{"id":607709,"date":"2026-04-16T09:42:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T09:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/607709\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T09:42:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T09:42:17","slug":"how-conservation-authority-changes-could-affect-ontarios-drinking-water","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/607709\/","title":{"rendered":"How conservation authority changes could affect Ontario’s drinking water"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"minus\"plus <\/p>\n

Summary<\/p>\n

Under the Clean Water Act, community-led groups called source protection committees write plans and oversee the protection of drinking water sources in Ontario.<\/p>\n

The jurisdiction of the committees is aligned with the boundaries of conservation authorities, and experts say the recent amalgamation of authorities could also affect the committees.<\/p>\n

The province has not appointed 15 of the 19 source protection committee chairs, leaving some experts questioning whether change is afoot.<\/p>\n

As the Doug Ford government moves to consolidate conservation authorities from 36 to nine, many are concerned about the impact on Ontario\u2019s drinking water.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Conservation authorities have long been tasked with protecting Ontario watersheds by safeguarding local drinking water sources and reducing the risks from natural hazards like flooding, erosion and drought. But the government\u2019s legislation for their amalgamation<\/a> \u2014 the biggest disruption to the agencies in 80 years \u2014 indicates there may be changes coming to the way they help preserve access to fresh water for more than 80 per cent of Ontario residents.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since 2006, municipal drinking water has been governed by 19 source protection committees, community-led groups with directors from industries like agriculture, manufacturing and tourism that hold conservation authorities and municipalities accountable for properly managing drinking water. Within each conservation authority, designated staff serve as liaisons to these committees, providing necessary data and carrying out any suggested protective actions.<\/p>\n

\u201cSource protection committees are purposefully local. They\u2019re the people that drink the water they are protecting,\u201d Katie Stammler, water quality scientist and project manager for the source water protection committee at the Essex Region Conservation Authority, told The Narwhal.<\/p>\n

The committees were created on the heels of the water contamination crisis<\/a> in Walkerton, Ont. In May 2000, seven people died and some 2,300 people became ill when manure from a nearby farm leached into a well due to a failure of safety checks in the local water treatment system.\u00a0<\/p>\n

An inquiry into the crisis resulted in dozens of recommendations, including creating source protection committees. These groups were officially enacted by the passage of the Clean Water Act. Each one was designed with the boundaries of conservation authorities in mind and tasked with writing a plan to protect the sources of drinking water in that region from threats such as fuel, sewage, road salt and agricultural runoff.<\/p>\n

In the years since they were formed, source protection committees seemed to be \u201cuntouchable,\u201d Lynn Dollin, once long-time chair of the South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee, told The Narwhal. Successive Ontario governments didn\u2019t want to change anything \u201cbecause no one wants to risk another Walkerton.\u201d<\/p>\n

But things might be changing now.<\/p>\n

\"AnSource water is untreated water taken from rivers, lakes or underground aquifers to supply private and public drinking water systems. The Government of Ontario has acknowledged that further legislative changes might be required to clarify how source water protection committees will function under the province\u2019s consolidated conservation authority structure. Photo: Laura Proctor \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n

The Ontario government\u2019s move to reduce the number of conservation authorities has meant that each authority now covers a much larger area. The Narwhal obtained a government slide deck presented to conservation authorities leaders earlier this month that shows drinking water source protection \u201cremains a core mandated responsibility\u201d for the nine proposed regional authorities, and that source protection plans \u201cwill continue to be carried out.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

But in the same slide deck, the government also notes \u201cchanges may be needed under the Clean Water Act and associated regulations\u201d to \u201cclarify\u201d how source protection committees would operate under the new structure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re not making any fundamental changes [to source protection committees],\u201d Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy said in an interview with The Narwhal: the 19 committees will remain as they are and work with the nine newly proposed regional conservation authorities, though he said their jurisdictions are \u201ca work in progress.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cClean water is absolutely essential, and Ontario\u2019s is best protected in the world. That\u2019s going to continue,\u201d he said. \u201cThe idea is to make sure it doesn\u2019t change by better resourcing and better supporting [them] equally across Ontario.\u201d<\/p>\n

