fmm a

journalistic standpoint, the opposing parties did not see this as such. Instead, they either

viewed the media as opposition sympathizers or as venues to voice their concems and

opinions. Therefore, the media o h reidorced divisions andor created M e r division

among the parties in this dispute. On the other han& the media also made information

available. For example, thete was an article in the April 12, 1989 edition of the Winchester

Press, indicating and illustrating the property of Mi. Denis St. Pierre as a viable source of

municipal water.

The duration of the dispute was considered to be another factor. Tais dispute lasted

almost a decade. This t h e fiame aliowed for many of the partÏes to become more

emotional and protective of their interests, which resultted in the hardenïng of positions by

the end of the dispute. Niue interview subjects made specifïc referaces to this as a critical

factor in this dispute and its resolut&m ALI nine suggested that the dispute was Iengthy

because of the many roadblocks in the search for water. Most of these obstacles have been

discussed in the previous secti~ns~ However, some of these obstacles Involve dispute

management techniques, such as negotiation and the Class Environmental Assessment

process. Both processes were used concurrently, as discussed in the issues section, earlier

in this chapter. However, for the purposes of this research, negotiation is describeci as a

factor that contri'buted to the escalation of this dispute, and Class Environmental

Assessment is discussed in the upcoming Principles of Dispute Management section.

Private negotiations, which were conducted between the individual landowners and the

Village and its lawyers, were also considered to be a factor in this dispute by six interview

subjects. Negotiation, a collaborative consensus-building technique, was used in attempts

to resolve the disagreements c o n c e h g the purchase price of the well site lands. A

number of issues were fïrst recognized in negotiations, particularly the landowners'

concerns about potential land use restrictions that would affect surroimding fm

operatiom. The disagreements centered ammd compensation. The landowners wanted

compensation figures discussed in the purchase pnce of the property, while the Village's

position was that compensation would be dealt with when an event actually occureci. The

negotiations were described in the interviews as lengthy, ofien breaking dom. In the case

of the test well on Mr. St. Pierre's property, negotiations went on for almost two years

because of disagreements regarding price and compensation. This not ody escalated the

dispute by creating M e r division, but also severeiy delayed the Class EA process used to

manage the dispute.

PRINCIPLES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

A number of dispute management processes were used in this dispute; however, the

focus here is on the Class Environmental Assessrnent (Class EA) process. According to the

typology (Chapter Z), the Ciass EA process incorporates public participation and

consultation approaches. This pmcess was designed to provide information and to address

concems regarding the water project The third component of this fiamework consists of a

number of desirable p ~ c i p l e s for dispute management (Chapter 2). The Winchester case

involved principles that have been adhered to and principles that have not been followed.

These wiU be discussed in this subsection,

Partici~ants

The inclusion of a i l relevant stakeholders and proper representation of the stakeholders

were identified as principles being adhered to in both dispute management processes. For

the most part, al1 interview subjects admitted that the relevant stakeholders (e.g., municipal

govemment, the public, and provincial ministries) were included and represented in the

management of this dispute. The Class EA process was a very public and open process.

However, as earlier mentioned in the interest factors section, tbere was some confiision

concerning the roles, agendas, and inter- of some of the parties in the dispute.

Other priuciples, such as an understanding of the technical information involved

(education), were not always adhered to in the Class EA. In general, there was some

concem regarding the understanding of the technical information involved, especially

among the public. The environmental studies were considered to be a mechanism to

resolve this concem. Three people commented on the education of the fmers in their

interviews; these were not members of the local f d g community and offered

contrasting opinions. Two suggested that the famers in the area were very well educated

in terms of the technicd information, especidy involving issues that directly affiected

them. The otber subject directed his comments towards the lack of environmental

management education of fanners.

Focusing on the issues, not the participants, is a principle identified in the fkamework-

There was a detkite focus on issues, but these issues were differentt Also, there was a

general cornmitment fiom the participants to resolve the issues in the dispute. However, all

participants were commiaed to resolve the issues that they considered to be in theu best

interests. For example, the Village of Winchester made a cornmitment to getting a new

source of mUaIcipal water supply. The landowners, on the other hand, were committed to

resolving issues of compensation in the event of fùture land use restrictions and weU head

protection, Despite such a strong focus on issues, there was also a strong focus on the

participants and their actions, as discussed in the interest and behaviourd confIicts of this

dispute. This affited the dispute management process, especiaiiy the length of the dispute

and ir resolution. One interview subject descnibed the involvement of the different

participants by saying that there are

always some people that outrïght support it and some people that wili Iisten to what you have to Say and then fonn an opinion. And there are the people fiom day one who don? want what you're doing. It's u s d y those three categories. You just have to deal with the concems to the best of your ability, and in the end, the process is either approved, not approved or approved with conditions.

Process

There are a number of pnnciples th& are duectly related to the Class EA process.

Ideally, the Class EA is designeci to be an open, inclusive, and fair process that is easy to

understand- The Schedule C process is a fidl Class EA and involves an environmental

study. There was additional disagreement concerning the use of this process. Some of the

parties in the dispute, specfically MELA, wanted an individual EA perfomied on this

project They reqyested a bumpup and were d d by the MOE. Therefore, the process

was not acceptable to relevant parties.

Most interview subjects descnbed the process as one that is fair, open, inclusive, and

easy to use and understand, Accordhg to the principles of dispute management, openness

refers to ongoing communicatio~ and dialogue- They agreed that the process was open in

that ail relevant stakeholders were identified, represented, and included in this process.

However, whether there was open communication and dialogue in this process was

debatable, according to three interview subjects. It is interesthg to note that not all three

were fiom the famiing community. These interview subjects acknowledged that the

landowners were given an opportunity to voice their opinions at the public information

meetings of the Class EA, but the landowners' concems were not addressed or Iistened to.

One interview subject noted that there were commuaication difnculties experienced during

this process, specifïcally the public meetings. This subject descrïbed a situation at one of

the public meetings in the following way.

1 was at one public meeting, and the fmers were right there, in the Township of Winchester building and the engineers were at the fiont. They gave their comments and they knew dam weii that the fanners wanted to question them. The moment that engineer finished, he turned his back on the crowd. The next thing you know the chairs are being pded up fkom under you. Then aii of a sudden, his littie cohorts and his buddies start into the crowd and divide and conquer. You take

these two off and I'U take these two and so.. you could bitch to him, but it was a one on one and you know what it's like at a meeting where people are answering questions and you don? like the answers. People feed on that Well, they made sure that didn't happen- Everybodys questions were duly noted. Now we have had another public consultation with the fa~~lers.

There was confusion on what public consultation involved. In this respect, the process that

occurred was not d e d fair and acceptable by all the disputants.

Inequity with respect to resources was also an issue raised by three interview subjects.

- W e some of the parties, such as the rninistnes, the rnunicipalities and goverment

agencies, had the resources (Le-, financial, technical, and legal), other parties in this dispute

had to use their own resources to remain involved in the dispute. Four interview subjects

recognized this as a major limitation to this process for the public, especially the

landowners. The landowners had to retain a lawyer for legal matters such as the

application for the bumpup request, as well as for the private negotiations with the village

over pinchasing nghts to potential weli sites. Although the govemment ministries and

agencies had undergone budget cuts, they were still considered to have a strong support

system. Support for many of the farmers and landowners, as discussed in the interest

contlicts section, was limitd There was minimal help fiom the Ontario Ministry of Food,

Agriculture, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), which had no jurisdiction in water issues, or

fiom other agricultural groups.

The process also took a considerable length of time. Nine interview subjects descnid

the dispute and its management as a lengthy process. Of the nine, four discussed time and

its relationship with costs. As the lengthy dispute and the dispute management process

proceeded, more time and money was being spent by all sides of the dispute, incIuding the

village, the consuiting firms, the ministria, and the landowners. The cost of the total

project was almost one and a haifmillion dollars, including the studies and the consultant

fees. O v d , the Class EA process was considered to be an inefficient process in terms of

cost and time in this case.

