The recently tabled Bill 28 proposes amendments to the Municipal Government Act(MGA).[1] This Bill was introduced at the beginning of April and includes several consequential amendments to the MGA. This blog post focuses on amendments that will change the municipal role in the regulation of gravel pits. Other changes to the MGA proposed by Bill 28 are discussed in a separate blog post .
With the proposed addition of section 619.1 to the MGA – called “Pit Registration under Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act” – the municipal role in gravel pit regulation, both in siting and development, is largely eliminated. The registration of a gravel pit in accordance with the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) will prevail over any municipal planning decisions. As well, requirements for public participation in bylaw amendments and development permits would be removed should the Bill pass in its current form.
If you are interested in learning more about Bills 28 and 30, sign up for our April 30th webinar here.
Gravel Pit Regulation in Alberta
Currently, gravel pit regulation occurs at both the provincial level under the EPEA and at the municipal level under planning and development processes in the MGA.
Provincial Authorizations
At the provincial level, the EPEA primarily regulates statutory authorizations for gravel pits.[2] A gravel pit is governed in the same way as other pit operations including sand, gravel, marl, or clay.[3] If a pit is located on private land and is equal to or larger than 12.5 acres in areait will require a Registration under the EPEA and must comply with the provincial Code of Practice for Pits.[4] In some instances, where necessary to address environmental concerns, the Director may determine that a Registration is not sufficient and require an approval. As well, an environmental impact assessment may be required under EPEA if a pit is greater than 5 acres, although this decision is at the discretion of the Minister.[5] If a Registration is required under the EPEA, there is limited opportunity for participation. A Director has the discretion to order a public meeting or request information from directly affected persons but is not required to do so.[6] Further, there is no requirement for formal notice or opportunity to submit a Statement of Concern nor is there an opportunity for appeal. This is different than an Approval, which includes public notice and consultation, including the opportunity to submit a Statement of Concern if you are directly affected and the ability to appeal the Director’s decision.[7]
In addition to the EPEA, all gravel pits must comply with the Water Act which may require an approval or licence for impacts on water, or water uses or diversions.[8] For example, if a gravel pit alters the flow or level of water, changes the location or direction of flow of water, causes siltation or causes an effect on the aquatic environment, or otherwise matches the definition of “activity” under the Water Act, it will require an approval (unless otherwise exempted).[9] Notably there are certain exceptions that may apply for the dewatering of a sand and gravel site which may be exempted from the requirement to apply for a Water Act approval or licence. There are opportunities for public participation under the Water Act. For example, section 109 provides for persons “directly affected” by an application to submit a statement of concern within 7 days for an approval and 30 days for a licence. There are also certain notice requirements for proponents applying for both Licences and Approvals as set out in Part 8 of the Water Act and the Water (Ministerial) Regulation.
To read more about these regulatory requirements, check out our recent FAQ on gravel mines here.
Municipal Authorizations
In addition to provincial statutory authorizations, the MGA currently enables municipalities to make land use planning and development decisions including in relation to gravel pits. through several documents, municipal development plans,[10] area structure plans,[11] land use bylaws,[12] and the development permit process.[13] In making these decisions, a municipality is balancing several competing interests and factors that affect its citizens.
Practically speaking, this has meant that although the provincial government does not require proof of municipal authorization prior to issuing a pit registration or approval, municipalities have the authority to determine where pits were allowed within their jurisdiction. As such, project proponents typically require authorizations from both levels of government.[14] This is a notable step because municipalities have a broader land use planning and development agenda when making decisions about gravel pits within their boundaries. Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) is not a land use planning agency in this way. AEPA may be involved through regional plans, but regional plans do not get into municipal level planning details. As Alberta Municipalities and the Rural Municipalities of Alberta put it, “[t]he local municipality is responsible for protecting and managing gravel resources and locating sand and gravel operations for the good for the entire community.”[15] These management priorities include enabling resource development where applicable while also minimizing potential conflicts with nearby land users and negative environmental impacts in the municipality.[16]
Bill 28 Amendments
Bil 28 will remove a municipality’s participation in the gravel pit approval process. A new MGA provision, section 619.1 called “Pit Registration under Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act”, is proposed by Bill 28. [17] This addition states that:
“a registration in respect of a pit prevails, in accordance with this section, over any statutory plan,
land use bylaw, subdivision decision or development decision by a subdivision authority, development
authority, subdivision and development appeal board, or the Land and Property Rights Tribunal or any
other authorization under this Part.”[18]
The ‘registration’ that is referred to in this section is the registration issued under EPEA.[19] In other words, a provincial EPEA registration will prevail over any municipal planning document that may say otherwise.
