Worst timing ever: Ford budget cuts funds for flood protection


Flood waters rise above lawn chairsPhoto credit: Richard Bradley

It seems like the wrong time to be cutting back on flood protection.

In the past week, rising water has closed Highway 17 east of North Bay, submerged entire sections of communities like Bracebridge, and brought Ontarians out in droves to fill sandbags. At one point, the only part of the province not under a provincial flood watch was around Kenora, in the northwest. Local authorities in a broad swath from Sault Ste. Marie to Cornwall issued their own blunt warnings to residents: stay away from the water.

Today in flooded Bracebridge, Ontario Premier Doug Ford told residents that “the province is 100% behind them” and will “spare no resources to support the affected areas.”

That’s all well and good, but on April 11, the Premier’s budget did just the opposite. The budget cut in half the provincial funding to Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities. The authorities serve a number of purposes, but protecting people and property from flooding is their number one job. 

The Premier’s words today are nice, but at a time when the province should be shoring up communities before disaster strikes, the government is draining resources away from them. 

Ontario’s conservation authorities took on their modern form after Hurricane Hazel struck Toronto in 1954. The hurricane poured close to 30 cm of rain onto a city already soaked by earlier rains. Hazel killed 81 people, demolished bridges, and did $1.3 billion in property damage, in today’s dollars. Determined to avoid future tragedies, the province gave conservation authorities the power to buy land, ban new construction on flood plains, and manage dams, reservoirs and channels to control floodwaters.

The system has worked well. In Quebec, where thousands have been forced from their homes, construction on flood plains has continued; in many cases, flooded homes have been rebuilt in place. In Ontario, many of those areas are populateddeliberatelyby trees, marshes, wildlife, and picnic tables. Waters rise, waters recede, and life continues.

Ontario communities that face flooding now were built long before the conservation authorities were created. As the effects of climate change intensify, the authorities will need more resources and, possibly, expanded powers to keep people and property safe. Cutting funding to them now is a serious lapse in judgment that puts communities at risk.

Conservation authorities are primarily funded by municipalities, and at $7.4 million a year, provincial funding for them has never been high. But with the Ontario 2019 budget, the province is cutting funding for a number of jointly funded programs. These cuts are happening after this year’s municipal budgets have been set, and since municipalities cannot run operating deficits, any new spending means cuts elsewhere in the current year.

A much better plan would be for the province, with its broad powers, to make funding for conservation authoritiesand the environment generallya serious priority. In its “vision” statement in the 2019 budget, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks promises to “work with local communities and families to prepare for the effects of climate change.” But if “working with” means “cutting funding for,” then the government’s message to communities and families is really “you’re on your own.” 

Wet weather and flooding can cause widespread death and damage in just a few hours. It’s not just a false economy to be cutting the public entities that protect us: it’s a tragic mistake.

Randy Robinson is Ontario Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.


  1. Yup, the disconnect between the policy ‘efficiencies’ of our ‘buck-a-beer’ premier and the realities on the ground – and in the water – at the municipal level! From a Huntsville resident, where the water is still rising – and flowing down-stream to the good people of Bracebridge!

  2. Randy, I appreciate what you are saying above, but you are not telling the entire story.

    First, it is safe to generalize that over the past 65 years, Conservation Authorities have expanded far beyond their core mandate of flood management. In fact, at least 50% of the programs at the majority of Conservation Authorities do not fall within their core mandate.

    Then we get to the issue of municipal funding: Municipalities are simply given a bill for the services the Conservation Authorities provide, without any breakdown that clearly states what is core mandate, and what is not. Municipalities have no ability to negotiate or “opt-out” of funding non-core services, at a time when municipalities are facing ever-increasing demands to improve core infrastructure.

    If you go “beyond the numbers,” you will notice that this is being corrected with the proposed revisions to the Conservation Authorities Act. The whole purpose is to re-focus these organizations on what they are supposed to be doing in the first place: Protecting people and places from water and flood damage, and ensuring development is done in an intelligent manner that will not result in future flooding where new construction occurs.

    Storm management ponds, dams, water level monitoring, and new GIS maps of flood plains should be the focus, not a wide array of additional functions that Conservation Authorities have expanded into. Had they had open conversations with municipalities from the start about these non-core-mandate programs, they could have worked together with municipalities to determine what they could do, and who would pay for it.

    Conservation authorities are important. The current provincial government is stating that plainly. You intimate in your article above that they do not. That is misleading.

    I would encourage anyone who truly cares about this issue to please go read the updates at the Environmental Registry as they pertain to modernizing our Conservation Authorities: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-5018 and https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4992.

    It’s about modernizing, efficiency, and reducing bureaucratic waste, while still delivering on the core mandate, and creating transparency between Conservation Authorities and those who fund them. There will be plenty of money left for them to do their jobs regarding flood planning if they focus on their core mandate, and stop spending money on things they were never meant to do in the first place.

  3. Someone needs to ask the question. Who was manning the dams on upper lakes?

    We had a cold winter and a large snow pack and upper lakes should have been drawn down to make way for the spring melt.
    Who ever is responsible to monitor snow packs and regulate dams did not do their job properly.

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before commenting, please read our Comment Policy