There were a nwnber of parties who were InitialIy involved as technical experts, but

who soon became embroiled in the dispute. These include the c o d t i n g fïrms, OMAFRA,

and the South Nation Conservation. The selection of the consulting f i a J.L. Richards and

Associates Limited, was the decision of the Village of Winchesterer Golder Associates

Limited were retained as sub-codtants. No one specif?cally commented that the firms

themselves were the problem. However, interviews with the consultants suggested that

their scientific methods and testing procedures were being constantly criticizd. Other

parties, specincally OMAFRA and South Nation Consemation, voluntarily engaged

themelves in the dispute. Both parties, who had no jurisdiction in the case, offered to

mediate the water dispute, even a f h the project went fornard.

Outcome

At the end of the Class EA, the project was approvd Design and construction

proceeded The new supply for municipal water was in place. Most parties, especially the

Village of Winchester, were satisfied with the process and the outcome. According to nine

interview subjects, the village had resolved its main issue in this dispute, which was the

provision of municipal water. For others, the issues and concems were not resolved in the

Class EA process, despite the fact the municipality had water. For example, the

landowners were identifkd by six interview subjects as those with umesolved issues in the

dispute. The landowners are continuhg thek efforts to get th& concenis addressed

This new water source was expected to supply the village for the next twenty years.

Nevertheless, intezview subjects considered this to be a short term soliition.

One of the results of this process was the formation of committees and studies to deal with

long term solutions and friture water disputes. For example, one of the conditions for the

Village of Winchesta's c d c a t e of appmval involved the establishment of a Water

Resource Protection cornmittee consisting of representatives from the village council,

MELA, Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA), MOE, OMAFRA, Minktry of Naturai

Resources (MNR), the South Nation Conservation, and engineers. However, MELA

declined the offer to join this cornmittee for a number of reasom. Reasons provided by

three of interview subjects include unequal representation, t h e cornmitment, fear that

information shared wilI be used a g a i . them in the fiiture, and potentzal financial losses.

One of the three people, an OMAFRA representative, stateck

They're private citizens. They don't get paid Iike I do to go to these meetings, Like the conservation authority, m e MOE, like rnunicipalities. They'll get paid to go, so we eau sit in meeting a i I day long to discuss policies ... Farmers it's a price tag attached to them. They've got to bring bay in. They can't go to the meeting otherwise they are losing income. Ifwe have a meeting at night, well they've got to get someone to miIk the cows and &er a while, they Say, 'This is not worth it. We're not getting anywhere .... 1 can't a o r d to do this a l i the t h e . There' s nobody representing me at the table (McTavish 1998).

The Village of Winchester was under considerable pressure to fbd a new municipal

groundwater source, especially as water restrictions and water table reductions became

more fiequent The search for water led to a variety of issues and conflicts. There were a

number of d.erent factors that contri'buted to the escalation of this dispute, consisting of

both factors that contriibuted to the different types of conflicts and factors affect the entire

124

dispute. These factors also hindered the dispute management process, which was a Class

Environmental Assesment (Principles of Dispute Management section). Despite the

numerous factors, oniy a select few needed to be rectîfied in order to resolve the dispute to

the satisfaction of most relevant stakeholders. However, the remaining issues and conflicts

will continue to persist ifnot addtessed.

CHAPTER 6

THE CASE STUDIES: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the two case studies, specXcaUy the factors in the dispute and the

principles of dispute management, are compmd The more important factors and

principles that escalated the disputes or mipeded their resolution are determiaed and

discwseb As a result of this cornparison, a number of important lessons regardhg the

management of water disputes have been drawn- For instance, resolvhg the interest

conflicts and cladijing the roles of the sbkeholders are lessons learned fcom the case shuly

analyses. These lessons provide insight into the managanent of the Acton and Winchester

disputes, as well as other water disputes.

CASE STUDY ANALYSES: ACTON AND WINCHESTER

The case study tiIlSilyses of the two water disputes in Acton and the Village of

Winchester (Chapters 4 and 5) are analyzed according to the refhed fiamework (Chapter

3). A nimiber of similarities and differences were identifid that relate to all aspects of the

case analyses. This section examines these similarities and differences.

ISSUES

Although the issues varied in the two cases, both disputes centered on water,

specincally groundwater in nual areas. In both cases, mimicipal water supply was the

main issue in the dispute. The dispute in Acton focused on development and the provision

of water and water-related services and the dispute involving the Village of Winchester

entailed locating and providing water to the mdcipality. Both areas were experiencing

water quantity problems, more so in the Village of Winchester where the mimicipality

restricted water use due to severe shortages in their existing weils. Therefore, the

additional municipal water ne& sparked issues in both cases regarding the sustainabi1ity

of groundwater supplies to sa- present and fûture needs.

The simi2arities continue when discussing other issues, such as water quality, which

arose as a result of municipal water supply concerns. In the case of Acton, water quality

issues involved the qyality of the treated water being returned into Black Creek,

assimilative capacity of the creek to handle these increased discharges and the implications

for fish and fish habitat. In the Winchester case, water Quality concems pertained to the

potential contamination of this new municipal groundwater source fkom the surroundhg

farming practices and the implications of these quality concems on the practices of the

landowners ,

In addition to Sxmilarities, there were also important diffierences. Each case study

analysis identXed other issues that made the individuai cases distinctly dinerent. The

dispute in Acton encompassed issues relating to development, fisheries, and the provision

of water-related services. Threats to the local fish population, for example, were identifïed

as a contentious issue in this dispute that presented an obstacle in the proposeci subdivision

plans. The issues in the Winchester case, specifically those relating to agriculture and

property rights, were considered to be at the core of dis dispute.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO TBE DISPUTES

There were a variety of factors that contn'buted to both disputes. Some of these factors

are shared and sidar, whiIe others are directly related to the issues in the case. These

consist of factors that contn'buted to the different types of conflict, as weU as other factors

irnpacting the dispute. The factors that are common to both cases include different values

of water, competition, personality differences, and changes in the politicai environment

Factors that were isolated to the individual disputes were also evident in the case study

analyses. In the Acton case, important factors included the limited understanding of the

scope of laws and policies, constitutional powers, and jurisdictional issues. Compensation,

the urgent need for water, and property rights were identifid in the Winchester dispute.

Factors, both simiIar and merent, are identiEied in Table 6. In this subsection, both types

of factors are discussed.

Different Conflict Tmes

Arnong the many factors that were identifiecl in both case study analyses, a select few

played crucial roles in the escalation of the disputes. These factors, specifically those

aEecting the different types of conflicts, are discussed in this subsection.

Cognitive Conflicts

The cognitive factor of insufncient data was an important issue in both disputes. Data

were mady limited or insuffiCient with respect to the hydrology of the areas. In the case

of Winchester, reliable hydrological information on the Morewood Esker, the new source

of the municipal well, was not available. This lack of sufncient information did not

prevent the development of the water project because studying the entire esker went

beyond the scope of the project. However, it did create questions with respect to the

sustainability of the Morewood Esker for future water needs. In the Acton dispute, this

factor played a more prominent role. Insufncient hydrological data existed, which led to

speculation, arguments, and tension among the disputhg parties. This also resulted in

different interpretations, and disagreements conceming the severity of the effects of the

Table 6, Similarities and Differences Among the Factors That Contributed to the Disputes

CONFLICT TYPES

FACTORS

Cognitive Conflicts insufficient and limited hydrological information limited understanding of the scope of laws and policies lack of awareness of water issues poor communication lack of understanding of hydrology the way in which information was obtained lack of sufhient agricultural data

Value Conflicts different users value water differently desires for growth and development agriculhual production and its role in the national and local economy

Interest Conaicts disagreement regarding costs and the distribution of costs cornpetition different interests, roles, and agendas compensation not offered

!

lack of support for the landowners by agricultural groups

ACTON WINCHESTER

P O

a E 'os m = I

a =

proposed development on the present and fuhne water resources, fish and fish habitat in the

Credit River Watmhed. Tbis was at the core of the Acton dispute. The availability of this

type of information may have resulted in earlier resolution of some of the conflicts in this

dispute.

