Comment on ERO 025-1257 —…

Comment on ERO 025-1257 — Proposed Consolidation of Conservation Authorities
I am writing to express serious concerns about the proposed consolidation of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities into large Regional Conservation Authorities.
1. The proposal is city-centric and risks erasing rural realities.
Large regional authorities will inevitably prioritize urban centres with greater population, political influence, and development pressure. Rural watersheds, smaller municipalities, and agricultural or mixed-use landscapes risk being absorbed, deprioritized, or misunderstood. Conservation must reflect local land use, hydrology, and community conditions — not default to urban norms.
2. The proposal appears builder-centric rather than climate-centric.
The stated emphasis on “streamlining,” permitting efficiency, and consistency reads as primarily oriented toward development timelines. That is not the core purpose of conservation authorities. In the current era of accelerating climate change — increased flooding, erosion, drought, and ecosystem stress — conservation policy should prioritize resilience, risk reduction, and watershed protection, even when that requires local nuance and complexity.
3. Streamlining does not require drastic consolidation.
Improvements in consistency, service standards, and efficiency can be achieved through shared digital systems, common guidelines, and inter-authority coordination without dismantling existing authorities. If consolidation is pursued at all, it should be far less drastic and should preserve meaningful regional and local governance.
4. The proposed St. Lawrence Regional Conservation Authority is not coherent.
I live within the proposed St. Lawrence RCA, and it is difficult to see how communities as different as Kingston, Westport, Ottawa, and Arnprior — with distinct watersheds, land use patterns, development pressures, and climate vulnerabilities — can be effectively managed under a single authority. At a time when climate impacts demand greater specificity and responsiveness, this proposal moves in the opposite direction.
5. Local watershed expertise is essential and cannot be replaced at this scale.
This year, our region experienced a severe drought. Neighbours in my area lost well water entirely. I live on a private well and relied on locally grounded conservation authority expertise for monitoring, interpretation, and guidance specific to our watershed conditions. That kind of support depends on deep, place-based knowledge and relationships. It will not survive a model where decision-making and expertise are centralized across vast and highly varied regions.
Conclusion
Ontario’s Conservation Authorities exist to protect people, water, and ecosystems — not to optimize development workflows. Climate change demands more local knowledge, more nuance, and stronger watershed-specific decision-making, not larger and more distant institutions. I urge the Province to reconsider this proposal and to protect the local conservation expertise that communities increasingly depend on.