Comments regarding: ERO…

Comments regarding:
ERO Number 013-5018
“Modernizing conservation authority operations – Conservation Authorities Act”

St. Marys Golf & Country Club
St. Marys, ON

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. St. Marys Golf & Country Club (SMGCC) is fully in support of proposed changes that will modernize conservation authority operations, especially in the areas of focusing on core programs and accountability.

As background, SMGCC is located within the Town of St. Marys and the Township of Perth South, along Trout Creek, downstream of Wildwood Dam and Reservoir. Wildwood is operated by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) with a dual mandate of flood prevention and flow augmentation. Our business, our employees and our suppliers rely on UTRCA to successfully achieve both goals – flood prevention, to prevent income losses and physical damage; flow augmentation to ensure sufficient water for irrigation. Sadly, for the 25-year period ending in 2015, UTRCA reported a flood prevention success rate averaging only 65%, and it has recently gotten worse. Where typically we would be flooded every few years during an extreme weather event, flooding now occurs yearly, and often multiple times per year, with normally expected weather. Our engineering study showed that a success rate of greater than 99% was achievable with small modifications to their operating strategy. Surprisingly, those suggestions to ensure core mandate success were rejected because they would impinge on non-mandate goals.

While it is difficult to argue that the proliferation of non-core programs and services detracts from the execution of core programs and services, with the possible exception of funding, our hope is that the renewed emphasis on core mandates may bring some added focus to them. Our offer to work with UTRCA to find a solution to the flooding has largely been ignored for several years, both calling into question their focus and raising the issue of accountability. The conservation authority is accountable to no one. They are failing at a core mandate, ignoring available improvements, refusing to explain their rationale, and becoming hostile at attempts to improve their service.

We offer the following specific comments for the government’s consideration:

• We agree that the government should clearly define the core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities, as proposed.

• We recommend that, in addition to defining the core mandates of conservation authorities, conservation authorities be required to establish, justify, and report on delivery standards for these core programs and services they provide. In success, or failure, conservation authorities should be accountable to the communities that they serve.

• We recommend that conservation authorities be required to self-fund non-core programs and services through user fees or payments only from those municipalities that opt into those programs and services.

• We recommend that conservation authorities be required to establish an independent process for appeal of their decisions. Often used internal committees usually perpetuate the initial problem. It is proposed that the Minister be enabled to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit of a conservation authority. We recommend that the investigator be enabled to review any aspect of conservation authority operation, not limited to financial matters.

• We are concerned that the proposal to clarify that the duty of conservation board members is “to act in the best interest of the conservation authority.” First, as the board represents member municipalities, their duty should be to act in the best interest of those communities, not of the staff of the conservation authority. Using funding as an example, the board should be the check between the growth ambitions of staff and the reality of municipal finances. Second, the stated duty is overly broad. For an organization that is already perceived as being able to do whatever it wants, a broad definition that is left up to individual directors to interpret exacerbates that problem. We would recommend additional clarity on the duty of board members.

Finally, as a small business operating in St. Marys, and as residents of the Town, we fully support the Town of St. Marys’ submission on this topic. The local conservation authority’s new strategic plan clearly demonstrates continued expansion of its interpreted mandate, resulting in multi-year significant increases in costs to member municipalities. As taxpayers, we support the government’s direction to municipalities to become efficient and reduce long-term costs and we encourage the government to consider the Town’s suggestions on how the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act can assist in this goal.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input and look forward to the constructive changes.