Although these factors were common to both cases, other factors also were identlfied as

unique to the specific dispute. The interview subjects in the Acton dispute suggested that

factors such as a Iimited understandmg of the scope of laws and policies p e r t a a g to water

and water-related issues, a lack of awareness of water issues and poor communication,

were significant in this dispute. in fact, these factors were recopized as escalators of the

dispute. In contrast to the Acton case, the Winchesta case involved a number of difEerent

factors including a lack of understanding regarding general hydroIogy, and how

information, specincalIy agricdtural inventories, was obtained. These cognitive factors

were important because they created confusion about the issues in the dispute and

criticisms of the water search and the dispute management process. However, they did not

significantly contri'bute to the escalation of the dispute, unlike the cognitive factors

identifïed in the Acton dispute.

Value Conflicts

Value confiicts were also present in both disputes, specifïcally those involving dinerent

or conflïcting values. In both cases, there was a wide variety of different water users (e.g.,

recreatiod, household, industrial, and commercial), each valuing the resource differently.

While water was considered crucial for drinking purposes in bo t - cases, other important

values were placed on industriai and agricultural water use (Winchester), and on water as a

limitation to development and growth (Acton). Other vaiue factors mentioned were

directiy related to the individual casa. High values for growth and development were

present in the Acton dispute, while the importance of agriculture in both the local and

national economy was identifIed in the Winchester case. Value differences played an

underlying role in both disputes.

Interest Conflicts

Both water disputes were dominated by interest conflicts. Factors that affecteci interest

connicts in both water disputes included disagreements regardmg costs and their

distniution, competition, and the different interests, roles and agendas of the disputing

parties. Although the factors are common in both cases, each factor involved different

issues. In Acton, there were major disagreements regarding the distniution of costs of the

upgrades to the existing Acton sewage treatment plant, the studies, and the stomiwater

ponds. In Winchester, on the other han& the disagreements concemed costs associated

with the test wells and the purchase price of the property where the well was drille&

Another factor identifid in both cases was the competition among the parties and their

different interests, roles, and agendas. Although there were many interests in the two water

disputes, competition affected specinc parties. In the Acton dispute, the developers were in

competition with each other for scarce water resources. There was also municipal,

agricultural and industrial competition for water in and around the ViUage of Winchester.

With each party having its own interests, agendas, and roles, contlicts were prevalent

lmong the disputants, creating confusion, especidy with respect to their roles in the

dispute and dispute management processes.

The dispute involving the Village of Winchester includd additional interest factors.

Important factors were the Iack of compensation and support off& to the landowners-

Of the two, the compensation issue was at the heart of this dispute. The compensation

debate caused great division among the àisputants and disnipted the dispute management

process numerous times.

Behavioural Confiicts

Behavioural factors, havhg positive and negative effects, were common and prominent

in the two water disputes. These factors included positive behaviour7 personality

differences, elevatd emotions, and a number of individd actions and incidents. Each

factor played a major role in the escalation of the dispute; however, some were recognized

as more important than others. Personality differences, past relationships, -and highly

charged emotions promoted antagonism and the protection of interestS. Although these

factors were critical, the most notable in this connict type is the individual actions and

incidents.

In the Acton dispute, the actions of one of the developers, who appealed to the Ontario

Municipal Board (O-), were initially viewed as negative and self-serving. However, the

OMB hearing process was later considered by many of the participants to be beneficial in

the resolution of the dispute. In the Winchester case, a series of incidents and individual

actions sparked major controversy. In particular, the pnvate sale of water from the

municipal test well on Mr. St. Pierre's property to Ault Foods Limited, the restrictions on

access to their property by the landownem, and the vandalism of the Village of

Winchester's official test well in 1995, were examples of such incidents and actions.

Whether these actions were warranteci or not, they created additional tension and

antagonism among the parties in this dispute, and influenced its escalation.

Other Conflicts

A number of other connicts were descri'bed; however, it was the conflicts relating to

power that had the most impact on the disputes. Power-based conflicts were discussed in

both case study analyses. Some of these confiicts existed because of an inequity of power

from a financial standpoint. For instance, while some groups could absorb the costs of a

lengthy, information-based dispute, others did not have the same fimucial support

available. h o , political power nom local politicians was aliuded to in both disputes, more

so in the Winchester case. However, it is the constitutional component of politicd

power-based confLicts that was pdcularly relevant in the Acton case. The power of the

Fisheries Act, a federal piece of legislation, was obvious in this local water dispute,

resulting in what mauy considered to be an imbalance of power. This conflict played a

signifïcant role in both the escalation and the management of this dispute.

Other Factors

Many factors that codd not easily be categorized as cocflicts were identined in both

case study analyses. For example, factors that were considered to be major contributors to

both disputes included changes in the political environment, the role of the media, the

duration of the dispute, and the influence of other areas, issues and cases, both past and

present. These factors resulted in speculation, confusion, tension, power irnbalances, and

M e r division among the disputants in the two disputes.

It is important to note that in addition to these common factors, other factors, unique to

the individual cases, also were identified, each having a considerable impact on the

dispute's escalation. For instance, jurisdictional issues were important factors in the Acton

dispute and involved positions being entrenched by mandates, and the overlap and

duplication of respombilifes. Other factors, such as the organintional structure of the

disputing parties and past development decisions, were also important in this dispute. The

Winchester case was denned by other factors, specifically the need for water, property

rights, and the pnvate negotiations with the indiMduaI Iandowners. The Vlllage of

Winchester needed water, and therefore, fïnding and supplying good quality groundwater

was a high priority. Other issues, such as the effects on agricultural production in the area

and compensation, were considered secondary and wodd only be dealt with by the

municipality if and when they occuwd. This was not acceptable to the landowners and

f m e r s whose livelihood would be af5ected by potential land use restrictions and losses to

their agricultural productivity- As a r e d t of this contentious issue, access was denied to

private properties, private negotiations with individual Iandowners were lengthy and

unsuccessful, emotions became highiy charge& and positions became entrenched- These

factors escalated the dispute and hindered the dispute management process.

DISPUTE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

The two disputes in this research utilized different dispute management processes. In

Acton, the main dispute management process was a hearhg at the OMB. This is a fonn of

binding arbitration, which is an adjudicative process. The Winchester case, on the other

hami, centered primarily on the Class Envirorlmental Assesment (Class EA) process to

manage this dispute. Class EA processes involved a series of public participation and

comdtation approaches, which are considered to be avoidance tools, according to the

Dispute Management Typobgy in the fiamework. Negotiation was another dispute

management process involved in both disputes. However, in both cases, this technique did

not resolve the disputes, but instead extended their duration and delayed their management

THE PRINCIPLES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

The fhmework also incorporates dispute management principles. A variety of

principles have been identifid as desirable for dispute management in the framework.

Both processes used in the disputes promoted most of these prhciples. However, there

were a number of principles that were not adhered to in both cases. Table 7 lists the

principles in the two disputes, and highlights similarïties and differences-

Partici~ants

In both dispute management processes, several principles in the participants subsecrion

were adhered to. These principles include inclusion of, and consistent and proper

representation of, relevant stakeholders in this dispute. Whiie the Acton OMB hearing

promoted other principles such as open dialogue and understanding of technical

information, these principles were not always considered to be adhered to in the Winchester

case, according to some of the interview subjects. For the most part, the participant

principles in both cases did not negatively affect the dispute management processes.

