I am very concerned about…

I am very concerned about Act 68, which would consolidate the 36 Conservation Authorities into 7 Regional Conservation Authorities.

My first concern is that we would lose the valuable local connection that we have with our Conservation Authority, which in my case is Quinte Conservation. Our municipality is represented on the Board of Directors of Quinte Conservation, but it appears to me that it would be a matter of chance whether we would be represented in the massive Regional Conservation Authority. Since we would be paying for the Regional Conservation Authority with our taxes, any absence of a board member would effectively be taxation without representation. I have a strong aversion to that.

I also note that the Ontario Government will be in charge of regional strategic planning, financial and operational matters. This is a sweeping change that destroys local decision-making which I consider a key part of a grass-roots organization like Quinte Conservation.

Quinte Conservation provides many local benefits which I personally enjoy. It offers presentations which have taught me about subjects like invasive species. I have participated in the Marsh Monitoring Program and other local activities. When I see a wetland being filled in, I can call Quinte Conservation and it will respond.

I am very concerned that these locally-oriented services might disappear in a Regional Conservation Authority which is focused on housing and infrastructure.

Another benefit of Quinte Conservation is that their staff really knows the local geology, hydrology and the sensitive environments that need protection. In a Regional Conservation Authority covering 6,000 square miles/16,000 square kilometers, how could senior officials understand the geology, hydrology and sensitive natural landscapes when they are dealing with dense urban areas, agricultural land, rural residential areas like the one where I live, wetlands, Lake Ontario shorelines and the highlands of the Frontenac Arch? Without local knowledge, it would be all too easy for sensitive ecosystems to be destroyed when the priority is housing and infrastructure, not conservation. Or maybe infrastructure and housing would be built in unsuitable areas, because a regional official isn’t aware of floodplains and seasonal wetlands.

And that brings me to my second concern.

The Conservation Authorities were established for watershed management, conservation, restoration and the management of natural resources. Now the priorities are to be housing, the economy, infrastructure and climate resilience. This is heresy for an organization whose focus is supposed to be conservation. To call an organization a name that includes “conservation” when its priorities are clearly not conservation is false and misleading. In the private sector, this would be called misleading advertising, which is a criminal offence.

I consider natural land to be priceless; others have studied their benefits and put a significant dollar value on the services provided by natural land. Considering ecosystem services such as air and water purification, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction, recreational services, the net value of conserving natural capital in Canada has been valued at anywhere from $4,652 per hectare per year (for forest land) to $17,928 for wetlands. The ecosystem services provided by natural land has a direct impact on my taxes, for instance, in reduced costs for sediment and phosphorus treatment of drinking water. It improves my quality of life by helping to purify air – and provide the recreation opportunities I enjoy, and it helps with climate resilience by sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gasses.
I cannot support the switch from a focus on conservation to a focus on housing and infrastructure if it results in the destruction of natural land and the loss of ecosystem services which are so important for Ontarians.

The current system is functioning well. It ensures that municipalities which fund the Conservation Authorities are well represented in the governance of the organizations they fund. It offers local benefits and local knowledge of geology, hydrology and sensitive ecosystems. It serves individuals in my area well. It protects sensitive areas and natural land which benefit all of us in the area.

The current system works well for us.

Don’t change it.