If the province’s concern is…

If the province’s concern is that each of the 36 Conservation Authorities (CAs) follow different policies, standards, and fees and have different staffing and technology capabilities that may result in unpredictable and inconsistent turnaround times for reviews and approvals, then collapsing from 36 to 7 will not solve the province’s concerns. The downside impacts of collapsing into 7 CAs are worse and more negatively impactful to individual municipalities and land owners than the turnaround times for reviews and approvals.

Standardization an be achieved within the current 36 CA structure with updated technical guidance, policy approaches and modernization tools. There is no need for a sledgehammer approach when tweaking can achieve more effective and beneficial results.

Problems going to proposed 7 regional CAs:
- 7 CAs are administratively too large and complex for effective and efficient operation and meaningful local input and delivery of local-focused programs and services.
- 7 CAs are geographically too large. Staff from 7 CAs will spend many more hours and associated costs travelling across the large regional CAs. As an example, where I live, the proposed Huron-Superior CA covers Thunder Bay, the eastern shore of Lake Huron and east to Barrie and covers 80 municipalities. The needs of the municipalities and property owners are very different across this region and the watercourse and natural hazard issues and needs are also very different. Dilution of services and municipal input is far more problematic than gaining consistent turnaround times for CA’s review and approvals.
- municipalities will have much more diluted input and services and will not support the CA work (and budget) if the municipality does not get local services and support in return. Currently the relationships between local CAs and local municipalities are strong because they are local and work closely together. Going to 7 CAs will destroy this key successful working relationship and we will all pay the price through provincial dilution.
- the many municipalities within the large 7 CAs have diverse populations, densities, natural hazards and development pressures, and a regional CA will by necessity focus more on the large ($) municipalities to the detriment of smaller municipalities that will have no representation at the table and no services.
- decisions need to be made closest to the communities they affect.

How to improve turnaround times for CA reviews and approvals:
- Set up a working group to engage directly with affected municipalities and CAs to find opportunities for shared services or consolidation where it makes sense. There are opportunities for shared services or consolidation but at a smaller scale than proposed. There may be smaller CAs will limited staff and technology capabilities that could be consolidated with a neighbouring larger CA to improve services and delivery. Consolidating two CAs into one CA can continue to provide programs and services and support local representation and effectiveness.
- CAs must be sized and located for continued responsiveness and close working relationships with individual municipalities.
- CAs must not cover too large an area and not too great distances.
- Still need local CA offices / sub-offices to provide local services and be able to respond quickly to local emergencies and hazards.
- need to support some difference in approach at the CAs, such as using different regional storms (not all Hurricane Hazel), where the CA has identified and uses a more relevant local watershed-specific storm event.

There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to the work of Conservation Authorities. Flood protection and management and dealing with natural hazards is very location-specific and trying to consolidate CAs into 7 regional CAs will result in ongoing problems and a deterioration of programs, services and support for municipalities and landowners.