I am submitting this comment…

I am submitting this comment as a resident of Ontario who is deeply committed to the long-term health, safety, and sustainability of our communities. I am strongly opposed to the proposed consolidation of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into seven regional bodies.

This proposal represents a dramatic and unnecessary upheaval of one of the most essential public-safety and environmental oversight systems we have. Conservation authorities were built on watershed science and local expertise. They protect us from flooding, erosion, drought, and unsafe development — and they do so precisely because they are rooted in local conditions, knowledge, and municipal accountability.

Consolidating 36 CAs into seven massive regional entities risks losing exactly the localized expertise, relationships, responsiveness, and watershed-specific understanding that Ontarians rely on — especially at a time when extreme weather events are increasing and water levels across the province are already at concerning lows.

Below I provide feedback aligned with the specific discussion questions, followed by my overarching concerns.

1. What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of consolidation?

The government has not justified why consolidation is even needed. True modernization could be achieved through shared digital tools, standardized processes, and updated data systems without dismantling the entire CA model.

A “successful transition” would require:

maintaining local offices, staff, and decision-making power

ensuring governance remains municipally controlled and community accountable

ensuring no delays in flood forecasting, hazard mapping, or permitting

ensuring no loss of watershed-specific expertise

significantly increasing provincial funding to actually improve capacity

None of these factors are guaranteed in the proposal. Consolidation risks creating bigger, slower, less responsive bureaucracies — the opposite of efficiency.

2. What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework?

The only potential benefit — consistency — can be achieved without consolidation. Ontario’s conservation authorities already collaborate, share resources, and standardize where appropriate.

Any efficiency gained from centralization would likely be outweighed by:

the loss of local context

reduced public access to staff

increased administrative layers

larger geographic regions too big to manage effectively

confusion among municipalities and applicants during and after transition

The risks far outweigh any suggested benefits.

3. Suggestions on governance structure?

Governance must remain rooted in local municipal representation, proportional to financial contributions and watershed responsibility.

Creating enormous regional boards would dilute local voices, undermine local decision-making, and centralize power too far from the communities directly affected by floods, erosion, and development pressures.

Ontario’s watershed system has worked for nearly 80 years precisely because governance is local, accountable, and linked to municipalities. That must not change.

4. Suggestions for maintaining a transparent and consultative budgeting process?

Effective budgeting requires:

clear, predictable municipal levies

transparency about how funds are allocated across watersheds

governing boards with direct municipal oversight

public reporting by region and by local watershed (not blended)

Centralizing budgeting under a provincial agency risks making it less transparent, less democratic, and less accountable.

5. How can regional CAs maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities?

The relationships conservation authorities have built over decades cannot simply be “maintained” through consolidation. They exist because CAs have been local, deeply embedded, and trusted. Regionalization risks eroding:

partnerships with municipalities

collaboration with developers and farmers

frontline relationships with flood-prone neighbourhoods

the public’s trust in conservation oversight

The best way to maintain strong community relationships is not to dismantle the current structure.

OVERARCHING CONCERNS
1. Public Safety Is at Risk

Conservation authorities were created after deadly floods highlighted how crucial watershed-based oversight is. Reducing 36 authorities to 7 dramatically expands the territory each must manage. Watersheds differ profoundly in geology, land use, and development pressure — what is safe along Lake Huron is not safe in Durham or Peel.

Larger territories do not mean safer, faster, or more informed decisions. In fact, the opposite is likely: slower approvals, riskier development, and weakened ability to prevent disasters.

2. Local Expertise Will Be Lost

Nearly every conservation authority has warned that consolidation will erode the local hydrological, ecological, and planning expertise that keeps communities safe. Local staff know the land, the risks, and the history. That knowledge cannot be replaced by a centralized agency.

3. This Follows a Concerning Pattern of Environmental Deregulation

Ontarians have watched:

buffer zones around wetlands reduced

water-protection powers weakened

environmental permitting centralized

specialized scientific decision-making overridden by ministerial discretion

This proposal continues that pattern — consolidating power away from experts and local governments and into centralized political offices.

4. The Timeline Is Unrealistic and Destabilizing

CAs are already under huge pressure from rapid regulatory changes. Consolidation on this scale requires years of planning, not a rushed, top-down implementation. Staff themselves have repeatedly expressed concern that a transition this large will create confusion, delays, and operational risks.

5. Climate Change Makes This the Worst Possible Time for Disruption

As droughts intensify and water levels drop, we need conservation authorities stronger, not weaker or more distant.

6. The Public Was Not Meaningfully Consulted

This proposal arrived suddenly, amid other major environmental rollbacks and just weeks after major legislative changes. Ontarians deserve clear evidence and justification for such a drastic restructuring. None has been provided.

Conclusion

I urge the government to withdraw the proposal to consolidate Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities into seven. The risks to public safety, watershed integrity, local governance, and long-term sustainability are far too great.

Ontario’s conservation authorities are not “fragmented” — they are specialized, efficient, science-based institutions built on local accountability. Strengthening them does not require dismantling them.

Ontarians deserve a conservation model that protects us from floods, safeguards drinking water, and manages development responsibly — not one that centralizes decision-making, weakens oversight, and prioritizes speed over safety.

Please do not proceed with this consolidation.

Thank you for considering this submission.