In 2024, the government of Alberta established the Oil Sands Mine Water Steering Committee (the “Committee”) with the mandate to “assess options for safely managing the water in oil sands tailings ponds.”[1] The Committee included members from government, industry, academia, and Indigenous communities; however, environmental organizations were not represented.
The Committee’s work resulted in nine recommendations. Five were released in June 2025, followed by the remaining four in September.[2] In response to the release of the initial set of recommendations, the ELC began a series of blog posts delving deeper into the management and regulation of tailings ponds. This fourth post in the series offers commentary on the Committee’s recommendations, alongside related work by the federal Crown Indigenous Working Group which is also focused on management and reclamation of the tailings ponds.[3] None of these recommendations have been incorporated into any regulation and are still in the early planning stages.
This post will be divided into two parts. The first examines the most controversial recommendation, the potential release of oil sands mine water (“OSMW”) into natural water bodies, such as the Athabasca River. It also considers the role of the federal government should this option proceed. The second offers brief commentary on each of the other eight recommendations, including some overarching themes to guide ongoing decision-making.
Part 1: The Potential Release of OSMW into the Athabasca River
In September 2025, the Committee released its second batch of recommendations including a proposal to treat and release OSMW into natural water bodies.[4] The goal of these releases, according to the Recommendations, is to “allow operators to manage increasing water volumes on site and achieve mine closure outcomes in accordance with their tailings management and reclamation plans and will improve the accuracy of financial liability calculations associated with oil sands mines.”[5] Although the Committee also cites environmental risk management as a justification, we emphasize the first two goals for a reason. In our first two blog posts in this series, we discussed the liability management framework in place for tailings ponds and the lack of ongoing reclamation, despite being a requirement in the 2015 Tailings Management Framework.[6] It is important, therefore, to ensure that any potential release regulations do not shift liability away from oil sands operators. As Environmental Defence argues, it seems “the committee’s recommendations [are] more concerned with not burdening the industry than protecting downstream communities.”[7]
Any cost/benefit analysis conducted regarding the decision to proceed with release regulations must include a full accounting for potential downstream harm and be made public. Moreover, the concept of ‘affordability’ for operators must be weighed against any potential environmental impacts.
The Committee acknowledges that any release will require clear legislative and policy frameworks at both the provincial and federal levels – specifically under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Fisheries Act respectively.[8] They also note ongoing opposition from Indigenous communities but stop short of proposing a consultation plan or clarifying whether free, prior, and informed consent would be required. This omission is significant, as the release of treated OSMW into these waterbodies could prompt litigation regarding impacts on treaty and Aboriginal rights.
Even if the province decides to proceed with a regulation that allows this type of release, federal authorization under the Fisheries Act would still be required. The next section reviews the federal Crown Indigenous Working Group’s ongoing work in this area.
What does the federal government have to say?
The federal government through the Crown Indigenous Working Group (“CIWG”) has also been developing policy options for the management of tailings ponds. In February 2025, the CIWG released a discussion paper entitled Path forward for evaluating policy options for managing the accumulation of oil sands mine water in tailings ponds.[9] In particular, this paper considered the creation of regulations that would authorize the release of treated OSMW. It began by emphasizing the complexity associated with this type of regulation, citing several issues such as the: [10]
- limited application to a single watershed;
- proximity to Indigenous communities who do not currently consent to this type of release;
- large volumes of complex OSMW; and
- proximity to Wood Buffalo National Park and the Peace Athabasca Delta.
Although the discussion paper stresses the need to consider alternatives to release; it does establish important considerations for any potential release regulation, including:[11]
- protecting the rights of Indigenous communities, consistent with the principles of UNDRIP, including free, prior, and informed consent;
- considering all feasible alternatives before release is authorized;
- ensuring effluent quality is protective of environmental and human health considering the accumulated state, scientific uncertainties, and cumulative effects;
- ensuring stakeholder trust;
- requiring operators to improve practices and pay costs associated with their own pollution;
- responding to changes in human health and environmental conditions; and
- understanding any real and potential cumulative impacts on human health and the environment.
