Given the redefinition of…

Given the redefinition of the Conservation Authorities' powers under the Conservation Authority Act, I suggest the Ontario Government direct the CA's to consider development applications in lower flood risk areas differently than they have in the past. Due to the default '1-zone' approach utilized everywhere a CA has jurisdiction instead of a '2-zone' approach (definitions of the 1-zone and 2-zone approach are provided by the MNRF), there are many areas where the flood risk profile is low or consistent with 'flood fringe' areas (where floodproofing measures consistent with Provincial guidance can be effective), but development is disallowed due to the 'definition' of the entire flood risk area as 'floodway'.

Secondly, the Provincial government should direct the CA's to consider properly engineered solutions to mitigate flood risk for "safe access" to allow development on properties that are currently isolated due to overly strict interpretations on what constitutes "low risk" for emergency services and private vehicles.

Background: The MNRF has published the "Technical Guide, River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit" guidelines including detailed guidance on floodproofing measures in the guide's appendices. The CA's have assumed jurisdiction over flood safety issues as a result of their interpretation of the Conservation Authorities Act. Currently, the CA's will not consider any development application outside of the "low-risk" area (as defined by the MNRF Technical Guide), as they consider anything outside of the low-risk area to be unsafe. Numerous techniques (within the limits defined by the MNRF) are available to qualified Professional Engineers to mitigate flood risk (examples are provided in the MNRF guidelines), particularly for lands with flood risk profiles that are very close (but just outside) the areas with "low-risk" profiles. However, these areas cannot be considered for development applications under current CA guidelines. These leaves numerous parcels of land locked under a hazardous land designation where the risk can be economically and technically mitigated. The decisions by the CA's cannot be appealed as the various courts have found the CA's to be acting 'reasonably'. The impacts of these decisions have stifled any advancement of effective floodproofing practice in Ontario due to the current wording and definitions contained in the CA Acts, and their derivative Regulation and CA guidelines. This will impact the ability of the Professional Engineering industry to respond to the challenges of climate change related to increased flooding potential.