Thanks for the opportunity…

Thanks for the opportunity of sharing my recent experience with the Conservation Act.

Regional Conservation Authorities are starved for funding which in my recent experience drives them to assert authority over lands for the sole purpose of collecting fees. This is simply Regulation creep and red tape slowing down small business and adding costs. which action is currently condoned by the Provinces poor drafting of the governing laws and regulations.

The Conservation Act grants onto Conservation Authorities jurisdiction over " Hazardous lands", yet no where in the Conservation Act is there a clear definition of what constitutes Hazardous Lands.

The intent of the regulation is to minimize the risk to loss of life, and damage to property by flood events. I own a property that according to the flood plan mapping would see 4 inches of water over part of the property ( which if it were to happen would be a foot below the finished floor level) at a frequency of 1 in 100 years. Common sense would conclude that this level of flooding by no means results in risk to life or property and hence no justify regulation.

The local conservation authority has asserted jurisdiction, leading to $3000 in fees and $500 for a letter from an engineer to state that a concrete foundation will withstand the lateral forces of 4 inches of water, that is simply ridiculous. No common sense was applied.

That same authority wrongly asserted regulation resulted in $6500 in fees, and $10,000 in costs to install a useless storm separator for a small parking lot. ( 9 spaces)

I have paid out $20,000 to the local authority for no legitimate reason. This is money that would have been better spent on a Licensed daycare to which the works related. Useless red tape and greed.

Change the Conservation Act to limit the regulation creep by Conservation Authorities. Clearly define the extent of regulation. If a 1 in 100 year flood does not result in serious risk to life or property then there is no regulation.

Why should a conservation authority be granted regulation over an entire site if only a small portion of the site is affected by a 100 year flood, and that flooded portion is not proposed to be developed.

The only reason why is greed for fees.

The greed for fees is out of control.

The culprit in question is the LSRCA.