CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES THINK BIG

Whether the backdrop is a dazzling array of fall colours, or a
dusting of glistening white snow, Brad Clements' weathered old barn
nestled in the shadow of Rattlesnake Point looks picture-postcard
perfect to shutterbugs passing by below, and climbers clinging to
the rock face far above.
Clements, who has watched the stream of tourists grow ever since
his father sold the picturesque outcropping of the Niagara
Escarpment to the local conservation authority in 1961, doesn't
mind having a photo-opp. for a farm, even if he never gets a credit
on the postcards. But farming beside an urban playground owned by
a conservation authority hasn't always been easy for the Clements',
who grow Christmas trees near Milton.
 "Living next to Big Brother isn't always a suitable arrangement,"
says Clements. "They do things that the average landowner can't
do." The conservation authority built a stairway up the cliff and
a concession stand on top, and makes partial purchases that divide
up farmland. But if he ever decided to replace the old barn,
Clements couldn't even pick the paint colour without filling out
forms in triplicate.
Today, with record numbers  climbing up, hiking along, hang-gliding
off and skiing down the 700-kilometre environmentally-fragile
Niagara Escarpment, and his own conservation authority planning to
plonk a new ski chalet on top, Clements and other farmers wonder
whether Ontario's 38 conservation authorities are becoming
"recreation" authorities instead; and whether a new proposal to
increase their powers is nothing more than a power and tax grab by
the bureaucracy.
Power grab or not, the chances of the 30-page report from the
Peterborough-based Association of Conservation Authorities of
Ontario becoming reality have never been better. The report, which
recommends turning conservation authorities into a "one-window"
provider of services now offered by a plethora of other ministries,
fell on the deaf ears of former NDP Minister of Natural Resources
Howard Hampton. But laced with Mike Harris friendly terms such as
"overlap removal", "rationalization" and" fiscal realities", it
shows every sign of resurfacing in the month end interim provincial
budget. And with the imminent closure of agriculture and natural
resources ministry offices expected in the budget, Conservation
Authorities may win by default.
Art Sinclair, policy adviser for the current Natural Resources
Minister Chris Hodgson, will only say his boss is "reviewing" the
report. Sinclair adds that the government will look at "providing
services in the most cost-effective framework for the Ontario
taxpayer."
Jan Street, manager of communication for the conservation
authorities, is less guarded. "Our proposal basically reflected the
mandate of the Common Sense Revolution. We are very hopeful," she
says.
Once adopted, likely by Cabinet approval alone, the report would
follow a brisk "2-4-1" time frame with a target of Jan. 1, 1997:
two months to "transfer protocols"; four pilot conservation
authorities; and one year to get the others on stream.
In the report, entitled Restructuring Resource Management in
Ontario, Implementing-Blueprint, the province's 38 conservation
authorities call for "community-based watershed conservation",
bringing a variety of related legislation under the control of the
local conservation authority. Under the proposal, farmers' local
authority would handle permits, planning and programs now
administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario
agriculture ministry, Ministry of Environment and Energy, and
municipalities - in other words, anything from manure storage to
septic tanks to tile drainage would require the local authority's
stamp of approval
Street denies the Blueprint is an elaborate job protection program
for the province's 900 conservocrats, who spend some $40 million in
taxpayers' money a year. "We believe it will improve the system,
and the system will be streamlined. There will be fewer layers to
deal with. In the end, a one-window approach makes it easier for
the landowner to get a permit. Now, it takes at least three
agencies," says Street.
Nor will the report result in the dreaded "downloading" onto
already-overburdened municipalities, she says. Rather, savings in
duplication of services will more than compensate: "We're not
expecting higher municipal tax levels." The report cites savings of
up to 35 per cent. Of the authorities' approximate $60-million
annual budgets, one-third comes from the province, one-third from
municipalities, and one-third from private sources - conservation
areas, and private endowments.
Burlington-area dairy farmer Murray Harris, the only farmer
director on the Halton Region Conservation Authority, is suspicious
of the report. "They are adamant in acquiring full jurisdiction
over resource planning issues," says Harris. "They're guaranteeing
their existence in the re-engineering and restructuring of
government, by basically taking away municipal and provincial
regulatory authority.
"This is about money, job security and growth of bureaucracy."
Harris says "the agriculture community should be very concerned"
about potential "downloading on municipal taxes....The farm
community is paying for this property, and who's using it? Three
million people in the Greater Toronto Area. The 80 per cent from
outside are being carried by the tax base."
Harris and other area farmers complain that authorities aren't
accountable to taxpayers because board members are appointed:
"These people are regulators, not advisers.... There's no one
watching the watchers....I would compare it to the Senate."
Like Harris, Halton cash cropper Peter Lambrick cites a "double
standard" arising from a Planning Act clause exempting conservation
authorities from having to get severances approved by a Land
Division Committee. Lambrick also charges the Halton authority is
acquiring land on behalf of the Bruce Trail Association for hiker
trails.
Last March, for instance, the authority purchased about 120 acres
of bush off the back of the Milton farm of pork producers Brian and
Heather Smith; the parcel, which cost $300,000, is now used by the
Bruce Trail Association.
Lambrick says conservation officers even asked to be armed with
pepper spray. "They're trying to push through designation of
authority staff as enforcement officers. They can trespass on your
property and check you out. The Halton Region Conservation
Authority has a quasi police force....If we want more police, we
pay taxes. If they want more money, they can levy it out."
There's also growing debate over whether conservation authorities
are getting more involved in recreation than conservation. The
