Changes are being proposed for conservation authorities

One of the concerns with a larger regional conservation authority, as is being proposed, is the future of conservation areas, such as Deer Creek Conservation Area pictured here. Conservation areas assist the Long Point Region Conservation authority in generating 67 per cent of its own revenue. (Contributed photo)

Jeff Helsdon, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

The Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) board is opposing major changes to Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities.

At its Dec. 3 board meeting, authority directors – who represent the communities within the watershed – passed a resolution stating they do not support the proposed amalgamation that would fold LPRCA in with the Essex Region CA, Lower Thames Valley CA, St. Clair Region CA, Upper Thames River CA, Kettle Creek CA, Catfish Creek CA, and Grand River CA. The new entity would encompass a huge swath of Southwestern Ontario, stretching from Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River in the west, down the Lake Erie shoreline to past Dunnville. The proposal seeks to change the boundaries of the existing conservation authorities, currently based on watersheds, to just seven.

The proposed new Lake Erie conservation authority would see the number of member municipalities increase to 81. Many councils have expressed concern that this would put local representation at risk.

In a letter to the Minister of Environment, Parks and Conservation about the proposed change, LPRCA board chair and Tillsonburg Deputy Mayor Dave Beres, wrote, “The LPRCA Board of Directors acknowledges and supports the province’s goals of improved efficiency, consistence and fiscal responsibility in conservation delivery, however, the LPRCA Board of Directors does not support the proposed Lake Erie Regional Conservation Authority boundary configuration.”

During a recent Tillsonburg council meeting, Beres confirmed the authority plans no budget increase for 2026. He added that LPRCA generates 67 cents of every dollar it spends through park fees, logging revenue, and permit fees, instead of relying on taxpayers.

In an interview on Monday, Beres said the proposed boundaries don’t make sense, as some areas within the proposed larger conservation authority have shorelines to manage, while others don’t, and some, like LPRCA, have forest assets and parks generating revenue.

“They haven’t come out and told us specifically why we are doing this,” he said, saying all conservation authorities are told the province is still gathering information on the proposal.

The province’s news release on the proposed change states legislation to create a new Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency will be released soon. The goal of the change is “improving the province’s conservation authority system to help get shovels in the ground faster on homes and other local infrastructure projects, while strengthening the vital role conservation authorities play in managing watersheds and protecting communities from floods and natural hazards.”

Conservation authority boards across the province and Conservation Ontario, the provincial agency representing all authorities, continue to oppose the proposal of creating only seven authorities. Beres said the LPRCA board wants the province to revisit the proposal and extend discussions past Dec. 22.

“There’s all sorts of things we’re doing right and they want to change the whole system,” he said.

Beres also has concerns about present and past donors to the authority. A portion of the properties the authority owns was donated by local residents.

Any residents wishing to comment on the proposal can do so through the province’s Environmental Bill of Rights website at ERO No. 025-1257 Proposed boundaries for regional consolidations of Ontario’s Conservation Authorities.