Greenspace groups fear housing legislation will gut conservation authorities
Article content
What happened to the beaver pond in Kanata North this summer is an example of why Ontario’s conservation authorities matter, says Barbara Ramsay.
Over the course of late spring and into the summer, the area was hit by three major storms — the derecho of May 21, another storm on June 21 and a third that spanned Aug. 6 and 7, said Ramsay, the chair of the Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability (CAFES), a network of community groups and residents.
In the wake of the August storm, the Kanata North beaver pond, which had been modified in the 1980s and forms part of the Kizell drain, flooded to a level never seen before, said Ramsay. The ground, already saturated, couldn’t soak up any more water. There was erosion downstream. One homeowner, who had his rear property line filled with soil in 2020, lost almost all of it.
“We’re getting larger storms more frequently. The land is not able to catch up to deal with stormwater,” said Ramsay. “Ontario has so many ponds, streams and rivers that urban areas have developed. Our natural landscape is important. We have to respect it.”
Bill 23, introduced by the Ontario government last week, announced numerous changes to housing-related legislation in an effort to meet the governing PCs pledge of building 1.5 million homes in 10 years.
That includes changes to conservation authorities. And that has community groups concerned not just for development on the floodplains of Ottawa’s rivers, but also about how Bill 23 will affect development near the creeks, streams and other smaller bodies of water.
The conservation authorities are concerned that the province proposes to prevent municipalities from entering into agreements with them to review planning applications on their behalf.
“It’s about being at the table early in the process, and how development in one area will affect another area. There are costs to making incorrect decisions,” said Angela Coleman, the general manager of Conservation Ontario, which represents Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities.
When downloading these responsibilities to municipalities, there’s also the need to consider how development in one jurisdiction can impact adjacent or downstream municipalities, she said.
As it stands, when a developer application comes forward, the local conservation authority would usually be at the table. In Ottawa’s case, there was a memorandum of understanding going back 22 years. Now, the city would have to do all of that work in-house or hire a consultant, said Coleman.
“That responsibility has moved from 36 conservation authorities to 440 municipalities. Some have the staff to do the work. But others do not,” she said. “It could cause unintended costs and delays.”
Created under the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario of 1947, conservation authorities are watershed management agencies unique to Ontario. About two per cent of conservation authority budgets across Ontario comes from the province, with the remainder coming from municipalities, donors and user fees, said Coleman.
One of the conservation authorities’ most important responsibilities is flood protection. The Ottawa region has three authorities that oversee the Mississippi, Rideau and Nation River watersheds.
There are examples that conservation authorities are far ahead of municipalities, said Ramsay. For example, the Mississippi Valley Conservation authority, which is responsible for Ottawa’s west end, is mapping 350-year floods. That’s a step ahead of mapping of 100-year floods, and shows that conservation authorities “have been moving the needle forward in the past few years,” she said.
Conservation authorities also own about 147,000 hectares of land across the province, including wetlands, forests, moraines and ecologically sensitive lands, often located in floodplains, which help to prevent flooding and erosion.
“While conservation authorities are known for their work on floodplain control and mitigation, they have grown into a more extensive reach including water quality and supporting wetlands and wildlife habitats,” said Jakob Mueller, president of the Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club.
Watersheds don’t work according to municipal boundaries. Conservation authorities encompass numerous municipalities and see watersheds as a whole. It’s impossible to separate the health of a watershed from the health of an ecological system, said Mueller.
“The system has made it better here. This isn’t the time to take step back in terms of conservation.”
Paul Johanis, chair of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital, is concerned that the new legislation means development proponents will be able to ask that portions of larger wetlands be evaluated for development.
“It’s a way of chipping away at provincially-significant wetlands,” he said. “It’s a big concern.”
Alice Irene Whittaker, executive director of Ecology Ottawa, an environmental group that keeps an eye on city council decisions, agrees. Wetlands reduce flooding, process nutrients and provide habitats for species at risk. All of this is interconnected, she said.
“It’s great to be addressing the housing, but we have to look at environmental well-being and human well-being, or we will be paying the price in the future,” she said.
“This could be transformative. It could be an opportunity to address not just housing, but also the environment.”
Under another proposal, conservation authority development fees can be frozen, which concerns Coleman. The fees are based on cost recovery, and no other mechanism has been suggested to ensure that these costs are covered, she said.
“Development has to pay for development,” she said.
There are also fears that the province will tap into conservation lands to build housing.
“We want to make sure that no conservation lands in Ottawa are turned over to housing,” said Johanis.
Coleman thinks this is unlikely. The South Nation Conservation Authority, for example, has over 5,200 hectares of land, she said. Conservation authorities are the second-biggest landowners in the province. They hold titles to these lands, and there are a lot of environmental designations on these lands, some of which were donated.
“There’s a lot that would have to be lined up for this to happen,” she said.
Watchdog groups like the Greenspace Alliance and CAFES have sometimes been disappointed by decisions made by conservation authorities, which have not prevented development on floodplains and sensitive land.
The Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, for example, approved a cut and fill permit, allowing massive amounts of earth to be moved in the floodplain of a bend in the Jock River in south Barrhaven, making way for development, said Johais.
Just last week, the city’s planning committee approved a zoning amendment that would allow for four towers from 24 to 32 storeys tall to be built near Petrie Island in the east end.
“In both cases, fill that they allowed on the floodplains pre-empted the city’s review of development applications on these altered floodplains,” said Johanis.
“The new proposed regulations and processes seem to further restrict the scope of conservation authorities’ purview. So chances are, more of this could, in fact, be in the offing.”
Ramsay fears that Bill 23 is addressing not just the amount of land available for development, but also the speed.
“Bill 23 is about hurry up, hurry up and hurry up faster,” she said. “I don’t know why we have to put four towers on the river’s edge. These spaces will be harder and harder to protect.”
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.