McCarthy added that there may be some legislative \u201chousekeeping\u201d in the fall to ensure \u201calignment\u201d between the new regional conservation authorities and source protection committees.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The absence of details raises red flags for experts.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThey cut. Now they cut and tinker,\u201d one central Ontario conservation authority official said. \u201cThey\u2019re saying nothing is going to change, but in practice, that remains to be seen. \u2026 All the changes they\u2019ve made so far have delayed work operations. They like to pretend otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dive deeper on this topic<\/p>\n

The Narwhal spoke to 12 people, including lawyers, members of three source protection committees and several conservation authority staff, many of whom spoke anonymously for fear of retribution. As conservation authorities get bigger, these experts worry about the loss of local input, knowledge and protections.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Already, the chair positions at 15 of the 19 committees are vacant. To many, this quiet erosion of leadership and a loosening of water<\/a> laws in the province are indicators that a system put in place to prevent another drinking water crisis is now in flux.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Most source protection committees still don\u2019t have government-appointed leaders<\/p>\n

Nearly 20 years ago, Dollin, now mayor of Innisfill, Ont., was one of 19 source protection committee chairs appointed by the Ontario government to help take care of the province\u2019s complex system of local drinking water sources.<\/p>\n

Back then, her committee\u2019s first task was \u201ca little unnerving,\u201d she said. \u201cI was shocked how there was no good, complete list of where our municipal drinking water systems were.\u201d So they created one, along with guidelines on how to protect them to ensure local drinking water sources don\u2019t become contaminated or overused.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Dollin\u2019s term as head of South Georgian Bay-Lake Simcoe Source Protection Committee ended in August 2025; she was told by a ministry official she would not be reappointed, though she said no reason was given. Her position hasn\u2019t been filled since.\u00a0<\/p>\n

As of April 14, the government had not appointed several chairs \u2014 something it is legally required to do under the Clean Water Act \u2014 since summer 2025.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe absence of appointed chairs over the past year has created some uncertainty at the committee level, particularly around governance, leadership continuity and decision-making authority,\u201d John Mesman, managing director of property, conservation, lands and community outreach for South Nation Conservation, told The Narwhal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A lack of chair appointments, others say, may indicate source protection committees are a low priority amidst the amalgamation of Ontario\u2019s conservation authorities. Many told The Narwhal communication between conservation authorities and ministry staff have been eroding since the government under former premier Mike Harris first cut funding in 1995.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt seems the ministry doesn\u2019t understand the source protection program, so it doesn\u2019t bother to think about it,\u201d the central Ontario conservation authority staff member said. \u201cWe started getting alarmed by ministry decisions a while ago on a number of issues. It\u2019s been consistent, our comments are not being heard.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s especially challenging as water supply gets more complicated. In recent weeks, the government has proposed<\/a> permitting communal wells for private development. That would mean a new subdivision, for example, could draw from its own well instead of tapping into municipal water services. Sources who spoke to The Narwhal were concerned about this because communal wells aren\u2019t currently overseen by source protection committees.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe need source protection leaders now more than ever to be present at the table,\u201d a conservation authority official in western Ontario said. \u201cAs this government pushes approvals for development, we need to make sure water is not an afterthought.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

A Ministry of Environment official told The Narwhal, \u201ca competitive process will soon be underway\u201d for source protection committee chair appointments.\u00a0<\/p>\n

New boundaries of conservation authorities could affect source protection committees\u00a0<\/p>\n

Not only do many source protection committees not have leaders right now, but they also don\u2019t know what their jurisdictions will be post-conservation authority amalgamation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think [the government] contemplated a whole scale change like this,\u201d Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said. \u201cA lot of people don\u2019t realize that most local drinking water sources are protected by plans that were created by these committees over many years.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Per the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the government has two options, McLenaghan said: realign source protection boundaries and governance to reflect the new larger regional conservation authorities or maintain the current structure within the new regional authorities.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"AOntario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy told The Narwhal the 19 source protection committees will remain as they are and work with the nine newly proposed regional conservation authorities, though he said their jurisdictions are \u201ca work in progress\u201d that will be finalized in the fall. Photo: Sammy Kogan \/ The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