In addition to these criteria, the CIWG briefly highlights some other principles including that regulations would require co-management with Indigenous communities and a process to obtain free, prior, and informed consent.[12] The paper also identifies adaptive authorization as an option, meaning operators would still need to apply for a release permit and approvals could be revisited.[13] The final two focuses are on stringent effluent quality limits which the CIWG notes are imperative in order not “to solve the problem of oil sands mine water accumulation in the oil sands tailings ponds by creating another issue downstream” and for ongoing monitoring and reporting.[14] A draft regulatory framework that takes into account these principles is planned for the end of 2025.[15]
These criteria offer a stronger framework to ensure that any release regulation aligns with environmental principles. It remains to be seen how a federal regulation of this kind would prevent liability shifting from oil sands operators to the taxpayer, however, the acknowledgment that this type of regulation cannot just move the problem downstream is a critical first step.
Issues with the Release of OSMW
The primary issue with the release of OSMW into natural water bodies is the risk to human health and the environment. The full effects of certain toxic compounds, such as naphthenic acid remain unknown, making it imperative to understand these impacts before any regulation to allow these releases is passed. A September 2025 article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal (“CMAJ”) highlights that the “health implications of exposures to the Alberta oil sands are underrepresented” referring to lingering questions about the high rates of cancer in surrounding communities and the high levels of contamination found in muskrat, moose, and duck.[16]
In this case the precautionary principle offers guidance. The precautionary principle states that where uncertainty about potential harms exists, decision makers should err on the side of caution. For example, if questions about the impact of these releases remain, other options for the management of OSMW must be taken in the interim. In the CMAJ article, Courtney Howard MD and co-authors specifically state that “[u]ntil such studies are done and the findings known, in accordance with the precautionary principle, any activities with potential to worsen health should be suspended.”[17]
Another guiding environmental law principle is the polluter pays principle. Under the polluter pays principle, the polluter, in this case the oil sands mine operator must bear all costs associated with their pollution, including managing OSMW. Allowing releases as a means to reduce operator liability, undermines this principle.
Finally, both levels of government will need to coordinate on any decision to authorize releases, and any regulation must comply with the federal Fisheries Act and should not impair fish habitat.
Part 2: The Other Recommendations
With these overarching priorities in mind, next we provide some brief commentary on the other options put forward by the Committee.
Recommendation 1: The segregation of water streams for use or release of non-process affected water.[18]
To start, the Committee recommends the segregation of water streams which would allow non-process affected water to be prioritized for operational use ahead of new withdrawals from the Athabasca. It also includes a recommendation to review limits on the release of this segregated water into the environment. The first option, prioritizing the use of non-process affected water for industrial uses should be an important focus. As much as possible, industry should be required to use water that is already on-site and limit new withdrawals. Concerns arise primarily with the next step in this proposal, which involves releasing this water into surrounding watersheds.
For the necessary degree of public confidence in the release of this water, which is defined as “non-process affected water, such as rainwater, surface runoff, muskeg dewatering, non-saline groundwater depressurization, and other water that has not been directly utilized in oil sands extraction or separation processes”, regulatory details setting out specific quality standards should be publicly available and participation, particularly from surrounding communities and Indigenous groups should be required.[19]
This should include rigorous study of the risks of this release, including input from independent third parties. Properly authorized releases will also require cooperation with the federal government in the form of a Fisheries Act regulation. Although the Committee notes that “[f]ederally, the release of excess non-process affected water is generally considered acceptable under the Fisheries Act provided that provincial approval release limits are met, as has been practiced for decades,” this is not sufficient.[20] The federal government should not rely solely on provincial approvals, there should also be a regulatory regime in place at the federal level to ensure that any potential releases are safe for the health of the environment, watershed, and surrounding communities.[21]
Recommendation 2: Sharing OSMW between operations.[22]
This recommendation advises government to promote more water-sharing between mine sites to minimize new withdrawals. Initial concerns focus on the feasibility of water-sharing as it will be project and site specific, may require changes to existing authorization, and may require the construction of pipelines for OSMW transport between sites. However, despite these details, this is a relatively low stakes option that may help to limit the number of withdrawals from the Athabasca River.
