Category: Water Law Page 2 of 6

By: Shaun Fluker

Legislation commented on: Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3

PDF Version: Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

The Faculty’s Public Interest Law Clinic regularly gets inquiries from the public seeking guidance on how to participate in decision-making under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3. As well, the Clinic maintains an active list of projects on the subject of public participation in environmental decision-making. Common matters of concern that we hear about include draining wetlands, as well as impacts to groundwater. As water scarcity in southern Alberta becomes an acute problem, I expect to see a growth in public concern with development projects that affect surface and ground water. This very short comment is simply a reminder that if someone wants to provide feedback or comments on an application made under the Water Act, for example an application made by a company that plans to drain a wetland so that the area can be developed, they normally have only 7 days from the date of the application to submit a ‘statement of concern’ to Alberta Environment and Protected Areas.

The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 24, 2022

In Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study Board, Work Plan for the International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study, June 2022, released July 28, 2022

PDF Version: The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

This post examines the most recent development in efforts to improve the ability of both Canada and the United States to access its water entitlement to each of the Milk and St. Mary Rivers under the terms of an apportionment order made by the International Joint Commission (IJC) under the Boundary Waters Treaty more than a century ago.

The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

By Nigel Bankes

On March 30, 2019

In Environmental, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

Matter commented on: Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, as passed by the House of Commons, April 20. 2018.

There is a lot of attention focused on the Senate these days, principally in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, (and the subject of numerous ABlawg posts); but, there are other Bills standing in a long and slowly moving line in that Chamber as well. These Bills include Romeo Saguenash’s private member’s Bill C-262 (also endorsed by the Liberals) to give application to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canadian law (and the subject of an ABlawg post here), but also proposed amendments to the Oceans Act, SC 1996, c 31 to create an expedited process for establishing marine protected areas (MPAs). This blog post focuses on the latter.

Minister Sharpens the Wetland Policy’s Teeth, and Beaver Pond is Spared

By Arlene Kwasniak

On February 16, 2018

In Environmental, Water Law

By: Arlene Kwasniak

PDF Version: Minister Sharpens the Wetland Policy’s Teeth, and Beaver Pond is Spared

Decisions Commented On: Brookman and Tulick v Director, South Saskatchewan Region, Alberta Environment and Parks, re: KGL Constructors, A Partnership (24 November 2017), Appeal Nos. 17-047 and 17-050-R (AEAB), EAB Report, Minister`s Order, and Minister’s Reasons)

The physical setting relating to the 111 page EAB Report (ER), Minister’s Order (MO), and Minister’s Reasons (MR), includes the geologically and ecologically unique Weaselhead Flats Natural Environment Park in south Calgary (containing the only delta in the City), the Tsuut’ina First Nation Reserve, a series of wetlands that drain into the Park and the Glenmore Reservoir, and the long-time materializing Calgary Ring Road. The complex and sometimes intense fact situation may be summarized as follows:

Does a US Entity Have a Cause of Action (Cognizable by the Federal Court) where a Downstream Road/Dyke in Canada Serves to Prevent Dispersion of the Natural Flow of a Transboundary Stream? Answer: No

By Nigel Bankes

On June 12, 2017

In Federal Court, International Law, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Does a US Entity Have a Cause of Action (Cognizable by the Federal Court) where a Downstream Road/Dyke in Canada Serves to Prevent Dispersion of the Natural Flow of a Transboundary Stream? Answer: No

Case Commented On: Pembina County Water Resource District v Manitoba (Government), 2017 FCA 92 (CanLII)

The Pembina River is transboundary stream. Its geography is as follows (at para 6 of the judgement):

The Pembina River originates in Manitoba and crosses into North Dakota. It then flows eastwards through North Dakota before joining the Red River, which flows northward back into Canada. Within North Dakota, part of the river is “perched” meaning that it is elevated above the level of the surrounding prairie. When the river overflows these elevated banks, as the appellants allege happens “virtually every year,” the water should naturally disperse.

The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ claim was that (at paras 5 and 6):

…. in the relevant areas of southern Manitoba, there is a 99 foot wide road allowance running parallel to the international border. In or around 1940, a raised road was constructed within this allowance. The road [blocks] the flood waters of the Pembina River from crossing into Canada.

Category: Water Law Page 2 of 6

Public Participation under the Water Act (Alberta): A Very Short Window of Opportunity

The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

The Senate, the Oceans Act and Marine Protected Areas

Minister Sharpens the Wetland Policy’s Teeth, and Beaver Pond is Spared

Does a US Entity Have a Cause of Action (Cognizable by the Federal Court) where a Downstream Road/Dyke in Canada Serves to Prevent Dispersion of the Natural Flow of a Transboundary Stream? Answer: No