Bigger isn't always better…

Bigger isn't always better. Conservation Authorities have been doing a great job for many years making local development decisions to protect people, property and the environment. They also provide lots of environmental protection and rehabilitation incentives and expertise for private landowners and municipalities, and healthy and fun recreational and educational opportunities. It is probably the best model for environmental protection in the world. Ontario should be proud of it. Amalgamation will never give Ontario residents better local environmental decision making. It would be better to address any important inconsistencies at the individual Conservation Authority watershed level. Some program delivery differences between CA's are not a problem and just reflect different geographical, population and environmental conditions. If there is a real problem, then address the issue.

At the very least do not reduce the number of technical, planning, engineering and environmental Stewardship staffing positions.

1 YES maintaining watershed-based jurisdictions – aligning with natural hydrological boundaries to support effective flood and water management, consistent with drinking water Source Protection Areas and Regions

2. IS THERE A REAL PROBLEM HERE? WHAT ARE THE MUNICIPALITIES SAYING ABOUT THIS? relationships between conservation authorities and municipalities – reducing administrative duplication and overlap for municipalities and conservation authorities to simplify accountability and strengthen local partnerships

3. YES balancing expertise and capacity across conservation authorities – enhancing technical skills and resources across conservation authorities to improve service and program delivery

4. YES service continuity – ensuring uninterrupted delivery of local conservation authority programs – including flood forecasting and warning, permitting, and source water protection – through and after consolidation