Recommendation 3: Sharing of OSMW across watersheds.[23]
The third recommendation discusses sharing OSMW across watersheds, known as interbasin transfers but highlights that this should be used sparingly and only after other options have been exhausted.[24] However, if interbasin transfers are limited in scope, used to reduce freshwater withdrawals, and conducted under a strong regulatory framework, they could serve as an additional option for managing existing OSMW.
Recommendation 4: Deep well disposal of OSMW.[25]
In this recommendation, the Committee advises the government to consider deep well disposal for small volumes of otherwise untreatable OSMW. Alberta already has a history of deep well injection, which is regulated under the Alberta Energy Regulator Directive 051.[26] This Directive is intended “to ensure wellbore integrity during injection or disposal operations.”[27]
The Committee notes some significant differences between existing deep well disposal practices and the proposed injection of OSMW. In-situ projects, for example, draw water from groundwater aquifers, so deepwell disposal often returns water to its source. These projects also tend to be located near suitable disposal zones. By contrast, OSMW comes from the Athabasca River which is not located near underground disposal zones.[28] It remains unclear what impacts large injections of freshwater into deep wells would have, since this process effectively removes significant amounts of water from the water cycle.[29]
Another detail of note is that the Committee states that this option should be restricted to “economically untreatable OSMW streams.”[30] This refers to highly concentrated OSMW which would be difficult to remediate. However, this raises two initial questions.
First, what does “economically untreatable” mean? Does it describe water that can be treated but at a high cost or does it refer to OSMW for which there is no existing technology to manage it? Further, who should be able to define what is uneconomical, the operators or the public? Any analysis of economic viability must account for any future impacts associated with deep well injection. In fact, the AER Directive begins with the principle that “waste minimization should be implemented before using the deepwell disposal option.”[31]
The second question is what impact would this disposal have on groundwater? If this option is reserved for the most contaminated water streams, is there clear evidence that there will not be any impact on surrounding groundwater? These questions must be rigorously studied, and answers made public, prior to any regulatory decisions.
Recommendation 5: Establishing standardized measurement methods for naphthenic acids.[32]
Recommendation 5 calls for developing a standardized method to measure naphthenic acids. Naphthenic acids are a chemical byproduct found in OSMW and are currently subject to limited regulation. For example, the federal government’s recent assessment of commercial naphthenic acids did not include naphthenic acids derived from OSMW but it has announced plans to add them to its priority list for review.[33]
Alongside federal study and regulation, the province should also develop standardized measurement methods which are necessary to “develop and monitor compliance with to be established water quality guidelines.”[34] The ELC advocates for increased monitoring for environmental impacts, and this recommendation is no exception. Accurate data on the health and environmental impacts of naphthenic acids is required before moving forward with many of the other proposed options.
Recommendation 6: Alternative oil sands mine water treatment technologies.[35]
In this recommendation, the Committee focuses on developing and conducting pilots “on promising active and passive OSMW treatment technologies.” This is an open-ended recommendation that relies on unknown technological advances to manage OSMW. Continued research and development is important but possible future options should not serve to postpone existing regulatory requirements, such as the Tailings Management Framework.[36]
The timeline is also uncertain because it is difficult to predict when such technologies may be available. For example, Emissions Reduction Alberta recently closed a major funding call of up to $50 million to “support the scale-up, pilot, advancement, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and solutions to help reduce and manage oil sands mine water and tailings.”[37] These funding programs help fast-track new advances, but should not be used to avoid polluter pays requirements, specifically that clean up should be paid for by the oil sands mine operators rather than general tax revenue. As it currently stands, Emissions Reduction Alberta is funded through the Technology Innovation Emissions Reduction Fund (derived from the industrial price on carbon) which would fit within this requirement. However, recent announcements suggest that there will be changes to the TIER regulation and this may require a re-evaluation.[38]
Recommendation 7: Treatment and release of OSMW.[39]
This recommendation involves the treatment and release of oil sands mine water which we highlight in depth above.
Recommendation 8: Advancing end pit lakes.[40]
In this recommendation, the Committee focuses on the advancement of end pit lakes both with and without treated tailings. However, for our purposes, we will focus on end pit lakes that contain treated tailings.
