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.).
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.
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.
Cases Considered: Tsuu T’ina First Nation v. Alberta, 2008 ABQB 547
PDF Version: Water management planning and the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate
*Thanks to Christina Smith and Monique Passelac-Ross for comments on an earlier draft.
Alberta’s new Water Act (R.S.A. 2000, c. W-3) calls for the development of water management plans (Part 2(1) of the Act). Once adopted, a water management plan will guide decision-making within the area of the plan on a range of matters, including the issuance and transfer of water licences. Because of concerns that the waters in parts of the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) were already over-allocated, the Government put a priority on developing a plan for the SSRB. The first phase of the plan was approved in June 2002 and the second and final phase was approved by Cabinet in August 2006 (http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/SSRB_Plan_Phase2.pdf).
Cases Considered: Andriet v. County of Strathcona No. 20, 2008 ABCA 27
PDF Version: Andriet v. County of Strathcona No. 20: Court of Appeal Conjures a Creative Accretion Approach
In this important reserved judgment, the Alberta Court of Appeal applied a creative approach to attempt to reconcile uncertainties relating to common law accretion with a Torrens Land Titles system, and in doing so once again found for private ownership of accreted lands over Crown ownership of exposed beds and shores.
