A Check Up on the Health of Ontario's Watersheds

By Charley Worte, Interim General Manager, Conservation Ontario

In recognition of Canada Water Week, Ontario’s Conservation Authorities are launching a series of Watershed Report Cards that provide us with a picture on the health of a number of Ontario watersheds. More than a dozen are available today on the website with more to come throughout this year.

Conservation Authorities, in partnership with other agencies, collect a wide variety of water and environmental data and, while most Conservation Authorities have issued reports on watershed conditions before, this is the first time that report cards have used standardized analysis and reporting methods. This will allow Ontario residents to get a province wide picture of the health of our watersheds.

The responsibility for managing watershed natural resources is shared by many organizations including provincial ministries, municipalities, citizens groups, watershed residents as well as the Conservation Authorities themselves. These report cards provide insight into how we are collectively doing using three resource categories: surface water quality, forest conditions and groundwater quality.

The grades of the first batch of report cards are sobering. While there are some As and Bs there are also a lot of Ds and Cs, primarily in areas of intensive land use such as the Greater Toronto area or in areas with extensive agriculture. This is to be expected since we know that intensive land use has a significant impact on our rivers and natural areas.

One of the biggest threats we need to tackle is storm water runoff in both urban and rural areas, which can carry pollutants into rivers and lakes and cause erosion and flooding. We also need to do a better job of protecting and restoring natural areas.

The good news is we know what the solutions are.

To start with we can do more watershed planning, monitoring and reporting to identify specific problems and target the most effective solutions. In urban areas we can be smarter in how we develop land by implementing Low Impact Development which prevents storm water runoff and instead, keeps water on the landscape and cycling through the water cycle. Storm water runoff is polluting rivers, creeks and streams, and ultimately impacting the Great Lakes. In rural areas  farmers and other landowners, with the help of various agencies, are  implementing stewardship practices that reduce impacts, and with additional support they can do more.

Why should this matter to you? A healthy watershed provides us with safe drinking water, clean air, access to green areas and outdoor activities, and provides a foundation for a good part of Ontario’s economy.  

Healthy ecosystems and biodiversity build local watershed resilience, promoting healthier Great Lakes and helping us adapt to one of the biggest and growing challenges we face – climate change.

While these Watershed Report Cards provide a snapshot of how we are doing now, their real value will come in the future when subsequent report cards will allow us to compare trends over time to find out how effective our efforts are.

In the meantime, take the opportunity to explore these reports cards to learn about your local watershed and then talk to your local Conservation Authority. If you happen to live in an A or B watershed the Conservation Authority can give you ideas on how you can keep it that way. If it’s a C or a D, don’t worry, they can tell you what you can do to help improve the grade next time.

Great Lakes, Great Responsibility

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

Environment Minister Jim Bradley chose an appropriate setting on June 6 to announce a significant piece of legislation, the Great Lakes Protection Act.   On the shores of Lake Ontario, and surrounded by an enthusiastic cast of stakeholders, including agencies, environmental organizations, politicians and a host of elementary school children he introduced an Act, Strategy, and even an incentive program to protect the Great Lakes which has been a long-standing commitment by the Liberal Government and was an important feature of the government’s election campaign last fall.

At first blush, this kind of legislation seems to be a no-brainer; after all, the Great Lakes virtually define the boundary of the part of Ontario that is home to 90% of its population, the majority of whom get their drinking water directly from the Great Lakes!  Collectively, the lakes contain about 20% of earth’s fresh water, yet we treat them like a waste disposal.  All of our treated sewage waste from municipal systems, and all of our runoff from rainfall and storm events, eventually winds up in the lakes, some of it directly via pipeline (oops, I almost typed “poopline”), and the rest indirectly as it languishes in rivers like the Grand and the Thames before lending its enrichment to the “beautiful waters” that in the Iroquoian language are called “Ontario.”

The Great Lakes Strategy is an excellent document that describes what has happened to the lakes, how they are doing at the present time, and what we need to do to address existing and future challenges.  The Strategy should be read by every person living within the Great Lakes basin. 

