The Ausable-Bayfield…

The Ausable-Bayfield Shoreline Residents' Association (“ABSRA”) is composed of hundreds of Lake Huron Shoreline residents (seasonal and permanent) subject to the Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority's 2019 Shoreline Management Plan.

In general terms, we support the government’s reform of conservation authorities in Ontario.

We have 3 points to make in regards to ERO 025-1257: Proposed boundaries for the regional consolidation of Ontario's Conservation Authorities.

1. Permits shall be issued when property owner engages a qualified expert

We call on the government to standardize permitting activities across various provincial Acts. Requiring a Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to issue a permit when a qualified expert is used will bring parity to the recently concluded changes to the Municipal Act and the Planning Act regarding the use of prescribed professionals.

We support the province-wide standardization of rules surrounding Section 28 permitting processes under the Conservation Authorities Act. However, we believe that Section 28 must be amended to rely on engineering, science, and the professional opinion of experts (eg. coastal engineers) not the subjective opinion of staff who may be unqualified in the technical aspects of coastal shoreline processes regarding flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards.

Specifically, ".....may issue a permit...if, in the opinion of the authority..." must be amended to "......shall issue a permit...if, in the opinion of a qualified expert.....". Should a property owner choose to not engage a qualified expert, then yes we agree that the CA can (and should) step in to determine whether a permit should or should not be granted.

We are concerned that with the proposed consolidation of CA's into seven Regional Conservation Authorities, there is a greater risk that site specific conditions and local circumstances will be overlooked in favour of broad based policies applied across large and dissimilar coastal regions. The potential to overlook site specific circumstances must be addressed to protect life and property from flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards. Requiring a RCA to issue a permit based on the opinion of a qualified expert will address this issue: a qualified expert will always consider the conditions and circumstances impacting the specific property or group of properties when rendering their professional opinion.

2. Development in the Dynamic Beach hazard

We call on the government to revisit section 5.2.3(a) of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 that prohibits development in the Dynamic Beach hazard. The reality is that development already exists, and has safely existed for decades, in Dynamic Beach hazard lands. Such development includes land, buildings (homes and cottages), landscaping, accessory structures and perhaps most importantly shoreline protection works that protect the property from flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards. Property which currently exists in the dynamic beach hazard must be allowed to be protected through natural means as well as hard shoreline protection. Section 5.2.8 of the Provincial Planning Statement should be amended to allow for shoreline protection works and other development if, in the opinion of a qualified expert, the risk to life and property is not increased.

Furthermore, accommodation must be provided to property owners in hazard lands who are negatively impacted by government owned infrastructure. An example is the pier in Grand Bend which interrupts the natural drift of sand from Bayfield to Kettle Point, scouring and increasing risk for properties downdrift of the pier. These property owners must be allowed to protect against the negative impacts caused by government owned infrastructure, even if such property exists in the Dynamic Beach hazard. Banks vs. United States provides a useful reference point for the negative impacts experienced by similar property owners and the resultant financial risk to the government who owns and operates such infrastructure.

3. Mandate of Regional Conservation Authority

Lastly, we call on the government to mandate that the goal of a RCA's permitting activities in coastal areas shall be to protect life and property (in contrast to "minimize" the risk to life and property). In 2016, the Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority attempted to implement a policy of "Managed Retreat" which would have severely limited a property owner's ability to protect existing land and property; the result would have been expropriation without any form of compensation to impacted property owners. In effect, it would have "minimized" the risk to life and property by reducing the value of all property to a nominal amount, if not $nil, over time. Mandating a goal of "protecting" life and property will clarify the goal of permitting and will ensure draconian measures such as Managed Retreat, even if well intentioned, will not be resurrected in the future.