It is a mistake to fix…

It is a mistake to fix something that’s not broken, in this case, the original conceptual model of the Conservation Authorities and the watersheds as they were drawn up decades ago in response to the catastrophic flooding of Hurricane Hazel. Unique to Ontario, conservation authorities holistically manage watersheds to prevent flooding, conserve natural areas and safeguard water quality – all benefitting both people and the environment. This work requires local connections to the communities they serve.

Decision makers recognized the importance of ensuring conservation authorities were led by local voices and embodied local needs. In this regard, they play a pivotal role in supporting sustainable community development that allow people and nature to thrive.

Unfortunately, many recent changes have severely undermined conservation authorities’ ability to effectively fulfill this role. Regressive changes include the proposal to consolidate the 36 conservation authorities into just seven that would be overseen by the new centralized provincial agency.

The proposed new regional boundaries are far too sprawling to enable locally relevant decision-making. For example, combining Lakehead Region Conservation Authority on the north shore of Lake Superior with authorities south of Lake Huron ignores the completely different ecology, hydrology and climates of these regions.

Locally, in the ERO proposal, Ausable Bayfield, Grey Sauble, Saugeen Valley, Maitland Valley, Nottawasaga Valley, Lake Simcoe Region and Lakehead Region conservation authorities are placed within a potential “Huron–Superior Regional Conservation Authority,” a region that would stretch more than 1500 km and include 80 municipalities.

These changes could create conditions under which it is far more likely that critical local knowledge will be excluded from key decisions, leaving communities more exposed to flooding and other environmental harms.

The ERO website provides five questions for consideration with a request for feedback. All five are related to how to proceed with the new model, none address whether or not the new model should be implemented. Each question is difficult to answer with any enthusiasm because what was a very robust and well-functioning system is being stripped of its strengths in order to ultimately fast-track development at the expense of conservation

I urge you not to proceed with the proposed amalgamation, which would ultimately undermine conservation authorities’ ability to protect communities from floods and natural hazards.
Rather, conservation authorities should be meaningfully supported and empowered to do their jobs efficiently and effectively so that people across Ontario can continue to benefit from flood resilient communities, clean water and a healthy natural environment. Known inefficiencies and duplication of efforts can be carefully worked out with the existing model, not at the expense of creating a far less effective one.