The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) is calling on the province to maintain the role of conservation authorities in resource management, while sharing the financial burden more equitably with municipalities.
The GRCA is circulating to member municipalities a response to a discussion paper, part of a review of the provincial Conservation Authorities Act.
The response, received by Mapleton council from local GRCA representative Pat Salter at the Sept. 8 meeting, notes “stresses such as climate change, rapid growth and changing land uses significantly challenge the ability of natural ecosystems to support economic growth, a sustainable environment and the lifestyles and health of residents” – and GRCA programs contribute to addressing provincial priorities in these areas.
The GRCA report calls for “sustainable provincial funding,” which it states would “ensure greater consistency and continuation of programs.”
The review of the act is focused on governance, funding mechanisms and the roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities.
The GRCA response suggests the current governance model is “an efficient service delivery model” but notes “closer collaboration” between authorities, municipalities and provincial ministries would “assist in efficient delivery on provincial objectives.”
The report states the current mandate for authorities as outlined in the Conservation Authorities Act “remains relevant today,” and notes “from a science perspective, the watershed is at the right scale for the managing of water.”
On the subject of funding, the local authority feels a greater provincial contribution is warranted.
“Since the mid-1990s, MNRF (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry) has only approved provincial funding for the water-related natural hazard management role of (conservation authorities),” the report states.
“This includes flood and erosion control. Funding for this program was cut in the mid-l990s, and again in 2012 for GRCA. At the GRCA, aging infrastructure and climate change are placing increased demand on the water management infrastructure. Increasing population and the accompanying development causes increased service demand in the areas of plan review and natural hazard regulation.
“In addition, the growing population places increased demand on natural areas acquired by the GRCA for protection, but without a revenue source for managing the lands. Provincial funding support is required for these program areas which provide a broader public benefit.”
The GRCA report explains the funding partnership between the province and municipalities has moved from “a 50/50 partnership” to a point where, today, authorities derive “a large portion of their budgets” from local municipalities through a levy. Funding for authorities across the province is derived from a variety of sources, but a major share is provided through municipal levies, while 40% comes from self-generated revenues, 10% from the province for flood management and source water protection programs, and 2% is provided by federal grants or contracts. Locally, the GRCA’s revenue sources include 36% from municipal levy, 47% self-generated, 10% from provincial grants and 7% from reserves and from other municipal grants like the Rural Water Quality Program.
“As many of the benefits are local, it is fitting that funding of watershed-based programs is derived from the local tax base (the municipal levy),” the report states. “However, many of the benefits are in the broader public interest and require financial support from the province. It is appropriate that a portion of the funding be derived from the provincial tax base.”
The GRCA recommends establishment of “an inter-ministry approach” in the form of transfer payments to support water-related natural hazard prevention and management efforts.
“Ministries with responsibility for infrastructure management, land use planning policies to prevent development in hazard lands, flood emergency management and low-impact development approaches to stormwater management work together with CAs to achieve provincial objectives. This reinforces the need for the transfer payment for this program area to be more than just an MNRF responsibility.”
The report suggests carbon pricing revenues could be used as a potential new source of provincial income that could be used to support growth, planning and climate change mitigation and adaptation activities of conservation authorities.
Other sources of revenue that could be facilitated through legislative amendments or policies making conservation authorities eligible include development charges, stormwater fees and Ontario Trillium Foundation infrastructure funding for recreational or outdoor education facilities.
On the question of how the responsibility of oversight for authorities should be shared between the province and municipalities, the GRCA recommends the establishment of a committee that includes authorities, municipalities and provincial ministries.
To facilitate that, “the province should return to a more equitable cost sharing partnership between the province and municipalities,” it states.
Mapleton council received the report as information. The MNRF is accepting comments on the discussion paper until Oct. 19.