I suggest that reading this document should not enable us to bask in the glow of pride and good fortune that we are so blessed to live in a province that has such an abundance of fresh water, but should help us realize the tremendous duty that this places on each and every one of us.  We need to understand the impact of our daily behaviour on these “beautiful waters” and take responsibility for ensuring that they remain a legacy for future generations to enjoy and to depend upon, the way that we have been able to do while taking them for granted.

Perhaps a greater awareness of the importance of the Great Lakes and their related natural areas by citizens, politicians, and others will encourage us to re-evaluate decisions such as the recent one involving development in a provincially significant wetland in the Niagara Region (City of Welland), which was recently dismissed in provincial court.  According to media reports, the Justice determined that the subject property was not a wetland even though the Ministry of Natural Resources had determined that it was in fact within a provincially significant wetland complex.  If we as a society don’t learn to connect the dots, and realize that we bear the full consequences of our behaviour (we reap what we sow), we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past, and won’t begin to address the real issues until it is much too late. 

It is time we mature as a society and begin to create the kind of environment that we want to live in and want to leave for the children of Ontario.

Does our Federal government consider science an inconvenience?

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

It seems paradoxical that the federal government is so aggressively pursuing its anti-environmental agenda precisely when the weight of evidence demands the opposite response.  The human population reached 7 billion at the end of October, winter in North America simply wasn’t this year, and tornado season came early to the Midwest.  Insurance companies are bleeding red ink, and we are experiencing unprecedented economic hardship.  But, this government is fixated on addressing the economy by focusing on GDP growth, consumption, and traditional measures of economic health while seemingly ignoring the other side of the ledger! No doubt sociologists and criminologists are expressing the same frustration with the ideologically driven law and order agenda that flies in the face of trends and results elsewhere.

On Thursday of this week, we learned that the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario would lose the financial support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, putting this world-class research facility in freshwater ecosystems that has been in operation since the 1960’s at risk.  According to the Globe and Mail, University of Alberta professor David Schindler said that employees were told the facility will be closed as of March 2013, and that universities, not governments, should be doing this kind of science.  Schindler argues that this type of large-scale, long-term research requires government support, and suggests that “we have a government that considers science an inconvenience.”  In a recent submission prepared for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on a National Conservation Plan, Conservation Ontario made repeated statements about the need for action underpinned by a strong science, research, and monitoring framework.  That is how adaptive management works, and it is how we determine the effects and impacts of our activities and our interventions.   Governments do have a role to play in setting up frameworks, supporting coordination and collaboration, and working to establish a shared vision so that our collective efforts are effective.

Canada is blessed to have such a large percentage of the world’s freshwater (20% in the Great Lakes alone) within its borders – yet the abandonment of this world class research facility, coupled with its lengthy period of operation, signals that the federal government is dismissing its responsibility to manage its freshwater resources with the care they deserve.  We simply cannot blame those who are cynical about the motives of the federal government in establishing a National Conservation Plan (or at least, in talking about establishing one) when the government’s actions seem to run contrary to the Plan’s stated purpose “…to move our conservation objectives forward and better connect all Canadians with nature.”  I believe Canadians still feel quite strongly about their environment, and this government will face the consequences of these ill-thought decisions in years to come.

The Politics of Water Conservation

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

I was struck this week by the realization that we public servants have done a lousy job in educating the public about the reasons that certain policy initiatives might actually be in the public’s interest.  In my hometown of London, Ontario the media have reported over the past few weeks of staff proposals to increase water rates to compensate for the drop in revenues resulting from reduced consumption.  In other words, the public are conserving water, as they ought to do, and by way of appreciation, they are being asked to pay a higher rate for water!   The response is predictable.

The reasons for this perverse outcome have to do with the capital cost of the water infrastructure, which is a fixed cost; the operating or “variable” cost (staff, energy to run pumps, etc.); and the fact that there is no charge for the water itself.  Thus, conserving water may lead to a reduction in some of the variable costs, like energy required to pump a certain volume of water, but not necessarily in the cost of staffing (plants still have to run 24/7) and certainly not in the cost of the capital (the water treatment plants and the distribution system of pipes, valves, etc.)  So, the consumer is rewarded for good behaviour with higher rates.  Hmm, something seems to be wrong with this picture! 

