wellsafe.net Economic Impact survey

Verbatim Comments

Q: We appreciate any additional comments you wish to make.

Posted September 6, 2004

364 There has never been, nor will there be likely to be any problems with our, or many other wells in rural Ontario, therefore i strongly object to the regulations forcing me to spend unnecessary money to fill some bureaucrat's pocket to ruin our drinking water. Our guests have on many occasions complimented us on our water because it tastes fresh and is free of any contaminents such as chlorine. "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

365 Think again! How can any one afford the on-going testing of drinking water. I have been waiting for 5 weeks for the results of my test. Laboratories cannot even meet the demand. Better spend the money on prevention of spills, or limit the exhaust gas of motor boats and jet skies that polute our rivers.

368 Please, make these guidelines more reasonable and reinstate the testing that has been done in the past by the District Health Unit (Thunder Bay). Thank you.

374 I have a primitive campground. No showers - only privies. Water (lake) and electricity. Everyone is notified that the water is from the lake. Those concerned bring bottled water. Children ingest it while swimming. I think our government is going too far with these regulations. We feel this is an unnecessary non-recoverable expense being forced on us with a penalty of forced closing. If there was a problem we would solve it! We do not need this kind of pressure in our life.

376 There are presently 45 area B&Bs in the Muskoka area that are regularly inspected. A quick survey of these suggest that all those who are outside municipalities that supply water would be forced to close down as all the estimates we have heard are well beyond our means.

377 Why can't they write regulations in English. We have a system designed by a Class Five operator. Cannot afford $15,000 for engineer study.

379 The "media" did such a "wonderful" job of "advertising" Walkerton that 95% of my guests arrive with bottled water and wouldn't drink Guelph water, so all these regulations are unnecessary. Even from Europe and Asia they know about Walkerton Ontario.

380 We have always been concerned with serving safe water to our guests so we have treated the water and began testing the water every two weeks at a private lab and ALWAYS get a 0,0 bacteria count. We don't understand why a small business like ours is being told that we must spend a small fortune to upgrade a water system to provide safe drinking water when we have, for the past 10 years, already been monitoring, testing, and providing safe drinking water with our existing system that obviously works so well. We totally believe that it is a must to provide safe water to the public, so why not go after those establishments that do not monitor or test their water or those that obtain bad water reports and let the rest of us continue to provide good safe drinking water to our customers as always. If our existing system can do this already, isn't that what is most important.

381 The statistics given were for our children's camp. We also have a campground with 40 sites. The cost to install the new system including digging a new well that we believe was totally unnecessary, was approximately $30,000 and the cost for testing is approx. $4,000 per year.

382 A majority of my customers bring their own water to drink, regardless as to the amount of effort I put into treating it. I am presently filtering, "UVing" and chlorinating (a system I inherited as a new owner in June 04) plus sampling every two weeks. Despite all this effort and cost, my guests still prefer bottled water and all I am doing is disinfecting water so it can be flushed down the toilet. I however do agree with having to filter and disinfect (UV), plus monitor my efforts with testing. What I am opposed to, and fear, is the the engineers report I am supposed to have completed. I can not afford the $5000(?) for the report, doubt I will be even to able to find a qualified person, and I am sure they will have to recommend costly changes to my system, even though I am consistently delivering clean safe drinking water to my guests. In addition, I have yet to fully comprehend what it is I am exactly required to do and even classify my operation under the System Category & Definitions. I operate two systems, depending on the season, in summer I have 10 cottages and 4 campsites that are supplied with water from the lake, my house is supplied with water from a well. In winter, only 2 cottages are winterised and they are then supplied with water from the well. How do I classify myself and what exactly will I be required to do is a very complex question.

383 I would like to see the environmental impact study on the effect of chlorination on septic systems.

387 I am very concerned about the ongoing overreaction of government in situations such as this. If appropriate and adequate testing measures had been occurring in the first place, perhaps the Walkerton situation could have been avoided. We have just recently moved from a large city, where we had a guaranteed income, in order to live out our dream of running a Bed and Breakfast. This move was fully supported by our local municipality because of the limitied accommodation available in the area, and was a well thought out and planned decision. It is extremely disheartening to think that this move could have turned out to a big mistake for us personally, financially, and otherwise. If the extreme of the regulations are carried out, we will have no choice but to close our business and seek employment elsewhere. Surely, there are modifications that can be made to the current suggested regulations that would more appropriately the many small businesses in the tourism industry in Ontario, such as ours. We feel it is incumbent on the government to support small business development, not to destroy it.

394 My suggestions: test the water 4 times a year, to the health unit same as residential testing. We have never had a problem. If there are no problems - keep testing 4 times a year. If there is a problem - then depending on what it is.... if ultraviolet treatment is sufficient - do that and continue testing. If it is a problem outside of the ultraviolet treatment scope, then deal with the situation - do whatever needs to be done to correct it immediately, and post signs everywhere the water is available, provide bottled water, and once fixed, remove the signs, and continue to test. PLEASE - we cannot afford to do what you are proposing. The engineers costs, equipment for a may-or-may-not problem in a place that has no history of problems seems a knee-jerk overeaction to Walkerton. Without any thought to what impact this will have on small business in rural Ontario, which is desperately trying to hang on. This may put a lot of people out of business, and send many to the social assitance line, business owners out of work and the staff they now employ.

396 The numbers submitted for revenue are estimates based on the business plan we completed. However based on the initial conversation we had with an approved engineer there is no way we can afford to comply even [if] our revenues where double. The price we were quoted for the initial report was $2500. A private lab quoted us $150.00 per month for weekly testing and approximately $800.00 per year for a more complete test. First year cost $5,100 plus equipment. Ongoing cost $2,600 plus courier fees minimium. No way it will shut down the countryside. Maybe thats what they want.

400 This is a knee jerk, political response to appease the people of Walkerton who lost loved ones or suffered in other ways due to the water problems there. It makes no sense, doesn't solve water quality issues, is no guarantee of compliance or that abuses will not take place in the new system. It causes undue hardship to existing and future rural businesses. As far as I know there has never been an incidence where someone got sick from drinking water in our community. Who, what and why are they protecting us from if there is no existing problems?

402 We voluntarily installed the system that we have (filters plus UV) about three seasons ago. When tested our drinking water tests perfect. All of the new expense will not get us any better water but it is very possible that it will force us out of business.

403 This Regulation is going to kill the rural community . Homes on communal wells and septics have just lost thousands of dollars in value, Mobile Home parks are now worthless. As a Developer I will not invest another dollar in Rural Ontario. I am soon going to have my Development re assessed not because of increased value but the decrease in value, this means that the Townships, County, and school boards are going to have to take less in Rural Ontario. I spoke to an assessor last week and he said that rural businesses are starting to die and some thing must be done.

