The Regional Municipality of Halton. Chair and Members of the Planning and Public Works Committee

Transcription

1 The Regional Municipality of Halton Report To: From: Chair and Members of the Planning and Public Works Committee Mark G. Meneray, Commissioner, Legislative & Planning Services and Corporate Counsel Date: September 2, 2015 Report No. - Re: LPS97-15 Conservation Authorities Act Review Consultation Paper Response RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Regional Council endorse Conservation Authority Act Review Consultation Paper Response for submission to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and provided as Attachment 3 to Report No. LPS THAT Staff be directed to modify the MOU between the Region and Conservation Authorities to ensure that the Regional interest in natural heritage planning and protection is clarified, as set out in Report No. LPS THAT the Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. LPS97-15 to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Grand River Conservation Authority, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton and the Town of Oakville for their information. REPORT Executive Summary The Conservation Authority Act (CA Act) Review was launched by the Provincial Government on July 20, The original mandate of Conservation Authorities (CAs) was to regulate, monitor and collect data relating to natural hazards. This work continues to be essential in preventing flooding and other water-related natural hazards and planning for and adapting to climate change. The evolution of Ontario Regulation 97/04 Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (known as the "generic regulation) under the CA Act and the expansion of the CA mandate in planning and development has resulted in a permitting process and an environmental 1

2 planning regime that has led to service duplication and scope creep not in alignment with municipal Planning Act processes. The Province should seek to implement a governance model that rationalizes and reduces overlap of land use planning and resource management responsibilities. The Province should amend the CA Act to ensure that municipalities have authority to approve CA budgets to ensure oversight and accountability for CA program and service delivery. The Province should clarify the wording of the Development Charges Act relating to the ability of municipalities to levy charges for CA growth related capital improvements. The Province should right-size the generic regulation to reduce duplication and overlap with the municipal planning approval process. The Province should delegate permitting under the generic regulation, when combined with Planning Act approvals, to upper and single tier municipalities to provide for a coordinated, consistent and streamlined planning review and approval process. The Province should ensure that all matters related to natural heritage planning, monitoring and implementation under the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS) rest with the upper or single tier municipalities. The Province should not wholly depend upon CAs for the development and delivery of Provincial planning initiatives, such as Source Water Protection. Provincially-mandated resource management planning initiatives should be assigned to municipalities who have the administrative capacity, expertise and planning tools to implement these initiatives. Background On July 20, 2015, the Government of Ontario launched the CA Act Review. The objective of this review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of CAs that may be required in the face of a constantly changing environment. As a part of the review, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has released a discussion paper (Attachment 2) to seek feedback on the following areas: 1. Governance the processes, structures, and accountability frameworks within the CA Act which direct CA decision-making and operations; 2. Funding Mechanisms the mechanisms put in place by the CA Act to fund CAs; and, 3. Roles and Responsibilities the roles and associated responsibilities that the CA Act enables CAs to undertake. The Provincial Government is looking for a response by October 19,

3 Discussion The CA Act was passed in 1946, enabling the creation of watershed-based resource management agencies. CAs are corporate bodies created through Provincial regulation in response to requests by two or more municipalities. There are currently 36 CAs in Ontario, each having individual roles which vary across the province but they share common interests relating to the control of flooding and erosion and the protection of life and property from water-related natural hazards. The objects of CAs are set out in Section 20 of the CA Act and define the potential scope of programs and services that a CA may undertake to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. The powers granted to CAs to accomplish these objects are outlined in Section 21 of the CA Act and include among other things, the power to study the watershed, establish programs, acquire lands, enter into agreements, erect works and other structures and charge fees for services. Section 26 of the CA Act authorizes CAs to determine what capital expenditures are required for projects initiated by CAs. Section 28 of the CA Act provides CAs with the ability to make Regulations to prohibit, restrict, regulate or require permission for certain activities in and adjacent to watercourses (including valley lands), wetlands, shorelines and other hazardous lands. This CA Act regulatory authority was expanded through amendments to the CA Act as a part of the Provincial government s Red Tape Reduction Act (Bill 25) in 1998, and enacted through the generic regulation (O. Reg. 97/04) approved by the Province in 2004, as well as through updated individual regulations approved by the Minister in As part of the Provincial government's Open for Business initiative in 2007, the Province established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC), comprised of representation from the building and development industry, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), municipalities, Conservation Ontario and other stakeholder organizations. The primary goal of the group was to clarify roles and responsibilities relating to watershed management authorities, planning advisory services, delegated authorities, and regulatory authorities. A key product of the CALC was a document entitled "Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities" which was finalized in May Halton Conservation Authorities There are 3 watersheds in Halton Region (Attachment 1) within the jurisdiction of: Conservation Halton Credit Valley Conservation 3

