** Please note a copy of…

** Please note a copy of this letter and associated attachment were provided directly to Liz Mikel, Senior Policy and Program Advisor, Conservation Authority Office, MECP. Attachment is not provided with ERO submission.

Re: Regulatory proposals (Phase 1) under the Conservation Authorities Act -ERO number
019-2986

Please accept these comments on the regulatory proposals made under the Conservation Authorities Act as posted to the Environmental Registry of Ontario (#019-2986). These comments have been endorsed by the Board of Directors of Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) at their meeting of June 11th by Resolution #71/21.

In general terms, the Ministry, aided by the Conservation Authorities Working Group, have provided regulatory proposals that are sufficiently flexible, taking into consideration the variations in conservation authorities (CAs) across Ontario, and to ensure that CAs can effectively carry out the mandatory programs and services as outline in the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act).

We have a number of specific comments as outlined in Attachment 1 for your consideration. A few of the more substantive points endorsed by our board are emphasized as follows.

Enhance not diminish Watershed Management: In setting out the regulatory proposals as written, the province has clearly diminished and dismissed the watershed focus of the CAs. While CVC strongly supports inclusion of a mandatory Core Watershed-based Resource Management Strategy we note the province has continued to suggest that the only resource that it supports is water resources. We continue to remind the province that the conditions of the watershed contribute to the condition of the water resources and need to be enabled not decoupled from what are now considered non-mandatory programs. Natural heritage monitoring data, watershed land cover analysis and natural heritage systems for example, feed into effective watershed management strategies to allow for trend analysis and interpretation of change over time. Some may believe that these programs are only nice to haves. But for effective and efficient use of public dollars, targeting the right investment to the right place for enhancement, restoration or protection relies on an integrated assessment which is the value of watershed planning.

Since 1946, conservation authorities have worked on the land to improve the quality and quantity of water. It is a model that has been successful and should be enabled, supported and expanded – not reduced.

Managing hazards means managing the watershed: Generally, the scope of programs and services included by MECP in the proposals for natural hazards are comprehensive. We were pleased to see the recognition of land use planning input, stream morphology, floodplain mapping, flood risk mapping and the inclusion of all the tools that CAs need to carry out our flood management program, including communications support which is particularly important during an event. We also note the inclusion of a low water program which, with climate change, is becoming an important function. The province has not included a specific reference to wetland mapping, which should be added.

The province has also specifically included low flow augmentation dams and ice management within the scope of mandatory programs and services which is essential in the Credit River watershed so we are supportive of these functions.

Science supports the importance of forests, wetlands and riparian buffers and mitigation of storm runoff for the prevention and mitigation of flood and erosion hazards. Land management outside CA lands is now considered non-mandatory, which limits the ability to “manage the risk posed by the natural hazards within their jurisdiction”, a key component of the regulatory proposals.

Consequently, land management activities should be included in the mandatory programs and services related to the risk of natural hazards to effectively continue to protect people and property from flooding and erosion.

Passive recreation in nature is an essential service: Specifically excluded from the mandatory programs included in Conservation Lands are any recreational uses of the lands like walking trails, that are provided free of charge to the public. CVC has many properties, such as Upper Credit, Limehouse and Silver Creek CAs that offer trails for which there maybe be no levy to monitor, maintain or risk manage for the safety of visitors. This means that the trails could be closed to public use or that gates and fees of some manner will need to be collected to enable the management of the recreational use, should a municipality not wish to enter into an agreement for special levy funds to support non-mandatory programs.

Even if we ended up having to close trails, we know that public access to existing properties will become problematic and therefore believe that passive recreation should be included within the regulations as part of the mandatory program related to the management of CA land. COVID has shown us that there are insufficient opportunities for individuals in our watershed to access natural areas for their recreational pursuits.

The Province needs to maintain investment in Source Protection: The inclusion of Source Water Protection is new for municipalities as the province has funded this program at 100% since its inception. CAs are required to exercise and perform the powers and duties of a drinking water source protection authority and implement programs and services related to responsibilities identified under the Clean Water Act.

It will be important to understand MECP’s intent with respect to continued financial support for this program this fall as we are informing the municipalities of the potential budget implications of the changes. By inclusion under mandatory programs, it signals a requirement to be included in the levy, although provincial funding may continue to be provided. MECP staff have been unclear in their responses about the potential for continued funding but given the importance of this program to Ontario we encourage the province to maintain funding, at a minimum for the core administrative program and staff for the Source Protection Regions that are shared across multiple CAs. Further, this funding needs to be indexed for inflation so that there is no erosion of the ability to implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Non-mandatory programs are at risk: Many of the programs that will now become non-mandatory are some of our most valued and used – such as landowner outreach, agricultural support, education, youth programs and partnerships with health providers, newcomer and diversity organizations, to name a few. While some of these programs have some cost recovery or fundraising associated with them, subsidies and incentives have allowed more people to participate. For example, we provide park passes to local libraries to be signed out for a free day at a conservation area, and we give students a week with CVC staff to achieve their volunteer hours. Many of these programs require more investment rather than less, should municipalities opt out of support. Examples include the tremendous investment the regions have made in managing emerald ash borer, just one of many invasive species the CAs have had to address on our own lands and to help others with by providing expertise for outbreaks such as the recent LDD (gypsy) moth.

Complete phase one and phase two of the regulations by early fall: In order to meet the tight timelines for delivering on transition plans to implement the province’s proposed changes the province must move quickly to complete the phase 1 and 2 regulations. All CAs will need to revamp their budget formats, create different budget scenarios and negotiate agreements with potentially all member municipalities for non-mandatory programs and services, and in an election year. CVC has 12 municipalities to review programs with and ensure that all are engaged in the selection of programs and understanding of potential implications. There is little time for iterative reviews. If the phase 1 and 2 regulations are not released by early fall, there is little hope of being able to implement in 2023.

This government has been very concerned with ‘red-tape’ yet the requirement to enter into formal MOUs with each municipality is exactly that. We trust that each municipality will be able to self select the right form of agreement with their local CA.

Proclaim new enforcement provisions in the Act: The 2017 revisions to the CA Act included new and updated enforcement tools for non-compliance with the CA Act, including stop work orders and new fines. These provisions, upheld in the last two act updates, have yet to be proclaimed yet violations have been continuing at an alarming rate over the past few years. These provisions need to be proclaimed immediately to ensure we have the tools to enforce the Act.

Addressing climate change is critical: Only in the hazards program is climate change specifically noted. This was an opportunity for the province to embed requirements into the CA programs to ensure resilience and progress on targets.

The Province needs to expand investment in CA Programs: Erosion of current provincial financial support for CA natural hazard programs continues with no inflation indexed transfer payments or increases to capital funds for dam and erosion control infrastructure. Municipalities continue to pay a greater share of the costs for CA programs. The province needs to make a renewed commitment to environmental protection of communities from floods, poor water quality and drought.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to the finalization of the regulations in the coming months. Should you wish to clarify any of our comments please contact Deborah Martin-Downs, CAO at deb.martindowns@cvc.ca or 905 670 1615 ext. 235.

Sincerely,

Karen Ras Tom Adams
Chair, Credit Valley Conservation Vice-Chair, Credit Valley Conservation

c.c. CAOs Watershed Municipalities
Watershed MPPs