RE: ERO 025-1257: Proposed…

RE: ERO 025-1257: Proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities

I support the submissions of the Ontario Headwaters Institute (Dec 8) and the Friends of Conservation (Dec 19) and have endorsed the submissions accordingly. ERO 025-1257 should be withdrawn or, if approved, its implementation must be delayed for sufficient time for the development of, and extensive consultation on, a Green Paper on the Future of Watershed Management in Ontario.

WHY FIX WHAT IS NOT BROKEN?
The second paragraph of the Background Section states that the current system of 36 conservation authorities is fragmented, based only on a single criterion - turnaround times for permits. This single incomplete evaluation results in a proposal that has far-reaching implications, many of which may negatively affect conservation authorities and the good work they have done for almost eighty years. Indeed, the drastic changes to the structure and governance of Conservation Authorities alluded to in Bill 68 and in this posting but with limited detail may compromise their overall effectiveness and threaten the foundational principles guiding their operations.

Instead, attention should be directed towards the current administrative and financial structures at the Provincial Ministry levels. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) currently administers the overarching Conservation Authorities Act, while the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks provides direct funding for environmental and conservation mandates. The Province (via MECP) funds specific roles, while municipalities bear much of the financial load for core CA services, supplemented by CAs' own revenue and other grants. CAs are funded approximately 53% by local municipalities, with another 35% provided through fees and fund-raising. The Province only contributes between 5 - 8%. This has meant a unique watershed-based system that is managed by local partners and reflects local priorities and expertise despite minimal Provincial involvement. The Provincial budget cuts and budget reductions to CAs in 2018 reduced the local CAs’ immediate effectiveness but since then they have resiliently responded, such that local sources have been accessed for funds to carry-out current programs.

Unfortunately, this ERO listing, which poses as a request for comments on boundary mapping, serves as an unofficial survey on Bill 68 and other pending legislation, without providing the draft regulations. Will the legislation harmonize standards to the highest level or to the lowest common denominator? Without the draft text, I have no idea. Drawing lines on a map is far less important than having ambitious standards, with appropriate resources, to protect the environment and public health and safety while minimizing risks to the economy. This wastes my time as I cannot provide any worthwhile comments or suggestions.

The Proposal notes, “We are seeking feedback on the proposed boundaries and the criteria applied to inform the proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario’s conservation authorities.” The Proposal clearly identifies that the “Eastern Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority – Includes watersheds draining to eastern Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte, including the Trent and Cataraqui systems, supporting a mix of agricultural, urban, and coastal communities.” while the Interactive Map clearly shows the Cataraqui Region CA is located in the St. Lawrence Regional CA If the drafters of this Proposal are so careless in identifying geographic components, then one wonders as to the accuracy of their views on other issues. I have similar concerns with respect to the five questions suggested as a basis for feedback. I can not provide further comments on opportunities and benefits, a governance structure, transparent & consultative budgeting, and the maintenance of relationships with local communities and stakeholders without referring to a draft legislative text.

In addition to these concerns, I have additional questions:
• If a key issue for the government is lengthy permit turnaround times, why not just provide funding for more CA staff, harmonize standards, and/or create a digital permitting system - without establishing a centralized agency?
• What are the cost estimates and timelines to establish the agency and the digital permitting system?
• What assurances will be provided that a centralized agency won’t simply become a provincial rubber-stamp to replace the current end-run of normal planning through Minister’s Zoning Orders?
• What assurances can be provided that the combination of reduced restrictions for building on floodplains and close to wetlands, along with the new digitized permitting system, will not result in widespread difficulty to obtain or retain flood insurance?
• I believe that 30% of the municipal infrastructure deficit of $52 Billion in Ontario in 2020, or over $16 Billion, was related to treatment of potable water, stormwater, and sanitary wastewater. Will the proposed agency along with the Ontario Clean Water Agency make this worse or better? Will the new OPCA be a priority given the threats these deficits pose to the environment, to public health, and to our economy?

While ERO 025-1257 re-iterates commitments to Source Water Protection, it has not addressed potable water management deficiencies in unincorporated areas such as cottage clusters, hamlets, villages and rural strip development or with proposals for discharges from cruise ships or the disposal of human remains via green burials.

All the foregoing questions should be addressed in the recommended Green Paper.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I strongly recommend that the proposed consolidation of Ontario Conservation Authorities be re-thought as follows:

1. ERO 025-1257 should be withdrawn or, if approved, its implementation must be delayed for a sufficient time for the development of, and extensive consultation on, a Green Paper on the Future of Watershed Management in Ontario. This would provide the opportunity for conservation and environmental management professionals to provide input based on hundreds of years experience.

2. Rescind Bill 68, or pause implementation of the Proposed Regional Consolidation, to commence public consultation via a Green Paper. The OPCA should consult with the general public, municipalities, CAs, Conservation Ontario and special groups such as Ontario Nature and the Ontario Headwaters Institute, to fully consider the problems, challenges and opportunities of Conservation Authorities and evaluate whether modernization goals could be achieved through enhanced provincial coordination, standardized approaches, and digital integration delivered through the new OPCA, without substantive restructuring of the existing CAs. Another alternative would be to consider more appropriate - sized administrative models.

CONCLUSIONS

Local Conservation Authorities are the front line in protecting people and communities from ever-increasing extreme weather events, including drought management and flooding. CAs are not just permitting agencies that provide locally driven outcomes to protect nature, people, and property on a watershed basis. CAs provide opportunities to engage communities in recreation and enhanced environmental stewardship. CAs deliver environmental and economic protection that buffers the affordability crisis, and they can take a lead role in implementing nature-based solutions to address the twin biodiversity and climate crises.

No other agencies are like CAs, and we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater to create a remote, faceless, centralized bureaucracy such as OPCA, and certainly not without far more consultation before Bill 68 is implemented.

Due to all the above, I reiterate that this posting is inappropriate and should be withdrawn.

I would be pleased to provide more information at your convenience.