4 Grand River Conservation Since 1999 Halton Region s relationship with the CAs has largely been directed by the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of an Integrated Halton Area Planning System (MOU). The MOU outlines the responsibilities of the Halton planning partners, having the goal of avoiding duplication, enhancing accessibility, reducing processing times, providing better coordination between the partners and maximizing staff expertise. Under the MOU, the CAs provide support to Halton s municipalities in plan review and technical clearance as it relates to natural environment and resource management planning. The MOU pre-dates the full implementation of the generic regulation (O. Reg. 97/04) as well as many of the additional roles that the CAs have assumed over the years. Since the time of the execution of the MOU, supporting documents have been developed by the CAs to guide development in regulated areas that are, in most cases, also subject to municipal planning policy and guidance. For example, CAs have policies for land use, guidelines for Environmental Impact Studies as well as Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plans for regulated areas. This lends itself to a parallel planning system that causes duplication, increased processing times and confusion amongst the development community. General Comments on the CA Act Review Regional staff has completed a review of the discussion paper prepared by the Province and has prepared a response provided as Attachment 3. The Halton Area Planning Partnership was consulted in the development of the Region s response. The comments acknowledge the benefits of the current CA Act. The natural hazards management function of CAs has been beneficial and continues to be a valued service. CAs also develop and deliver a range of watershed programs that are important for natural resource management and environmental protection such as stewardship, management of protected areas, public parks, outdoor recreation areas and open space, education and outreach, recreation and water quality monitoring. Since the mid-1990s, CAs have expanded their mandate, particularly into areas where there is increasing overlap with municipal planning processes. Over the past decade there has been significant advancement in planning in the Province with the introduction of a number of Provincial Plans and a new PPS, which requires municipalities to identify natural heritage systems. This Provincial policy direction requires municipalities to provide greater leadership in the implementation of Provincial planning initiatives. In 2010, CALC conducted a joint review between the Province and Conservation Ontario to clarify the roles and responsibilities of CAs. The current review of the CA Act is a welcomed process to align the roles and responsibilities of the CAs and those of municipalities. 4

5 Despite the Province s efforts relating to Red Tape Reduction in 1998, the Open for Business initiative in 2007 and the attempt to further to clarify roles in 2010, there are still areas of overlap in roles and responsibilities for resource management and environmental protection. This statement has been echoed in the Report from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario s Public Service in The report observed that jurisdictional crowding in environmental regulation results in inefficient use of government resources and creates uncertainty and confusion for industry, developers and citizens. Further, the report calls for changes in order to rationalize and consolidate the number of entities/agencies involved in the arena of land use planning and resource management. Targeted changes are required to improve public accountability, clarify jurisdictions and define the relationships between approval authorities under both the Planning Act and the Conservation Authorities Act, and to create consistent standards for the protection and review of land development impacting natural resources. The following highlights the key points contained in Attachment 3 which staff recommend be reviewed by the Province: Governance: The Province should seek to implement a governance model that rationalizes and reduces overlapping land use planning and resource management responsibilities. A goal of the CA Act review should be to clearly define the role of the CAs in the area of natural hazards and to reduce the overlap of services that municipal governments provide or are authorized to provide. Municipalities, through legislative change, should be given the authority to approve CA budgets to ensure oversight and accountability for CA program and service delivery. Funding: The Province should make amendments to the CA Act to ensure that municipalities have authority to approve CA budgets to ensure oversight and accountability for CA program and service delivery. The Province should commit to deliver long-term sustainable funding at expected levels of cost sharing for CAs which will enable CAs to maintain their service levels. The transfer payment amount to each CA in Halton Region has not changed since 2000 resulting in heavy costs being downloaded to municipalities. Clarify the wording of the Development Charges Act, relating to the ability of municipalities to levy charges for CA growth related capital improvements. The generic regulation (O. Reg. 97/04) adds significant land areas and features to be regulated by CAs, which requires additional resources to fulfill (and in most cases at additional costs to municipalities). This raises concerns as to whether CA permitting activities are right-sized and whether resources are allocated to those priority areas where there is greater need for protection. 5

6 Roles and Responsibilities: The CA Act should be amended to limit the roles of and responsibilities of CAs to their original primary mandate developing programs for managing natural hazards. CA services need to be rationalized to avoid duplication of services and regulatory overlap into the legislative authorities exercised by municipal governments. All matters related to natural heritage planning, monitoring and implementation should rest with the upper or single tier municipalities, in keeping with the PPS. The generic regulation (O. Reg. 97/04) should be right-sized to avoid overlaps with policy criteria that are applied in municipal planning processes. To streamline the permitting process, reduce duplication of planning processes and provide a coordinated and consistent review of these technical permits, the Province should delegate permitting under the generic regulation, where a Planning Act approval is also required to upper and single tier municipalities. The Province should not wholly depend upon CAs for the development and delivery of Provincial planning initiatives, such as Source Water Protection. Provincially-mandated resource management planning initiatives should be assigned to municipalities, who have the administrative capacity, expertise and planning tools to implement these initiatives. 6

7 FINANCIAL/PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS The cost of preparing this review of the Conservation Authority Act Review discussion paper has been financed through the Legislative and Planning Services approved 2015 operating budget. Respectfully submitted, Ron Glenn Director, Planning Services and Chief Planning Official Mark G. Meneray Commissioner, Legislative & Planning Services and Corporate Counsel Approved by Jane MacCaskill Chief Administrative Officer If you have any questions on the content of this report, please contact: Ron Glenn Tel. # 7966 Attachments: Attachment 1: Map of Halton s Conservation Authorities Attachment 2: MNRF Discussion Paper on the CA Act Review Attachment 3: Regional Staff Comments on the CA Act Review 7