The Committee specifically proposes developing criteria that future end pit lakes with treated tailings must meet at the individual and landscape levels.[41] This type of reclamation would require using water capping or permanent aquatic structure storage (“PASS”). However, there is limited evidence that water capping is successful in the long-term. One 2024 study found some benefits from PASS, for example that it limited the release of fine fluid tailings into lake water but also identified uncertainties about long-term stability.[42] Another common concern with end pit lakes is seepage. In this regard, a University of Alberta study found that although fine tailings tend to seal the bottom, the size of these end pit lakes means substantial seepage will still occur.[43] These issues must be studied further and potential impacts fully evaluated before proceeding.
We can also draw lessons from metal pit lakes. In past decades, scientists predicted future water quality in these pit lakes, but actual outcomes were worse than expected.[44] This serves as a reminder that these predictions are not guaranteed. When dealing with untested technologies and major environmental risks, decision makers must be sure to apply the precautionary principle.
Schematic of end pit lake. Source CEMA via Pembina Institute(https://www.pembina.org/blog/relying-end-pit-lakes-tailings-reclamation-reckless)
Recommendation 9: Inclusive water monitoring strategies.[45]
This recommendation focuses on inclusive water monitoring strategies and notes “ongoing concerns about the transparency and efficacy of regulatory oversight provided by the government.”[46] Specifically, it calls for building on existing monitoring systems by increasing Indigenous participation and incorporating additional perspectives. It also recommends enhancing “transparency in data analysis and dissemination by government, regulator(s), industry and monitoring groups by accelerating timelines for release of water monitoring data in accessible and user-friendly formats.”[47]
Transparency, public participation, and accessible information should guide all decisions about tailings ponds. Prioritizing Indigenous communities is especially important and should also be consistently applied across all other recommendations.
Overall Thoughts
The recommendations released so far represent a mix of proposals, ranging from easy updates such as improvements to water monitoring or applying all available technologies to more controversial ideas such as end pit lakes, deepwell injection, or the release of fluid tailings into the natural environment. Overall, the ELC emphasizes several core environmental principles in response.
First, the polluter pays principle. While the fate of the tailings ponds is both an Albertan and Canadian problem, reclamation and remediation decisions should not lose sight of this principle. The polluter pays principle is straightforward: the polluter, in this case oil sands mine operators, must cover the costs of cleanup. Regulation must ensure that whatever strategies are pursued, Albertan taxpayers are not left carrying this immense financial burden.
Second, the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle states that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”[48] For example, if environmental harm is possible, such as due to the potential toxicity of releases into the Athabasca River, other management options must be exhausted first, even if the exact risks remain uncertain.
Third, full participation from both provincial and federal governments. Because many of the environmental issues associated with the tailings ponds represent overlapping jurisdiction, both levels of government must coordinate on regulation, enforcement, and a plan forward. As we have noted several times, the reclamation and remediation of the tailings ponds will be a complex and multi-faceted challenge and to manage this problem effectively, both the federal and provincial governments must be actively involved and must not abdicate their jurisdictional responsibilities.
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] Government of Alberta, “Oil Sands Mine Water Steering Committee” online: https://www.alberta.ca/oil-sands-mine-water-steering-committee.
[2] Oil Sands Mine Water Steering Committee, “Recommendations” (June 2025) online: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ced4fd29-56d4-4a97-a3f8-dcbdff464e97/resource/a2b17d83-422e-47e1-b175-255a618a6871/download/epa-osmw-sc-recommendations-2025-06.pdf [June 2025 Recommendations]; Oil Sands Mine Water Steering Committee “Recommendations” (September 2025) online: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ced4fd29-56d4-4a97-a3f8-dcbdff464e97/resource/b3804ed4-7125-4cab-a372-f89a01835061/download/epa-osmw-sc-recommendations-2025-09.pdf [September 2025 Recommendations].
[3] Environment and Climate Change Canada, “Path Forward for Evaluating Policy Options for Managing the Accumulation of Oil Sands Mine Water in Tailings Ponds” (February 2025) Crown Indigenous Working Group Discussion Paper online: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/managing-pollution/sources-industry/ciwg/Path%20forward%20for%20evaluating%20policy%20options%20for%20managing%20the%20accumulation%20of%20oil%20sands%20mine%20water%20in%20tailings%20ponds.pdf [CIWG Discussion Paper].
