City will ‘push back’ on province’s conservation authority changes
Councillors demand a say in how the Conservation Authorities Act will be overhauled, which they argue will gut environmental protections in Hamilton
Hamilton is demanding a say in looming provincial changes to conservation authorities that critics warn will “decapitate” local watershed agencies and weaken environmental protections.
The Progressive Conservative government is facing fierce opposition from cities and environmentalists after it overhauled the Conservation Authorities Act in December. Seven members of the government’s own Greenbelt Council resigned over the legislation, arguing it will “cut the heart out” of watershed planning and protection.
The amended law has already passed, but most contentious changes — like new appeal options for land developers and an effort to redefine “mandatory” authority services — have yet to be enacted.
“There is still an opportunity to push back on these issues,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger at city council this week. “If all of us make some noise … possibly we can change their mind.”
The province has responded to critics by creating a working group to advise the government on how to implement the changes via specific regulations. The new rules may not kick in until next year.
“Our government is committed to ongoing collaboration as we work to improve how conservation authorities deliver core programs and services,” wrote Environment Minister Jeff Yurek in a letter to Hamilton council.
Flamborough-Glanbrook Tory MPP Donna Skelly also said by email the planned working groups will provide a “stronger voice” to conservation authorities and other stakeholders in setting the new regulations.
That working group includes no Hamilton representatives — but it does have three major housing developers, including Mattamy Homes, Remington Group and EQ Homes.
That news didn’t go over well with Hamilton councillors, who directed the mayor to write a letter asking
for local representation on the working group and reiterating environmental concerns about the changes.
The changes have “basically decapitated conservation authorities,” said Coun. Brenda Johnson, who chairs the board of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority that governs a watershed stretching into Stoney Creek and Glanbrook.
“Now after the decapitation we’ll get together and try to make it better.”
Several council members also criticized the inclusion of developers on the working group, with the mayor calling it “oxymoronic” and Coun. Brad Clark comparing the move to letting “the fox in the henhouse.”
The CEO of nearby Halton Conservation, Hassaan Basit, will chair the working group.
Basit earlier this week told councillors in a virtual presentation he did not think Hamilton’s exclusion was a “snub,” adding his authority’s watershed does cover large areas of Flamborough.
He expressed hope the working group can influence and tweak the eventual regulations to strengthen “rather than weaken” the mandate of conservation authorities.
Here are some examples of planned changes that are alarming critics:
Ministerial Zoning Orders
Basically, if the provincial housing minister issues a ministerial zoning order for a proposed land development, the conservation authority must issue a development permit — even if that development is on environmentally sensitive land, or if experts recommend against the project.
This change is already in place. Such a scenario hasn’t played out in Hamilton yet, but a MZO issued in Pickering late last year will allow an entertainment district to be built on a significant wetland area.
Appeals
The amended act would give new avenues of appeal to would-be builders who have been denied development permits in or near floodplains and wetlands, for example. That includes the option to appeal denied permits to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal — or even ask for a review by the provincial environment minister.
The minister will also have more latitude to intervene in applications with or without a local decision.
Mandatory services
New regulations are also supposed to define “mandatory” conservation authority services. Those will obviously include things like flood and source water protection — but will they also include environmental education, campgrounds or other recreational services?
We don’t know yet. But conservation authorities will have to convince individual councils to agree to fund any services that don’t meet the new definition of mandatory.
Stop work orders
The amended act will allow conservation authorities to issue stop work orders — for example, if someone is illegally dumping construction fill near a wetland. But land owners will be able to appeal those stopwork orders, potentially allowing more environmental damage to be done.