As the author of the…

As the author of the biography of Edmund Zavitz, a critical person in the passing in 1946, of the Conservation Authorities Act, and who subsequently oversaw their evolution until his death in 1969, I have a good perspective of the reasons conservation authorities were created. They were campaigned for by Zavitz, and a close knit group of supporters, largely professional foresters and ecologists, in response to the widespread ecological devastation caused by deforestation in southern Ontario between 1820 and 1880. This resulted in desertification, flooding, soil erosion, and loss of bio-diversity.

The spark for the creation of conservation authorities was a more positive attitude towards forests in Ontario, which were previously widely viewed, except for a politically marginalized native community, as barriers to progress. This view was challenged in the 1880s in meetings held by the Ontario Fruit Growers Association, galvanized by a remarkable Mohawk Confederacy Chief George Johnson. He effectively renewed the Covenant Chain, which had become rusted in the frenzy to convert southern Ontario's forests into agricultural land. Zavitz's grandfather took part in these deliberations, accompanied by the Charles Drury, the father of the Premier he worked with E. C. Drury.

The difficulties Zavitz faced and the importance of the Conservation Authorities Act, is shown by the uphill battle he faced until the passage of the legislation in 1946. Although Zavitz who became Chief Forester of Ontario in 1908 had planted millions of trees, until authorities were created he had only been able to keep forest cover at the low level of 9.7 per cent, with the passage at the same time as the act and complimentary legislation that empowered municipalities to have tree protection by-laws,
this tripled to 25.2 percent in 1963.

To a large extent the problems of desertification and flooding that created conservation authorities have been successfully addressed. The dangers of these problems however, will intensify because of climate change. The most serious flood in the province recently took place in the Muskoka region, which is not governed by the Conservation Authority Act.a This illustrates how the most urgent change in the act, should be to make conservation authorities required throughout the province.

Another cautionary tale is the destructive 1998 flood in Stratford, Ontario. This took place because the stream in the municipality was buried underground and burst through the sewers in response Similar damage has been happened in the City of Toronto. Rather than burying streams as still takes part in some urbanizing areas, flood planes need to be protected.

One of the wrong reasons cited to merge authorities is that some have strayed to what is wrongly called their "core" mandate. One area that is sometimes seen as beyond the core is historical interpretation, which is why conservation authorities run what are often termed pioneer villages.
One of the reasons for this role, is to foster an understanding of how harmful deforestation emerged, through now vanished activities as burning forest to produce ashes for the production of soap.

I am quite familiar with the impressive Balls Falls historical village operated by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. I features a formerly water powered mill, which had to be converted to steam power since the Twenty Mile Creek went dry because of deforestation.

Apart from the need to be compulsory, what the Conservation Authorities need is better provincial funding. A reform that is needed is that this should be more stable based on a reliable funding formula.

I understand that names cannot be used but this brief is written on behalf of the Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society.