Watershed Views

Conservation Authorities- A Good Investment

2012-01-20T14:48:00.000-05:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager,Conservation Ontario

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

Clearly, municipal politicians have a toughjob to do in balancing the need for their municipalities to provide servicesagainst the willingness and ability of their residents to pay for thoseservices. One fact the editorial overlooks,is that in 2011, resulting from a joint provincial municipal fiscal review, theOntario 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 socialassistance to be funded by provincial revenues (income and sales taxes) whileplace-based services like roads, fire, police, and yes, ConservationAuthorities, are funded from the property tax base. This ‘shift’ means a larger proportion offunding for specific programs is intended to come from the property tax base,with a corresponding reduction in provincial funding.

So, why are Conservation Authoritiesseeking levy increases that are greater than inflation? Don’t they get it thatmoney is tight? Yes, ConservationAuthorities understand the bottom line and because of this they leverage municipalinvestment on a 3 to 1 basis. For everydollar municipalities invest in a Conservation Authority, they get $3.00 inservices in return. ConservationAuthorities do this by running efficient operations and by partnering with otherauthorities, outside agencies, landowners and all levels of government todeliver programs and services.

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

flood and erosion protection, savingproperty 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 municipalsources; another 22% or 66 million from provincial and federal governments; andthe rest, $108 million from user fees – a pretty good return on the publicinvestment.

Put another way, the municipal contributionto Conservation Authority programs is around $10 per year for every person inOntario. That translates to around $33per average household! Too high a pricefor a healthy environment? Not if youconsider how important a healthy environment is to our own health andwell-being, and to our economy.

Connecting the Dots Between Economy and Environment

2011-12-01T16:37:00.001-05:00

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.

Working Together, Learning Together

2011-11-09T14:51:00.000-05:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

Next Wednesday (November 16) marks the beginning of the 18^th edition of the A.D.Latornell Conservation Symposium. Co-hosted by Conservation Ontario and the University of Guelph, the Symposium brings together more than a thousand people with a common interest – Ontario’s environment! The event provides an important forum for practitioners, policy-makers, environmental nonprofit organizations, business, academics, and young conservationists to meet, network, and share information.

The forum has been described by leading participants as “one of the most important environmental symposiums in North America”, a description which I believe is well deserved. I believe the main reason for its success – defined by the high quality of presenters, keynote speakers, and participants – is because the Symposium doesn’t really belong to any particular organization anymore - it belongs to the participants. They provide the organizing committee with a rich list of themes and presentation topics which are timely and relevant, and with speakers and presenters who are interesting, lively and experts in their field.

The Symposium is a place where innovation is born, strategies are debated, and new partnerships are brokered. In a constantly shifting and tight economy, and a stressed environment grappling with the impacts of rapid growth and climate change, there is a need to be more nimble; to work in closer collaboration; and to leverage resources and knowledge. The A.D. Latornell Symposium provides a unique opportunity for practitioners, professionals and students to meet, develop relationships, and inspire each other – a purpose for which the Symposium’s namesake, Art Latornell, would be proud!

Will you 'toss a coin' or make an informed choice?

2011-09-28T16:19:00.002-04:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

This week’s provincial leaders’ debate was inconclusive in terms of establishing a clear winner and only time will tell if it will influence next week’s election result to any great degree. Predictably, the P.C. and NDP leaders held the Liberals, as governing party, responsible for Ontario’s woes – high taxes, the deficit, sluggish economy, job losses, while trying to differentiate themselves from the government and from each other, pretty much sticking to their talking points. It is unlikely that party stalwarts will change their minds based on this debate, so the question becomes ‘how will it affect the undecided voter?’

From this viewer’s perspective, the choices are between a belief that Ontario’s future depends on a new, green economy or a more fiscally restrained view of government that sees the path to prosperity through reduced government spending and lower taxes. Voters who feel that taxes are too high, that electricity should be inexpensive, and the size and power of the public service should be reduced, will have a clear choice as will those who believe that strategic investments are crucial to maintaining an industrial sector based on tomorrow’s needs, such as sustainable energy technologies; and that pricing policies for energy and water should promote conservation.

Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell observed that election campaigns were no place for serious policy debates, and while that remark is considered to have cost her an election, it was an honest assessment that still appears to be valid, given the lack of any real substance in the debate. While not a criticism of the leaders, it is a sad commentary on the engagement of our population in the important democratic privilege and responsibility for choosing its government. If we are asked to choose our government based on cryptic sound bytes and oft-repeated phrases that don’t do justice to the issue, then we might as well just toss a coin on election day. Hopefully, undecided voters will make the effort to become more familiar with the choices, and, indeed, choose to vote rather than leave the outcome to the faithful.

This province is worthy of an election outcome based on thoughtful consideration, rather than chance. Do your democratic duty, become familiar with the real issues and on October 6, cast your vote!

No Pain, No Gain

2011-08-26T09:41:00.006-04:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager,

Conservation Ontario

There is an acknowledgement that the Ontario economy was hard hit by the global recession that began in 2008; less agreement on the solution. Keep taxes low, reduce the cost of electricity, slash government waste to balance the reduced revenues, get rid of inefficient or useless agencies, or invest in the new economy and in sustainable energy sources, but force the consumer to pay the cost. Folks, the time has come to admit, Ontario can’t meet the challenges of the future without some pain. Should consumers pay, or should the bill for moving to sustainable energy supply and minimizing waste to landfill be paid by those who use the energy and generate the waste?

Having spent the past two days at the Annual Conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), I am struck by the absence of direct reference to the environment in the program, in delegates’ questions to Ministers, and in the presentations by the leaders of the three provincial parties. And yet, environment was pervasive throughout the agenda and as if to ensure that this fact could not be forgotten, a disastrous tornado struck the Town of Goderich moments before the conference got underway on Sunday afternoon. If the mood of the delegates had not been sufficiently sobered as the magnitude of this disaster began to register, the news of Jack Layton’s passing, and its impact on each of us as we heard it, served to remind everyone of the fragile nature of our existence. 2011 will be an AMO Conference to remember.

The theme of this year’s conference – Our Communities… Our Potential…, embraced a contemporary agenda of change – in leadership, in the way we communicate, in our local economies, and in the way we identify and manage our municipal business (community services). The program emphasized community sustainability through financial and environmental sustainability. Our municipal leaders are actively participating in the paradigm shift that will be necessary to transform our communities and our economies for the future.

And how did the three provincial leaders contribute to the dialogue? There was a common acknowledgement of the importance of municipal government in providing for their communities, and of a strong provincial municipal partnership. The key differences seemed primarily to relate to the degree of responsibility that every Ontario citizen must assume for the important changes that are necessary for our economic recovery and a sustainable environment.

The right decision may not be popular, but it’s a no-brainer for this observer. Let’s hope that voters in this fall’s provincial election view their choice through the lens of their individual responsibility for our economy, our society and our environment.

"It's the environment, stupid- it's the environment!"

2011-07-21T14:34:00.008-04:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

There can be no doubt the most urgent matter on people’s minds during the current election campaign (ignoring the current heat wave) is the fragile state of the global economy and lack of any good news coming out of our neighbour to the south, Ontario’s largest trading partner. Stock markets are exhibiting the usual bout of summer doldrums (can’t decide to go up or down) and there is an underlying nervousness that the world economy could plunge back into recession at the slightest provocation.

Many economists, governments, and businesses today recognize that the economy is a subset of the environment. However, so far, in the lead up to Ontario’s October election, there hasn’t been a word about the environment beyond the obvious connection between the development of green energy sources and reduction of our dependence on carbon as a source of energy (coal fired electric generation plants as the most iconic example). Recent layoffs at the Ontario Ministry of the Environment seem to reinforce the notion that some perceive the pendulum has swung too far in favour of environmental protection and that the environment is a burden on the economy, a barrier to economic recovery, and an unreasonable intrusion into the rights and freedoms of individuals.

What is most disturbing to many people who are knowledgeable and concerned about the state of the environment, is that there are a host of serious environmental issues that directly and significantly influence our economy and will impact us greatly in the immediate future; yet, they are not even up for discussion. The state of our water resources (even in this part of the globe that is relatively rich in water supplies), loss of capacity to produce food, loss of biodiversity and the continuing extinction of species, our continuing dependence on carbon fuel, rising ocean levels, and a reshuffling of world climactic patterns are examples.

Why aren’t we talking about these issues? Is it our unwillingness as a species, a society, and a global community to confront the truth and accept some strong medicine today to make survival of humanity beyond the 21^st century a possibility? Are we too focused on clinging to our consumptive lifestyle and consumption driven economy to pay attention to the real issues?

