Reducing our conservation…

Reducing our conservation agencies from 36 down to 7 is a very bad idea. For one thing, the risk of floods will be increased in a world where extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and intensity. Decreasing our conservation agencies will result in a loss of local control and expertise, increased flood risks, and a potential prioritization of development over environmental protection. We must protect our environment; once it is gone to increased development, we cannot get it back.
Critics argue that local expertise on specific watershed conditions, which vary widely across Ontario, is critical for effective management and decision-making. Amalgamation into extremely large regional bodies (one proposed region is roughly the size of Switzerland) could weaken the local voice of municipal leaders and communities in conservation and environmental matters. There are concerns that a key motivation for the changes is to streamline the development approval process, potentially allowing building in environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas with less scrutiny. This is viewed as a move that could put homeowners at risk and compromise water quality and natural heritage. Despite government assurances of no job losses, there are worries about potential job losses and a reduced level of on-the-ground services. The transition process itself has caused "whiplash" and uncertainty among staff grappling with the overhaul while trying to maintain vital services like drought monitoring. This need to "reduce" the environmental conservation agencies is a "MADE-UP" problem. Please do not allow this to happen,