As conservation authorities …

As conservation authorities (CA) were set up in the late 1940s by watersheds to deal with flooding, landslides and soil erosion, they played a vital role and truly made sense. It impacted people living within these zones regardless of what municipality they lived in but rather by the watercourse they were impacted by.

Now 80 years later, many CA's have completed their function and have had to become creative in order to maintain their jobs.... ie: create parks, trails, events.

I am firmly believe that the time has come to create larger CAs but not reducing it to 7 areas. The only saving would be overlap to Board of directors, general Managers and some administration. The saving swould be replaced by excessive driving time and meetings.

Some CAs still have alot of work to do or are still dealing with flood issues or landslides. These should remain or be added to a few that have less to do and are closely linked. IE: South Nation River could be combined with Raisin Region but to amalgamate it with the RRCA, MVCA, TRCA, CRCA makes it impossible to fully cover these regions as many still have issues.

Consider taking it from 36 to say 18 to start with and give it 10 years to revisit and see if it's viable to reduce it to 9 .... but 7 is totally ridiculous!

We have lost our local Natural Resources and Stewardship offices - now you want to take away our Conservation Authorities. Who will look after the natural resources in our communities? Due to encroachment by man, we are losing ground and becoming a province of cement and steel. Urban planning to ensure we have green space is paramount in our health! Reduce the CAs but make it realistic for the population to have easy access to them and to have a presence in communities without having to drive 3 hours or call to be put on hold!