Category: Water Law Page 5 of 6

Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

On December 20, 2010

PDF version: Using water reservations to protect the aesthetic values associated with water courses: a note on the Spray River (Banff)

Documents commented on: Order in Council 546\49; South Saskatchewan Basin Water Allocation Regulation, Alta. Reg. 307/1991 (rescinded by Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River Basin Water Allocation Order, Alta. Reg. 171/2007); Alberta Environment, TransAlta Utilities (TAU) licence for the Spray River development.

I have been doing some work on Crown water reservations over the last few months and in the course of that came across an example of what at first glance seemed to be the use of a water reservation to preserve the aesthetic qualities of a watercourse. The example also has an interesting constitutional twist that is worth reflecting on.

Water Rights and Water Stewardship: What About Aboriginal Peoples?

By David Laidlaw

On July 8, 2010

In Aboriginal, Water Law

PDF version: Water Rights and Water Stewardship: What About Aboriginal Peoples?

Introduction

The province of Alberta is currently reviewing its approach to the allocation, licensing and transfer of water rights. The government has received advice from a number of groups of experts established under various government initiatives and concerned citizens have come forward with their own recommendations. In addition, the government has announced that it will hold public consultations on the proposed review of its water allocation and management system in the summer of 2010.

One striking feature of the reports received by the Alberta government is the absence of attention paid to the issue of Aboriginal uses of, and rights to, water. First Nations are only mentioned, along with other designated groups, in passing in a single recommendation (at #12 of the 15 recommendations) in the report submitted by the Minister’s Advisory Group dealing with governance of water management and allocation: Minister’s Advisory Group, Recommendations for Improving Alberta’s Water Management and Allocation, August 2009.

One reason for this lack of attention is Alberta’s long-standing position that Aboriginal water rights have been extinguished and the province has exclusive jurisdiction over water in the province (see Nigel Bankes, “Water Law Reform in Alberta: Paying Obeisance to the ‘Lords of Yesterday’, or Creating a Water Charter for the Future?” (1995) 49 Resources 1 at 5).

Alberta’s position has been challenged by several First Nations in several lawsuits alleging that their water rights still exist, both on and off reserve, and those rights now receive the benefit of constitutional protection. In connection with these rights Aboriginal peoples assert that they must be adequately consulted by the government on proposed reviews of the water allocation system and on ongoing land and water initiatives that impact their rights. In response, the government has stated that it will seek input from First Nations on water use and watershed planning initiatives through an undefined separate “yet parallel process”: Government of Alberta, Water for Life: Alberta’s Water Allocation Management System Review; see “Who is involved in the Water Allocation System Review?”

In November 2009, the Canadian Institute of Resources Law (CIRL) convened a small workshop, funded by the Alberta Law Foundation and the Canadian Boreal Initiative, to discuss the issue of Aboriginal rights to water in Alberta. The meeting was attended by First Nations elders and councillors, community leaders, lawyers and scholars. This article draws in part from the proceedings of this workshop and a CIRL Occasional Paper #29, Defining Aboriginal Rights to Water in Alberta: Do They Still “Exist”? How Extensive are They? by Monique M. Passelac-Ross and Christina M. Smith (2010).

Water management planning and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate: the Court of Appeal rejects First Nations’ application for judicial review of the South Saskatchewan Water Management Plan

By Nigel Bankes

On May 7, 2010

In Aboriginal, Water Law

Case considered: Tsuu T’ina Nation v Alberta (Environment), 2010 ABCA 137

PDF version: Water management planning and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate

The Court of Appeal, in a reasons for judgement reserved decision written by Justice Clifton O’Brien on behalf of a unanimous three person panel (Justices Ellen Picard and Patricia Rowbotham concurring), has rejected the challenge made by two First Nations, the Tsuu T’ina and the Samson Cree, to the South Saskatchewan Water Management Plan (SS WMP). The First Nations challenged the Plan on the basis that the Crown had not fulfilled its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate when it developed and adopted that Plan. The Court found that: (1) the Crown did have a duty to consult (certainly with respect to the Tsuu T’ina, less clearly so with respect to the Samson Cree, at para.70), (2) the content of the duty to consult was at the very low end of the scale “having regard to the nature of the proposed government action, the seriousness of the appellants’ rights and claims, and the potential adverse impacts upon those rights and claims” (at para. 95), and (3) the duty to consult had been satisfied (at paras 130 and 136).

The Environmental Appeal Board confirms Alberta Environment’s decision to reject the application of municipality to obtain additional water from a well

By Nigel Bankes

On January 29, 2010

In Environmental, Water Law

Case considered: Municipality of Crowsnest Pass v. Director, Southern Region, Environmental Management, Alberta Environment (23 December 2009), Appeal No. 08-016-R (A.E.A.B.).

PDF version: The Environmental Appeal Board confirms Alberta Environment’s decision to reject the application of municipality to obtain additional water from a well

The Context

Crowsnest Pass is one of a number of communities in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) (another is Okotoks) that face a difficult challenge in acquiring the rights to use additional sources of water to permit municipal expansion.

The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

By Nigel Bankes

On April 2, 2009

In Administrative Law, Oil & Gas, Water Law

Case Considered: ERCB Decision 2009-029, CCS Corporation, Section 40 Review and Variance of Application No. 1515213, Class 1b Waste Disposal Scheme, Well 00/09-01-048-14W5M, Brazeau River, March 24, 2009

PDF version: The protection of potable ground water through a purposive or objective approach to regulation

There are at least five reasons to read and blog on this decision. First, it is very rare for the ERCB (“the Board”) to issue a reasoned decision on an application relating to a disposal well. Others include ERCB D 90-17 and D2002-055. The Board deals with most such decisions administratively. Typically there will be no reasoned decision and the general public will not have a clue that the Board has just approved a proposal to inject oilfield waste or acid gas into a geological formation unless they happen to live within a fairly circumscribed radius of the well. Other well operators are far more likely to receive notification than the general public. Second, the decision deals with a topic of crucial societal importance, the protection of potable groundwater and how to ensure that. Third, the decision contains a very interesting discussion of two different approaches to regulation. One approach (which we will term the prescriptive approach) seeks to set certain prescriptive standards that any project must meet in order to be approved. This approach works on the basis that if the proponent complies with that standard, the desired regulatory objective (e.g. protection of groundwater) will be achieved. The other approach (which we will term the purposive or objective approach) requires the applicant to meet the desired regulatory objective but affords the applicant greater discretion as to how it achieves that objective. Fourth, the decision offers some interesting comments on the interrelationship and respective responsibilities of the ERCB and Alberta Environment. And fifth it is important to look at this decision for what it might tell us about the Board’s approach to the regulation of disposal operations associated with carbon capture and storage.