Process

The dispute management processes selected in the two cases were different One

involved a more open, consultative approach (Class EA), while the other attempted to

resolve the dispute in a litigious mamer. In the Acton dispute, most of the principles were

promoted. Howeva, the OMB process was not considered to be fair and equitable for all

stakeholders, especially the general public who lacked the resources (i-e., financial,

technical and legal) to be represented draing the lengthy hearing process- In addition to

this, the general public was only granted an opportunity to comment at the public meeting

component of the hearing, thereby limiting its input in the procesS.

Table 7. A Cornparison of the Principles of Dispute Management

PRiNCIPLES OF DISPUTE MANAGEMENT

PARTICIPANTS

PROCESS

OUTCOME

--

al1 relevant stakeholders included open dialogue between parties participants comrnitted to resolving or avoiding conflicts consistent and proper representation of relevant stakeholders participants should understand the technical information involved

consistent and complete process open process (Le., ongoing communication and dialogue) fair and equitable appropriate technical data used process is acceptable to al1 parties involved use of approved technical experts and third parties to assist the process eficient process (time and cost) create options for munial gain easy to use and understand focus on the issues, not the participants

implementation of the decision acceptability of the agreemenVdecision satisfaction of al1 relevant parties

- -

ACTON

Yes Yes Y es Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Not Always Yes No Yes

No Yes

Not Always Y es

Yes Yes No

WINCHESTER

Yes Not Always

Yes Yes

Not Always

Yes Not Always

No Not Always

No No

No No

Not Always Not Always

Yes No No

The OMB process was not considaed to be easy to use and understand by some of the

participants. This was primarily due to the variety of backgrounds of the s@keholders in

this dispute, where some parties were Mfamiliar with the land use planning process. This

resulted in confuson and delays in the management of the dispute. hitially, the process

was not accepted because it was selected by one of the developers, who appealed to the

OMB. However, later this process was accepted by most because it allowed the focus to

rernain on the issues and not the participants, and made resolution much easier.

The major problem with this process involved the limitations of the OMB's authority in

this dispute. In this dispute, the Department of Fisherïes and Oceans (DFO), a federal

agency, was involved and its authority supersedeci that of the OMB, which is a provincial

tribunal, This affected the outcome because the DFO requests for studies had to-be

conducted in accordance with the federai statue. Another issue with this process involved

legal representation. Although is not required at OMB hearings, most of the participants in

this dispute did have legal representation. Many of the participants noted that the

adversarial nature of the lawyers complicated the process by generating mistrust and

making the process inefficient in both time and cost.

Most of the process principles in the Winchester case were not respected. Although the

Class EA process was considered to be a consistent and complete process, some of the

stakeholders did not believe that the process was fair and equitable, acceptable, efficient,

and open. Numerous public meetings were organized and all parties agreed that they had

been able to voice their concems. However, the Class EA process was not always

considered to be open because the landowners believed that their concems were heard, but

not addressed. As a result, a bump-up to an individual environmenl assessrnent was

requested, but denied. Thae were also difEculties in conductmg the studies m d obtaining

technicd data, and the data and the consultants were ofien criticized Unlüce the Acton

dispute, the presence of lawyers was not always viewed as negative to the Class EA

process. In fact, legal support helped the landowners in the process, specincally with the

bump-up request-

The Class EA process unsuccessfûlly attempted to focus on the issues, and not the

participants. The personalities, emotions, and past reIationships of the participants were

present throughout the process and created signiscant complications. However, the main

problem with the Class EA was its limîted focus. It didnot focus on al l the issues in this

dispute, specificdy the issues of concem to the landowners. To hm, the issue was not

providing the water to the municipality, but the implications of the well on the surrounding

agricultural operatiom. Therefore, the parties in this dispute were focusing on different

issues, with the municipality concentrating on securing a new water source and the

landowners protecting their agrïcultural interests. This was why most of the principles

were not acihered to and the issues were not resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties in

this dispute.

Outcome

The outcome principles were adhered to in the Acton dispute primarily because of the

process. The hearing's decision was acceptable and satisfactory to most relevant

stakeholders. The decision was implemented, albeit not to the extent that was originally

proposed. The outcome in the Winchester case was not as simple. The water project was

established, supplying water to the Village of Winchester and satisfying most of the

stakeholders in this dispute. However, the outcome was not accepted by the landowners

who believed that theu primary concenis remain unresolvad. Consequently, the

landowners are wary of supporthg present/fbture water-related committees and studies.

LESSONS LEARNED

From the anaiysis of an individual case or both cases, a number of lessons can be

learned. Addressing these issues could have resolved many of the major issues and

contlicts involved in the Acton and Winchester disputes. This section examines some of

these Iessons and their impiications for water disputes and their management,

First, water disputes are very complex and often entail issues and conflicts that do not

relate to the resource itself. This was evident in both disputes andyzed in this reseacch.

For instance, power-based conflicts due to financial and political imbalances are examples

of conflicts in both disputes that centered on issues that did not involve water, such as

funding and constitutional jwisdiction. In the Acton dispute, the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans (DFO) was considered to have the most power in this dispute because of the

authonty given to it under the federal Fidieries Act. This act was perceived as a powerfhl

tool by the other disputing parties because of its strict enforcement policy, where no one,

including govemment agencies, is exempt. As a result, several actions, such as the

approval of the Permit To Take Water application that could have potentidy destroyed fish

habitat, were not taken because of threat of penalty mder the Fisheries Act.

In addition to power-related conflicts, many interest conflicts, which dominateci both

disputes, do not reflect the importance of water resources. Many of these interest conflicts

pertahed to costs and their distribution. Whether it be the costs of the upgrades and studies

in Acton, or the costs associated with the potential losses to agricultural productivity in the

Wmchester case, disagreements concerning costs and their distil'bution or compensation

were central issues and conflicts that needed to be addressed in these disputes.

The water management process also ad& to the complexity of water disputes because it

involves a variety of different stakeholders, with ail stakehoIder having their own interests,

roles and agendas. In particular, it is the roles and responsibilities of governtxent miniministries

and agencies that created the most connision in the two case study analyses. Overlapping

mandates, limited jnrisdiction, and duplicated responsiïilities of many of the govemment

ministries and agencies are interest conflict factors in both disputes. In addition to

escalating the disputes, these types of contlicts were obstacles in the dispute management

processes. Therefore, the roles, mandates, and jrtrisdictions of the relevant stakeholders

shodd be clarified in any dispute in order to d u c e these types of interest conflicts.

This complexity of water disputes is also refi ected in the dBiculties faced when

managing water disputes. Despite this complexity, both disputes arialyzed were managed,

with the outcomes satisfjhg most of the stakeholders. However, a number of conflicts in

the disputes were not resolved, despite their contribution ;O the dispute's escalation.

Consequently, it is the resolution of these seIect factors and conflicts (e-g., insufEcient

hydrological data, and disagreements regarding the distniution of costs and compensation)

that resulted ultimately in the effective management of the disputes. The remaining

codiÏcts and factors did not need to be rectifiecl in order to bring about resolution to the

disputes. However, 8ddressing these confiicts directly may have reduced the number of

conflicts in each dispute, as weU as the duration of the disputes.

In the Winchester case, the dispute was managed, but many of the major conflicts and

issues are stiU present, including interest and behaviod conflicts. Securùig a potential

well site with good quality groundwater in essence resolved thïs dispute. Issues (e-g., land

use restrictions), conflicts (e-g., those involving compensation, individual actions and

personalities), and factors (e-g., access to pnvate property) were not reconciled in order to

resolve the dispute. Attempts were made to manage issues of land use restrictions,

compensation conflicts, and other factors, such as private property access and negotiations.

