1. Amalgamation is…

1. Amalgamation is discarding upwards 75 years per 36 Authorities of built value, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Conservation authorities are not interchangeable administrative units. They are (many) 75-year institutions with hundreds of millions of dollars in accumulated public investment: flood control structures, dams, hydrometric networks, mapping systems, land bases, trails, campgrounds, outdoor education sites, memorial groves, stewardship projects, and physical infrastructure that holds back floodwaters every spring.

Every one of these assets carries local branding, municipal agreements, donor expectations, and legal obligations. The moment branding is stripped and authorities are folded into a broad regional entity, the Province inherits:
• rebranding costs,
• asset transfer and legal renegotiation costs,
• donor and landowner challenges,
• legacy liability conflicts, and
• the financial fallout of destabilized local partnerships.

Dismantling a fully functional, mature operational system and then rebuilding a new one on top of it is expensive, slow, and risky. This burns money that would otherwise support permitting, infrastructure, and environmental hazard prevention... the very systems needed to support housing growth.

2. The Province is eliminating the very relationships that make watershed work efficient and replacing them with nothing.

Relationships are assets. They took decades to build and convert directly into land donations, funding partnerships, volunteer labour, and municipal collaboration. A regional office cannot replace staff who sit at local committee tables, respond immediately to local conditions, and maintain personal ties with farmers, businesses, donors, and community groups.

Large regional bodies cannot replicate that trust or that responsiveness. When local identity is dissolved, the following decline immediately:
• local investment,
• land donations,
• partnerships with major employers and service clubs,
• agricultural cooperation, and
• municipal buy-in.

Losing these is not an abstract risk. It is the collapse of a proven funding and partnership model that multiplies local taxpayer dollars into larger impact projects.

Destroying that value forces the Province and municipalities to pay more out of pocket, because the community-driven supports that CAs rely on will not transfer to a regional entity.

3. Regionalization will slow permitting, delay housing approvals, and undermine the “More Homes Built Faster” objective.

Ontario’s development system depends on timely, locally informed watershed decisions. Every CA has built its own mapping systems, permit intake processes, hazard files, and municipal protocols. These systems weren’t invented overnight; they were refined over decades by people who understand their rivers, soils, slopes, culverts, and communities.

Replacing 36 functioning systems with 7 untested regional structures means:
• multi-year transition delays;
• inconsistent or incompatible data systems;
• staff realignment and departures;
• uncertainty around liability for historic permit decisions;
• unclear municipal service pathways;
• slowdowns as regional CA staff learn new geography; and
• breakdown of long-standing local relationships that smooth the permitting process.

If the goal is more homes, built faster, this transition model is the opposite of what the Province intends. Instead of consistency, it creates uncertainty. Instead of speeding approvals, it adds a new layer between applicants and decision-makers. Instead of reducing risk, it multiplies it across an enormous new region.

The Province could achieve consistency tomorrow, through standardized guidance, shared tools, and provincial support, without dismantling the local structures that actually keep the permitting system moving.