409 I feel that our well water is cleaner than the Town of Gravenhurst water. In the Muskoka area, most people draw their water from the lakes and this water is totally not fit to drink. We spent $8000 to have a well drilled so that we could have safe drinking water. My husband is a plumber and would not drink the water if it wasn't safe.

410 Eng.reports are a crock. Daily in house and weekly lab testing is not realistic. The people and quests of our operation cannot afford the increases in fees to support this regulation. I have invested half a million on this venture knowing that the dollar return was very low but the lifestyle of living in the rural north was the reward. Now we have some knee jerk reaction from the moe Make water testing monthly, within the present system and only require treatment when required (poor sample results )

411 We are very concerned with the demand, and regulations to have to hire a professional engineer, and the cost!! Why does one have to test water before it enters purification process. Isn't the important factor that the water test safe for drinking when it exits the purification process. There are A LOT of people looking after their water testing and have purchased and installed suitable equipment for years!! Why now are they not capable of designing their own equipment and installing it. A lot of operators are educated and responsible enough.

2016823 I was unable to insert the gross dollar value that would be lost if we close, as it kept asking for a whole number. Anyhow, we would lose approx. $180,000.00 gross revenue. I checked refuse in the box, just so I could get on with the survey.

10612603 Our 300' deep well provides all the water for our 7 cottages plus our home use, it has never in over 20 years had a bad test. Our guests enjoy drinking this water and are horrified to hear that we will have to clorinate it in the future because of nepotism in Walkerton. If our water came from the lake or we lived in an agricultural area I agree that it should be carefully monitored. We live in north central Ontario, no farm land, no industries. We regularly test it to ensure the safety of our guests and ourselves.

12201397 I am a small scale business who serves only one to a few clients at a time with little after cost profit. The water my clients drink is exactly the same water that I drink. My water has never tested anything other than 0 'contamination'. Why is it not good enough for me to carry on with what I am doing now? Public health tests my water for free as is their responsibility / requirement. As long as my tests continue to be 'perfect' it makes no sense to put me out of operation for financial reasons as a result of the government and other private businesses making more dollars by testing my perfectly safe water. Perhaps the regulation should be altered to to apply only to businesses that have a net profit of $100,000 ? or of businesses serving more than 20 ? or more clients at a time. In other words lets be a little more realistic - if not small businesses are out of business. Good bye to personal service (Mom and Pop) style tourism. Without us tourism (big dollars to the economy) is virtually dead.

12563737 I truly believe that the government should consider the cost to all communities, and realize that business in major centres will not have this cost to endure and therefore due to geographic reasons, many of us are at a disadvantage. I believe clean drinking water is essential, and intend to continue to ensure our water is safe, however if forced to implement all of the procedures within in the regulation, there should be government subsidies, and or interest free loans, and the testing should not cost us. I want to stay in business, but may not be able to if this is forced on us without assistance.

13161693 I had difficulty answering some of the questions, because we already installed our new system in September 2003. The new system complies with O. Reg 170/03. We had so many problems with adverse tests during 2003 with our old system that we felt we had no choice but to comply before the deadline. The MOE and local health unit treated us like criminals. Our cost was in the $60,000 range. I am not sure of the testing costs yet as we just switched labs and the new one Lakefield Research is more expensive than MDS was. We have to do 2 tests every two weeks to meet the regulations of bi-weekly testing plus an additional test for every 100 sites (we have 160). The tests cost $20 each ($10 for coliform, $10 for HPC), plus $10 courier fee, plus $5 DWWS surcharge. We had one adverse this summer, one of the two tests showed coliform the other was 0/0/0, to do the retesting, two sets of 3 tests 24 to 48 hours apart cost $195 ($60 each for 2 sets of 3 tests, $30 surcharge for the exceedence report by the lab, $35 courier, $10 DWWS surcharge). Plus when we consulted our waterworks engineer, he said that since one of the tests was perfect and all of our water comes from the same distribution system, it was very likely that the sample was contaminated either by us or the lab and the water was probably not the cause of the problem. Our local health unit also issued a boil water advisory which we ignored, because the regulation states that a boil water is not necessary until there is a CONFIRMED coliform count in one of the retests. We are dealing with people who don't even know the regulations.

19570849 It is impossible for us to test our water weekly. We test as often as we can. The water is sent to Peterborough and it takes a week or more to get the results back.

25583643 I think that the employees who screwed up the Walkerton water and now receive a pension, should not be receiving a pension. I think that these men were government employees and if the government wants to ensure safe drinking water, the government should pay. If the money came out of their pocket, I think it would be a very different story.

27494833 We have been rebuilding an old camp since 1996 and have almost got to the point where it may be able to pay for itself. If these new regulations cost too much we will not invest any more money into the business. The local economy would suffer as we buy almost everything for the community.

31758701 I feel that this will drastically effect the tourism in our area, which in turn will effect all of the local retail stores and restaurants. We have a B&B as well as cottages. We would not jeopardize our family and friends with unsafe water, the same as our guests. We have water coolers in each cottage and B&B, and have always supplied bottled drinking water for our guests as a service even though our drilled well has been tested perfect. I feel that it is unrealistic to expect ALL non municipal businesses/churches/schools/camps etc, to be able to absorb the financial strain of having to comply with regulations that go above and beyond what is needed, and that non municipal systems are being penalized when it is apparent that even municipal systems can be operated improperly!

37680231 while i agree that we need better regulations (walkterton proved it). small business owners need more time and support from the government agencies involved. i.e. tax breaks for compliance and interest free loans to provide the equipment

39838204 If I were sure that it would take 10 years for water to come to my part of Salem this thing would make more sense. We are on municipal sewers -cost $960.00 per year, debenture+ maintenance fee. Salem's South Street residents, are now on town water- cost 10,000. Even those with brand new wells are compelled to hook up. There is no way I am prepared to spend this kind of money and then also have to pay to hook up to town water.

45777610 We are trying to comply with the regulations as best we can. We have had no adverse test results of our water from Colpoy's Bay, and I don't expect we will. The expectation that we have to test on a daily basis, when we have a history of excellent test results, is ridiculous and financially ruinous. We are in the process of upgrading our system to the tune of about $50,000 which will be borne by about 20 users, some of whom are very young and are just starting out with mortgages and will no doubt find it hard to pay for increased water costs, and elderly retired people, who have fixed incomes and simply can't afford these costs. Premier McGuinty MUST address these 'draconian' measures in the regulations and restore some 'sanity' to this situation!

48549625 It's interesting to note that every day, in many locations around Waterloo Region, we observe herds of cattle and other farm animals milling around or standing directly in local creeks, ponds and watercourses, polluting these water sources with their excrement at no apparent concern to regulators, yet we, who are equipped with a drilled well, naturally filtered by some 165 ft of depth have to take extraordinary measures to pay for a government foul-up in Walkerton.

61172821 As usual, our government complicates everything. I still don't know exactly what I have to do, how to go about and do it? and what will it cost?