However, these were simply avoided when the village received an offer to purchase the

necessary land nom a nearby landorner who was not aff?iiated with the farming

communïty and MELA- As a result, many of the major conflicts and issues still exkt Had

this purchase opportunity not arisen, the water dispute would have continued to escalate,

until either another water source was formd, or the more important issues and conflicts in

this dispute were addressed and managed.

In the Acton case, the dispute was also managed However, the more important

cognitive and interest conflicts, such as insufncient hydrological information and

disagreements regarding cos&, were resolved The other conflicts, such as the

jurisdictional overlap and duplication conflicts, and the constitutional power-based

c o ~ c t s , described as denning factors in the dispute, were not rectified- They were simply

managed for the purposes of achieving resolution in this dispute. In the case of the

jurisdictional overlap and duplication, those with bigher authority were given jurisdiction

regarding the issue. For example, a nianber of agencies were involved in the water quaLity

confiict While the MOE is responsible for this particular issue, the CVC, MNR, DFO, and

Environment Canada are also involved becaw of the relationship of water quality to fish

and fish habitat. In this dispute, ultimate authority was given to the DFO because of its

federal powers, under the Fidieries Act. Therefore, the jurisdictional overlap and

duplication conflict still exists; however, Li this case, it was managed in order to resolve the

dispute. Behavioural factors, a s well as others, were simply avoided due to the dispute

management process utilized, Value differences, which undalie this dispute, s t i l l remain

and will always exist.

Another key lesson learned fÏom this case study andysis involves the importance of

hydrological information in water disputes. Many cognitive conflicts in both disputes were

directly related to limited or insufncient hydrological data, and r d t e d in speculation,

confusion, arguments, and tension. It is important to note tbat even pedéct information

would not eliminate di interest, value, behavioural, and power confiïcts. However,

acquiring reliable and complete hydrological information may have alleviatecl some of the

conflicts in both disputes, specifically cognitive and behavioural conflicts.

As a result of these disputes, hydrological information in both areas was sought by

parties d e r the disputes were managed in attempts to prevent similar confiicts fkom

reoccurring. In the Acton case, this kind of information was obtained in detailed studies

conducted by the Region of Halton. Obtainùig this kind of information is more nifficult in

Whchester's case because most of the research involves lands that are privately owned.

Access to private Land requires permission of the landowners who believe that the

information obtained may ultimately be used against them in terms of friture land use

restrictions. Efforts for joint fact-hding have been suggested; however, mistnist still

persists, even after the dispute has been managed.

Process is important in dispute management (Wondolleck 1985). A nimiber of lessons

were learned fkom the different dispute management processes used in the two case study

analyses. The dispute in Acton used the OMB hearing process, which is an adjudicative

planning tooL In the Winchester case, the Class EA process involved public participation

and consultation approaches. As discussed earlier, the OMB process promoted more ofthe

principles of dispute Management than the Class EA process. One of the OMB's major

strengths was its ability to avoid many of the behavioural conflicts among the stakeholders

that escaiated the dispute. This was done by adhering to the pnnciple of focusing on the

issues, instead of the participants.

Behavioufal factors were not avoided in the Class EA process. This was evident in the

public meetings where attempts to control the landowners aggravated the situation fhrher

by generating tension and mistrust, In this dispute, the focus was on the participants, as

weU as the issues. However, the major problem with the process was that different

stakeholders focused on different issues and d i s r d t e d in endless arguments. To many

of the stakeholders, including the Village and its residents, the issue was securing a new

municipal water source. However, to the landowners, the issue was not the water, but the

implications of the municipal well on current fami practices. Therefore, it is important to

focus on the issues, and not the participants; however, there should be agreement among

the stakeholders on what the issues are, especiaiiy prior to the dispute management process.

The processes used in both cases were not initially prepared to deal with aU the issues

and conflicts in the disputes. The OMB hearing is a provincial process that is not equipped

to resolve water disputes that involve parties with federal juridiction. The Class EA

process, on other hand, was designed for municipal water and wastewater projects.

However, it could w t deal with the larger agricultural issues that resulted fiom the project

because of its limited focus. As illustrateci in both cases, the water dispute management

processes ideally should be more flexible in order to encompass a broad range of issues that

can arise-

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) approaches are considered to be effective,

efficient and successful methods for resolving conflicts and disputes @orcey 1986, 1988;

McKinney 1988; Harîmann 1989,1995). Negotiation was used prior to the both dispute

resolution processes, but was unsuccessfbl in both cases. The pnvate negotiations

discussed in the Winchester case were even descflied as factors contrî%utmg to the

dispute's escalation and as obstacles in the dispute resolution process. In both unsuccessful

negotiations, many of the principles of dispute management, such as the inclusion of a l l

relevant stakeho1ders, were not respecte&

In the end, both disputes were managed to the satisfaction of most stakeholders without

the use of ADR, and without the promotion of several key principles, especially in the

Winchester dispute. Therefore, the ide& of dispute management processes, specincally

the principles of dispute management, are not strictly necessary for the resolution of water

disputes. However, they do promote a more effective way to manage disputes, as

evidenced in the Acton case study aualysis.

CHAPTER7

CONCLUSION

Water is widely used, needed by a variety of users, and regulated by a complex system

of institutional arrangements. Issues such as poor water quality and water shortages are

becoming more prevalent in southern Ontario. Many of these water issues involve conflict,

and often &es, these conflicts have the potential to escdate into a dispute. A number of

approaches and techniques have been used to manage these disputes, UicIudmg both

avoidance and resolution techniques. However, these approaches and techniques do not

always manage water disputes effectively. This research focused on the escalation and

management of local water disputes.

ASSESSMENT OF THE FRAMEWORK

Two cases were identiEied in southem Ontario, specifically disputes involving the

Town of Haiton Hills (Acton) and the Village of Winchester. These two disputes were

analyzed according to a fiamework established for the purposes of this research. The

fimework was established based on a thorough literature review. It consists of three

components: factors that contnbuted to the dispute; a typology of dispute management

approaches and techniques; and principles of dispute management (Chapter 2).

Overall, the fiamework was benefkial in the analysis of the disputes. Each case study

analysis had its own set of factors that was unique to the dispute. Many of these were

factors or variations of factors identified in the nrst component of the dispute management

fiamework. For instance, the poor communication factor identifieci in the Acton dispute is

related to the comnunication nifficuities factor of cognitive confïicts in the fiamework. A

number of factors identifieci nom the case study analyses were not related to the

146

fkamework, and therefore, not recognized in the literatute- These factors &O played a

major role in the disputes and th& management, The incidents and actions of individu&

were examples ofbehavioural factors that were absent in the k e w o r k This factor

played a crucial part in the escalation of both disputes by creating additional tension among

the stakeho1ders, which impeded their management

The fiamework also helped to clarifv areas of confusion in detamining the factors that

contribued to the dispute by differentiating the factors. For iristance, the fhmework

promoted the differentiation of factors that affecteci a specinc type of conflict fiom those

that affected numerous types. It also encourageci the identification of factors that

contniuted to the entire dispute, instead of only the contlict types. In both cases, these

were critical in analyzing the dispute and its escalation.

In addition to the disputes and their escalation, the dispute management aspect of the

Eamework was also benefïcial to the analysis of the disputes. The typology and the

principles of dispute management were helpful in i d e n m g what technique and

approaches were used and whether or not they helped to manage the disputes. In particular,

the k e w o r k was helpfbl in the evaluation of the dispute management approach used in

the Winchester case. The Class EA was the dispute management process used to manage

this dispute. This process attempted to manage an existing, escalating dispute, with the use

of dispute avoidance tools, such as public participation and consultation. This helped to

explain the Class EA's failure to resolve many of the conflicts and issues, a d &

subseqcent difEculty in managing the dispute.