Minister McCarthy told The Narwhal the boundaries \u201care not changing at this time,\u201d but the exact boundaries will be finalized in the fall, informed by consultations with new local watershed councils the ministry is creating to facilitate the transition.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ll have to see how this works out,\u201d he said. \u201cRight now, the reality is nine watershed-based regional conservation authorities are what we proposed \u2026 and with those 19 [source protection committees], we\u2019ll have to see how their boundaries match up or align.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

McLenaghan said if the committees stay as they are, \u201cthat\u2019s good news,\u201d but \u201cthere will still be some potential disruptions\u201d as several source protection regions combine under a single conservation authority.<\/p>\n

Right now, some source protection areas, such as Essex County, stand alone, while others like the Thames-Sydenham Source Protection Region, combine several conservation authority jurisdictions. Per a preliminary analysis by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the amalgamation would see the inverse of this, where one regional conservation authority has several source protection regions within it. For example, both the Lake Huron and Western Lake authorities would each incorporate three source protection agencies.<\/p>\n

The new regional conservation authorities will be \u201cvery, very busy\u201d managing so many source protection committees under the new system, the central Ontario conservation authority official said.<\/p>\n

PROPOSED REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITYSOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEESWHAT\u2019S CHANGED? Lake Huron Regional Conservation Authority
Combines Ausable Bayfield, Maitland Valley, Saugeen Valley, Grey Sauble, Nottawasaga Valley and Lake Simcoe 1. Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley
2. Saugeen, Grey Sauble, Northern Bruce Peninsula
3. South Georgian Bay-Lake SimcoeThree source protection committees will be served by one regional conservation authority.Western Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority
Combines Niagara Peninsula, Hamilton, Credit Valley and Halton 1. Halton-Hamilton
2. Niagara Peninsula
3. Credit Valley \u2013 Toronto and Region \u2013 Central Lake Ontario (CTC)Three source protection committees will be served by one regional conservation authority. <\/p>\n

Also, the CTC Source Protection Committee would no longer be supported by Credit Valley Conservation.<\/p>\n

St. Lawrence River Regional Conservation Authority
Combines Mississippi Valley, Rideau Valley, South Nation and Raisin Region1. Mississippi-Rideau
2. Raisin Region-South NationTwo source protection committees will be served by one regional conservation authority. A preliminary analysis by the Canadian Environmental Law Association shows three of the proposed regional conservation authorities would manage more than one source protection committee.<\/p>\n

Under the amalgamation plan, Stammler\u2019s Essex County Conservation Authority now falls under the Western Lake Erie regional authority, which has boundaries spanning from Niagara through Halton and Peel Region.<\/p>\n

She, and others, said they\u2019re concerned this will result in a reduction in the hyper-localized focus on water that conservation authorities provide.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s going to undermine Ontario\u2019s ability to protect drinking water,\u201d Ontario Greens Leader Mike Schreiner said. \u201cI think the amalgamation of [conservation authorities] is going to contravene the recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry around source water protection.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI mean, how can you have 19 source water protection committees across the province and nine [conservation authorities]? And how is that going to work together, especially when you\u2019re undermining local decision-making expertise?\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s something local industry representatives are similarly concerned with.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Chris Snip, an independent agronomist and water protection advocate from Essex County, has built a career helping farmers grow better crops with less impact on the environment from fertilizer use. He joined the Essex region\u2019s source water protection committee six years ago to support the group\u2019s understanding of agriculture and the sector\u2019s role in maintaining water quality.<\/p>\n

As with many in Ontario\u2019s farming community, the Walkerton tragedy casts a long shadow for Snip. With the Ford government\u2019s changes to water protection, in favour of easing development, Snip wonders if the province is forgetting lessons of the past.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople died, and the policies around source water protection were based on recommendations from those deaths and injuries, and this provincial government is basically, you know, turning its nose up to it, not caring about what happened then,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cHistory is bound to repeat itself, especially if we don\u2019t remember.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Summary Under the Clean Water Act, community-led groups called source protection committees write plans and oversee the protection…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":607710,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[49,48,295,66],"class_list":{"0":"post-607709","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-ca","9":"tag-canada","10":"tag-environment","11":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/607709","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=607709"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/607709\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/607710"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=607709"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=607709"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=607709"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}