63026143 I am concerned aboutwater quality. That is why I have instaled extra drinkingwater purifyers, although our well water is of the best quality even without all thee devises. I feel I did the utmost to ensure clean and healthy drinkingwater. The gouvernement shoots with hale [sic] and does not address the problem with this regulation. The Walkerton problem was not a problem with a private well. It was a city water system. I feel realy angry towards the gouvernement. They just want to wash their own hands and let us pay for these idiotic regulations by letting us pay for expensive water testing. I would suggest the gouvernement makes rules about having reverse osmoses and uv-teatement in every well water system used for the public. I also suggest that the owner of the wellkeeps an administration on testing and maitenance. To be forced to test all the time does not guarantee any safety at all. Well maitained equipment does

69988479 The walkerton incident - 2 township [employees] screw up and the rest of rural Ontario pays. Typical knee jerk reaction. Since when has the government cared about the publics health. Gov. cares about TAXES ONLY. It is my opinion that reg. 107 is poorly thought out and the only benefactors are the engineers who devised the reg. What logic is used to introduce chlorinated water into a septic tank thereby killing the bacteria which runs the system ?????

70932153 I don't understand why our government would want to "bleed us dry". Who's bright idea was this? If more income is needed, there must be another place to get it. I haven't heard of anyone get sick or die from well water. Every responsible homeowner and business person get their water tested. What about our farmers, this would probably put a lot of them out of business. I operate my business on part-time basis, I can't afford this, I'll have to close down and I'm sure I won't be the only one. Shame on you!

81947327 The majority of my guests visit my rural area BECAUSE it is a rural area and the idea of treating my water with chlorine is ludicrous. We are being forced to pay a penalty for the ineptness of employees of a city treated water supply. The government is opening the door to a multitude of potential errors. The knee jerk reaction is totally bizarre. We need to fight back!

84763447 Because somebody down south falsified their papers to make their sample of water look good we small people and large resorts up North have to comply with MOE. Its not fair to us because we have good water up North. The MOE upsets me dearly.

90194702 We have already put in an ultra violet system and a fiter syatem that cost about $2,000 and this was done in 2002. I believe the government must set this new regulation aside and continue with the existing testing system and if an area experiences a change in the test results then resolve the problem based on the specific situation in that location.

90630313 We need to know contractors names for complete job. Pump house replacement, wiring, pumps, tanks etc. Engineers costs other than $5000.00 quote (unacceptable) After the worst season ever (down 50%) and this is not only us... where do we find funding???

91343327 If these regulations are actually put into place - most of rural Ontario will be shut down. Leaving things as they are - with testing water once per year as we have in the past is the way it should stay or testing twice a year would be acceptable. This program is too complex and too expensive and most B&B's will have to shut down. Accommodation is very limited in our area. This would hinder tourism, interim accommodation and accommodation for family or community events.

Posted July 23, 2004

262 These regulations are much too strict. Only a UV sterilizer that rids water of bacteria is needed (replace $100 light once per year). After 4 or 5 good tests weekly tests should be reduced. Water samples should go through local Health unit as at present. No need for the extensive testing such as for iron sulphates etc as guests don't remain long enough for there to be a danger. I feel the writers of this regulation did not do their homework and do not know rural areas. We must be given assurance that tradespeople will not take us in this scheme. Will the province provide engineers and inspectors? We must receive grants to cover cost of machinery and ongoing costs. Ministry of Agriculture and also Tourism have been encouraging rural businesses and now this will put many out of business. I feel I will be one forced out as I can't justify cost.

265 I have worked hard for 15 years --just got the mortgage paid off--interest rates are very high for tourist businesses--now--at 71 years old, Im thinking it may just go down the tubes, all because salaried staff, with no vested interest in the outcome did not do their job.

268 I only received this from Land O' Lakes via E-mail. Most of this is new to me and I don't even have a copy of the Regulation. I feel that most times our Gov't takes a notion in their minds because of an incident like Walkerton and then all must pay. I think private enterprise will see a gold mine and take advantage of the consumer in costs. The gov't should in turn subsidise in order to comply

270 There is no problem with the quality of the water in my water supply system. I put in a filtration and UV sterization system in 2000 and it is working just fine. there was no problem with the purity of my water supply even before I installed my present system. The regulations proposed for this area are ridiculous. The people at the MOE don't seem to realize that there are remote areas like Northwest Ontario where the water supply isn't in need of such Draconian measures to insure it's safety. The cost of the mandatory testing alone is not feasible for me. Not to mention the hassle of having to drive 45 miles to drop off my samples each time and the fact that the samples cannot get to the lab within 24 hours anyway. What is needed here are not province-wide regulations affecting everyone regardless of the quality of their water supply but some realistic regulations for the widely varied water sources in the province. My water source with out treatment is already cleaner than the water that comes out of municipal water treatment plants, so why must I go to such lengths and costs and inconvenience. What is needed are some realistic assessments of what is needed to insure clean water that are developed by people who know what they'are doing not a bunch of totally unfeasible regulations developed by a bunch of bureaucrats who wouldn't know a water pump if it bit them. There need to be some model system setups that people can follow to set up their own systems with out the prohibitive engineering costs to be borne by each business and a provision for at most quarterly testing along with self testing in between. I could comply with this type of realistic regulation but the proposed regulations are totally unacceptible and I cannot implement them and stay in business. What people in government don't seem to realize is that I have to be able to meet my costs and live or I cannot keep my business open. We in Northwestern Ontario are not in need of these regulations as we have very clean water already but if forced to comply with these uncompliable regulations (for instance - where do we get engineers to design these systems and at what cost?) then the results of the shutting down of the resorts in this area will be an economic disaster for the region. Now that there is no longer the viable timber industry that there once was in the area, tourism is the only real means of support for the majority of the population of the region.

271 I have spent $36,000 for installation of 6 independent water supply stations. Each station has 2 "bag filters", 5 mic and 1 mic, 1 UV with system function indicators and alarm, also 1 chlorinator. It was installed according to the advice of our Health Inspector. Now it has been indicated by an officer of MoE that I have to have an engineer complience report of the system. I will have a problem to change the system again. ($$) Our sytem works perfectly and is reasonable to maintain. When we had a problem it was not the system, but works on the system. We cannot do more then we do now! If the situation becomes more complex with further unnecessary complience we will need government fundings! to pay for extra staff to do so! I am absolute in favour to supply safe drinking water. No discussion. But more regulation as we have this year is not necessary and overkilling and not complyable! If we should ever depend on the stubborness of a policing health inspector, get a higher fine or our business would be shut down, I might make the resort unbuild! When the situation gets too complicated I will try to sell the resort.

273 The Ontario government's cajoling of rural Ontario residents to use bottled spring water is infuriating. After all springs are simply wells that have bubbled to the surface. It is doubly infuriating that bottled water is not treated as food but as soft drinks and is subject to [tax].

