My comments are based on…

My comments are based on about 20 years as a citizen working closely with Upper Thames River Conservation Authority as a member of one of the many "Friends" groups affiliated with the conservation authority. Friends groups are comprised of members of the community who advocate for local creeks and other waterways and provide services including clean-up, tree planting, community education and action projects, and monitoring of the health of creeks and the organisms that live in them. We do this because we care about the public lands and waterways in our neighbourhoods and use them for daily recreation and well-being. We treat these places as extensions of our own homes and yards. These lands and waterways are included within the responsibility of the local conservation authority.

It is alarming that Bill 68, proposing the consolidation of 36 conservation authorities into 7 large regional authorities, was passed without consultation or involvement of the communities that support and are served by the conservation authorities. If communities had been consulted, the disadvantages of this proposed amalgamation would have been brought to light.

Any benefits of the proposed consolidation of existing CAs into large regional authorities would be outweighed by the negative impacts caused by the loss of a local focus and community engagement.

The consolidated regional authorities would be unlikely to attract the resources now provided to the CAs by their local communities. These resources include local knowledge about specific waterways and their environments, the labour of volunteers from local affiliates which would have to be replaced by paid workers, financial contributions raised by local groups involved in conservation initiatives, and advocacy and positive influence on local governments' decisions concerning matters under the purview of conservation authorities. Consolidation would result in added costs to the province because of inefficiencies and missed opportunities for collaboration with local communities.

At present, the budget of our local conservation authority is funded by local levies and cost-sharing along with applications to foundations and other levels of government. The province funds just 2% of the UTRCA's operating budget. Why would the province seek to increase its own costs for environmental conservation and management, a necessary function?

The proposed consolidation would result in regional authorities that are much too large to be effective in serving their purposes. They would not benefit from the resources of local knowledge and expertise, environmental commitment, relationships among community organizations and governing bodies, and connections between urban and rural sectors. Under the existing boundary arrangements local conservation authorities are already challenged to deal with diverse land uses including urban and industrial developments, agriculture, recreational activities on lakes and rivers, forests and natural areas. Each of these has specific needs with specialized resource requirements.

The challenges of this reality are becoming greater with climate change that is increasing localized risks of flooding, fires and weather-related damage, as well as heavier use by residents seeking outdoor recreational opportunities. These challenges make local expertise and collaboration indispensable to maintaining the health of water and terrestrial environments as well as timely intervention to protect communities and habitats when crises arise.

Please reconsider and reject the proposal to consolidate existing conservation authorities into unreasonably large regional structures.