1. Key factors to support a…

1. Key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional conservation authority consolidation?

The boundaries need to make sense within the mandate of the conservation authorities as outlined in the Law. This includes ensuring there is sufficient expertise at the watershed level, as acknowledged in the criteria that supposedly have been applied to draft this new amalgamated version of conservation authorities. I live in the proposed Huron Superior region. I am baffled as to how the area around Thunder Bay can be considered as part of the Southern Georgian Bay watershed.

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

It seems that the Province is expecting the new CA regions to improve relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities. Again, this doesn't make sense to me. The Conservation Authorities as currently stand incorporate less than 10 municipalities. This is already a large number of jurisdictions to coordinate with. I can't see how increasing the number can possibly lead to improved relationships. The proposed Huron Superior region will have closer to 35 municipalities to relate to. It is not clear from the government's proposal how many watersheds fall within this proposed region, but clearly this new CA would need to have expertise on a significantly increased number of watersheds than current CAs have. How can this be seen as improving the "balance and capacity across CAs"?

3. Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation authority level, including suggestions around board size, make-up and the municipal representative appointment process?

I see that some municipalities currently fall within the responsibility of more that one conservation authority. I can see that this can create some duplication. However, given that the CAs have a watershed focus, I can't see how this can be avoided. If there were a single CA that a municipality must deal with, presumably it would still need to relate to the number of watersheds that fall within the municipal boundaries.

Rather than disrupting the current CA structure, perhaps what is needed is a number of regional umbrella organizations, which could provide coordination, expertise, and valuable information sharing for CAs within the region. These regional umbrella organizations might also be structured in a way that could centralize administrative responsibilities, which could reduce the administrative burden of the CAs contained within these regional bodies.

4. Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative budgeting process across member municipalities within a regional conservation authority?

I assume that each municipality would have a representative on the Board of the CA. In order for there to be meaningful transparancy and budgetary consultation, the number of members on the Board would need to be reasonable. I believe that a Board of around 35 municipal members would be far too large. It is easy that such scale for louder voices to prevail and for many to go unheard. In any case, it is considerably harder to reach consensus at such scale, especially when the mandate of the CA is to be a steward of watersheds and natural hydrological boundaries. It is interesting to me that the documents posted do not contain information and data on the watersheds (number and variety) that would be contained in these proposed new regions.

5. How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and stakeholders?

This is a two-way relationship, in other words it is incumbent on both CAs and municipal/general public to do their part in supporting the objective/mandate of the CAs. For those stakeholders in their local communities who are interested in and care about the role of the CAs it is not difficult know what our local CA is doing and to interact with staff in the CA. Their website and programs are well known. However, if someone only interacts with the CA at a time when they wish to do something that runs counter to CA mandate (e.g. wanting to build in a protected area), and they do not understand or appreciate the importance of what a CA does, then it is very likely that they will be unhappy with the CA authority regardless of what the CA says or does. Nevertheless, there is always room for improved communication and these types of conflicts can be valuable learning experiences for the CA. Perhaps the umbrella body discussed above could include expertise/advisory role for instances where there is conflict/clash of objectives. These regional umbrella bodies could also take on a communications role that could help to build public appreciation of the need for CAs and the good work that they do. In other words where they would raise public knowledge and appreciation of why issues that fall within "the commons" (e.g. clean and plentiful water, or flood mitigation) are of greater importance than individual needs and desires.