The problem with…

The problem with conservation authorities (CA’s) is the amount of over reach they engage in. Their mandate was flood control and water management systems, which the riding incidents of flooding occurrences indicate they have failed at, as they became focused on other non mandated functions.

One needs to ask what amount of money and ca funding was actually spent for actual “boots on ground” water flow management versus administration and water management.

In my experience they take the position that anything on or in your property is under their authority and you need their permission and their permits to do any work on your private property. Unfortunately for them their own CA act says they don’t. It does say they have authority on crown lands which includes property owned
by the municipality. But respective to private owned property read section 21(1) of their act.

Indeed even the courts often side with and turn blind eyes to property owner rights. I have personally witnessed CA’s in court using MNR wetland mapping specifically stating right on them that they are not to be used for legal purposes and yet judges ignore this and have deemed property owners guilty of causing damage by doing normal and/or routine property management practices based on these non definitive water/natural heritage maps.

In my capacity as President of the Hamilton Halton Landowners Association, the number one source of property rights complaints we receive from private property owners are related to CA authorities.

The issue is often the perceived lack of CA’s applying common sense to issues and their view property owners have no rights when they oppose positions taken by CA’s.

For example if your barn or building in what the CA deems is within the hundred year flood lines, burns down, needs structural repairs or you want to expand they put tremendous pressure upon getting their permission to replace or get building permits and without their permit they take you to court. Even though your actions do not cause any real problem and if it did it would not be of any real risk this does not matter, it is the fact you have defied their sense of authority.

One must remember CA’s are very powerful political organizations. They are the second largest landowner in the province, only 2nd to the province itself. Pulling in their reins and putting limits upon their guidance is good. It is about time MNRF removed large areas of supposed wetlands from mapping in which there was no justification based on anything but a broad satellite based mapping or a preliminary cursory study.

If CA’s want to claim protecting wetlands is their mandate then make it mandatory they provide compelling evidence that their mapping is accurate and that an action will cause quantifiable damage in the future. If they fail in this then they need to “back off”.

It is my belief and that of many other property owners that CA’s, in their zeal, have destroyed the lives of numerous property owners. They have gone to court and placed restrictions based largely on “how dare you challenge us “ attitudes, demanding fines and restoration work totally out of line to any damage that is alleged or actually identified and measured. Indeed the process is almost always not that you did something that has actually caused a problem, it is that a property owner, in their own common sense did something without their permission and so they are deemed guilty of defying them and must be punished and made an example of.

If you remove the authority of CA’s to issue permits and restore them to a support and analysis function common law is sufficient to protect society. If a property owner causes flooding of a neighbour through the property owners actions then that property owner can still be held accountable.

If one looks at Canada, Ontario is the only Province that has conservation authorities. All the other provinces have protection policies but without the massive cost of a CA organization with a self-serving need to protect itself that is more important than doing the job it was mandated to do. Taking these duties and authority back into the function of Government is a good idea and could result in considerable savings which can be redirected to better flood control and significant wetland protections.

In my opinion The CA’s need a massive shake up. It is also my opinion that if the government does not get them into a better balance with property owners then recent and not so recent Supreme Court of Canada(SCC) rulings concerning private property rights are clear that the SCC does believe property owners have property rights. One need simply look at the SCC rulings concerning private property conflicts with government agencies to realize CA’s , Municipal and even Provincial Government's can be held accountable for over-reach.

Despite what is implied or stated by some governmental authorities and even some legal authorities, private property rights in Ontario for many property owners are enshrined in the Constitution and in over 800 years of Common Law .

Recent SCC cases eg Lynch , Annapolis, even the recent “Niagara on the Lake” case are clear guidance to the CA’s and Municipalities “that they can be held accountable for their actions when said are in interference with property owners.

I have read your article about all the doom and gloom the changes are going to cause. I also note that they are claiming massive areas of what they define as wetlands will be removed from the definition of significant wetland. Perhaps the reason is that these lands do not actually qualify as being significant wetland or Natural Heritage and the Province is correcting its mapping based on better definitions.

It is too bad you haven’t provided the other side of the story about why the wetland mapping changes are needed.

From the details I have seen, I do not perceive the changes will result in massive development in wetlands nor will it result in destruction of significant natural heritage. Indeed it may actually help in focussing building on rural marginal value lands and saving valuable high quality farmland.

So one must ask where do you allow homes to be built ? If not on low value rural lands nor high value agricultural lands then what is left??

I and the Hamilton Halton Landowners support the Government's efforts to restore a balance within the CA system regarding private property, which went out of control under the previous government.

I won’t argue that CA’s have a role to play in water management and even regarding protection of natural heritage. I will however argue that their role should not be as a “permitting” organization nor as an “enforcement” agency. Their role should be as a resource to all land owners relating to providing engineering, biological, environmental expertise oriented to maximizing land use through creative engineering. Their role should not be a denying function. If they oppose a project then the decision should be made by a neutral ministry tribunal that can decide upon evidence presented.