There was a reason that the…

There was a reason that the conservation authorities were set up the way they were: geography.
That hasn't changed. What has changed is human intervention on the land and waterways.

The personnel in each authority know their territories intimately.

I am concerned that this proposed restructuring actually adds another administrative layer and, by adding that layer between the CA personnel and the public, will actually slow down processes. It may also create situations where a centralized authority makes an inappropriate decision by not knowing the peculiarities of an area.

I am not opposed to administrative efficiency being addressed.

My suggestion is that the appropriate representatives of the provincial government, municipalities and conservation authorities meet to work out policies and procedures that become the modus operandi for all of the conservation authorities. In that meeting will be people who understand administration, people who understand conservation, and people who know their particular conservation area.

Each existing conservation authority remains an autonomous agency responsible for its territories.
Every conservation authority follows the same processes. For example, permit applications can be standardized across all regions with specific procedures and timelines.

At the provincial level, MECP personnel will only have one set of policies/procedures to administer: everyone is on the same page in the same book.
At the CA level, administration is standardized across all regions: this will improve interagency action especially when private permits overlap regions.
At the municipal level, historical interaction between the municipality and the CA, especially in the sharing of resources, e.g. CA's storing equipment on municipal lands, doesn't change.

In short, address the administrative inconsistencies, apply them across all CA regions, and leave everything else as it is.