Bill 28 states that if a municipality receives an application for a land use amendment, whether through statutory plan, bylaw, subdivision, development permit or other authorization that is consistent with a pit registration issued under EPEA, the application must be approved.[20] This is notable because as we highlighted above, municipalities weigh several factors when making decisions about planning and development in their jurisdiction including neighbouring land uses, overall goals of the community and more. These factors are broader than that which is required for a pit registration application.
Additionally, Bill 28 provides that any such applications must be approved within 90 days after receipt, unless otherwise agreed upon, and exempts the approval process from existing requirements set out in the MGA, including public hearing.[21] Furthermore, the proposed amendments specify that if a hearing is held to consider the application, the hearing “may not address matters already decided by a director in the registration.”[22] If an application consistent with a pit registration is not approved, the applicant may appeal to the Land and Property Rights Tribunal.[23] Upon appeal, the Tribunal may only hear “matters relating to whether the proposed statutory plan or land use bylaw amendment is consistent with the registration.”[24]
What does this mean going forward?
The most significant impact of these amendments is the limitation of municipal involvement in land use planning and development decisions. These changes move decision making power over gravel pit development into the hands of provincial regulators, leaving a significant gap in understanding whether a project fits within a broader municipal community or land use plan. The EPEA and the Water Act exist to manage specific environmental concerns as set out within the legislation, they are not intended or designed to answer land use planning questions such as where a gravel pit should be located, how close it should be to homes or businesses, and how it fits into a community’s long-term vision. If the amendments proposed in Bill 28 are made law, gravel pit appeals will be limited primarily to Water Act matters and the bigger picture questions that are currently considered in the municipal forum will have nowhere to go.
These amendments also reduce the ability for everyday Albertans to have their voices heard. As we highlighted above, Bill 28 removes the potential for municipal public hearings on the application for a gravel pit project. Municipal public hearings represent a more accessible way for residents to weigh in on development in their communities. They are open, relatively informal, and allow people to speak to things that matter locally. The alternative, offered under the EPEA, is restrictive and if a registration is required, affords limited opportunity for participation. A Director has the discretion to order a public meeting or request information from directly affected persons but is not required to do so.[25]
This means that the final place for participation is under the Water Act, where decision making and jurisdictional to hear concerns is constrained to water related issues.
With these limits on public participation and community involvement, these changes result in a significant override of any local participation and are a means to fast-track approvals by removing municipal oversight. The people who will feel this most acutely are rural landowners who may live or work next door to these operations. Gravel pits may have significant consequences on neighbouring properties including heavy truck traffic, dust, and noise. Under the current MGA, these neighbours were afforded the opportunity to make their concerns about these projects known and Bill 28 removes this key municipal land planning avenue. When a provincial registration overrides municipal land use planning, the message is clear that landowner concerns are not necessary.
Beyond the impact on landowners and communities, Bill 28 is silent on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and species at risk. To ensure these priorities are reflected in registration decisions, we propose two consequential amendments to EPEA. The first would require that the Director must consider land-use planning and Municipal Development Plans when deciding on a gravel pit registration and the second would ensure that gravel pits are not approved if they will interfere with critical habitat or the nest, den or home of a prescribed species in the Wildlife Act. Specifically, a new section should be added to Bill 28 called Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act amending RSA 2000, c E-12:
(42) should be added as follows:
Section 68(4) is amended
- by adding the following after clause (b)
- must consider any applicable Municipal Development Plan prior to issuing a registration.
