1. What do you see as key…

1. What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional conservation authority consolidation?
a. Maintain strong local representation and accountability.
A successful transition requires guaranteed minimum municipal representation from every sub- watershed in each new regional authority. Rural, northern, and smaller municipalities must retain meaningful decision-making power, especially since municipal levies fund the majority of CA operations (due to cuts in 1996 and 2019). Consolidation must not dilute local democratic influence or reduce municipalities’ ability to guide watershed-specific priorities.
b. Protect local expertise and continuity of technical knowledge.
Current CA staff possess decades of specialized, place-based understanding of flooding, erosion hazards, hydrology, soils, species, agricultural needs, rural stewardship, and development pressures. These staff must remain central in technical review, permitting, and field operations. Transition plans should include:
• clear role protection,
• retention strategies, and
• regionally distributed local offices.
c. Provide adequate transition funding.
Consolidation into regional agencies for 36 Conservation Authorities will require significant investment in administrative integration, HR alignment, IT migration, policy harmonization, legal restructuring, governance redesign, and communication. Without provincially dedicated transition funding, money will inevitably be drawn away from front-line conservation, restoration, flood forecasting, support for agricultural conservation practices, and education programs. Funding must support continuity of local services throughout the change process.

Therefore, I recommend:
That the consolidation maintains strong local representation, protects technical staff expertise and local knowledge, and provides dedicated transition funding so that service quality, environmental protection, and local accountability are not weakened during restructuring.

2. What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework?
a. Potential administrative efficiencies and shared expertise — if key protections are in place.
Regionalization could create opportunities to:
• streamline administrative services,
• standardize permitting processes,
• pool specialized technical staff (e.g., hydrogeologists, engineers, ecologists), and
• reduce duplication across authorities.
These benefits depend entirely on ensuring no loss of skilled staff, no reduction in local representation, and retention of local operational capacity.
b. Limited opportunities in community programs, restoration, and education.
Many CA programs are highly place-based—shaped by local species, landscapes, hydrology, agricultural needs, and municipal priorities. These programs have been built over 80 years of trust and collaboration. While administrative services may benefit from consolidation, local community, agricultural stewardship, and environmental education programming is unlikely to gain efficiencies and risks losing quality if centralized. Local CA staff are well-situated to coordinate agricultural outreach and stewardship implementation, and community environmental events such as tree planting events, because of their technical expertise of specialized, place-based understanding of flooding, erosion hazards, hydrology, soils, species, agricultural needs, rural stewardship, and development pressures as well as their networks with municipal, provincial, and federal staff.
c. Opportunity to strengthen Indigenous involvement.
A regional framework could create space for more consistent Indigenous representation in governance and land-use planning, if co-developed with Indigenous partners and resourced appropriately.

Therefore, I recommend:
That potential efficiencies be pursued only where they do not compromise local program delivery, and that administrative streamlining be balanced with explicit safeguards for local expertise, sub-watershed services, and Indigenous participation.

3. Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation authority level, including board size, make-up, and the municipal representative appointment process?
a. Balanced board structure reflecting both population and watershed geography.
Boards should be large enough to ensure representation from each sub-watershed, but not so large that they become ineffective. Representation must reflect:
• municipal levy contributions,
• watershed geography, and
• the need to maintain local accountability.
b. Hybrid governance model including municipal, Indigenous, technical, and community sector representation.
To ensure strong, science-based decision-making, boards should include:
• Municipal representatives from each contributing sub-watershed
• Indigenous representatives, appointed through co-developed processes
• Technical experts (e.g., hydrology, conservation biology, engineering, planning)
• Sector stakeholders such as agriculture, development, environmental NGOs, and local community representatives
This model protects diverse perspectives and supports scientific and evidence-driven land-use planning.
c. Transparent and accountable appointment processes.
Appointment processes should include:
• clear qualification criteria for non-municipal members,
• public transparency,
• term limits and performance expectations, and
• strong limits on political appointments to prevent undue centralization of power.
d. Watershed-based governance model.
To maintain legitimacy and effectiveness, governance should:
• guarantee municipal seats for each sub-watershed,
• investigate the potential for local advisory committees,
• ensure community representation, and
• embed Indigenous participation at the governance level.
This approach ensures decisions remain grounded in the unique risks and characteristics of each watershed.

Therefore, I recommend:
The adoption of a hybrid, watershed-based governance model that guarantees municipal, Indigenous, and community sector representation, integrates technical expertise, and ensures transparent appointments to preserve democratic accountability and scientific integrity.

4. Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative budgeting process across member municipalities within a regional conservation authority?
a. Budgets should be structured and reported by sub-watershed, not only at the regional level.
This is essential for maintaining municipal accountability and ensuring that communities can track where levy dollars are being spent.
b. Municipalities must retain approval powers proportional to their financial contributions.
Consolidation must not weaken the ability of municipalities to influence budgets, especially when they continue to fund the vast majority of CA operations.
c. Continue mandatory public access and local consultation.
Budget drafts must remain publicly available, with:
• local consultation periods,
• opportunities for municipal feedback, and
• transparent reporting requirements.
d. Establish sub-watershed advisory committees.
These committees should review program impacts, budget allocations, and local needs to ensure communities maintain influence over funding decisions.
e. Fully fund transition costs to avoid impacts on service delivery.
Large-scale consolidation will require substantial funding for HR, IT, legal, administrative, and operational integration. Without provincial investment, these costs will directly reduce local conservation, flood prevention, agricultural stewardship, restoration, and education programs.

Therefore, I recommend:
That budgeting remain transparent, sub-watershed–specific, and municipally accountable, with provincially funded transition costs and continued public access to draft budgets. This approach ensures municipalities retain influence while maintaining service continuity during and after consolidation.

5. How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and stakeholders?
Existing Conservation Authorities have 80 years of built trust with their communities, see the full list below. This is not incidental; it is foundational to effective conservation. Large regional bodies will struggle to replicate these relationships, especially across geographic areas stretching hundreds of kilometres (e.g., the proposed Lake Erie Region CA spanning Windsor to north of Waterloo). Stakeholders have already expressed fears that consolidation will replace “local permitting offices and staff familiar with site conditions” with distant administrators — delaying rather than speeding approvals.
a. Maintain a strong local presence through field offices and distributed staff.
Local offices staffed with watershed experts are essential for:
• timely permitting,
• site-level inspections,
• stewardship and restoration work,
• agricultural outreach, and
• emergency response.
Centralized offices will slow service and weaken community trust.
b. Preserve and strengthen local outreach and education.
Programs must remain tailored to local conditions, including:
• agricultural stewardship,
• youth environmental education,
• landowner outreach,
• emergency response, and
• community science initiatives.
c. Establish local advisory committees with real influence.
Regional governance must be complemented by sub-watershed committees that inform decisions on permitting, planning, budgeting, and program delivery.
d. Strengthen partnerships with Indigenous Nations.
Regional CAs should maintain and deepen relationships with Indigenous communities through co-developed processes, partnership agreements, and culturally relevant engagement.
e. Commitment to local engagement across the entire region.
In-person meetings, workshops, volunteer events, and community programs must continue across all municipalities to maintain the trust and relationships that have been built over eight decades.

Therefore, I recommend:
That regional conservation authorities retain distributed local offices, support place-based programs, establish sub-watershed advisory committees, and strengthen partnerships with Indigenous Nations and community groups to maintain trust, accessibility, and high-quality local engagement.

Thank you for reviewing these comments and ensuring a democratic process is pursued to ensure the voices of all Ontarians are heard and their desires put into action.