Public Consultation Feedback…

Public Consultation Feedback on ERO 019-2927

I am an Ontario citizen and a voter. I strongly oppose the proposed regulation that updates “how conservation authorities permit development and other activities for impacts to natural hazards and public safety”, under the Conservation Authorities Act as part of the Bill 23 suite of legislation changes described in ERO proposal #019-2927.
This proposal is opaque and if retained should be re-written in plain language, and with honesty and transparency. It seems to be preliminary as well and I suggest that it be withdrawn until all the details of all the “steps” can be determined, to provide meaningful public consultation. For example, the ERO description refers to the apparent province-wide homogenization of criteria for assessment of development applications by conservation authorities (CA) relating to natural hazards as being the “first step” in a revised process. What is the second step? The plan must be transparently laid out in full for meaningful consultation. Otherwise, my read of what is being implied is that the government plans to “streamline” the process by eliminating all CA assessment and downloading it to overburdened municipalities.
Watersheds across Ontario are much too variable and flood risk is much too important to be homogenized. The geology and hydrology of each local area should be treated individually by the CAs that know them best. Generalized “streamlined” rules developed as a race to the bottom, will protect no-one.
There is also no indication in the ERO summary information provided that this updated regulation will be restricted to developments that are only building affordable homes (the given rationale for these proposals). This appears to be a general update that applies to much more than home-building activities. I strongly oppose that.

Regarding the proposed changes in the consultation guide:

The proposal to change the watercourse definition to limit watercourses to those with defined channels and to exclude swales and depressions demonstrates the gross misunderstanding of the importance and contributions headwater drainage features make to flood mitigation and water cycling, that underlies this proposal. Urbanization of headwater drainage features will cause massive impacts to hydrology and will make flooding and erosion downstream almost impossible to control. Headwater drainage features control a large proportion of the water that falls on a watershed and perform numerous functions that keep the water supply clean and the volume moderated.
Headwater drainage features have the following benefits:
maintain the watershed’s natural flow regime
increase groundwater infiltration and reduce peak flows and runoff
slow flow velocities
cumulatively store water, effecting flood control
maintain natural nutrient levels
clean up excessive nutrients (reducing potential for algae blooms downstream)
trap excessive phosphorus through sediment adsorption
remove pollutants
trap sediments, contributing to cleaner water downstream
provide natural sediment supply (which prevents bad erosion) to downstream areas
prevent costly dredging in built stormwater infrastructure
protect fish and fish habitat downstream
contribute to baseflow of the watercourse
moderate water temperature
provide dissolved organic material that supports aquatic life downstream
support aquatic invertebrates and provide high invertebrate biodiversity that are food for fish downstream
Disturbance to these functions hugely impacts the quality of the rest of the watercourse. Watercourses with damaged, urbanized headwaters cannot be healthy. It is essential that the hydrology and biology of headwater drainage features remain intact to protect human health and safety downstream. I oppose any changes to the definition of “watercourse” from what it is now.

Protection of wetlands by a homogenized 30m buffer is inappropriate and inadequate. It may be sufficient in some cases but in other cases it may be grossly inadequate. Take a look at just a few photos of areas flooded in the past (including the recent past) and ask if a 30m buffer would be enough to protect flooded properties and infrastructure (remembering that functional infrastructure is needed for emergency response).
Streamlining permitting for “low risk” activities or exempting them from permitting if they are voluntarily registered actually creates additional layers of scrutiny and increases public safety risk. Where are the checks and balances that go along with voluntary registration? A system for monitoring projects that are registered, assessing that they are indeed low-risk, and compliance-monitoring in the field is needed. None of this is mentioned in the proposal. Without scrutiny, this proposal is nothing more than an open door to avoid permitting. Is this government willing to accept responsibility for public safety and property damage that is at risk under this homogenized rule? There are also cumulative impacts to be considered. Activities that may have previously been low-impact due to the other layers of protection may well now be high-risk due to the elimination of CA involvement and many other bits of “streamlining” under Bill 23. And when increasingly frequent and higher impact climate events are considered, it is clear that this is not the time to de-regulate permitting. My suggestion is the opposite – to increase CA
involvement by increasing their support (leveraging their existing expertise and experience), to better educate developers on how to build high quality permit applications and to increase transparency overall. Truly low-risk activities that are well-presented can be handled expediently. Poor-quality and incomplete applications are the ones that get bogged down in their own red tape.
The activities proposed for streamlined approvals in the Consultation Guide should also be prohibited from the “Other Areas” (with the obvious exception of seasonal floating docks, utility poles and fences) that is, the 30m buffer to watercourses, wetlands and hazard lands.
The proposal to require that CAs request all studies that a developer may need before confirmation that an application is complete is not well thought out. This is particularly true in the context of this proposed homogenizing regulation. Some types of studies may not be relevant to some parts of Ontario or to some development applications, but to create a single list that will be suitable province-wide, the list will need to be overly exhaustive. Additionally, the findings of some studies may trigger additional work. CAs are as conservative as possible in the studies they determine are needed on a case-by-case basis. If they are required to request all studies up front, before reviewing the results of the primary studies, they may be compelled to make the requirement list longer to cover studies that may be potentially needed. This is clearly not a desirable outcome, so I would suggest that this element be removed from the proposed regulation and that CAs be left to continue to act efficiently, requiring only what they view as necessary.
The proposal to remove “pollution” and “conservation of lands” from the site-specific conditions CA may attach to development permit is short-sighted and lacks recognition of the broader state of our natural environment. Pollution is well-known as a hazard to public health, given the close contact millions of Ontarians have with water when they swim, boat, ingest (even if only accidental) and through consumption of fish they catch in our waters. It is thus shocking that this government no longer cares about these hazards and is willing to sacrifice public health risks from water pollution to speed along development applications. Likewise, conservation lands are very important contributors to public health, particularly in urban environments. They provide wellness and mental health benefits, they provide passive recreational benefits, and they contribute strongly to relief from and mitigation of climate change impacts. Conservation lands are a valued component of the natural infrastructure of municipalities, providing millions of dollars of savings through their ecological services and protection from natural hazards that include and extend beyond flooding and erosion.
The proposed “service delivery standards” placed on CAs are redundant. CA permitting activities are already open and transparent, mapping is kept up to date and planning staff welcome pre-consultation and working with clients. Pre-consultation currently happens so I find it perplexing as to why this needs to be codified in a regulation, unless the development community is unwilling and must be brought to the table. I do know that CAs are already at the table and waiting.
I find the proposals regarding public notification and public consultation on significant changes very ironic when this current Ontario government has itself gone rampantly in the opposite direction.

Regarding the “for discussion” questions at the end of the Regulatory Proposal Consultation Guide:

CA permits should be required in any municipality that values public safety.
No activities authorized under the Planning Act should be exempted from CA permits. CAs are the experts on natural hazards and know their watersheds. Planning Act activities need CA permits to ensure that the activities have been assessed through a CA lens to protect public safety.
Well thought out, well-written and complete development applications can be processed expediently. CAs are not the bottleneck.

To summarize, there is nothing to be gained by this proposed homogenization of Conservation Authorities Act regulation on natural hazards. The parts of Ontario served by the CAs are not homogenous areas, they are all different. The CAs understand the considerations relevant to their local watersheds and currently serve these watersheds well. A homogenized regulation will not bring clarity – it will in fact be more vague and confusing by attempting to be applicable to all areas. I urge that this proposed regulation update be abandoned.

Regards.
29 Dec. 2022