While I support the goals of…

While I support the goals of increased consistency and standardization at conservation authorities, I do not believe the proposed consolidation plan will meet those goals – on the contrary, I believe consolidation as proposed will actually increase costs, reduce efficiency and make it harder for residents, landowners and developers to get their projects off the ground. Therefore, I am opposed to the consolidation plan as proposed.
First of all, the costs involved with the transition to the new regional conservation authorities, including rebranding, legal transfers of assets, amalgamation of staff etc will be in the multi-millions, costing taxpayers a lot of money for no tangible gain. Furthermore, the transition to these new regions will take several years, and in the meantime will likely cause disruption and confusion for CA staff, developers, councils and residents. As a result this will slow down the permit approval process just as you are hoping to increase housing development in this province.
Second, the new regions are far too large to be effective. As a former Oshawa/Regional Municipality of Durham resident and now a long-time Ottawa resident, I can attest that amalgamation has rarely proven to be a cost-saving measure, nor does it improve services for taxpayers.
By design, today’s conservation authorities are already efficient, low-cost shared resources between their member municipalities. They routinely partner with neighbouring authorities to cut costs and improve service, and they accomplish an incredible amount of permitting, planning, stewardship and other conservation-related work on a very lean budget – work that municipalities would not be able to afford on their own.
Furthermore, conservation authorities have not been identified as a barrier to housing development, even in your own reports. Their permitting and timeline statistics show that they are highly responsive and efficient at issuing permits, often issuing 95%+ of applications within required timelines. They also approve almost every project they review, with approval rates also in the high 90s. They may ask for tweaks and changes, but they work hard to collaborate with the developer to get the project to a “yes” without increasing risks of flooding, erosion and other natural hazards for surrounding areas. This level of service is unheard of at other levels of government, including your own.
Conservation authority staff are this nimble and responsive precisely because they are locally-based, with expert knowledge of their watershed’s unique characteristics and challenges. As local, on-the-ground organizations, they have strong working relationships with their member municipalities and their councils, allowing them to respond to local issues quickly. Developers and landowners know they can walk into their local CA office to chat about projects with a staff member who is deeply knowledgeable about their area. This local knowledge, access and collaboration would be seriously undermined if five or more unique watersheds are consolidated into sprawling regional bodies covering vastly different geographic and hydrologic systems. (And if your response to that is to maintain satellite watershed offices throughout the larger regional conservation authority, I question how you would create any cost savings or efficiencies.)
A regional conservation authority representing dozens of municipalities will also reduce municipalities’ ability to advocate for local issues in their area, as they will be competing against many more voices. Small and rural municipalities will be especially hurt by this, as they may not even get a seat on the new board.
With these disadvantages in mind, I believe there are other, more effective alternatives to consolidation, such as:
• Providing provincial funding for smaller, underfunded CAs so they can effectively meet their mandates for flood mapping, permitting, etc
• using existing legislative powers to implement standardized policies, service standards and centralized systems across all 36 conservation authorities;
• developing a thorough cost-benefit analysis to determine which conservation authorities may genuinely benefit from consolidation or enhanced shared-service models, and which ones are operating well.
In short, your government may not like conservation authorities because you believe they get in the way of your housing and development goals. However, conservation authorities are not the barrier to these goals, and in fact continue to play a critical role in ensuring that homes are built safely in areas where families won’t have to worry about rebuilding after the impact of a natural disaster, particularly as extreme weather continues to intensify. I therefore urge you to reconsider this wasteful, ineffective proposal and let the experts get on with the work they already do efficiently and effectively every day.