Halton authority is currently undergoing a "master plan review" of
its Kelso conservation area, including the Glen Eden ski area.
Plans may include a new ski chalet, ski run, and an access road;
total cost could approach $10 million.
"You can't build a silo and these guys want to put a ski hill on
top of the escarpment," responds Harris.
While much of the escarpment is designated as Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA), Halton Region manager of planning services Ho
Wong says recreational use is permitted provided it meets strict
criteria. He says the ski hill itself will likely not be an ESA,
but an environmental impact assessment will likely occur. "We
aren't saying 'no' to development, we're saying you must protect
the natural habitat and environment as much as possible."
Other farmers favour the ski area expansion.
Milton strawberry grower John Hughes says it's "a good use for that
land. It can't be farmed well, and it generates dollars."
Hughes also favours the "one-window" approach. He says farmers have
to deal with "about six groups that impact our business, and all
six are becoming more aggressive in their mandates. I see so much
duplication between the commission and the conservation authority."
Farmer complaints are no surprise to Murray Stephen, the Halton
authority general manager who oversees 72 full time staff, a
$7-million budget, and a 942 square mile area. But he does think
some could do with a refresher course in the Planning Act.
When asked about the purchase on the Smith farm, Stephen grumbles
that he's "been around this bend three times with the agricultural
community, and they don't want to face reality and fact....A few
individuals in the agricultural community need to have a bit of
education in the Planning Act."
Stephen says no additional lots were created by the purchase; the
deal was conditional on consolidation of two parcels. As for the
farmers involved, Heather Smith says hikers were using the land
anyway, and the deal helped keep the family on the farm in a time
of low pork prices.
Conservation authorities can make partial acquisitions of land
without approval from a committee of adjustment, Stephen says. But
as for the remaining land, "rules of subdividing that property
apply. The authority could not divide or subdivide the land the
authority acquires." Municipalities can acquire land the same way,
he says, when building roads, for instance. "For those who have got
something to say about this matter, then the law has to be changed
for all government agencies, including municipalities."
Stephen also denies the authority goes on a land shopping spree for
the Bruce Trail Association. "The lands the conservation authority
acquires have a larger conservation or environmental aspect to
them....We're not going to buy land for the trail."
As for the pepper spray, Stephen says conservation officers
requested it for self-defence when patrolling after dark in
dangerous situations involving drugs, alcohol or stolen vehicles.
Meanwhile, police patrolling in rural areas has been reduced.
"Pepper spray has been a high-profile situation. There's an overall
inability of the public to accept changing times," says Stephen.
He says landowners will benefit from the "one-window" proposal,
citing "duplication now from various provincial ministries, with
subsidies for planting windbreaks, and soil erosion protection
works provided by MNR and the authority. In some cases there's not
consistency or the same kind of criteria."
He sees the authority taking over MNR administration of watercourse
crossings, valley systems and fisheries, but not environment
ministry regulation.
 Stephen doubts that municipal levies would rise, saying it would
be "a tough sell." While his directors are appointed, 12 of the 19
are elected councillors. The $1.8 million that comes from municipal
levies is based on "guidelines" from municipalities, he says.
Whether or not Halton is in the hiking business, the Essex Region
Conservation Authority, to the southwest, recently paid $475,000 to
acquire a 42-acre strip of abandoned railway running through an
estimated 200 working farms, in the hopes of turning it into a
hiking trail.
Farmers in the area continue to oppose the plan, and charge that
the Essex authority subdivided and sold off another property to
finance the deal.
Authority officials insist the two are unrelated, and general
manager Ken Schmidt maintains the authority didn't consult adjacent
landowners before buying the track so as not to encourage
competition for the property.
Essex authority director Tony Unholzer, a Windsor-area cash
cropper, says he manages to get "bonafide farm issues" raised at
meetings. "If you let your guard down, you may find you've been
driven over by a truck, but you can get your voice heard."
The trail dispute has Essex farmer Bernard Calhoun wary of granting
more power to conservation authorities. "We are likely creating
another tier of government" with the "one-window" proposal, he
says. "We still continue to elect provincial and municipal
governments. (Conservation authorities) are not elected, and in
some cases are very far removed from the election process."
Unholzer says the idea could work "if the right, competent people
are in place."
While provincial response to the proposal is expected within the
month, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority has already
moved ahead with an agreement signed two weeks ago with the local
MNR office to "become the lead environmental agency reviewing all
development proposals, planning applications related to flood,
erosion and water management issues, and work permit approvals,"
according to a press release.
Pork producer John Alderman, who farms next door to Upper Thames'
Wildwood Conservation Area, sees no cause for alarm. Upper Thames
has set up a focus group to explore the "one-window" concept. He
has even "encouraged" the authority to set up a walking trail
around Lake Wildwood.
Whatever the ministry or agency, "it's the people involved who make
the difference," says Alderman, who manages to co-exist with
windsurfers, swimmers, water-skiers and fishermen on Wildwood Lake,
and dispose of up to 700,000 gallons of liquid hog manure a year on
200 acres.
A careful fertility program and constant soil testing over the past
12 years has helped ensure the land isn't overloaded, he says: "You
have to approach it with the idea that you're not going to
knowingly pollute the environment.
"Upper Thames owns land on two sides of the farm and hasn't been a
bad neighbour to get along with," he says.
With files from Bernard Tobin

© copyright 1995 Agricultural Publishing Company Limited.


back