Environmental Registry of…

Environmental Registry of Ontario
Regulatory Proposals Under the Conservation Authorities Act
Crowe Valley Conservation Authority Comments Submission

ERO Number: 019-2986
Notice Type: Regulation
Posted by: Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks
Proposal Posted: 13 May 2021
Comment Period: 13 May 2021 to 27 June 2021

As per the consultation process, the Crowe Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) Board respectfully submits the following comments regarding Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting 019-2986, which is the Regulatory proposals (Phase 1) under the Conservation Authorities Act. The guide is the “Regulatory Proposal Consultation Guide: Regulations Defining Core Mandate and Improving Governance, Oversight and Accountability of Conservation Authorities.”

The underlying premise for the CVCA’s comments is based primarily, but not solely on the capacity of the CVCA to reach all of the stated objectives within the proposed timelines. The CVCA wishes to remind the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, for a small rural conservation authority with limited staff resources, there are considerable challenges to overcome to meet the assigned tasks since all staff have current workloads which already strain timelines and resources. In essence, the CVCA already has and continues to do more with less. Adding significantly more administrative functions to a bare bones staff complement ultimately means more time is required to finish new tasks. More time and staff resources cannot be created out of thin air. Other options would have to be considered.

For example, for a small rural conservation authority which essentially only delivers a core mandatory program, management will seriously have to consider reallocating staff from primary duties such as permit approvals to meet deadlines in the Consultation Guide.

Another option the CVCA Board may have to consider is to significantly raise the municipal levy to create the capacity to ensure the deliverables are met, which is an additional financial burden for this Authority which already has the highest per capita levy in the Province.

In order to avoid these type of issues, the CVCA would appreciate the MECP carefully consider the following suggestions:

1. MECP create a new funding model regarding Section 39 grants where smaller rural conservation authorities receive additional funding to increase capacity at least for the duration of the timelines in the guide to ensure the deliverables are met if deadlines are not extended.

2. While the CVCA supports the basic premise of a management plan for conservation areas, at a minimum, the Authority requests multiple properties be covered under one plan if they exhibit similar characteristics.

3. The CVCA strongly suggests low maintenance passive recreational conservation areas be added to the list of mandatory programs and services to exclude the need to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for each area.

4. If MOUs for the CVCA lands is still to be a requirement, the CVCA requests adequate time for the preparation of the MOUs and additional time to implement the strategies and management plans for these properties since MOUs may significantly alter how they are currently managed

5. The CVCA strongly recommends that the completion of any task assigned by the Regulation Guide be phased in for small rural CAs much like the compliance requirements for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). This will “level the playing field” recognizing the differences in capacity across the Province, while ensuring implementation progress is made by the larger authorities.

6. The CVCA advocates that Drinking Water Source Protection program funding be maintained as small rural CAs are a derivative of small rural municipalities that do not have the capacity to absorb additional program costs.

7. The CVCA requests a collaborative process with the MECP for creating a guidance document for the preparation of a watershed-based resource based management strategy.

8. Additional time will be required to prepare the strategy, especially if the upcoming municipal election results directly influence the MOUs and ultimately the strategy.

9. Inclusion of on-going organizational costs under mandatory programs and services is necessary and strongly supported. However, in small rural CAs, the minimum amount to levy should be reflected as a percentage based on the amount of mandatory services and programs already covered by the CA.

10. The CVCA strongly advocates for flexibility for timelines to complete transition plans and MOUs, since the upcoming municipal election could easily make it difficult for the CVCA to execute agreements. A “lame duck” council may be reluctant to sign any agreement prior to the election and a newly elected council with wholesale changes may want to revisit the proposed agreement, which in effect could start the negotiation process all over. Therefore, an extension option for either the CA or the municipality to exercise would be strongly advisable.

11. Regarding Community Advisory Boards, (CABs) the CVCA supports a flexible approach to create this Board with minimal prescribed requirements. This will allow the creation of a Board to meet the needs of the CVCA while providing local input and support.

12. The CVCA strongly suggests using 30% percent of the CA Board to determine the total number of CAB members. For example, the 10 member CVCA Board would therefore require a 3 member Community Advisory Board. Should a fraction occur, the total member number would always revert to the lowest amount (ie. 30% of 13 is 3.9 members, therefore only 3 members would be on the CAB). By applying this percentage method, this would accomplish a number of key initiatives.

i. The ratio of CVCA Board members to CAB members would be a reasonable “weight” so that the CAB would truly act in an advisory role without becoming a domineering Board.
ii. It would also assist with keeping additional expenses to a minimum, which is key for a small rural CA, especially if mileage or a per diem was given.
iii. In addition, the MECP could consider dropping the Authority representation on the CAB, thereby reducing the additional burden on an existing CVCA Board member.
iv. Finally, it would better reflect/represent the population of the CA watershed.

The CVCA Board members appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Environmental Registry of Ontario process and would be more than pleased to discuss the above noted points for consideration. Should the MECP wish to contact the CVCA, please direct the request to Tim Pidduck, CVCA General Manager/Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. Pidduck can be reached at tim.pidduck@crowevalley.com or call 613.472.3137.

Respectfully,

Cathy Redden
Chair, CVCA