Conservation Authorities …

Conservation Authorities (CAs) play an important and valuable role in Ontario. However, there are clear opportunities for improvement, particularly in the areas of natural hazard management, the administration and enforcement of Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, and the provision of natural hazard comments on planning matters on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR).

Change is rarely welcomed, especially when it is proposed by a government whose approach to land development may be viewed with skepticism. That said, there are both advantages and disadvantages to the current proposal, and the rationale for change is understandable. At the same time, it is equally understandable why many CAs, their boards, and municipalities are hesitant.

Many Conservation Authorities—particularly those outside the Greater Toronto Area and those without major urban centres—lack up-to-date floodplain mapping. In some cases, mapping either does not exist or dates back to the 1970s and 1980s. Since that time, technology, data availability, and modelling techniques have improved significantly. Tools such as LiDAR now provide highly accurate data; however, smaller CAs often lack the financial and staffing resources required to develop and maintain modern flood models. This presents challenges when making decisions that can influence real estate transactions, multi-million-dollar developments, and, most importantly, public health and safety.

As the recognized experts in floodplain management, CAs require current flood models and mapping. The absence of these resources is not solely the responsibility of the CAs themselves. Provincial funding was significantly reduced in the mid-1990s, was never restored or adjusted for inflation by subsequent governments, and was reduced again by approximately 50% in recent years. A potential solution would be for the Province to contribute more meaningfully to Ontario’s risk management efforts, either by matching federal funding or by supporting regional CAs in pooling resources to assist smaller, under-resourced authorities. Ideally, both approaches could be pursued. If regional CAs or a new agency structure is implemented, it should be accompanied by appropriate provincial funding to support the delivery of mandatory services.

A regional CA model could also help ensure greater consistency in hazard mapping. At present, methodologies, assumptions, staffing capacity, and technical expertise vary considerably between CAs. While some authorities can regularly update mapping in accordance with O. Reg. 41/24, others simply do not have the resources to do so.

Similarly, the quality and consistency of natural hazard comments provided to municipalities could improve through shared training, standardized expectations, and common templates.

Regulatory enforcement may also benefit from a regional approach. Dedicated enforcement officers could be based in a central office while providing services across a broader region. Smaller CAs that lack the resources to support enforcement staff could access trained and experienced officers through cost-sharing arrangements. In many cases, individual CAs are too small to justify a full-time enforcement position, but a regional model could address this gap efficiently.

With respect to policy implementation, many CAs would welcome clearer provincial guidance beyond high-level policy statements. Questions remain regarding how safe access is to be evaluated, how wetlands should be mapped, and how to reconcile wetland protection objectives with drainage requirements under the Drainage Act. Clear, consistent direction from the Province would greatly assist CAs in implementing policy effectively.

It is important to recognize that municipalities are the primary funders of CAs, followed by self-generated revenues. A move toward regional CAs may result in reduced municipal representation or influence at the governance level. As an alternative, the Province could consider retaining the existing CA structure while re-establishing a Conservation Authorities Branch within MNR. This branch could provide leadership, technical expertise, modelling and mapping services, and clear guidance, while maintaining local delivery through existing CAs. Provincial funding could support these centralized functions, with local implementation continuing under the current municipal funding model. An MNR representative on each CA board could also help ensure alignment and provide ongoing direction.

Finally, Conservation Authorities do far more than natural hazard management. They deliver significant benefits in land stewardship, environmental education, natural heritage protection, and Indigenous engagement. There is widespread concern that these programs could be diminished or lost under a regional model—perhaps unintentionally. In many rural areas, landowners are more comfortable working with local staff whom they know and trust, rather than with representatives from a larger, more distant organization. Losing that local connection could undermine successful stewardship initiatives.

It is worth remembering that Conservation Authorities were created by a conservative movement. A Progressive Conservative government has an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to this model by reinvesting in and strengthening CAs. With appropriate leadership, funding, and collaboration, Conservation Authorities can continue to deliver meaningful benefits for Ontarians.

Now, to answer your questions:

What do you see as key factors to support a successful transition and outcome of regional conservation authority consolidation?

You need municipal buy-in and continued representation. The province also needs to commit to funding CAs properly again. Maybe take a proposed regional CA, look at their budgets, combine the administrative costs, and show everyone that the amalgamation would actually save municipalities and tax payers enough money that it would be worth it. Also, keep the local staff in their local offices – they are experts in their own right.

What opportunities or benefits may come from a regional conservation authority framework?

Shared resources – the ‘have not’ CAs might finally be invited to the table to ‘feast’ on what we are all supposed to have. Good mapping and modelling done by experts in their field. Why are some CAs working on their 3rd update to their floodplain mapping and the alerts sent on their phone app, yet other CAs still rely on pencil-drawn mapping that can’t even be accurately digitized?

Do you have suggestions for how governance could be structured at the regional conservation authority level, including suggestions around board size, make-up and the municipal representative appointment process?

This one will be tricky – should consult with those who have lots of governance experience with a variety of board models / makeups.

Do you have suggestions on how to maintain a transparent and consultative budgeting process across member municipalities within a regional conservation authority?

You need to maintain local people in local offices. The same people who already have relationships with municipal staff and municipal councillors. Those are the existing relationships, and those are the connections needed to make it work.

How can regional conservation authorities maintain and strengthen relationships with local communities and stakeholders?

Keep the local staff who live in the small towns, who meet with the landowners, and who care for their local communities / watersheds.