I do not support the changes…

I do not support the changes proposed to the Conservation Authority structure. Here are reasons for my opposition:
• For over 80 years, Conservation Authorities have operated on a local watershed-based model because water and ecosystems do not follow municipal boundaries. This approach ensures that flooding, erosion, and water quality are managed where they occur — locally. I live in the GSCA's region and we believe this principle must remain at the heart of Ontario’s environmental stewardship.
• The proposed changes raise serious concerns for many CA's, including our local GSCA, starting with the potential loss of local dollars and decision-making. Conservation Authorities were originally created by municipalities, and GSCA currently relies on a mix of self-generated revenues (50%) and contributions from local municipalities (43%). Centralizing governance could erode local accountability, reduce rural representation, and even result in local funds leaving the area. This shift would fundamentally change the relationship between municipalities and their Conservation Authority, weakening the ability to make decisions that reflect local priorities.
The preserved areas that I, at the local level hold dear will be much more easily changed or dispensed of entirely. The area currently covered by Grey Sauble Conservation Authority is 3200 square km; the new proposed area to be covered is 23,400 square km.
• I, and the local GSCA are also deeply concerned about the impact on its lands. Many properties were donated or sold by residents with the expectation of continual local stewardship. Transferring these lands to a distant regional body could undermine donor trust, municipal agreements, and the long-term care of these properties. These lands represent a legacy of community commitment, and losing local oversight would jeopardize that trust and stewardship.
• Another major risk is service disruption. Large-scale amalgamation would divert resources away from essential front-line services such as flood forecasting, permitting, and agricultural stewardship—services that are increasingly critical in the face of climate-related hazards. Programs tailored to local needs would become harder to deliver, and added layers of bureaucracy would limit the ability of staff to respond quickly and complete work efficiently.
• Finally, the transition itself would introduce significant cost and complexity. Shifting governance, administration, IT systems, and land management would increase expenses and bureaucracy without any clear benefits. To date, no cost-benefit analysis, feasibility assessment, or proposed governance structure has been provided, leaving municipalities and residents without clarity on how these changes would improve outcomes.

I wonder how this proposal will provide any benefit, and how it will improve any of the crucial activities of the conservation authorities meet local needs, or be accountable to the different watersheds.