276 Safe drinking water is very impotant. The results from Walkerton does not mean the rest of the province water suppler's do not and have not supplied safe drinking water to their costumers. Reason and common sense always makes for a workable solution.

277 Walkerton was a huge tragedy and it did not need to happen. There was also a big chance to make this right and offer Ontarians with safe drinking water. This chance was missed by bureaucrats in Toronto who have no idea what it means to live in rural Ontario by implementing Water Regulation 170.

279 Government needs to get into the real world and stop abusing our tax dollars. It would be nice to see one of those money wasting politicians try to run a small seasonal business on the amount of money we have at our disposal. We are already taxed to death as ontarians... give us a break. I agree with testing but a $1000 or more engineers certificate...let's get real. I have no problem with testing my water but what happened to taking it to the health unit for free testing. Now I have to courier it over 100km away to a private lab at a massive expense. Thank you

282 There is no logical reason why drinking water that consistently tests 100% safe should be required to be treated. One of the things our guests like the most about our resort is our sweet well water. MOE is completely out of touch with the economic reality of small businesses, and their prescription for water treatment does nothing to ensure that another Walkerton could not happen again - if people lie about the water test results. All the tourism businesses in Ontario should not have to pay unnecessary costs because a couple of people lied about water test results in Walkerton.

283 As an operator I would like to know what kind of financial help I can excpect from goverment, like: grants, no interest loans etc. I would like to see reasonable approach towards deadlines of this regulation. I would like to see involvement of local health units to maintain control over water quality, like for us till now local health inspector testing our water few times during the season, us being able to test water in health unit labs, as it is right now.

284 For more than 30 years our customers have always known that the water provided inside our cottages is from the lake. We have signs at all the taps telling the people that the water is from the lake. We have always made well water available to our customers for drinking and cooking. Most people nowadays bring their own drinking water anyway. SHOULD WE CLOSE DOWN ALL TOURISM BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPETENCE OF THOSE IN WALKERTON.

285 we shouldn't be trying to fix something that is not broken

Posted July 15, 2004

242 Don't fix what's not broken, our water system could be fine tuned for the safety of ll but there was no need for a complete overhaul of the whole system. We have gone from one extreme to another. A local water source which has run for 35 years 24 hours a day where locals and tourists get there water will be closed because it won't meet the standards. This I consider a natural resouce and will be closed because of the new regulations and some call this progress.......

246 My well water has been A1 in the 4 years I have lived in this place. I object to regulations when they are not needed. I also agree that my customers have the best water possible and I feel adding a lot of equipment and chemicals would not improve the quality of my water.

249 I watched the CH Live show last night (Juy 13/04) and am confident that this regulation will be toned down to ensure that tourism does not completely die in tourist areas. It has to, or many of us are going to lose the businesses we have worked so hard to put in place and ensure long-term income when a fixed income is all we have. The drinking water at our bed and breakfast is tested on a regular basis and comes back 0/0 every time. I believe that making sure that establishments get tested on a regular basis (we get tested every 3 months) is a completely satisfactory and safe way to ensure first-rate drinking water. We display our results near the drinking water tap in plain sight for our guests to see. We have a very good filtration system in place. Nothing else needs to be done. We can't afford what is being proposed and we would close our doors.

250 The regulation is poorly thought out and is in reaction to criminal negligence in Walkerton. Our water is safe and better tasting than municipal water with no polluting factors in the area. I feel the regulations are onerous and will put us out of business. The regulations need to be scrapped with reasonable regulations put into place. If the government is truly concerned about safe drinking water it would be done with little cost to the small business operator. B&B's in particular should not be hit since they are also inhabited by the owners.

254 If I am testing weekly and ensuring that my water is safe to drink, then why do I have to spend so much to chlorinate my water. If my water becomes unsafe then I would gladly do what is necessary. My feeling is that the labs and engineers are taking advantage of this situation. For example, last season my cost per test was $18.00 and this year is $47.50. Most of my fellow campground operators with smaller businesses will shut down because of this and no-one seems to understand the impact on our local economy. Please revisit the regulation!!!!!!!!

257 I comply with the regulations since May 2003. I tested my water regularly - since this year with a private lab. I never had any bad results (untreated and treated) but since I have to do it on my own I had twice adverse results and had to deal with lots of aggrevation and paperwork and lots of money for retesting. Re-testing showed always good results. The lab said that they get quite some bad results and I should not be worr[ied]. Most of the time it is the handling of the sample and not the water!! Testing of water should be done by the Government and not by the individuel owner. Who is going to make sure the tested water is coming from the right source. This is an essential service. It is an overwhelming task for a small operator to deal with this regulation.

259 We experienced major problems last season because our system did not comply with the regulations (we draw from a lake and were not filtering but we have always chlorinated). We had adverse tests, some coliform but mostly due to background count which was never tested for before the regulation came into effect. Even though the government was giving time to put a new system in, they were expecting the old system to produce water that complied with the new regulations which in our case was impossible as the new regulations require lake water to be filtered. Our experience with the system in place to deal with adverse tests was a nightmare. I felt like they were treating us as criminals and they obviously have no idea what it is like to run a business. We have been in business since 1940 and our water always tested fine but once we started using a lab, we had some problems, our conclusion is that the health units were not testing properly. Anyway, we knew we had until July 1, 2005 to comply but because of all the problems, we installed our new system in September, 2003 as we did not want to go through another season with the same problems. The cost was considerable and we had to raise our prices substantially to help with some of the costs. The testing was reasonable with MDS and they had a nursing home in town that we could drop off the samples so we had no courier costs but MDS sold to SGS Lakefield Research and our testing costs have gone up significantly. The courier is $10, each test is $20 and there is now a surcharge of $5 which I assume is going to the government, also, I have to pay to do a raw water test on the lake once a month, should that not be the local MOH responsibility since the City of Kawartha Lakes owns the lake, not me. I do two tests every two weeks to comply with the regulation (ie one test biweekly plus one extra test for every 100 sites and I have 171 so I do two extra or a total of 4 per month). I recently had an adverse on one of the two bi-weekly tests while the other was 0/0/0. When that occurs, the regulation as I understand it says to retest two sets of three samples 24 to 48 hours apart which I did. The fact that one was perfect and the other adverse could indicate that the test was sampled incorrectly by me or even the lab could have contaminated it. But no, we get the criminal treatment again!! The local MOH faxes me a boil water advisory telling me to post signs for my customers to take my water and add chlorine before washing in it and that people shouldn't bath in it but should sponge bath instead! My water comes from Balsam Lake, where people swim in it untreated and that is okay? I also have concerns about posting a notice telling people to chlorinate water that is already chlorinated as I feel this would be unsafe. Also, my understanding of the regulation is that a boil water is not issued until the coliform reading is confirmed. My first set of three tests were 0/0 and the second set are not back yet but if adverse, I would have received a call by now. The testing for these two sets of three tests, will cost us $120 extra this month, not to mention the stress. While it is our desire to supply clean safe water to our customers and it always has been (we chlorinated and tested our water long before it was law), we are very discouraged that once again, the government has over reacted and are talking about amendments after we have already spent the money to do what they wanted. We find it very difficult dealing with both the MOH and MOE on these issues, particularily because the local MOH does not appear to know the regulation very well and over react to cover their behinds. I cannot believe that towns in this area get perfect water every test as they draw from lakes too but you don't see boil water advisories posted all over the place. Our system firstly filters, then UV's then chlorinates and my residual chlorine levels are fine, so the local MOH I feel was over zealous giving me a boil water at the first test. I guess I could go on and on but that would be pointless, I hope you can see our frustration with basically all government levels who seem to be doing their best to regulate small business to death!!

