Scott: Conservation authorities aren’t obstacles to housing — they’re safeguards for it

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Ontario’s conservation authorities have long been among the province’s quiet success stories, safeguarding lives and livelihoods by managing floodplains, protecting water quality and helping communities grow safely. Now, with the government’s plan to establish an Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, these institutions stand on the edge of their biggest reform in generations. 

We need to build more homes, faster to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again. Part of that work must come through modernising conservation authorities. The government will get no argument from me on that aspect of their plan. The intent is sound: to modernise, standardise and streamline the system so that permits are faster, clearer and more predictable.

Yet in seeking greater consistency across Ontario, the government must take care not to dismantle what already works. A consolidation this drastic — going from thirty-six authorities to just seven — risks disrupting the system and eroding local control, which would have the opposite effect of what the government intends.

The proposed agency would introduce a province-wide digital permitting platform and establish common service standards. These are sensible measures on their own. For too long, the experience of applying for a permit has depended on which watershed one happens to be in. A single digital window and a shared set of expectations will help applicants and municipalities alike. It will also build confidence that decisions are being made transparently and consistently with provincial policy. 

At the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority we understand the need for reform because we have already delivered it ourselves. Over the past year, our team has cleared a backlog of more than one hundred permit files and introduced a comprehensive e-permitting system with digital workflows that save staff nearly an hour per application. We now meet provincial timelines 95 per cent of the time, with an average turnaround of just sixteen days, and our customer satisfaction rating has risen from 68 per cent in 2022 to 90 per cent this year. We have also worked with our neighbouring authorities to ensure our processes and policies are aligned, not identical but similar and coherent to applicants who deal with multiple authorities. These improvements are the results of deliberate, locally led modernisation. They show that progress is possible without losing the personal connection between conservation staff, municipalities and applicants.

Our commitment to service has been matched by fiscal discipline. A line-by-line review of our budget led to reductions or freezes in most expense categories and an overall decline in operating costs achieved without any reduction in service. Through a more accurate classification of core hazard-mitigation work we were able to reduce certain discretionary charges by nearly a third. 

These changes demonstrate that conservation authorities can be as prudent in managing public money as they are in managing natural resources. Reform, in other words, does not need to be imposed from Queen’s Park; it can and should emerge from within, as it did in our case in response to feedback from local mayors and councillors demanding better. 

Partnership has been central to this success. Regular briefings with municipal councils have strengthened transparency and trust, while our working group with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has encouraged earlier collaboration and practical problem-solving. The Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Todd McCarthy, has rightly emphasised that conservation authorities remain vital partners in balancing the urgent need for housing with the equally urgent need to protect people and property from flooding and erosion. That balance is precisely what the system was designed to achieve. Conservation authorities are not obstacles to housing; they are safeguards for it, if we move from gatekeeping to guiding. Conservation authorities ensure that new homes are built in the right places, on safe ground and with due regard for the natural systems that sustain them.

Where the government must tread most carefully is in any move towards consolidation that erases local decision-making. Each watershed is distinct. The soils, gradients and drainage patterns of the Nottawasaga are not the same as those of the Credit or the Grand. The engineers and ecologists who know these systems have often spent decades observing how they respond to heavy rain or spring thaw. Their knowledge cannot be replicated through a distant, centralised structure. Efficiency should never come at the cost of that practical intelligence, nor should a one-size-fits-all model displace the responsiveness that local governance allows, particularly in times of emergency. There may be an option for targeted consolidation, particularly of the smallest authorities, but such a process needs to be guided by a strong business plan and by watershed science, and should be pursued on a case-by-case analysis. 

Ontario’s watershed-based approach was created after devastating floods from Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s. It was designed precisely to avoid the dangers of centralisation by recognising that nature does not obey municipal boundaries. Over the decades it has evolved into a science-based, partnership-driven model that is internationally respected. It works because it is local enough to understand the land and collaborative enough to act across jurisdictions. Indeed, our localness is also a core facet of our democratic accountability system. As the province embarks on this new phase of reform, that founding principle should remain our compass. The risk is that in trying to manage conservation authorities from above we end up weakening the very system that has protected Ontarians for seventy years.

Modernisation should strengthen trust, improve service and ensure that environmental stewardship supports, rather than hinders, responsible growth. When conservation authorities invest in technology and streamline procedures, they make it easier for communities to build the homes, roads and schools they need while keeping those same assets safe from floods and erosion. The challenge is to extend those gains province-wide without dulling the edge of local experience that makes them possible. Centralisation may appear tidy on paper but it rarely delivers better results on the ground.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority is proof that transformation can be both rapid and responsible. The province’s new agency now has an opportunity to build on that success by setting clear standards, supporting digital innovation and sharing best practice. But reform will only succeed if it respects the diversity of Ontario’s watersheds and the people who manage them. The goal should be a stronger, more consistent conservation system, not a distant bureaucracy without local control overseeing massive geographic areas. 

In striving for uniformity, we must remember that progress is achieved not by erasing differences but by learning from them. If we hold to that lesson, Ontario can have a conservation system that is both modern and true to its roots: efficient, accountable and proudly local.

Jonathan Scott is Chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and a Councillor in the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury.