Hello, I am against the…

Hello, I am against the legislation as proposed. I do not believe that conservation authorities should be amalgamated. I think having conservation authorities follow their local watersheds, as they currently do, will lead to better conservation outcomes. I think that having conservation authorities amalgamated will lead to too broad of a geographic area that must be covered by staff, and I would be worried that this would result in lost local knowledge and a decrease in coverage by staff. I have looked at the proposed amalgamation map, and some of the proposed amalgamations lead to huge and sometimes unconnected watersheds, which can't possibly lead to better outcomes. I am further worried that the proposed legislation would also lead to decreased staffing levels, making outcomes even worse. If the desired outcome is more consistency between conservation authorities, this could easily be achieved with legislation that targets better cooperative sharing between conservation authorities. We should also keep in mind that there may be differences in policies because this is the most appropriate approach for each individual watershed. Too be honest, it sounds like the only people who will benefit from this amalgamation are large scale developers who don't want to, but should, be submitting development proposals that are specific to the areas they want to develop. It sounds like a cost-cutting measure designed for them.
A key factor to a successful transition to amalgamated authorities is to not do it in the first place. I would like to see better conservation practices delivered through support for our individual existing conservation authorities.