Posted July 6, 2004

220 I find this regulation very confusing. I have not received a copy of the May regulation changes and since we are a very small business operating only July and sometimes August, taking only adults and two adults only per cottage these regulations make it most difficult. Our water for cottages comes directly from our house, same water as we drink in the house, it is Culligan equipment checked and replaced annually and I feel this is very adequate for our situation.

222 We have tested our water regularly for the past eight years of business; now the Health Unit no longer tests samples and we do not know where to send samples.

226 We have been in business since 1957 and have used the same water system and have never had a problem. I am 48 years old and have consumed this water for my whole life. My children have consumed the same water all of their lives. None of our guests have ever gotten sick and our guests stay for a week at a time. Our water has been tested each time we have put in a new septic system and our results have always come back with Zero readings. Everyone in Ontario is being punished for … Walkerton and again Northern Ontario is being lumped in with Southern Ontario problems. Most of the tourist outfitters in our area are seasonal only and the last 2 years have been very lean. If we are forced into this regulation, there will be a lot of us who will be out of business. Each case should be handled on a one on one basis, not paint everyone with the same brush. If our water is fine, then leave us alone. We are being treated like school children. If one child misbehaves in class, then the whole class is punished.

228 Cost factors aside, the new drinking water standards are fraught with inconsistancies. To have them apply to establishments which serve only 5 or more units seems to imply that it is perfectly okay to make folks ill so long as you do so in small numbers. In a technical sense, the regulations are a mish mash of twisted logic. They require filtration to 1 micron to eliminate giardia and cryptosporidium because chlorination is ineffective at treating these hazards. The regulations allow UV,(a very effective method of eliminating giardia and cryptosporidium), as a primary source of disinfection but still demand the filtration standards of a chlorine system. The true tragedy in these regulations is that they will not provide my customers with a safer water system and they will not eliminate the possibility of another Walkerton. Walkerton had all the appropriate treatment options available, but human failure caused them to be bypassed.

237 We haven't tested since the Health Unit stopped collecting samples, approx 24 months. We haven't had an adverse test result in 17 years. These new regulations are just the last straw of several ministries (Ont. Gov.) actions that will result in the closure of a once profitable Hwy motel, over 50 years, serving the travelling public on the Trans Canada Hwy.

239 We have a self-catering holiday suite sleeping a maximum of 4 people and it is part of our home. Everyone, guests and ourselves, use the same water. We only have bookings for Easter, late June, July and August. Sometimes September. We will accept bookings year-round but so far have only had guests in spring and summer. We are a very small operation and would have no option but to close if we have to comply with these regulations. We feel that installing a UV system and making a commitment to provide bottled water to our guests would be sufficient for our very small operation and would be economically viable for us.

Posted June 29, 2004

196 A petition started by the Water Watch Association in Killaloe is asking the Government for an immediately repeal of Regulation 170/03. As well as amending the pertinent, enabling legislation. That is what we need to go back to the way it used to be!

197 I completely disagree with 170/03. I support water watch association in Killaloe and as a board member in the campground association I'm fighting the regulation which destroy good water and good working septic systems and good businesses too.

198 We will be forced to comply but we have not made any money for the past two years. … I have been forced to take a full time job to support us. I now work 24-7 for 6 months of the year. This regulation will just add more of a burden. Between, our insurance rates tripling, hydro costs soaring, SARS, West Nile Virus, lack of support from the Chretian government for our American customers, the declining US exchange rate, soaring gas prices, and now this huge water expenditure, I don't know if we can continue. We bought this business in July, 2001 and was that the wrong time to get into tourism. The Government should be subsidizing this. Most people care about the water they supply, and just because the Harris government cut costs and the Walkerton fiasco occurred does not mean that all people are negligent, but we are the ones who have to pay the costs.

203 I believe the regulations are in the right direction and are not out of order. There should be a better system for implementing this regulations and more econimical way of monitoring as to keep small business that are invaluable to the local economic situation in business.

205 Thanks for the well thought out questions. We hope that the results will be helpful in convinvcing the government that we shouldn't all have to pay for 2 men not doing their jobs in a municipal system. Kids play and swallow water out of the lake everyday and we have no complaints of sickness...God made bodys able to contend with everyday flora and fona!

208 The regulations have been developed for large municipalities and are being applied to small operations without thought about need. For instance the $1200-$1500 chemical tests now and every 5 years are essential if you are providing water year-round to the same people. Our guests stay 3-7 days and drink very little water. To get our microbiological samples submitted 00 km round trip and a $12 bus chanrge and the local lab has a minimum $50 charge.

209 We get comments all the time that our water tastes so good. It has no chemicals in it which good we have to much of that all ready it is not good for our health (chemicals that is.) Why would I want to drink our water if it were no good? This gone a little bit to far!

214 Like everyone else we would always be sure our customers were drinking only good clean water. Although our cabins and campsites have lake water we have always supplied drinking water from our well. Everyone knows this and so far this has not caused a problem. Since Walkerton our Government has gone to extremes in implementing safe drinking water regulations.

216 An issue not addressed is the competitive disadvantages that compliance will create. (1) If I have to foot the whole bill for compliance, I will be disadvantaged relative to my competitors who use a municipal system, because the municipalities can obtain funding for compliance, thereby subsidizing my competition. (2) The only way I can afford to comply is to raise my prices to cover the cost. All rural Ontario operators will be disadvantaged relative to other provinces and states. Most of my business comes from American fishermen. Fishing in Pennsylvannia has improved over the years. Combined with the price of gas, the hassles they get from Canadian customs, they might just stay at home and we could effectively price ourselves out of business.

Posted June 24, 2004

146 Most of our customers already bring their own bottled water, the Board of Health has been working with us for the past 8 years and we have had no problems.

147 Is this another 2 billion dollar political brainwave that is going to prove as ineffective and useless as the gun registery legislation. This is not the answer to safe water systems. What was wrong with the way the Ministry of Health was handling this issue?