The framework also helped to recognize the importance of some of the dispute

management principles and their impact on the participants, process and outcome of the

disputes. Both water disputes were managed to the satisfacton ofmost stakeholders.

However, more principles were promoted in the Acton case. This may help to explain why

more con£iicts and issues were resoIved in the Acton dispute, in comparison to the

Winchester case,

Despite the benefits of the h e w o r k in the case study analyses, there were problems.

The fiamework itself is structureci into tbree separate componnts. However, water

disputes are cornplex, and can not always be easily compartmentalized, As a resuit, various

aspects of the disputes overiapped into different components of the fkamework. For

instance, many of the factors that affected the dispute dso affecteci the dispute management

process. This often made it dEcuit to distinguish between factors that affecteci the dispute

and dispute management principles. Also, a numba of dispute management techniques

were used, with the major techniques (e.g., OMB h e a ~ g and Class EA) analyzed

according to the principles of dispute management. The 0 t h 'minor' technique involved

in both cases was negotiation, but it was descnied differently in the case study analyses.

In the Acton dispute, negotiation was discussed with reference to the principles. However,

in the Winchester case, this dispute management technique was considered to be a factor in

the escalation of the dispute. nierefore, the techniques used to manage the disputes c m not

be easily categorized into the dispute management components as suggested in the

fiamework,

Overail, the h e w o r k was useful in analyzïng the two water disputes in this research.

The ha1 k e w o r k consists of the same three components as the refined fkamework (Box

5 in Chapter 3). However, it promotes more fleobility among the components in order to

compensate for some of the shortcornings recognized in its use in the case study analyses.

In addition to the components, the factors withln each of the dïffierent conflict types within

the framework provided a guide to analyzjng the local water disputes. This resulted in the

identification of numerous factors specific to each case study. Many of these are factors

that may only contribue to paxticdar local water disputes. Therefore, it is not appropriate

to add these factors to the list of more general factors ident.ed in Chapter 2. This

fiamework will be beneficial for analyzing füture disputes and their management,

particularIy those involving water resources.

RESEARCH INSIGHTS

Water disputes are complicated by the numemus factors, issues and conflicts involved

in the dispute, many of which do not relate to the resource itself. For instance,

personalities and power struggles are two obvious examples. As a result of this

complexity, a number of lessons were leanied h m analyzing the two water disputes, such

as clarifying roles, mandates and jurisdictions of the stakeholders in the dispute, and

focusing on the same issues in the dispute management process. In addition to these

lessons, this research provides some valuable insights into the management of complex

water disputes in Ontario.

The institutional arrangements available in Canada on the federal, provincial, and

municipal levels, are not always equipped to manage complex water disputes. There is no

clear legislation that directly de& with managing water disputes and thïs presented

problems in the two Ontario case studies. Both water disputes were rnanaged under

different provincial statutes. The Acton dispute was rnanaged as a planning issue under the

Planning Act, with the assistance of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The Winchester

dispute was managed through the Class Environmental Assessrnent (Class EA) process,

149

which falls mder the provincial Envzironmental Assessment Act. Although both processes

generdy resolved the disputes, they w a e not equipped to resolve al l aspects of the

disputes. As a result, this problem persiste& ofien disrupting the dispute resolution

process. In general, the OMB, a provincial appeal board, was not able to deal with

water-related issues in the Acton dispute, specificdy those involving the fishenes and its

federal regdators, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On the other hanci, the Class

EA process used in the Winchester case, was designed to deai with issues peaainmg t a

water projects. However, it could not manage the compensation debate that emerged with

respect to potential land use restrictions and losses to agricuitural productivity. In both

cases, the presence of provincial and federai issues, such as fisheries and agriculture,

signifies that local water disputes are complex, and therefore, dispute management should

be able to deal with these broader issues, as well as more common water-related ones,

In addition to the clarity with respect to legislation, no ministry, agency or group has

the authority to resolve these disputes, or even take on a leadership role to manage water

disputes. In Ontario, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) is responsible for most water

issues, but it does not always take a leadership role in the management of water disputes.

The mini- does have a great deal of knowledge regarding water resources, and in that

respect, it should take on a leadership role. However, the MOE can not take on such a role -

because, in many cases, it either fun& or is the proponent of most water projects in

Ontario. This presents a conflict of interest. In the Winchester case, this was a major issue

because the MOE fiindecl the municipal water project Also, with its budgetary constraints

and loss of manpower, the MOE may not be able to fulnll the additional responsibilities of

a leadership role. Other agencies, such as the conservation authorities and the Ontario

Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), are atternptïng to defke a

more prominent role in managing water disputes. However, other agencies are not always

viewed as knowledgeable with respect to water issues, in the same rnau.net as the MOE.

Despite these problems, leadership in water dispute management should be clanfied.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The number of water disputes is increasing at the local, nationaf, and international

levels. Their management takes considerable time and CO* and ofien lave the participants

with unresolved issues and conflicts. This research explored some of the issues, factors,

and conflicts involved in locai water disputes, and analyzed the approaches and techniques

used to manage these disputes. Overall, this research provided valuable information that

helps to understand local water disputes and their management.

Although the two water disputes were resolved to the satisfaction of rnost of the

stakeholders, the dispute management approaches were not able to handle the broader

issues involved. Other dispute management techniques may have been more appropriate

in the resolution of these disputes. However, detennining the approprïateness of a

technique was not an objective of this research. Therefore, m e r research is needed in

order to determine the cUcwnstances under which the various tools and approaches are

most suitable in managing complex water disputes. Future research may pertain to

traditional dispute management techniques (e.g., iitigation) or non-traditional dispute

management approaches, specincally ADR and other collaborative consensus-building

techniques. Identifying and utilvlmg the most appropriate dispute management techniques

may help to make future dispute management processes more efficient and effective in the

resolution of complex water disputes.

151

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1989. Village sitting on needed water supply. Winchester Press. Apd 12, 1989, p.1.

Anonymous. 1995. The fight for control of water rïghts. Valley Fanners ' Fonun. Sept. 16, 1995, p.3.

Bacow, L. and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental D e t e Resolution. Plenum Ress. New York

Bankes, N. 1995. Water Law Reform in Alberta: Paying Obeisance to the 'Zords of Yesterda., or Creating a Water Charter for the Future?. me N d e t t e r of the Canadian Institute of Resources Law, No. 49. Canadian Institute of Resources Law. C a m y .

Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving Enwkonmental Disputes: A Decade of Eprience. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C.

Black, H.C. 1991. Bluck's Law Dictionmy, West Publishing Co. St- Paul.

Blackburn, J.W. 1988. Environmentai mediation as an alternative to mitigation. Policy Studies J o u d 16(3): 562-574.

Breton, H. 1998 (Febniary 5) . Personal Communication. Credit Valley Conservation. Mississauga.

British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Dispute Resolution Core Group. 199 1. Consensus Processes in Bn'tr'sh Colwnbiu, Volume 1. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Victoria.

Bruce, J. and B. Mitchell- 1995. Broad Perspectives on Water Issues. The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa.

Buckle, L.G. and S.R Thomas-Buckle. 1986- Placing environmenl mediation in context: lessons fiom 'Yailed" mediatios. Environmental Impact Assessrnent R&ew 655-70.

Buhel, 0. 1993a ‘Bureaucratie Jackasses" Stall Acton Progress. Source Unknown. August, p-land 2.

Buhel, 0. 2993b. Turner Drops Acton Bombshell, Halton Wills Thzk Week. September 15, p.1.

Burton, J. and F. Dukes. 1990. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement and Resolution. St Martin's Press. New York.

Busterud, J- 1981. Environmental conflict tesolution: the promise of cooperative decision-malcing. EnvVonmental Science and Technology 15: 150-155.

