written by Jason Unger
The Water Amendment Act (Bill 7) proposes amalgamation of the Peace/Slave River Basin and the Athabasca River Basin. This will create a massive river basin that covers approximately half the province.
The Government of Alberta has given little justification or rationale why the Peace-Slave and Athabasca basins should be amalgamated other than to cite that they meet within the Province. This begs the question, did the legislature miss the fact that the basins met within the province in 1998?
Environmental and Hydrological Risks of Inter-Basin Transfers
The risks associated with unfettered transfers between major river basins include movement of invasive species, impacts on ecosystems, hydrology, biochemistry, and pollution between basins, and long-term and cumulative changes to water quantity (i.e. embedding reliance on transfers despite potential water quantity risks in the basin that is “losing” water).
There is a need to recognize that interbasin transfers have environmental, social and economic impacts that must be considered.
If one investigates further about the rationale around the amalgamation it appears based partially in the fact that the government has been allowing wastewater to be transferred between basins for a while now, albeit in apparent contradiction with the plain reading of the Water Act. (See the Inter-basin Information Letter, 2015, EPA) Moving water or wastewater between basins is prohibited except by way of the special Act of the legislature. The fact that the water is used for different purposes and the water is diverted away from the land to which the original licence was linked makes it clear that it is an inter-basin transfer.
A Shift That Reduces Oversight and Public Involvement
In removing interbasin transfer requirements altogether within the amalgamated basin, the Bill 7 approach means that transfers between the major basins occur under the procedure of a general water licence. This procedure is subject to lower public scrutiny notwithstanding heightened risks. Further, this approach undermines efforts to maintain watershed integrity. Some might call it stealing water from one basin to give to another, thereby undermining the autonomy and integrity of the basin from which the water is being transferred. There are no current or proposed regulatory limits to how much water is moved from one basin to the other (in the proposed amalgamated river basin).
Under the proposed new regime, the legislature will be unaware of the licence proposals and there will be limited up front assessment and limited standing for community members (i.e. you have to establish you are directly affected). In addition, Bill 7 would limit the department’s discretion to require additional information in the licence application process. In this way, it seems the government is intent on directly undermining the principles of maintaining the watershed integrity of two major river basins of the province.
A path forward
The amalgamation route is a high-risk blanket approach to decisions that require careful assessment, community engagement, and evaluation of alternatives and overall risks to determine whether an interbasin transfer is justified in the circumstances. The risks are borne by the communities in the receiving basins and the sending basins, who, by and large, are shut out of the decision-making.
The government should be considering an alternative approach that doesn’t rush forward with amalgamating two massive basins. One opportunity could be to consider law reform that enables classes of interbasin transfers that may be considered with requirements for effective environmental and regional hydrological assessments, broadened consultation with basin communities (i.e. not restricted by the need to establish the “directly affected” test), and tailor-made regulatory requirements. A review and reconsideration of these interbasin transfers should also have time limits (e.g. 5 years) for clear reconsideration and analysis of how the transfers have been occurring and any new risks that may be arising.
The government may read a blog like this and claim “we are not considering licencing large diversions between basins” to which I would respond “then don’t enable them”. Instead of open-ended and unfettered diversions between the Peace and Athabasca basins that would result from the amalgamation in Bill 7, the government should step back and properly consider a more targeted, community-driven, and risk-attuned approach to transfers between major river basins.
More reading on the proposed amendments to the Water Act
https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/water-amendment-act-bill-7-review-analysis-and-recommendations/
https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/webinar-water-law-in-focus-basics-of-albertas-water-act/
https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/qa-on-proposed-amendments-to-the-water-act/
https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/review-of-albertas-proposed-water-act-amendments/
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