148 Living in a small town, it will be hard to find someone who can put in the system. Also the changes are on going. So I am not putting any money into this till the Government makes up it mind. My water is cleaner than my township's water that is treated. They always have boil water notices and it also smells and tastes bad. Why should someone fix something that is not broken. I think the government should only make those who have had bad water tests comply. As long as we put signs up and leave it up to the customer. I never drink water from other areas and never have. My father always said take you own or drink boiled water only; when elsewhere.

152 Until we received the link to Wellsafe.net all prior information in regard to the safe drinking water act where received on a casual, trickling and conflicting hear say basis. There has never been any contact from the government that we are aware of, indicating that our business may be affected by this new law.

161 The Lions Club installed a new septic system at the Park. The Health Dept would not allow us to use the well water to operate the washrooms and we were forced to install a cistern (filled by truck from Town water.) We have now been advised we cannot allow public access to water and must post signs advising of same. They have now advised us that the combination of septic and cistern may not be okay. We do not know what to do.

172 Supplied perfect drinking water since 1962. Lab tested for inorganic chemicals and organic chemicals. 93 in all.

173 The face of rural Ontario will change totally with the implementation of this bill. As an owner of a rural small farm B&B I take pride in providing a closer link to Ontario agriculture for many adults and children who live in our large cities and have no other access to the source of their food. The government is treating us all like children who cannot, do not or will not take care of ourselves. This bill paints us all with a broad brush and seems to indicate that we would knowingly drink polluted water as well as serve it to our guests! What a disgrace!

175 If small business is the “backbone of Ontario” as one politician’s ad has touted in the past, then our government seeks to destroy that very backbone by forcing “overkill” solutions with no thought whatsoever to downstream impact. The implementation of this legislation wastes yet more taxpayers dollars to basically “fix something that ain’t broke” ... Walkerton was indeed horrible, but all the legislation in the world isn’t going to prevent human error or criminal acts, nor will it make up for government’s poor track-record of indifference and inaction when the Walkerton problem presented itself initially....and was ignored by MOE. With these overkill regulations, the government is overcompensating for a problem that does not exist in the broader spectrum. Largely due to their own neglect in ignoring the Walkerton situation to begin with, these same MOE people who didn’t do their jobs when Walkerton’s problems were originally reported are now the very same “experts” implementing far-reaching regulations to protect their own backsides. Our high rural taxes should entitle us to the same EQUAL RIGHTS to potable water as municipalities have without personally burdening us with added individual costs to comply. The suggested engineering costs are exorbitant and nothing short of highway robbery. We had topnotch professional engineers inspect our whole house top to bottom and the cost was $400...how does a water engineer’s inspection justify a cost of $1,500.00??? Ongoing tests weekly? To have a private lab test water that the Health Department already tests as safe? The high cost of implementing this legislation will kill small business not to mention kill tourism across the province. I can think of a lot better ways to see our tax dollars at work: i.e. problems of child pornography, exposure of people to unsterilized hospital equipment... or those 20,000 medical “misadventures” that happen every year; or the carnage on our highways ....government needs to GET REAL with the priorities!!! Do we really need yet another ‘sponsorship’-type scandal ...our very own “watergate”???. It’s infuriating to see who will actually benefit from this legislation, ie. the newly-appointed and high-priced engineers and consultants, private government-sponsored labs, courier services, and larger establishments on municipal water. My well water tests perfect and tastes wonderful...why would I want to poison that and destroy the rural septic system to boot!

176 We check our water regularly and have never had a bad reading. Our water is so good that people from town, where the water is chlorinated, come here to get their drinking water. Every camper that stops by over night tell us how good our water tastes and they fill their holding tanks as they leave. We've had people ask us if the water is treated or not because the last camping spot with treated water that they were at, had terrible water..

179 Government did not help us establish this business yet it will be solely responsible for its demise. I've attended too many meetings on this issue that left me feeling very very afraid about the individuals that will be monitoring this situation. They have no answers, they continually refer to themselves as just the messenger and they have no opinion or regard for the devastation this regulation will have on the rural economy. It frustrates me to no end to realize that even the rural municipalities themselves don't understand the legislation, nor the economic impact this will have. We believe that our campground alone injects about $500,000 annually into the Renfrew County economy. If we close that money goes with us.

181 If we let them dictate how we run our business what will they want from us next?

183 This was NOT a very well considered piece of legislation

189 We will be forced to close if Reg 170/03 is not changed. We are a small 2 bedroom bed and breakfast and having people (guests) to stay is like inviting friends into our home. We are confident that our existing well gives us extremely good quality water, and we do not intend to alter this! To do so would be a complete waste of time, money, hydro, manpower and would harm the environment. We are of course always concerned about the quality of our own drinking water, but are 100% satisfied that we already have an excellent supply - better in fact than chlorinated city water!

Posted June 21, 2004

111 I stress : To comply would put me out of business.

113 Our community is trying to stimulate economic activity through eco-tourism. This means small operations, not giant motels or hotels that do not fit with our rural ambiance. A number of B&Bs have opened recently and they will have to close if this law remains in effect. When I feel confident in serving the water from my system to my small grandchildren, I feel the government should trust me not to make my guest sick.

115 I believe that this issue is not for the rural areas where there has never been a drinking water problem. We will be put out of business as well as most of the others in our area. This is small town Ontario.... we have never had a problem with clean water. The Land O Lakes area is where we live and do business. Our waters are clean and clear. Again never been a problem in this part of Ontario. We need more help from the government to help small business with tax cuts or some influx of monies to our area ... not more money going out. We just can not afford to have more and more all the time leaving our pockets.

116 It is ridiculous to me that I have to spend thousands of dollars on engineering plans and changes to a system that tests 0 for coliform and 0 for e-coli every other week. It would be more logical to ensure that water is regularly tested and to only force change in processing if there is a problem .. between water regulations, increased hydro, increased taxes and insurance rates we'll be pricing ourselves out of the market. The slow bookings for this summer over past years are a true danger signal.. people can't afford to pay what we need to charge to meet these regulations along with other costs.

117 Our water is treated with a UV system and appears to be giving favourable results. I find the costs are heavy especially along with all other increased expenditures, such as heat, electricity, Insurance, property taxes, building materials, advertising and vehicle costs. We are seeing all of these expenses increase while the years revenue is declining. We feel real good about working 24/7 just for the fun of it. One factor that has not been mentioned is that many such small business are operated by older persons with a limited income and not the means of other employment. these people are more vulnerable , and less time to recover than a younger person.

