This proposal should not…

This proposal should not occur. The regional consolidation of Ontario's conservation authorities should not occur.

I used to work for two different conservation authorities so I have knowledge of how they work.

The reason that there are 36 conservation authorities is because a conservation authority manages a local watershed. Conservation authorities are of various sizes ranging from small with a few staff to larger entities, based on the needs of the local watershed.

Conservation authorities are designed to protect people and property from natural hazards such as flooding, natural disasters, landslides, etc. This is why certain property owners have to apply for a permit to make changes to their homes/property or to develop on land. Not all individuals are required to apply for a permit, only those whose land is in a regulated area (Great Lakes and inland lake shorelines, watercourses and wetlands, river or stream valley, and hazardous lands) and/or if someone is making any changes to a watercourse or interfering with a wetland. If a person is on regulated land, an engineer, ecological planner, hydrogeologist and/or environmental planner will then review the application and ensure that the person is not going to do something that could harm themselves/their property/other people and/or the watercourse or wetland in the present or future. For example, if someone is digging into the toe of a large incline of land, that could lead to a landslide that could kill them and others in the area and damage property. If someone builds homes in a floodplain, when the 100 year flood hits, those people may not be able to get out of their homes in time, and drown in their homes. After all, one of the reasons for the change in the conservation authorities act was due to Hurricane Hazel which killed many people due to the flooding that occurred.

Conservation authorities also ensure that drinking water is safe by protecting the sources of drinking water in their watersheds through various programs.

Conservation authorities control and manage dams which help during flooding conditions and during drought conditions. Conservation authorities monitor water levels to know when flooding could occur and warn residents of this and what to do/how to prepare. They also monitor water levels for drought and warn residents when they should cut down on their water use during drought.

Conservation authorities manage conservation areas and recreational lands and camp grounds, provide environmental education programs and much, much more.

All of the above actions occur efficiently by educated professionals because they work in the local area. Site visits by professionals are crucial for site inspections and for understanding what someone is planning on doing on the landscape and if it is safe to do so. Water quality testing is crucial for protecting drinking water at the source and is done by professionals collecting a grab sample at the watercourse. If you consolidate the 36 conservation authorities into only 7 sites, that means that a larger watershed area must be protected, monitored and regulated. This means that more people will have to be hired, which costs more, as well as, those people will have to drive longer to each site to monitor water quality and will have to drive longer to sites to evaluate permit applications. This would then take more time, produce more pollution and fossil fuels into the air, cost more money overall and will take longer to issue building permits then the current system of 36 conservation authorities. Thus, having only 7 conservation authorities that have to cover way more area will only lead to higher costs, less efficiency, it will take longer to issue building permits, and it will take longer to conduct water quality monitoring which puts drinking water and people's health at risk.

If the 36 conservation authorities are consolidated into 7, the health and safety of the residents of Ontario will be put at risk since the conservation authorities will then not be able to do their jobs properly. If you wish to improve how conservation authorities are run you should consult the professionals who work at conservation authorities and other professionals who work in this field to figure out together the best way to do this. According to South Nation Conservation, the province of Ontario used to fund up to 50% of conservation authority operations and now only funds about 3% leaving the majority of costs to be covered by municipalities. According to Conservation Ontario, the typical breakdown of sources of funding for conservation authorities is municipal levies at 53% and provincial grants and special projects at 8% with the rest coming from self generated revenue at 35% and federal grants or contracts at 4%. Thus, increasing funding from the provincial and federal government may be helpful, but again, consulting conservation authorities and other professionals in this field, on this matter, will determine what would be most beneficial for increasing the efficiency and ability for conservation authorities to both continue their excellent, life saving, work and improve on their excellent, life saving, work.

Conservation authorities are not the cause of the current housing crisis. Conservation Authorities protect people by ensuring that houses are built in SAFE areas and not in areas where people will die and/or housing will be damaged, when flooding, erosion, landslides or other natural disasters occur.

Consolidating the 36 conservation authorities into 7 conservation authorities is like saying that there can now only be 7 hospitals in Ontario instead of however many there actually are. It doesn't make sense does it and, it puts lives at risk.

Do not consolidate the 36 conservation authorities into 7. Thank you.