- must not issue a registration if the registration will overlap with any critical habitat as identified in the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 or any house, nest or den of a prescribed wildlife as set out in the Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10.
Conclusion
The MGA changes incorporated into Bill 28 represent a significant shift in how gravel pit development will be governed in Alberta. By elevating provincial pit registrations above municipal planning documents, the legislation reduces the role that municipalities and their residents have traditionally played in shaping development within their communities.
The Bill continues an erosion of property rights to participate in decisions that have direct impacts on the use and enjoyment of one’s land. The concerns raised in this post, including the narrowing of land use planning authority, the reduced opportunities for public participation, the implications for neighbouring landowners, and the gaps around environmentally sensitive areas and species at risk, each reflect a broader question about how the interests of local communities are weighed against the provincial interest in streamlining resource development approvals.
Municipalities are not simply another layer of bureaucracy in the approvals process. They are the level of government closest to the people and places most directly affected by gravel pit development. Their planning documents, public hearings, and development decisions reflect considered judgment about how a community chooses to develop. A reduction in that layer of oversight results in a reduction in quality in the decisions that follow. As Bill 28 has yet to be finalized into law, there is still ample time to adjust these amendments to better reflect local decision-making.
THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT
Your support is vital for stronger environmental legislation. As Alberta’s leading environmental charity, the Environmental Law Centre has served our community for over 40 years, providing objective guidance on crucial legislative changes. Your contribution helps protect our environment for future generations.
Please support our work: Share, engage and donate to the ELC
[1] Bill 28, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2026, 2nd Sess, 31st Leg, 2026 (first reading 2 April 2026) [Bill 28].
[2] Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 [EPEA].
[3] EPEA, s 1(xx).
[4] Activities Designation Regulation, Alta Reg 276/2003, s 3(3)(d), Schedule 2, Div 3(b); EPEA, s 83.1; Government of Alberta, “Code of Practice for Pits” (1 Sep 2004) online: https://kings-printer.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=PITS.cfm&leg_type=Codes&isbncln=9780779765560.
[5] EPEA, s 43; Environmental Assessment (Mandatory and Exempted Activities) Regulation, Alta Reg 111/1993, Sched 2(a)(vii).
[6] Approvals and Registrations Procedure Regulation, Alta Reg 113/1993,s 5 [Approvals and Registrations Procedure Regulation].
[7] EPEA, ss 72-73 & 91.
[8] Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3.
[9] Water Act, ss 1(1)(b) & 36(1). See also Government of Alberta, “Guide to Water Act Authorizations Required for Excavations (Dugouts, Borrow Pits and Other Types of Pits/Excavations)” (4 Mar 2024) online: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/9e8a78a8-194d-4e55-9501-59af99a3b0c5/resource/20766d66-ff88-456c-8d4b-9edca049d7db/download/epa-guide-to-water-act-authorizations-required-for-excavations-2024.pdf.
[10] Municipal development plans must address future land use within the municipality; future development; environmental matters; economic development; and several other planning policies for the municipality.
[11] An area structure plan provides a framework for subsequent subdivision and development of an area of land including land uses proposed for the area.
[12] A land use bylaw “may prohibit or regulate and control the use and development of land and buildings in a municipality” and “must establish a method of making decisions on applications for development permits and issuing development permits for any development.”
[13] Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26, ss 632, 633 & 640(1.1) & (2)(c).
[14] Alberta Municipalities, “A Municipal Guide to Sand and Gravel Operations in Alberta” (2007) at 3-6 online: https://rmalberta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Municipal-Guide-to-Sand-and-Gravel-Operations-FINAL-small.pdf [Municipal Guide].
[15] Municipal Guide at 4-1.
[16] Municipal Guide at 4-1.
[17] Bill 28, s 28.
[18] Bill 28, s 28(2).
[19] Bill 28, s 28(1).
[20] Bill 28, s 28(3).
[21] Bill 28, s 28(4).
[22] Bill 28, s 28(6).
[23] Bill 28, s 28(7).
[24] Bill 28, s 28(9).
[25] Approvals and Registrations Procedure Regulation, s 5.