Canadian Water Resources Association. 1994. SustainabiZity Pn'nMpZes for Water Management in Canada. A Policy of the Canadian Water Resources Association, h n e 1994. The Association.

Carlisle, T.J. and L.G. Smith- 1989. Examining the potential for a negotiated approach to water management in Ontario: The Fanshawe Reservoir Enlargement Project, Canadian Water Resources Journal 14(4): 1 6-34.

Cass-Beggs, D. 1969. Water as a Basic Resource. In Water, (eds) J.G. NeIson and MMJ- Chambers. Methuen Publications, Toronto,

Castensson, R. 1990. Urban Water Resource Supply Conflicts. Urban Water Infiastructure, p. 23-3 1.

Commission on Resources and Environment. 1995. Dispute Resolution. The Provincial Land Use Strategy. Victoria*

Cormick, G. 1980. The "tbeeory" and practice of environmental d a t i o n . The EnvironmentaZ Professional 2:2433.

DeBruyn, E. 1998 (April2). Personal Cornmimication. Fisheries and Oceans. Burlington.

de Loë, R 1989. Opportimities for the Provincial Pn'cing of Raw Water Withdrawaals in Ontario. papa produced for Ecologists Ltd Dept. of Geography. University of Waterloo* Waterloo.

de Loë, R 1990. Sirategis for Overcoming Institutional Problenrr in Land a n d Water Management: A Review and Assessment of the Roles of Integrution and Coordination. Unpublished Doctoral Comprehensive Examination, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Waterloo.

de Loë, R 1997. Retuni of the EMS, Part LI: The Oldman River Dam. Canadian Water Resources Journal 22(1): 63-72.

Dingwall, B. 1998 (June 10). Personal Communication. Municipality of North Dmdas Offices, Village of Winchester.

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1986. - Bargaining in the Goventance of Pac19c Coastal Resowces: Research and Refonn. Westwater Research Centre. Vancouver.

Dorcey, A.& J. 1987. The myth of hteragency cooperation in water resources management, Canadian Water Resoraees Journal 12(2): 17-26.

Dorcey, A.H.J. 1988. Negotiation in the htegrution of Enviromenta1 Econoinic Assessrnent for Sitainable Dewlopment. Canadian Enviromenta1 Assessment Research Council. Ottawa.

Dorcey, A.H.J. and C. Riek. 1989. Negotiation-Based Approaches to the Settlement of Environmental Disputes in Canada, pp. 7-36. In Zne Place of lVegotiation ùr Environmental Assessment. Ottawa.

Downey, T. J. and B. Mitchell. 1993. Middle East water: acute or chronic problem. Water International 18: 1-4.

Du-, D., Roseland, M., and T. Gunton. 1996. A prelonuiary assessrnent of shared decision-making in land use and natural resource planning- Enw'ronments 230): 1-15.

Edwards, L. 1995. Winchester water source womes Russell. Winchester Press. Jan. 18, 1995, p.1.

Edwards, R 1998. Personal Communication. Pannalat Canada. Village of Winchester. June 16,1998.

Egan, K. 1995. Lots of water, lots of womes for Winchester. Ottawa CitLzen. June 30, 1995.

Es* D. and J. Swaigen. 1993. Environment on T i d : A Guide to Ontario Environmental Law and Policy (Third Edition). Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited. Toronto.

Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Office (FEARO). 1992. Environmental Mediation: A Sourcebook FEARO. Hull.

Fisher, R and W. Ury. 1981. Gettïng to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without G ~ n g ln. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.

Government of Canada. 1989. Fisheries Act. Ministry of Supply and Services. Ottawa.

Fisheries and Oceans. 1991. Canada 's Fish Habitat Law. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

Gartner Lee Limiteci- 1995a. Acton Water Quality Study: Baseiine Conditions. Study Prepared for the Regional Municipality ofHalton. Markham.

Gartner Lee Limiteci- 1995b- Acton Water Qua@ Sm&: Implementation Plan. Study Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Halton. Markham.

Grigg, N. 1993. Western water: an issue dripping with confiict. Forurn For Applied Research and Public Policy 8(4): 71-77.

Gunton, T and S. Flynn. 1992. ResoIving environmental contlict: the role of mediation and negotiation 21(3): 12-16.

Hartmann, H. 1989. Reducing Great Lakes Levels Conflicts fia Alternative Dispute Resolution. International Joint Cornmisssion Water Levels Reference Study Phase 1.

Hofinann, N. and B. Mitchell, 1995. Evolving toward participatory water management: The Permit To Take Water Program and commercial water bottling in Ontario. Cmadùzn Water Resources Journal 2q2): 9 1-100.

Ho finam, N. 1996. StiZZ D-ping: Tire Issue of Muniapal Gromd Water Ejdractionji-om Wilrnor Township, OntmO- Unpublished Master of Artsi Thesis. University of Waterloo- Waterloo-

Holysh, S. 1997. H a h n Aquifer Management Plan (Phase 2 Report): Munic@aC Wellhead Protection Program - Technical Stu(iy. The Regional Municipality of Halton. Oakville.

Hwnme11, S. 1990. Water shortage affects f i e control. Winchester Press. June 27, 1990, p.1 and 2.

Imhof, J.G. 1993. Do We Want Another Don River? Guest C o l m in the Editorial Section of Hulton HilIs l%is Week June 2, 1993.

hgram, H., Mann, D., Weatherford, G. and H. Cortner. 1984. Guidelines for improved institutional analysis in water resources planning. Water Resources Research 20(3): 323-334.

Jaakson, R 1986. Jixisdictional conflict in the control over water withdrawal for the Trent Canal. Canadian Water Resources Journal 1 l(2): 24-32.

Jahn, L.R and E.W. Schenck. 1991. What sustainable agriculture means for fish and wildlife. J o m a l of Soi2 and Wuter Conservation 46(4): 25 1-254.

J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limiteci. 1995a. Village of Winchester Water Supply System F,xpansion Environmental Study Report (OCWA Project Nu- 41-03 79-02. Volume 1. Prrpated for the Corporation of the Village of Winchester.

J.L. Richards and Associates Limited and Golder Associates Limited. 1995b. Village of Winchester Water Supply System Ekpansion Envikonmental Srudy Report (OCWA Project No. 41-03 79-02. Volume 2: Appendices. Prepared for the Corporation of the Village of Winchester.

Johnson , Pc and P- Duinker. 1993. Beyond Dispute: Collaborative Approaches to Resolvittg Natwal Resmce and Environmental Confiidr. School of Forestry, Lakehead University. Thunder Bay.

Kahn, P. 1994. Resolving environmentai disputes: litigation, mediation, and the courting of the ethical community~ Ehonmental Values 3 : 21 1-228-

Kartez, J.D. and P. Bowman. 1993. Quick deals and raw deah: a perspective on abuses of public ADRprinciplw in Texas resource confiicts. Environmental Impact Assesment Revievièw 13: 3 19-330.

Killvinen, W. and M. L. McAllister. 1994. Rising to the Sin$ace: Emergrhg Groundwafer Policy Trendr in Canada. Centre for Resource Studies. Kingston

Kreutzwiser, R 1995. Water resource management: Canadian perspectives and the Great Lakes Water Levels Issue. In Resource and Environmental Management in Canada: Addressing Conflit and Uncertainty, ed. B. Mitchell, 259-285. Oxford University Press: Don Mills.

Kreutzwiser, R, Gabriel, A., MacKenziet S ., and M. J. Slaats- 1992. 111stitutions in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Barin. Report to Working Cornmittee 4 of the Levels Reference Study. Dept. of Geography, University of Guelph. Guelph.

