Conservation Authorities Act review - Seeking consistency

NRU
Oct. 28, 2015
By Leah Wong

Conservation authorities play an important role in environmental stewardship across the province, with about 90 per cent of Ontario’s population living within their jurisdiction.

Now, in response to a provincial review under way, municipalities are calling for consistency when it comes to the oversight, function and funding of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities, most of which are located in southern Ontario.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is presently undertaking a review of the Conservation Authorities Act to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that governs the creation, operation and activities of these bodies.

In July the province introduced a discussion paper on the act, with a 90-day comment period under the Environmental Registry that ended October 19. Many municipalities chose to submit comments for the review to guide the discussion on the future of conservation authorities.

In addition to a potential review of the framework that governs conservation authorities, the review seeks to ensure the act meets the needs of residents in a modern context. In the nearly 70 years since the introduction of conservation authorities in Ontario, their activities have changed significantly in response to challenges related to water and land resources.

Natural ecosystems are experiencing more stresses, induced by climate change, rapid growth and changing land uses. Responsibilities of conservation authorities, which include a range of watershed management programs, have been left intentionally vague to provide flexibility to suit local needs.

Comments submitted by the municipalities focus on governance, roles and responsibilities and funding mechanisms. Here is a summation by topic:

GOVERNANCE

The act enables two or more municipalities in a common watershed to form a conservation authority in conjunction with the province. Conservation authorities deliver local resource management programs at a watershed scale in response to provincial and municipal interests. Authorities are governed by a municipally-appointed board.

Many municipalities recommend an alignment of board member term appointments with those of municipal councils. Under the current governance model, board members serve only three years while municipal councillors are elected every four years.

Several municipalities called for reforms in the appointment of members to conservation authority boards. For example, Halton Hills recommended that representation be based on a municipality’s geographic presence within a watershed, rather than population. Under the current formula, Mississauga has a large population and minimal conservation authority property, but has the same number of representatives as Halton Hills, with a small population and a large amount of conservation authority property.

Single-tier municipalities also recommended changes to the representation formula. Hamilton pointed out that as two-tier municipalities appoint representatives from each municipality regardless of population, single-tier municipalities are penalized as they have fewer representatives per capita. The city suggests the population formula should take into account the population of the upper-tier municipalities to determine the total number of representations to which a region is entitled.

On board composition, Burlington recommended the governance model require a minimum number of locally appointed board representatives be chosen from elected officials as they are directly accountable to the public. The city also suggests non-elected officials should represent a diverse set of backgrounds, such as the development industry, environmental professionals, community groups and rural and agricultural interests.

Rural municipalities, such as Caledon, suggest the farming community should have a larger presence on conservation authority boards. Farmers have long been perceived as the “stewards of the land,” according to the town, with multigenerational knowledge of the land. Such knowledge is now preempted in favour of desktop modeling produced by the authorities without site visits or consultation, according to Caledon.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Several municipalities suggest a clarification of conservation authority roles and responsibilities to avoid an overlap in services. In its comments, Halton Hills said there is an overlap of authority among conservation authorities, MNFR and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which all have some level of review or authority over issues such as wetlands and fish habitat.

Municipalities also suggested that the act should add climate change to the mandate of conservation authorities. Doing so, according to Caledon, would avoid duplication of services, responsibilities and resources by government and public agencies.

Municipalities are also seeking consistency as it relates to strategic direction and service delivery by conservation authorities. For example, Hamilton is located within four authorities, posing challenges for the city.

FUNDING MECHANISMS

A common comment in municipal submissions is the need for increased provincial funding of conservation authorities. In 2013, according to Conservation Ontario, authorities generated revenue from four primary sources: municipal levies (48 per cent), self-generated revenue (40 per cent), provincial funding (10 per cent) and federal funding (2 per cent). In the early 1990s, the province accounted for about 40 per cent of funding of authorities.

Peel Region recommended the province fully fund provincially-mandated programs undertaken by authorities. Increased funding would make programs more sustainable and provide a consistent base level of programming across Ontario, according to Peel. The region also suggested the province commit targeted funds for authorities to address unforeseen issues, such as costs associated with tackling an infestation of the emerald ash borer.

Finally, there are requests for a more consistent reporting process. Durham Region suggested the province work with authority representatives and municipalities to establish a consistent process on the presentation of detailed annual financial reports and performance management measures.

The region wants municipalities to have the authority to approve authority budgets, and the way they are presented, to ensure oversight and accountability.