119 Very concerned about the cost and complexity of the regulation. Our water has always tested safely and I feel more concerned about adding chlorine and other chemicals to my life. I want safe water and feel that I have a safe source. It is sad to me that the government is now trying to regulate the clean and safe source of Gods gift of water

122 This regulation has not been thought out to the end result. Like the gun regulations, it is not feasible & will be of no real consequence to the general public. The testing facilities WILL NOT be able to handle the volume and will end up being so far behind that any REAL benefit would be lost. Most businesses involved would be put out of business by the rigid rules and costs involved. This would increase unemployment, increase social assistance costs and cause a decline in tourism in Ontario. I believe the cost to the government to facilitate such testing would become enormous and quite unacceptable. As a small bed and breakfast business barely making ends meet after the horrendous tourism year of 2003, the added cost of $2000.00 annually would cause me to shut my doors of business.

125 This will put many businesses out of business. This will make Ontario less attractive and maybe impossible to do business in Rural areas where Water is not provided by municipalities. We have never had a bad water test and now the Ontario Government is going to put us out of business. I guess we will all be living on WELLFARE this is not Fair at all we put all our money, blood, sweat, and tears only to have the government take it all away. The future is very grim! Many of us are now to old to start again! and all our money ie retirement funds are in our business.

126 The cost of an engineer to inspect an approve is a huge expense. Even if you are a little place like us, the charges are the same as a larger property.

127 I feel the regulations unfairly penalize those of us on private well systems by placing us in the same category as municipal systems re testing, engineers, etc. It is an over reaction to the Walkerton problem that was basically caused by our Government's withdrawal of inspectors and failure to ensure that employees responsible for operating the municipal system received timely inservicing, training and supervision. The Ministry of Health has been testing our water at no charge and we believe that it is quite adequate. Why does this have to change?!!!!

138 I do not fully understand how the regulations apply to our small bed and breakfast business. We have already installed water safety devises, but the complexity of the regulation may cause our closing our business.

140 these regulations will make rural tourism in Ontario uncompetitive with other Provinces. We deserve a level playing field and a 100% fix is impractical. We want to stop road accidents but I don't see the government taking all the cars off the road. We need some different approach to this issue that will allow the stakeholders including tourists to participate. All cost associated with this bill will ultimately be passed to the tourist user who should have a say. how important is the rural tourist business to the Province of Ontario. This is the question that the government must consider if they fail to re-examine or defer implementation pending further consultation and study of this matter.

141 It would seem that if there is a genuine concern to protect the public with safe drinking water, that each and every household that is not on a municipal water system should be under the same regulations in order to protect visitors. This whole thing came about because a couple of drunks didn't do their job. I believe that we should provide safe drinking water, and we will continue to do so but these regulations assume that we are all irresponsible. Under these regulations a food establishment will provide pure water to its customers but could serve them contaminated food.

Posted June 18, 2004

1 The government is overcompensating for a problem that does not exist, and certainly not nearly in the proportions the regulations address. The regulations are too complicated for small water system owners, and testing frequency is ridiculous. This is a move to download liability, and the result is punishing business. The regulation gives a competitive advantage to accommodation providers in our community who are served by a municipal system, and their businesses will benefit further if we and others in our situation are forced to close. Tourism in our community will suffer, as will the incomes of everyone else who serves tourism in this area. This regulation amounts to double taxation and is unfair and unreasonable.

3 I feel that when my water tests out as perfect there is no reason for me to install a water purification system. I want clean water just as much as the next person but to do unnecessary things to my water system is a waste of my time and money. I have received many comments on the quality and taste of the water from my 252 foot drilled well. Urban persons are thrilled that they do not taste Chlorine and other chemicals. The government is using a cannon to solve a problem that could be solved with a pistol. Are we not over saturated with chemicals and additives already? Do you not think that our immune systems have been adversely affected by the over emphasis on purifying everything to death. Additionally, I believe that chlorinating a private well at a place that has a septic system will probably kill the bacteria in the septic tank and make it inoperable. If the government of Canada has money to the tune of $100,000,000 for the Ford company then they can spare $12,000 for individual well owners.

4 I appreciate the need and respect the efforts underway to assure the public that they have safe water, however, I believe that this is an example of overkill. I say this because the safeguards were in place in Walkerton, but were abused and neglected due to human error, both on the part of those responsible as well as those who put them into that position of responsibility.

8 In northern Ontario, where animal and human waste disposal problems are largely absent, and the quality of ground and surface water sources is commonly excellent, Reg. 170 is major overkill. It does not serve any function other than to burden micro business operators with additional and excessive capital and operating costs that are not supported by revenues. If the government is intent on proceeding with these regulations, then the government should provide grants for the capital cost of the equipment, and the Ministry of the Environment should carry out and pay for the collection and testing of water samples on whatever schedule suits them.

9 Remember: many tourism operations are seasonal and cannot comply with the testing requirements. Outpost camps will not comply because it will be physically impossible to do so.

10 The cost is only one facet. The prospect of chlorinating my well is worse. I refuse to intentionally poison a good well.

13 I don't think the cost of putting these regulations in place and administering them has been thought through properly. A little like the gun registry - what it was proposed to cost and what it has really cost.

16 I have a few problems with this, and see it only as another expensive way for the government to make sure it will never again be held accountable for death or illness from tainted water. 1. Why should perfectly good water be treated? 2. How is this schedule going to ensure public safefty? Campers drinking the water when the test is taken Monday may be at their fifth campground down the road before I find out there's a problem. If a tenter pokes a tent peg in the water line, the downstream spigots are suspect NOW-not next Monday. Who is the genius that decided on weekly testing? -why not make the test twice a week? or daily? or like the pool-every two hours??? Because all of it is equally unreasonable, and still does not guarantee safety-it just exempts them from any liability. While my municipal taxes go up so I can subsidise the town as it complies with the new regs, is there any chance I may be elegible for some of those re-directed health care dollars?

18 Until they stop changing the rules i am not going to do anything. When 459 came out we were not in it. Therefore the local health unit on july 7 2002 made us post our water was not suitable to drink. I had to supply bottled water to stay in buisness. Then i went ahead and made the changes to meet what they wanted. Then i had to take a course from the moe. after compleating it i was told i was in the wrong course and that i could have done it by mail and it would have been alot less work for me. but they could not give me a pass even though i had passed a much highter course.Installed uv with post hyper clorination to my system. Then they changed 459 and i was in. Drilled two wells and installed equipment. then 170 came out and my well are now considered under the influence of the lake and i have to again spend more money to meet the reg's. Independent test show that a 5 micron filter with uv light will kill or inactivate anything harmfull in the water but the moe will not except the uv light and now want a 1 micron filter. And my uv lights that where top of the line two years ago will not meet the new requlation. It is bad enough to have to make these changes, but to have to do them two or three time is nuts. I have started my testing as required and to date i have not had one bad test. I have had all zero's for the test and that includes the raw water samples. And i find it hard to believe that some of the people that are making up these rules and the same people at the moe that didn't do their jobs properly and allowed the warkerton people to die or get sick. I have phone the moe to asked questions and to date have never found anyone there that can or will give you an answer. I also started asking questions long befor the reg's came out as i knew that this would impact my buisness and all the moe told me was to hire a engineer /consultant.A really good cop out for someone that is to be working for us.