[4] September 2025 Recommendations.
[5] September 2025 Recommendations.
[6] Government of Alberta, Lower Athabasca Region: Tailings Management Framework for the Mineable Athabasca Oil Sands (2015) online: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460121740#detailed [TMF].
[7] Jack Farrell, “Alberta government creating standards for releasing oil tailings into environment” (5 Sep 2025) CBC News online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/oilsands-tailings-action-plan-1.7626374.
[8] Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12; Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c F14.
[9] CIWG Discussion Paper.
[10] CIWG Discussion Paper at 3.
[11] CIWG Discussion Paper at 6.
[12] CIWG Discussion Paper at 6.
[13] CIWG Discussion Paper at 7.
[14] CIWG Discussion Paper at 8-9.
[15] CIWG Discussion Paper at 9.
[16] Courtney Howard et al., “Research as reconciliation: oil sands and health” CMAJ (15 Sep 2025) 197 (30) at E963 online: https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/197/30/E963.full.pdf [Howard et al.].
[17] Howard et al. at E963.
[18] June 2025 Recommendations.
[19] June 2025 Recommendations.
[20] June 2025 Recommendations.
[21] Note that this is part of the premise of the “Path Forward for Evaluating Policy Options for Managing the Accumulation of Oil Sands Mine Water in Tailings Ponds” document which considers federal regulation for the release of treated or non-affected process water.
[22] June 2025 Recommendations.
[23] June 2025 Recommendations.
[24] Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3.
[25] June 2025 Recommendations.
[26] Alberta Energy Regulator, “Directive 051: Injection and Disposal Wells – Well classifications, Completions, Logging, and Testing Requirements” (28 Apr 2023) online: https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/directives/Directive051.pdf [Directive 051].
[27] Directive 051 at s 1.1.
[28] June 2025 Recommendations.
[29] June 2025 Recommendations.
[30] June 2025 Recommendations.
[31] Directive 051 at 2.1.
[32] June 2025 Recommendations.
[33] Environment and Climate Change Canada & Health Canada, “Assessment Commercial Napthenic Acids Group” (January 2024) online: https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/eccc/En84-341-2023-eng.pdf.
[34] June 2025 Recommendations
[35] September 2025 Recommendations.
[36] TMF. To read more about the TMF and the liability framework in place for tailings pond see our blog “Tailings Pond Liabilities: Alberta’s Looming Oil Sands Challenge (Part 1).”
[37] Emissions Reduction Alberta, “Up to $50 Million to Tackle Oil Sands Mine Water and Tailings” online: https://www.eralberta.ca/technology-funding/tailings-technology-challenge/.
[38] Government of Alberta, News Release, “Modernizing TIER to secure tomorrow” (16 Sep 2025) online: https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=9394747127445-C0F9-96A7-43804C08764CE1D4.
[39] September 2025 Recommendations.
[40] September 2025 Recommendations.
[41] September 2025 Recommendations.
[42] Mehravaran F. et al., “Desorption and migration of dissolved organics from oil sands tailings to capped water: Demonstration pit lake” (2024) Chemical Engineering Journal 493 at 6-7.
[43] Kabwe LK et al., “Environmental implications of end pit lakes at oil sand mines in Alberta, Canada” (2019) Environmental Geotechnics 6(2) at 67 online: https://www.emerald.com/jenge/article-pdf/6/2/67/2792219/jenge_17_00110.pdf.
[44] Glen C. Miller, “Oil Sands Terminal Pit Lakes: Environmental Issues” (28 Sep 2012) online: https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents_staticpost/59540/81969/appendices_-_part_02.pdf.
[45] September 2025 Recommendations.
[46] September 2025 Recommendations.
[47] September 2025 Recommendations.
[48] Government of Canada, “Guide to understanding the Canadian Environmental Protection Act: chapter 3” online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/canadian-environmental-protection-act-registry/publications/guide-to-understanding/chapter-3.html.