University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Water Law Page 1 of 7

Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Annual Report of the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty for the period of October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, May 16, 2025, and (2) Flood Risk Operating Plan (FROP) for the Columbia River Treaty, June 26, 2025

PDF Version: Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) entered into force in September 1964. While the CRT has no expiry date, certain terms of the CRT, specifically the flood control provisions of the treaty, were scheduled to change automatically on the treaty’s sixtieth anniversary (September 16, 2024) in a way that would provide the United States far less certainty as to future upstream flood control operations in Canada. For this, and a number of other reasons, the US and Canada were motivated to modernize the CRT and to that end, and as highlighted in previous posts on ABlawg, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into a non-binding agreement in principle (AiP) in July 2024 outlining proposed changes to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) (see posts on the AiP here and here).

Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

By: Arlene Kwasniak, David C Barrett, Kerry Black

Matter Commented On: Amendments to the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 as set out in Bill 7: Water Amendment Act, 2025 (Bill 7)

PDF Version: Alberta Water Act Amendments: No Bridge Over Troubled Waters

On October 30th, the governing United Conservative Party of Alberta introduced Bill 7, the Water Amendment Act, 2025. Bill 7 passed third reading at the Legislative Assembly on December 2, 2025, and will come into force on proclamation. No amendments were made. This post assesses the Bill’s potential impacts on water management in Alberta. Part I of this post provides an overview of water law in Alberta, up to the amendments. Part II sets out the amendments Bill 7 presents and describes them in relation to traditional water management as prescribed by law in the province for over 130 years. Part II primarily takes a legal perspective. Part III then offers analyses of the amendments from an ecological, social, infrastructure, and related impacts and concerns perspective.

Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, First Session, Forty-fourth Parliament, 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1-2-3 Charles III, 2021-2022-2023-2024

PDF Version: Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

On June 30, Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Protected Areas and Ontario’s Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks penned a remarkable letter to their federal counterpart, Ms. Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change (for Alberta’s Press Release see here). The joint letter asserted that “Canada is poised to be an economic superpower, but achieving that potential depends on strong, constitutionally grounded provincial authority over resource development and environmental management.” With that as the premise, the two Ministers went on to indicate that they had a number of “urgent requests” that they would like to discuss “immediately” with their federal counterpart, namely:

  • Repealing the Impact Assessment Act and the Physical Activities Regulations.
  • Repealing the Clean Electricity Regulations.
  • Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and associated regulations.
  • Amending the Species at Risk Act to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the
  • Suspending the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulation.
  • Undertaking to refrain from reintroducing Bill C-61: An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.

Water Availability Engagement Survey – Available to Whom for What?

By: Arlene Kwasniak

Matter Commented On: Alberta Government Enhancing Water Availability Engagement and Proposed Amendments to the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3

PDF Version: Water Availability Engagement Survey – Available to Whom for What?

This Government Initiative is Phase 2 of Environment and Protected Areas (EPA) Water Availability Engagement (WAE) initiative. The EPA website states that Phase 1, which concluded early this year, “Sought feedback … to understand challenges within the current water management system and potential solutions for increasing water availability” and that Phase 2 focusses on “Collecting feedback on proposed changes to the Water Act” to “enhance the water management system and increase water availability.” The website provides three resources relevant to Phase 2:

The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Canada/US Exchange of Notes re Columbia River Treaty Assured Operating Plan for 2024-25, (September 18 and 20, 2024) and re Entity Agreement on the Interim Period Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (September 13, 16 and 17 September, 2024), (2) Canada/US Exchange of Notes Regarding Interim Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 18 and 22, 2024), and (3) Entity Agreement regarding Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 14 & 15, 2024).

PDF Version: The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

This post deals with the interim measures that the United States and Canada (the Parties) have adopted to address the temporal gap (the “Interim Period” between the Agreement-in-Principle (AiP) on a “modernized” Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) (1961)) adopted in mid-2024 and the conclusion and ratification of final modernized treaty text at some future time. In practice, the Parties and their operating Entities (see discussion of the term “Entities” below) are using the operational capability offered by the Treaty (and especially Article XIV(4)) to selectively implement some of the terms of the non-binding AiP. The Parties and their Entities have chosen to prioritize the early implementation of the changed flood control and power provisions of the AiP but have not extended that same priority to other elements of the AiP, including ecosystem considerations, and the creation of the Joint Ecosystem and Indigenous and Tribal Cultural Values Body (JEB). Neither do the interim arrangements address two groups of provisions in the AiP that were clearly intended to confer an advantage on Canada; first an additional annual compensation payment to Canada for “additional benefits” brought about by coordinated operations, and second, certain flexibility rules designed to allow Canada (British Columbia) to “undertake Treaty operations for domestic priorities, such as environmental, Indigenous cultural values and socioeconomic purposes.”

Page 1 of 7

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén