I am writing to formally…

I am writing to formally oppose the proposed amalgamation of conservation authorities.
Conservation authorities exist to manage land, water, and ecological systems at the watershed level, where local knowledge, historical data, and relationships with municipalities and landowners are critical to effective decision-making. Amalgamation risks weakening this model by prioritizing administrative convenience over ecological reality.
Larger, more centralized authorities would inevitably be less responsive to local conditions, slower to act during environmental events, and more distant from the communities they are meant to serve. This is especially concerning given the increasing frequency of flooding, erosion, and extreme weather events, where timely, place-specific responses are essential.
The proposal also lacks clear, transparent evidence that amalgamation would result in meaningful cost savings or improved environmental outcomes. Transition costs, staff restructuring, and harmonization of policies often offset or exceed projected efficiencies, yet these risks are not adequately addressed.
Most importantly, no compelling case has been made that existing conservation authorities are failing in their mandate. Structural change of this scale should be evidence-driven and justified by demonstrable need, not assumed benefit.
Conservation authorities work best when they are locally accountable, locally informed, and closely connected to the watersheds they protect. I urge decision-makers to reject this proposal and instead strengthen conservation authorities through stable funding, clear mandates, and support for local expertise.