It is rare to have three conservation authority officials at a single meeting.
Without saying it directly, it seems all have concerns with Brockton’s recent resolution regarding funding for conservation authorities. That resolution, which passed on Sept. 10, asks the province to either provide funding to allow the authorities to do their job, or give municipalities the ability to opt out of their conservation levies.
That resolution commented on regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act that prohibit development under certain situations and conditions.
It also noted the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses regulation has not been mapped to make it clear which properties or portions of properties are affected by the regulation and therefore subject to a permit from the local conservation authority.
Brockton also believes those regulations have greatly increased the work load on staff of the local conservation authorities to the point of creating delays of several weeks or months in obtaining permits from the conservation authority to allow new development.
The municipality of Brockton contains Walkerton, which was hit by tainted water in 2001, which killed several people and made thousands ill. Many new provincial water regulations stem from a full inquiry into that disaster.
Brockton council stated that because of significant funding cuts to authorities which started in 1995, staffing levels are now severely affected, which, in turn, causes delays for unnecessarily long periods of time, thereby frustrating new development proposals for communities affected by the regulations.
Brockton wants the province to revisit the funding formula currently used for conservation authorities and to increase it to allow the authorities to enhance staff levels in order to respond to development proposals in a more timely manner. In the absence of additional funding, Brockton suggested the province either revisit the mandate of the authorities or determine a more cost effective method of delivering its services.
Further, Brockton council suggested if neither approach is taken, municipalities should be given the ability to opt out of funding of conservation authorities .
As Wellington North considered the issue, councillors did so with representation of the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority in attendance.
Local SVCA representative Don Ross told Wellington North council he is unsure of the specifics that brought about Brockton’s resolution – but he believes it was an issue involving municipal and conservation authority staff.
“I think this was drafted before other avenues were considered to deal with those issues,” Ross said.
He said there is no doubt that local conservation authorities need more funding.
“It has put a crimp in our budget for years,” and, as a result, required additional levies from member municipalities.
Ross told councillors he had provided them with the documentation on the lobbying by the conservation authorities to seek additional funds. As for the parts of the resolution that suggested altering conservation authority mandates, he had little comment.
As for the local timing of responses on development issues, Ross said he had received little in the way of complaint from Wellington North.
But, he said the SVCA is struggling to keep its water experts on staff. “We are losing staff as soon as we can hire them,” he said.
He said that small conservation authorities cannot compete in wages for such expertise, and if those wages are increased, it will affect local levies even further.
Wellington North councillor Dan Yake asked Ross for an opinion on opting out.
Ross felt it would be a problem for most municipalities.
Currently conservation authorities which represent a dozen or more municipalities, have water source quality staff.
Places such as the MVCA have three on staff, while larger ones like the GRCA would obviously have more, Ross said. He believes it would be inefficient to put the conservation authority mandate on local municipalities.
“I think what we have is an efficient way of doing things.”
Pat Salter, who represents the area on the Grand River Conservation Authority expressed similar sentiments.
She said the GRCA is involved in the lobby efforts for more funding to provide source water protection.
GRCA Chief Administrative Officer Paul Emerson said municipalities benefit from the expertise of GRCA staff, as well as the other authorities. He said planning applications are a double edged sword.
Emerson said the GRCA approach is that if a developer is benefiting, then he should incur more of the cost through planning fees. He added that the funds either come through the taxpayers or individual developers.
Plans are in the works to increase fees for planning applications, he said, so conservation authorities are not coming back for levy increases.
MVCA general manager Phil Beard said his board is adamant about keeping costs down. As a result, the MVCA recently sold a parcel of property near its headquarters in order to fund a mapping program in the watershed.
However it, too, faces a number of source water challenges, especially with the development along the Lake Huron shoreline. Like the MVCA it shares similar staff challenges.
“We’re on our fourth planner in a year-and-a-half,” Beard said.
Mayor Mike Broomhead remained firm that municipalities should be involved in lobbying efforts, and he pointed to the success of Wellington North in its relentless approach to secure funding for certain projects.
He said that sometimes shear numbers are needed to get the message across.
“We’ve proven it does work,” he said.
Broomhead also agreed when it came to downloading from the province, “conservation authorities have taken a beating.” He said that selling property to provide funding for certain projects only works in the short term.
“Eventually you run out of land to sell.”
As for the resolution presented by Brockton, there was little support around Wellington North’s council table.
Following Broomhead’s plea to entice conservation authorities to bring municipalities into the lobbying efforts, Ross brought up a sticky point.
As yet, Wellington North has not paid the second installment of its SVCA levy this year.
The levy payments are billed twice each year, and Ross said his understanding is that Wellington North had not paid the second part.
In the past, Wellington North disagreed with the timing of those payments and had asked Ross to forward that message.
He said it was very clear in the bylaws and that those bylaws were created with representation of all the municipalities, within the SVCA. Ross said the matter will be taken to the SVCA board to determine if a penalty will be imposed for late payment.
Councillor Ross Chaulk countered that the payment option was not an issue with the other conservation authorities it pays levies to.
“As much as you disagree with it, it is the way things are,” Ross said.