Did anyone notice the recently declared famine afflicting the already desperate people who “live” in the horn of Africa? Try to imagine when those conditions affect more than half of the world’s population, some of it possibly closer to home. Remember the phrase spoken during the 1992

presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid!” It may be time to change that slogan slightly to, “It’s the environment, stupid, it’s the environment!”

Source Protection Defended

2011-06-17T19:08:00.008-04:00

By Don Pearson, General Manager, Conservation Ontario

A recent article from Monte Sonnenberg “Province going overboard protecting water sources” appearing in a number of local media outlets takes issue with the provincial response to the Walkerton tragedy of 2000, claiming municipalities have been forced to “over-engineer” their water systems and that “billions of dollars in extraordinary costs” have been racked up! We don’t dispute the author’s right to express his opinions, but let’s get the facts straight!

To suggest that the events at Walkerton were simply the result of careless behaviour of a few employees displays wanton ignorance of the factors that contributed the tragedy, which are thoroughly documented in Justice Dennis O’Connor’s well considered reports on the Walkerton Inquiry. The people who died, and the hundreds of others who became ill and who are still exhibiting health effects, were the needless result of a systemic failure of a critical public service. The issues ranged from individual failures of responsibility, gaps in regulatory oversight, communication breakdown, inadequate training, and agencies that were understaffed and under resourced to fulfill their responsibilities.

In Part 2 of the Inquiry, Justice O’Connor consulted a wide range of national and international experts to come up with recommendations to the province on how to protect drinking water in the future. Since the release of the Inquiry Report, the Province has implemented those recommendations to put in place a multi-barrier approach. This is consistent with the way others around the world are protecting drinking water sources. To ensure a tragedy like Walkerton never happens again is the least the government can do, and all Ontario political parties have endorsed and committed to implement the recommendations of the inquiry, including the need to protect drinking water supplies at their source.

I will leave the outrageous statements regarding “over-engineered” water systems and over-staffed public works departments to others more qualified to refute. Suffice to say, municipalities are still able to supply a cubic metre of safe drinking water to their residents for less than $2. Of course, I am free to purchase a 500 ml bottle for as little as $1 at a convenience store, even cheaper if I buy a case, but that adds up to $2000 per cubic metre. Since municipalities are assumed to recover the cost of providing this service by charging adequate rates, they must be rather efficient at producing and distributing drinking water. It is difficult to imagine how supplying drinking water is bankrupting them!

Regarding the continuing effort to protect drinking water sources, characterized as “bureaucracy run amok”, there are about 40 staff at the Ministry of the Environment, and another 120 working at the local Conservation Authorities, writing guidance and policies and looking at the features in a watershed that are critical to maintaining water supply as well as the activities that could threaten these supplies. This Ontario Drinking Water Source Protection Program protects 986 municipal wells and 156 surface water intakes. The total cost of this effort from the planning stage to plan completion will be around $160 Million or $2 per Ontario resident per year.

In terms of protecting sources of drinking water, the provincial government followed the O’Connor recommendations to give control of the source protection planning process to the local community. Source Protection Committees are composed of representatives from municipalities, agriculture, other local industries and the general public. It is these committees that are making the decisions on source protection policies, not provincial bureaucrats.

The final thought that water, due to Walkerton, is approaching the cost of hydro and natural gas, is the most curious. Water is rated by cubic metre, as is natural gas, while electricity (hydro) is rated on Kilowatt hours of consumption. Water and sewer charges are around $1.90 per cubic metre, while natural gas is currently $0.24. A cubic metre of water (1000 litres) would last the average household of three persons for about one day using our per capita average consumption (most of which goes down the toilet) while a cubic metre of natural gas provides heat and hot water for about 2.5 hours during the winter months. So my daily water and sewage cost is less than my daily gas cost of $2.40. Is water expensive? Perhaps, if you don’t compare it to anything else a household purchases, like Cable TV!

'Take a Hike'...Before Your Doctor Tells You To!

2011-06-10T09:17:00.001-04:00

Don Pearson is the General Manager
of Conservation Ontario

Thank you to Dr. Conrad Sichler from Burlington Ontario who was featured in a recent Toronto Star article by Andrea Gordon (June 3, 2011) as one of many doctors pulling out their prescription pads to send patients out on ‘nature walks’ to alleviate their stress and depression. The prescribed dosage – “repeat as often as you can.”

