I strongly oppose the…

I strongly oppose the amalgamation of the conservation authorities current under consideration. I understand and respect that financial constraints make it difficult to continue supporting the mandate of conservation, but the cost of foregoing that support is much higher than a dollar value. The amalgamation would likely lead to a loss of local input, reduced quality of service and expertise, and present a risk to source water protection, increased costs and financial burden. In the past, amalgamations that seemed like a good idea (eg hospitals, GTA, etc) have ended up impacting quality of life, quality of service, and effective use of taxpayer dollars. Instead of cutting our services, could we not instead require businesses that have make significant profit off of damaging our environment be held accountable for compensation? Or could industry actually pay their taxes fairly so that we are not facing such shortfalls? This is so important for our health and well being - please reconsider the human impact.