20 We just returned from a meeting with an employee from the MOE, Timmins. A very dissapointing meeting... businesses seem to be regarded as a bottomless pit money wise as far as the MOE is concerned. They just don't seem to be able to comprehend that there is no money in the pot...and why should we pay to upgrade a system that is already giving 00 readings? The regs are severely onerous, and he kept mentioning public consultation but we could not pin him down as to when this would take place and/or how. Same old !!//!?? and no access to any decision-makers. They just send out employees with no authority (I just enforce the regulations, I don't make them). The meeting was a waste of time at a time of year when we can't afford to waste it. Testing requirements are going to break the bank as well.

23 For a small business such as ours it is not worth making the initial and ongoing expenditures in order to stay in business. We plan to post warnings, then go out of business when we are required to comply. The government has gone completely overboard with these regulations. The B&B business in our area will be severely affected by the regulations and I expect that many of my colleagues will close their businesses as it is not economically worthwhile to continue. This will definitely have an impact on the local economy as there are many B&Bs in the area and we are very busy during the summer tourist season.

24 If this is not modified to consider that most of the owners of retreats already either test regularly and comply with the health dept. recommendations or provide bottled water for their guests. I don't feel that I should have to provide bottled water but I will do that if it allows me to stay in business without having to install the expensive chlorination system that is not needed here. I have not had a bad reading since installing the UV system.

25 We feel very strongly that we have had no problems with our drinking water systems for the past 58 years so why do we have to change everything now because a few people neglected to do their jobs.

27 The Advisory Council seems to comprised of persons involved in making a living out of adding to water costs. Small rural business is already over taxed and over regulated. Wells are already tested. Businesses want their customers healthy. All this new regulation is because two men didn't do their job in an Ontario municipality. For many more years, and involving many more people, private businesses have been doing a more competent job than those bureaucrats. There will always be irresponsible people, and all this regulation does is jeopardise my, and many others, livelihood. In my own business, I have a personal investment in my customers health. If I close and get a government job, as I guess we are all supposed to do, or work for Walmart, I will not have a personal investment in any customers. Which job would be likely to ensure safe water, and a social conscience - the private entrepreneur.

30 Does the Gouvernment understands that when we all are out of business nowbody is paying there wages anymore, and that the Gouvernment is here for the people and NOT the people for the Gouvernment. It is so easy to bring new laws and regulations, if you dont have to pay for.

31 We feel that the problem of unsafe water was caused by irresponsible parties, not following existing regulations and subsequently responsible parties are now being punished as a result. This is an extreme over reaction to an original municipal problem. Why would anyone in their right mind put their own family and friends at risk by providing unsafe water at their home or place of business. We believe that providing signage within the home at water sources with reasonable and appropriate wording as well as supplying bottled water for drinking and cooking would alleviate any concerns guests may have. Suggested wording might be "For your safety we are recommending you use the bottle water provided for consumption. All water used for cooking, coffee, tea, etc. is bottled as per government regulations".

33 My family and I recently purchased this resort business and this regulation will put a tremendous burden on our effort to stay in business. We sold all of our holdings to purchase the business and if this regulation continues, we may be forced to close and we will loose everything.

34 We already invested $ 15000 in a new water system under the old regulation and now we have to invest more and pay for the testing. With the difficult situation in tourism this might force us to close.

38 Too expensive. Too complex. Testing is difficult to set up in time constraints from lab. No help from Ministry (as usual) Engineers reports are grossly (and I mean grossly!) too expensive for the situation. Engineers say this is because of liability insurance on their part. We are being liability insuranced to death! An engineering report on a simple system should be less than $500.00, why is it that they cost 5000 to 10,000 dollars?

43 I feel that since the water supply that we use is used by 1000's of homes & businesses in our area, and has been for many years, the fact that I use it to supply the public's needs shouldn't make it my responsibility to meet the Government's need to cover its ass because it screwed up in one municipality in the pursuit of a balanced budget. They caused this mess, let them pay for correcting it. If taxpayers have to pay for it, so be it. They would have paid for it anyway if the government had done what it is supposed to do - protect the public.

44 We have a comprehensive Culligan water purification system which is a proven product for water quality. As well we give only bottled water for drinking and use only bottled water for preparation of our breakfasts. I believe periodic water testing is reasonable but remedial action should be based on the results of these tests and not on the premise that everybody has bad water until proven otherwise. This project is a huge example of yet again, government building empires.

48 Our unsafe water test resulted when we were putting in a new sand point. The problem was caused by the water used to jet the new well and corrected before the new line was connected to our water supply so I may have answered your question incorrectly. Also, your last question was difficult. I can't comply , therefore I would close. I would not operate against the regulation.

49 This regulation is too complicated and not even relevant, because it is done by people, who have no common sense and no idea, what it involves. It is not necessary to have such regulations, because most people do not even drink water out of a tab anymore, everybody buys bottled water (even though that is not always the best source either!!). Why does everybody now has to suffer, because there were some people effected in Walkerton, who died and others who did not do their job properly. It is just not in any relation, because it is way too extreme what this new regulation is doing, especially to small business owners. Even the Municipalities are effected and who pays for it??? It is the taxpayer who has to pay way more taxes because of unnecessary stupid regulations!!! (Sometimes we wonder, why we are still allowed to drive on roads? There are so many people killed and injured every day!!!)

53 Considering the general unease and disappointment with the regulations, according to what other local tourist operators have expressed, I am tempted to take no action to comply.

55 The cost of the engineering report is the greatest problem. It sure is easy for the politicians to say look what I have done for the people by putting out this regulation. Individual businesses should be supported with the initial cost this regulation will bring. For example subsidize all the locations affected with the capital costs now to ensure water is treated properly immediately. What they have said is that the water could be unsafe in some locations but we are willing to take that chance because our water is clean at Queens Park. Implement now by paying for the costs of the regulation.

61 From the start of my b&b I have been giving my guests bottled water as a service. There is no way that a bb with 2 rooms, open 6 months can invest to follow the requirements. I will definitely go out of the b&b buisness should there not be reached any other more reasonable agreement. I would do so with lots of regrets!

63 Some of the questions in the survey are not geared for "multi service" businesses. We have both a campground/trailer park and cottage accommodation. If we must comply with the regulation, then we are forced to close the trailer park and our small restaurant - reducing our staff by half, as it puts us in a different catagory - seasonal residential, but not the resort even though the cost may be unaffordable anyway unless we try to change our business. That is why we are also looking at developing for year round to increase our revenue to help cover total compliance costs, however we are hitting many roadblocks. Most of our "feasible" new development strategies - such as "Fractional Ownership" cottages require setting up a "condominium" which in turn requires a responsibility