These ‘Park Prescriptions’ must be getting good reviews from patients and doctors alike, because according to Gordon’s article, some American health centres have taken this concept a step further and are developing partnerships with parks and conservation areas to get more kids out hiking, biking and just enjoying nature.

As owners of more than 144,000 hectares of some of Ontario’s best forested lands, wetlands, water resources and open spaces - most of which are easily accessible to the majority of Ontario’s population - Conservation Authorities can play a key role in helping our population to achieve better mental and physical health. And many of you apparently agree - in 2010, there were over 5 million visitors to conservation areas. If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I can’t think of a better area for public investment!

Conservation Authorities plan on playing a bigger role in growing healthier Ontarians. This was identified as one of four Strategic Goals in Conservation Ontario’s new Strategic Plan: Sharing Conservation Authority Strengths –Strategic Directions 2011 to 2015.

Like many other agencies relying on some level of government investment, Conservation Authorities recognize that our public financial resources are being increasingly consumed by our health care system; and if a case can be made for spending public money on the health of the environment, it will be more successful if it can be made in terms of impact on human health.

Conservation Authorities recognize the need for more partnerships and closer linkages between health and our environment and, as a first step, they are committed to reinforcing and demonstrating the direct connections between healthy local environments and social and health care goals. As their Strategic Plan rolls out over the next five years, you will see Conservation Authorities engaging more closely with human health experts in order to strengthen this connection and lend credibility to the argument that healthy and accessible green spaces are critical to our personal sense of health and well-being.

If you still need some convincing, then note that this message is one that is consistently reinforced by another strong advocate – Dr. John Howard, a Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine at the London Health Sciences Centre, and Chair of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Dr. Howard promotes an ‘ecosystem health’ model that asks ‘Why is this patient here and what can I do to prevent others from having the same illness?’ Basically, the idea is to protect human health by protecting the planet. This is one ideal that should be near and dear to all our hearts.

Conservation Authorities have a full plate with their day to day operations but nothing is more important than making sure that the natural areas they manage are resilient, healthy and accessible. Hopefully more people will decide to take advantage of them - before they require a doctor’s prescription to do so.

Original Article: Doctors prescribe the great outdoors to get patients moving (Toronto Star, Andrea Gordon, June 3, 2011)

Better Safe Than Flooded

2011-05-13T16:27:00.001-04:00

Don Pearson is the General Manager of Conservation Ontario

The past few days have been filled with video and media accounts of the impending flood disaster unfolding in Manitoba, diverting our attention from a similar situation in the valley of the Richelieu River in Quebec. And if that isn’t enough, we have the growing drama in the lower Mississippi Valley with the prospect of significant flooding once again in New Orleans. All of these stories have a common thread – Mother Nature imposing her will on a population which although stoic, is virtually helpless to prepare for and cope with the crisis.

It is gut-wrenching to watch people hold back tears as they contemplate the impending loss to their houses, barns, family treasures and possibly their livelihood. Fortunately loss of life should be minimized because at least officials are able to provide some forecast of the timing and extent of the areas affected – but even that is not an exact science.

We have witnessed similar events in Ontario (Hurricane Hazel in 1954, Cambridge in 1974 and more recently floods in Stratford, Peterborough and North Toronto), and will –no doubt – experience again, but we have learned some lessons from our history. Through a combination of strategically placed structures (dams, dykes, channels) and a flood and erosion hazard management program which defines and generally prohibits development in flood prone areas, we have minimized the risk to our residents, ensuring that the major investment most people will make in their lives, their homes, do not become part of a disaster area.

The provincial government, coupled with 36 local watershed-based Conservation Authorities and municipalities, has enacted legislation, regulation and policies which, while occasionally being challenged by those who generally oppose government interference in their property rights, have proven to be a sound public policy for more than a half century. In addition to protecting individuals and communities against such a disaster, it prevents huge societal costs for disaster relief, cleanup and economic disruption – estimated conservatively in Ontario at more than $100 million annually, not counting social costs.

We should bear this in mind as we watch these tragedies unfold over the next days and weeks and be reminded that governments not only have the right but a duty to protect the population from disaster. This is not to suggest that other jurisdictions are not doing the best they can, but we need to pay attention in Ontario to make sure that decades of progress in regard to avoided consequences should not be taken for granted.

For more information on flooding in Ontario visit Conservation Ontario’s website http://www.conservationontario.ca/projects/floods_management.html

Protecting People & Property: A Business Case for Investing in Flood Prevention & Control (Conservation Ontario 2009)