Good afternoon. My name is Ian Wilcox, and I'm the general manager of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
I want to thank the standing committee for the invitation to attend and the opportunity to provide a conservation authority perspective regarding efforts to improve the water quality of the Great Lakes.
As context, Ontario's 36 conservation authorities have been in place for more than 60 years. We work on a watershed jurisdiction to manage water and other natural resources. We are principally funded by our member municipalities but routinely work with provincial ministries and federal departments to conduct research, and most importantly, translate that research into the implementation of best practices for environmental improvement. On-the-ground implementation of best practices is our priority and strength, and measurable improvements in water quality and forest health are our outcome measures.
The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority is based in London, Ontario. Our watershed joins with the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority to ultimately discharge to the western basin of Lake Erie, which is the current flashpoint for water quality concerns in the Great Lakes. Our land base includes the most intensive agricultural region in Canada and more than half a million people.
With regard to your three specified questions, I offer the following responses.
The first is regarding priority locations in the Great Lakes basin. As you're well aware, the western basin of Lake Erie is facing a water quality crisis. Unprecedented algal blooms threaten drinking-water sources and commercial and recreational fisheries and impact other recreational uses.
Research has identified the Maumee River watershed in Ohio as the greatest single source of contamination to the western basin, and our American partners appear fully engaged in remediation strategies. On the Canadian side, the Thames River basin is the single largest contributor of contaminants to the western basin. As an analogy, it is our belief that these two watersheds must be considered the new areas of concern for remediation.
Targeted non-point source pollution control in these two watersheds offers the greatest hope for improving water quality in Lake Erie's western basin. I would also offer that Lake Erie more broadly warrants a comprehensive implementation plan. Within that scope, Ontario's Grand River watershed must also be recognized as a critical location for enhanced implementation.
Your second topic of interest concerns efforts that are currently under way or planned for remediation. My colleagues have mentioned several programs that we've all worked on together. We have a long history of research, planning, and implementation programs for the Great Lakes. Conservation authorities have participated in many of these ventures, but to be clear, our reason for participating has always been to ensure that all efforts lead to some form of on-the-ground implementation. Examples include our role on various annex subcommittees of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, participation on lake-wide management plan committees and work groups, as well as being a recipient of funding for implementation under the Canada-Ontario agreement.
Conservation authorities have also created their own implementation programs. For example, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority's clean water program secures funding from foundations, the private sector, municipalities, and provincial and federal partners to offer incentives to private landowners for water quality best management practices. Examples of eligible projects include erosion control measures, remediation of faulty septic systems, restriction of livestock from watercourses, clean water diversions, and nutrient management plans. This very successful program has been in place for more than 10 years. The intent has been to provide a stable umbrella incentive program for local landowners that uses, but is immune from, the cycle and confusion of short-term incentive programs.
Our regional clean water program has supported more than 3,000 projects on private lands, with a total investment of more than $14 million. Federal funding has supported 7% of the program's total costs, meaning the benefits have been more than 14 times the value of the federal investment. The ability of conservation authorities to leverage funding is a standard practice and creates value added for any participating partner.
Our clean water program has changed individual attitudes and behaviour and provides environmental benefits for the landowner, the watershed, and ultimately the Great Lakes. Greater benefits are limited only by funding and capacity.
The most important of your questions, however, relates to recommending best practices that will facilitate further remediation of areas of environmental concern within the Great Lakes basin. Historically, the approach to implementation of best management practices has been incentive based, voluntary, and targeted at rural constituents.
Conservation authorities have been a principal delivery agent for these programs for decades and combined with our technical assistance, they have been very successful from the perspective of landowner participation, satisfaction, and maximizing available funding. However, if actual lake and tributary water quality is our true outcome measure, they have been inadequate.
Current science is clear that water quality in Lake Erie is deteriorating. Within the Thames River watershed, our own watershed report cards demonstrate that, at best, our and your investment in water quality implementation programs has only managed to maintain water quality as status quo. This is not an outcome that any of us should be content with. Additional work is required. To that end, conservation authorities are advocating for the following.
First, additional funding for incentives and implementation is required. Science has proven that existing best management practices are effective; however, the current level of investment for implementation is inadequate to effect measurable improvements in water quality. The nine conservation authorities in the Lake Erie basin have worked together in the past to lobby for an increase in funding and capacity for implementation of best management practices, but to date we've been unsuccessful in securing significant new funding. In addition, the four conservation authorities in the western basin—again, the flashpoint—the Essex, Lower Thames, St. Clair, and Upper Thames, have recently agreed to collaborate to pursue enhanced and stronger implementation measures for this critical area of Lake Erie.
Second, research into new implementation technologies is also required. Environmental conditions have changed over time with elevated water temperatures and more extreme drought and flood events complicating water quality conditions. Research designed to develop new and more effective best management practices should always be encouraged to maximize any investments in implementation.
Finally, a broader and stronger policy approach is needed. Historical reliance on voluntary incentives and technical assistance-based policies has achieved a degree of success and does have a strong role in the implementation programs moving forward; however, consideration must be given to stronger regulatory policies as a complement. While there can be sector-based resistance to these classical command/control regulatory tools, the regulatory policy category also includes tools that focus on training, certification, and cross-compliance between programs, all of which are effective, as well as more publicly palatable. The current state of Lake Erie's water quality, as well as the impaired health of contributing tributaries, makes it clear that a stronger and expanded policy approach to complement voluntary incentive-based programs is required.
I appreciate that the suggestions provided here require a significant financial investment. However, 60 years of experience with implementation by Ontario's conservation authorities has demonstrated that the science and best management practices are largely in place to improve the water quality of the Great Lakes. The implementation infrastructure, which includes technical experts, relationships, and communication tools, is also in place through conservation authorities and other partner agencies.
The remaining keys to improving Great Lakes water quality are a significant increase in incentive funding for implementation and the development of complementary and stronger implementation policies.
I'd like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to share these perspectives.
Like the other panel members, I am certainly available for any questions.