I am a retired water…

I am a retired water resources engineer who enjoyed a 33+ year career with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority in Eastern Ontario. My comments on this ERO Notice begin in reaction to the content of the second paragraph in its “Background” section, which claims that the current system of 36 conservation authorities (CAs) is “fragmented”, with “each CA following different policies, standards, fees and levels of staffing and technical capabilities”.

The so-called “fragmentation” of the current system of 36 CA’s is a reflection of the natural division of Ontario’s physiography into watersheds in combination with historical, far-sighted decisions by the Municipalities within those watersheds to create and then effectively become the principal shareholders of organizations focused on the delivery of programs to further the conservation, protection and restoration of important water and water-related land resources within those watersheds. A founding principle and key strength of the Conservation Authorities Act since its inception and until recently, has been that it is the member Municipalities within any given watershed (not the Province) who collectively choose to create the organization in the first place, and after doing so, continue (through a Board of Directors consisting of Municipal Council appointees who must be residents of the watershed) to provide local direction, governance and oversight to the policies adopted and programs delivered by their CA’s. Where they exist, CA’s have been autonomous, a-political organizations that are primarily accountable to their member Municipalities in an overall sense, and to a distant and changeable Provincial Government only by the degree to which their activities are governed by Provincial legislation and to the very limited extent that their programs have been supported by Provincial funding.

The variability of programs, policies and standards across CA’s has therefore been a product of the natural diversity of the geography, hydrology, land uses and other natural attributes across their areas of jurisdiction together with the varying social, environmental and economic priorities of their member municipalities. That the program and policies of a CA operating in a primarily rural agricultural watershed will differ considerably from those of a CA in a mostly urbanized watershed, ought to be recognized as an expected and positive outcome of the original CA concept – not thought of as a problem needing to be fixed through such unnecessary and disruptive changes as are now proposed by the Ministry.

The variability in fees, staffing levels and technical capabilities across CAs is largely reflective of the varying ability and/or willingness of municipalities to support their local CAs’ programs financially. At the same time as provincial transfer payments to CA’s have been reduced to nearly nothing over the years, municipal tax bases have been subjected to the ever-increasing demands and needs of their citizens as well as responsibilities downloaded to them from senior levels of government. But many CAs have received continued financial support from their member municipalities, who have seen value in their CAs’ programs and services and appreciated that there is a net positive return on their investment in terms of sustained watershed health and the reduction of future losses due to flooding and erosion, despite the withdrawal of Provincial funding.

The improvements that the Provincial Government desires, as alluded to in this policy proposal, would be more quickly and easily accomplished (and quite possibly at significantly lower over-all cost to the Province) if the Ministry would simply restore its annual grants made under Section 39 of the Conservation Authorities Act so as to at least provide supplementary financial support to those CAs that are under-funded by their member municipalities and are considered to be under-performing on matters that are important to the Province, enabling them to increase staffing and technical capabilities, and to be less reliant on fees. Doing so would require no change in legislation, no regionalization of the CA’s and no creation of an additional layer of governance and oversight by way of the so-called Provincial Conservation Agency. However, instead of augmenting the resources available to CA’s so that they can more successfully perform the vital role they play, it seems the Ministry would, through this proposal, prefer to cause a forced re-allocation of the resources that are currently available. If there was a sound case to be made for resource re-allocation by means of CA amalgamations, the member municipalities of neighbouring CAs could consider doing so now under existing provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (its Section 11) and without the need for a new Provincial agency.

The Ministry’s proposal suggests that a newly created “Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA) – a provincial board-governed agency” would “provide centralized leadership, efficient governance, strategic direction and oversight to Ontario’s conservation authorities”. A few paragraphs later it indicates that “the new regional conservation authorities would remain independent organizations operating with municipal governance and oversight…”. The former statement precludes the latter. Both cannot be true. Whenever municipal priorities don’t align perfectly with Provincial priorities or political ideologies, as can often happen, there will be uncertainty and confusion as regards the mission of the CA, and program delivery will suffer as a result. Until Provincial funding is restored to match the funding provided by municipalities to support the activities of CAs that are important to the Province, an old saying should apply: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

This ERO Notice seeks the public’s input on the proposed boundaries for 7 regionalized CAs and the criteria to be applied in defining them, pre-supposing that the transition from the current 36 CAs would be overseen by the OPCA which is to be created in the first phase following passage of changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. Yet, no information is provided as to the proposed make-up of the OPCA, how its members would be selected or appointed, to whom it would report and be accountable, or how its operations would be financed. All we are told is that it would be “a provincial board-governed agency”. The call for input on boundaries and criteria for defining them is premature until there has been a public discussion of the OPCA concept and what such an Agency’s relationships to the Ministry, the Conservation Authorities and Municipalities would look like. The need for this new governing body and its legitimacy must first be demonstrated by the Ministry and accepted by the Municipalities and their Conservation Authorities, if it is to have any hope of success.

All of which is respectfully submitted.