Kreutzwiser, R and R de Loë. 1998. Mànaging Water Srrpplies and Wuter Supply Confricts: A Survey of Ontario Municipoliries. Discussion Paper No. 3. Rural Water Management Group. Department of Geography, University of Guelph. Guelph.

Law Society of Upper Canada. 1996. Alternative Dispute Resolution, pp. 17-1-17A-13. In Civil Litigation Course Reference MatenaZst 3 8th Bar Admission Course Phase III.

Leadlay, H- 1996. An EvaZuation of Ontwio Rural Water Supplj Allocation PoZicy and Practice. Unpublished Master of Arts Thesis- Department of Geography, University of Guelph. Guelph.

Leung, B. 1998 ( February 16). Personal Communication. The Regional Mimicipality of Hakon. Oakville.

Lewicki, R and J. Litterer. 1985. Negotiation. Irwin. New York.

Lindblom, C.E. 1965. The Intelligence of Demowacy: Decision Making Through Manual A+stment. The Free Press. New York.

Lord, W.B., Adelman, L., Wehr, P., Brown, C., Crews, R, Marvin, B., and M. Waterstone. 1979. Conflicf Management in Federal Water resource Planning. Institute of Behaviourd Science, Colorado University. Colorado.

MacRitchie, S., Pupp, C., Grove, G., Howard, K., and P. Lapcevic. 1994. Groundwater in Ontario: Hydrogeology, Quality C o n c m , and Management. National Hydrology Research Institute (No. CS-9401 1). Environment Cana&. Ottawa.

Maguire, L.A. and L.G. Boiney. 1994. Resolving environmental disputes: a fiamework incorporating decision analysis and dispute resolution techniques. Jounal of Environmental Management 42(1): 3 1-48.

Martin-Downs, D. 1998 (Apd 13). Personal Communicution. Gartner Lee Limited. Markham.

McCracken, G. 1988. The Long lntm-ewew SAGE Publications, Inc. Newbury Park.

McKinney, M. 1988. Water resources planning: a collaborative, consensus-building approach. Society and Natwul Resources l(4): 33 5-349.

McTavish. 1998. Personal Communication. OMAFRA. Kemptville. June 12, 1998.

Meek, 1. 1997. An Investigation OfA Multi-stakeholder Process for Groundwater Protection. Unpublished Major Paper. University School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph. Guelph.

Meyer, P. 1990. Groundwater monitoring at wellhead protection areas. Groundwater Monitoring Review 3: 121-128.

Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources. 1992. Interim Guidelines for Integrating Provincial Water Resource Management Objectives into Municipal Planning Documents. Ontario.

Mitchell, B. 1975. Institutional Arrangements for Water Management: Canadian Expmiences. Dept. of Geography Publication Series, No. S., University of Waterloo. Waterloo,

Mitchell, B. 1989. Geography and Resource Analysis, 2nd Edition. Longman Group Limited New York.

Mitchell, B. 1995. Resmce and Environmental Management in Canada. Oxford University Press. Toronto.

Mitchell, B. and D. Shmbsole. 1992. Ontario Conservation Authonfies: Myth or Realfty. Department of Geography Publication Series No. 35, University of Waterloo. Waterloo.

Mitchell, B. and D. Shrubsole. 1994. Gznadian Water Management: Visions for Sustainubility. Canadian Water Resources Association. Cambridge.

Municipal Engineers Association. 1993. Clers Em~onmata l Assessment For Municipal Water and Wastavater Projeets.

Murphy, G. 1998 (March 2). Personal Communication. Tnbute Homes. Pickering.

Neal, V. 1996. Conflict resolutio~ a conflict primer. Engzneenerrng Dimensions. MarcWAprik 440-41.

Neufeld, D. and G. Mulamoottil. 199 1. Groundwater protection in Canada: a preliminary inqyky. Ontano Geography 37: 15-22.

Ontario and Association of Municipalities of Ontario. 1997. Who Does mat: Toward Implementtztion. Queen's Psinter for Ontano. OntarioO

Ontario Municipal Board. 1998a lnfomation Bulletin: Responsibility of an Appellant. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario

Ontario Municipal Board 1998b. Yota W e to the Ontmo Municipal Board. Queen's Printer for Ontario. Ontario.

Pearse, PH., Bertrand, F., and J.W. MacLaren. 1985. Cments of Change. In- on Federal Water Policy. Ottawa,

Percy, D. 1988. The Framework of Water Rights Legidation in Canada. Canadia. Instihte of Resources Law. [Ontario section]. Calgary.

Schofield, K. 1998 (March 27). Personal Cornmunication. Brooffield Homes. North York.

Selin, S. and D. Chavez 1995. Developing a coilaborative mode1 for environmental management. Environmental Mmagement lg(2): 189-195.

Serjeantson, M. 1998 (April8). Personal Communication. The Town of Halton W s Municipal Offices. Georgetown.

Shrubsole, D. 1990. Integrated water management strategies in Canada , pp. 8 8-1 1 8. In Integrated Water Management, (d) B. Mitchell. Belhaven Press. London.

Shrybman, S. 1986. Environmental Mediation, pp. 8 1-98. In fntegmted Approaches to Resource Planning and Management, (ed.) R Lang. University of Calgary Press. Banff.

Smith, L.G. MU. Impact Assessment and Sustainable Resowce Management. Longman ScientZic and Technical. New York

Stolte, W. and M. Sador. 1998. The Ranérty-Aimeda project: Monitoring and Mitigation &er the environmentd impact assesment. Canadian water Resources Association 23(2): 109-1 19,

Susskind, L. and D, Madigan. 1984, New approaches to resoIving disputes in the public sector. The Justice System J i a l g(2): 179-203 -

Susslcjnd, L. and J. Cniikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Di'es. Basic Books, Inc. New York.

Susskind, L., McMaho~G., and S. Rolley. 1987. Mediating development disputes: some barriers and bridges to successfbl negotiation. Enwonmental Impact Assessrnent Review 7: 127-138.

Susskind, L. 1996. Key Note Speaker Presentation at the Collaborative Decision-making Workshop on November 21 and 22. Toronto.

Tallyn, L. 1993a. Residents Have Their Say at the Municipal Board Hearing. Halton Hills mis Week. Au-

TaIlyn, L. 1993b. Turner BIasts Region For Using Fishaies 'Excuse". The Independent. S eptember.

Tate, D. 1984. Canadian water management: a one m e d giant. Canadian Water Resources Journal 9(3): 1-6.

Tindal, CcR and S.N. Tindal. 1995. Local Goventment in Canada, 4th edition. McGraw-Hïii Ryerson Ltd. Toronto

Town of HaIton Hills. 1994. The Town of Haltn Hils O#icol Plan.

Vanclief, L. 1998. Personal Communication. South Nation Conservation. Berwick. June 12, 1998.

Walker, D. 1992. Resolving Confiicts and Copiag With the Uncertainty In the Management of Subsurface Pollution, 2.1-2.16. In Resolving Conficts and Uncertainty in Water Management, .Proceedings of the 45th AMual Confaence of the Canadian Water Resources Association,

Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limitecl. 1993. Residenrial Implementation Shrdy: Acton Urban Area Consolidation. Study Prepared for the Town of Halton Hills. Toronto.

Watson, N. 1990. Institutional Arrangements for Integrated Water Management. Unpublished Doctoral Comprehensive Examination, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Waterloo,

Wolf, A. 1993. The Jordan watershedr past atteflfpts at cooperation and lessons for the friture. Water International 18: 5-17.

Wondolleck, 1.1985- The importance of process in resolving disputes. EnvR.onmenta2 Impact Assessrnent R m ë w 5: 341-356.

Wood, C. 1976. Conflict in resource management and the use of threat: the Goldstream controversy. Natural Resources J m a Z 16: 137-1 58.

Yeager, K. L. 199 1. Conservation Authorities In Ontario. Legislative Research Service.