Is the issue that too much capital was invested in the first place, creating a higher fixed cost for water supply and treatment?  That is part of the answer; we design and build our capacity based on our projections of demand.  In other words, if we expect a water treatment or pollution control plant to have a life of 20, or 30 or even 50 years, how many people will it eventually need to serve, and how many litres per day does each person require?  So we overbuild today to have capacity for the future.  The problem is that our historical consumption is not necessarily an appropriate figure to plan on, especially if we are reducing our wasteful consumption.

 Another part of the equation is that the water rates do not include an amount for the product itself – the water!   We expect water to be free; after all, it just falls from the sky!  If we are using water like the precious commodity it is (no water, no life on earth), we should be a lot more careful with it.  Low flush toilets are a good start, but maybe we should be using grey water for some purposes, and saving the drinking water for drinking, rather than bathing, flushing toilets, washing cars, or watering lawns.  We need to rewrite our building codes to enable some of these innovative systems, which are not so novel in jurisdictions already water stressed, and would make good economic sense in Ontario if we priced potable (drinking) water appropriately, something much closer to its true value.  Many of us seem to have no problem shelling out a dollar for a 500 ml bottle, which works out to $2,000 a cubic metre, an amount the municipality delivers to our tap for less than 2 dollars!

We are fortunate in Ontario to be surrounded by 20% of the world’s supply of fresh water – and yet, many of us take this for granted.  Largely for this reason, we waste a lot of water – and we have built (and must pay for) the infrastructure to enable this gross waste.  And as we continue the transition from profligate consumers to educated citizens, and become less wasteful, we need to ensure that our pricing structure doesn’t require our elected leaders to reward good behaviour with penalties.  That type of public policy is just not sustainable!

There's an Achievable Vision Somewhere in that Ontario Budget!

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario




The much anticipated Ontario Budget was delivered on March 27 and it looks as though we may be waiting a while longer to see just how the Ontario Government, (assuming it survives the budget vote), plans to “reform Ontario’s Public Services”  as recommended in the Drummond Report.  The focus on any budget shouldn’t be just on saving money, but doing things better. And, in order to do so, we need to take a look at the bigger picture today, and down the road.
 

Short on specifics, the budget is rich with language that could signal substantive reform if the government remains in power long enough to deliver on this change agenda.

Environment gets scarce mention in the budget because the priority is a focus on limiting government spending and achieving a balance of revenues and expenditures by 2017.   Besides, spending on the environment could be eliminated and the government would still have a huge deficit problem – we just don’t spend a lot of the budget on the environment despite some pretty serious, long term, growing challenges particularly around water and climate change.  

However, there is a significant reference to saving taxpayers’ money, disentangling services and streamlining the regulatory burden, all of which are not only laudable, but essential in a climate of low economic growth and increasing health care costs.

One recommendation of the Drummond Report that is mentioned has to do with the disentanglement of services that are currently delivered by multiple levels of government.  “Ontario wants to work with the federal government to disentangle programs where policy areas are shared to remove duplication, saving taxpayers’ money and providing better services to citizens.”  As agencies that have direct experience with the waste and inefficiency that results from shared and overlapping jurisdictions, especially in water and natural resources management, Conservation Authorities are optimistic that this vision is achievable, provided the right players are at the table with a serious mandate to fix the system. 

Of course, the federal government could decide to pre-empt such discussions and recent reports of impending changes to the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act suggest that might happen.  The province might consider steps to engage the federal government sooner rather than later so that ‘disentanglement’ discussions aren’t simply a matter of provincial ministries agreeing on ways to streamline services and regulatory compliance!

Conservation Authorities- A Good Investment

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

The Owen Sound Sun Times featured an editorial on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 suggesting that Conservation Authorities “have to do more to keep their costs under control.”  The article acknowledged the important work that Conservation Authorities do in protecting wetlands, forests, parks, and other natural amenities.  It also observed that a 6% increase in the municipal levy to fund this work, was not going over too well – especially considering that inflationary costs are tracking closer to 2%.

