Conservation authorities…

Conservation authorities were deliberately created to operate at the watershed scale, with governance structures and staff expertise rooted in local environmental conditions. Their effectiveness depends on decades of accumulated, place‑based knowledge—knowledge that cannot be replicated or maintained within large regional organizations spanning hundreds of kilometers and multiple distinct ecosystems. Many authorities, including Hamilton, Cataraqui, and Upper Thames, have publicly stated that this loss of local expertise will directly undermine their ability to manage floodplains, erosion hazards, wetlands, and species‑at‑risk habitat.

The proposed regional boundaries are operationally unrealistic. Some regions would stretch across vast geographies with dramatically different climates, land‑use pressures, and hydrological systems. This scale will reduce responsiveness, increase travel time for field staff, and weaken the accuracy of monitoring and forecasting systems that protect people and property from flooding and other climate‑driven hazards.

I am also concerned that the proposal lacks any cost–benefit analysis or transition plan. Merging 36 organizations requires major changes to IT systems, HR structures, flood forecasting networks, land management processes, and governance frameworks. Conservation authorities warn that this transition could disrupt essential services at a time when Ontario is experiencing more frequent and severe weather events. Without a detailed financial and operational assessment, the claimed efficiencies remain unsubstantiated.

Local governance and accountability are also at risk. Municipalities across Ontario—including Hamilton and Haldimand—have expressed concern that local representation will be reduced and that municipal levy dollars may be redistributed across much larger regions. This undermines the long‑standing principle that local funds support local watershed needs. Many conservation lands were also donated or entrusted with the expectation of local stewardship; the proposal does not address how donor conditions, easements, or trust agreements will be honoured under amalgamation.

Finally, conservation authorities rely on strong, long‑standing relationships with municipalities, Indigenous communities, farmers, volunteers, and local conservation foundations. These partnerships are essential to effective watershed management, education programs, and stewardship initiatives. Regionalization risks weakening these relationships and reducing community engagement.

Given these concerns, I urge you to advocate against the proposed consolidation and to support maintaining strong, locally governed conservation authorities with the resources and autonomy they need to protect Ontario’s watersheds. At minimum, the government should conduct a comprehensive, evidence‑based analysis of alternatives that preserve local expertise, watershed‑based governance, and community accountability.