Below is a letter that I…

Below is a letter that I sent to several MPP regarding my concerns for changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Section 28:1 Section 9 of the Regulation 41/24. I deleted my name and address on the signature line following your instructions above. These changes to the Reg. have been discussed at length and it surprises me that there would be any resistance to incorporating coastal engineers and their expertise in the decision making process. Conservation Authorities although well intentioned often do not have the expertise necessary to make an informed decision. It only makes sense to collect all the facts and opinions before making a decision or imposing conditions affecting shoreline protection.

Dear Member of the Ontario Legislature April 30, 2024

As a property owner on both Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron in the Grand Bend area, I am very concerned with proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act Section 28:1, most notably Section 9 of the Regulation 41/24 which deals with Prohibited Activities, Exemption and Permits.

This Section 9 is problematic. Having dealt with Conservation Authorities over the past 40 years on issues of shoreline management, it is my experience that many do not have the resources or skill set to opine on matters that require the expertise and judgment of a professional coastal engineer.

Flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards are real and material risks to life and property. These risks need to be properly managed by qualified experts (and only qualified experts) who can make the best decisions on how to mitigate those risks.

Requiring the use of qualified experts is why Ontario has bridges that don’t fail, buildings that don’t fall, tunnels that don’t collapse, and why piers, lighthouses and other important infrastructure can safely be built in areas subject to flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards.

Granting Conservation Authorities the ability to opine on how to mitigate flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards will put the CA at odds with qualified experts, increase costs to property owners, delay development and increase appeals to the Minister and/or Ontario Land Tribunal. Further, CA’s and the province may be exposed to liability if the CA attaches conditions to a permit which are misaligned with professional recommendations.

These two sections must be re-written to require Conservation Authorities to follow the advice of qualified experts, and to remove the ability for Conservation Authorities to attach conditions to the professional opinion of a qualified expert (other than conditions related to true ecological matters, such as the timing of when to do the work so as to avoid spawning season, as an example).

As a significant taxpayer who lives on the shoreline of two of our Great Lakes, I believe we need the best experts to guide the preservation of these important waterways. Incorporating the need to consider the direction of qualified experts in this Regulation rather than simply relying on the potential limited expertise of Conservation Authority staff is a prudent practice which will improve and sustain our dynamic beach areas.

Please reconsider the wording of the sections noted above.