Clearly, municipal politicians have a tough job to do in balancing the need for their municipalities to provide services against the willingness and ability of their residents to pay for those services.  One fact the editorial overlooks, is that in 2011, resulting from a joint provincial municipal fiscal review, the Ontario government committed to upload $2.5 billion in social services costs, creating a corresponding amount of tax room at the local level.  This agreement enables programs like social assistance to be funded by provincial revenues (income and sales taxes) while place-based services like roads, fire, police, and yes, Conservation Authorities, are funded from the property tax base.  This ‘shift’ means a larger proportion of funding for specific programs is intended to come from the property tax base, with a corresponding reduction in provincial funding.

So, why are Conservation Authorities seeking levy increases that are greater than inflation? Don’t they get it that money is tight?  Yes, Conservation Authorities understand the bottom line and because of this they leverage municipal investment on a 3 to 1 basis.  For every dollar municipalities invest in a Conservation Authority, they get $3.00 in services in return.  Conservation Authorities do this by running efficient operations and by partnering with other authorities, outside agencies, landowners and all levels of government to deliver programs and services.

Municipalities get a lot for their money.  Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities collectively spend more than $300 million each year to provide a wide range is essential services:

·  flood and erosion protection, saving property owners more than $100 million annually;

·  clean and plentiful water supplies;

·  more than 3 million trees planted;

·  outdoor education for a half million kids; and

·  recreation for 6 million campers, swimmers, hikers, and picnickers.             

Of this total budget, about 42% or $126 million comes from municipal sources; another 22% or 66 million from provincial and federal governments; and the rest, $108 million from user fees – a pretty good return on the public investment. 

Put another way, the municipal contribution to Conservation Authority programs is around $10 per year for every person in Ontario.  That translates to around $33 per average household!  Too high a price for a healthy environment?  Not if you consider how important a healthy environment is to our own health and well-being, and to our economy.

Connecting the Dots Between Economy and Environment

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

Two recent reports are bound to influence the agenda of the Ontario legislature in the weeks and months to come.  On November 20^th, media reported that the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services, under the leadership of Don Drummond, former Chief Economist at TD Bank, would recommend “merging government departments and agencies to save money.”  That process began with the Ministry of Health Promotion being folded into the Ministry of Health in mid-October.   Further insights into the extent of possible consolidation will become public with a preliminary report due in January, leading into the spring provincial budget.  The imperative of a $16 billion deficit should give the government the political room it needs to initiate substantive change, but we shall see.

One week later, Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller released his Annual Report card on how well the government is meeting its environmental challenges and commitments, and, frankly gave a failing grade.  In his report, Engaging Solutions, Miller makes observations on the disconnect between identification of problems and solutions, and actual progress with implementation of those solutions.  He uses the examples of solid waste management and the Endangered Species Act, where policy doesn’t seem to translate into action.  But he also raises the fact that funding to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources has declined (in 2009 dollars) by 45% and 22% respectively since 1992/1993; and as a percentage of government operational costs, from 2.15% to .76%.

We don’t know if Mr. Drummond will go so far as to recommend consolidation of these two Ministries, but one could legitimately make the observation that both could be eliminated and the government will still have a $15 billion dollar problem!  Clearly, if there are to be substantial savings in government operations, efficiencies need to be found where expenditures are greatest – in Health Care and in Education.  Yet Drummond maintains that these two areas should be protected from restraint measures and in fact be allowed to grow at 3% and 1% per year respectively.  According to the Globe and Mail (November 23, 2011), everything else will need to be cut by 1.6% each year if a balanced budget is to be achieved by 2017/2018.  Something major will need to change or the Environmental Commissioner’s next Annual Report will sound very familiar!

 It is almost a cliché that in times of economic stress, the environment takes a back seat.  And yet, over the past decade we have been told that the economy is dependent on the environment; ergo, a healthy economy requires a healthy environment.   If we are serious, we need to prove it and start turning this model around.  I don’t believe that the discussion should focus on money, but on effective implementation.  If Drummond gets it right, he won’t be looking to trim non-existent fat, but to consolidate legislation, regulations and policies, and streamline environmental management so that it is not positioned as a drag on business and the economy; but rather as one of our Province’s key competitive advantages.