Key factors to support…

Key factors to support Ontario’s proposed outcome is not to spend time and money consolidating conservation authorities and spending money changing their name when they have spent 70+ years branding the name providing the needed services. Instead, Ontario should use those resources to support Conservation Ontario to implement a streamlined process of digital applications, permitting system and fees, consistent policies and flood standards for all Conservation Authorities (CA) to use.

This would save the province a lot of time and money and allow the Conservation Authorities to maintain their effective flood and water management within their local regions and not spread them so thin across a larger area that will slow down the services provided. Changing the name will require changing all letterheads and anything administrative which will slow the process, not speed it up. There are easier ways to modernize the processes through the current watershed-based Conservation Authority framework.

Keeping the Conservation Authorities local provides better relationships and trust with the community. The CA’s knowledge of the landscape, environmental needs and community interests is based on the local community relationships. Quick turnaround times and accountability is managed better at a local scale than across a larger watershed region where they will be managing different landscapes, different environmental needs and different community interests and land use. Landscapes with concentrated agriculture that provides income to the Ontario economy is managed differently than urbanized areas in southern Ontario or even shoreline urbanization, which is managed differently than northern communities. The larger boundaries are not going to be able to recognize the significant contributions of some land uses when mixed with all different land uses at a larger scale. It will not be effective.
When streamlining processes to deliver faster services, the best decisions may not always be made. For example, the Conservation Authority staff work locally with applicants and can provide pre-consultation to offer suggestions or options that provide more resilient structures away from natural hazards eliminating the need for a permit. This working relationship with the applicants provides less frustration than online processes with no one to help. Enabling responsive knowledgeable staff to deliver consistent services based on long term research of how natural systems work and allowing the province to support this with better tools and resources supported by the region would be more effective.

Watersheds are complex and managing these systems are more complex. Upstream activities on the land have a cumulative effect and impact on communities throughout and downstream of the watershed. Issues like deteriorating water quality and flooding and erosion results in burdens on downstream communities. And more infrastructure and economical decisions affect and add to these issues. A more regional approach will further add to these environmental issues. Governance at a local watershed level as it is now with support from the municipalities and new tools from the province can be more effective with decision making to protect communities from natural hazards. The political regional boundaries will have a harder time to balance effects of land use decisions with a broader and more complex region.

The consolidation of Conservation Authorities and transition to regional boundaries will incur more cost for Ontario residents and the province is not providing full transparency, enough details, and informed decisions for cost-benefit to the public regarding this transition. Also, if the province wants to streamline processes, they should provide the support for that as Conservation Authorities have limited funds and need to continue to deliver services in a timely manner. It is important to be transparent and the governance of local municipalities in addition to effective local consultation provides a balance of local, regional and provincial priorities.

It is not effective, quicker, or cheaper to consolidate the Conservation Authorities into larger regions. Some streamlining and standardization of consistent services may be helpful, through improved tools and platforms, however there is no need to transform the whole Conservation Agency system. The communities need the local Conservation Authorities with local municipal support to deliver services within the sub watersheds as they are to balance effective management, land use needs, and environment.