Coming soon everywhere in Canada, except PEI?
A proportion (25% to 100%) of the water used in hydraulic fracturing is not recovered, and consequently this water is lost permanently to re-use, which differs from some other water uses in which water can be recovered and processed for re-use.
AEP Directive Provides Industry With Longer-Term Water Licences by Daily Oil Bulletin, FEB. 23, 2018, 6 A.M. [Not reported in any other media, so far. Requires subscription]
Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) issued a directive which provides industry with greater flexibility [Nice wording to minimize the horror done by the regulators] around water use for multistage hydraulic fracturing projects. [Notice AER/AEP’s 10 year blanket approval water licences are not limited to only horizontal fracturing which is how Council of Canadians and other environmental NGOs wrongly define fracking – dragging many families, communities, other groups into working years to only get provincial frac moratoria on one type of fracking and putting drinking water across Canada at great risk. Ernst has pointed this out to Council of Canadians repeatedly, they refuse to fix their “error.”]
10 year frac water licenses announced, Bulletin 2018-04: New Alberta Environment and Parks Water Directive by Mark Taylor, AER, February 22, 2018
On February 22, 2018, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) issued Directive for Water Licensing of Hydraulic Fracturing Projects – Area of Use Approach, which provides industry with greater flexibility around water use for multistage hydraulic fracturing projects within a constrained mineral tenure area and clarifies how the AER will evaluate multiyear water licence applications.
Historically, licensees typically obtained temporary water diversion licences valid for up to one year for hydraulic fracturing projects. In order to obtain longer-term water licences, licensees had to specify at the time of application the exact location where water would be used, which is not always known for multistage hydraulic fracturing operations.
Under this new directive, operators can apply for longer-term water licences valid for up to ten years where the hydraulic fracturing project areas are known at the time of application based on mineral tenure but where the exact location of water use cannot be confirmed until development plans are finalized. More details on the information required when submitting a water licence application to the AER can be found in the directive.
For questions about the directive, please contact AEP at email hidden; JavaScript is required.
For application-related questions, please contact the AER at email hidden; JavaScript is required or your Water Authorizations staff contacts. [Emphasis added]
<original signed by>
Mark Taylor
Executive Vice President
Operations Division
Slide from Ernst presentations
Top of Page 3, in Alberta Environment’s (AEP) Directive:
Alberta regulators write in official letters closing investigations that it’s fine for landowners to live in explosive risk from their drinking water contaminated with methane by the oil and gas industry, and fine to use methane contaminated well water to bathe in, cook with, drink, and to water gardens/livestock with, and spray crops with. And now, AEP writes in an official directive that companies are not allowed to use methane contaminated groundwater to frac?!
If ever there was a good use for industry’s methane contaminated groundwater, frac’ing is it. The regulators keep telling harmed Albertans that methane contaminated well water is perfectly safe if vented. Why not mandate that industry vent out the methane they contaminate groundwater with and use it for fracking?
Alberta government backs off plans to close popular fishing rivers by The Canadian Press, February 22, 2018, Calgary Herald
EDMONTON — The Alberta government is backing away [For how long?] from a proposal to close several popular fishing rivers over concerns about stocks of native trout.
Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said Thursday she isn’t convinced the science is strong enough to ban angling on the Ram, Clearwater, Kakwa and North Saskatchewan rivers.
“We have a problem to fix together,” [How Kum ba yah of Phillips, traitor of Albertans and Alberta’s water extraordinaire] she said after making the announcement at a meeting of the Alberta Fish and Game Association.
“I wasn’t convinced we were looking at it as holistically as we could after reviewing the feedback from the draft policy.”
Department officials had suggested at recent public meetings those rivers would be closed over concerns that fish populations along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and in parts of the boreal forest are small fractions of what they used to be. Most of that decrease is blamed on habitat loss.
A 2015 study found virtually all southern Alberta streams that spawn native trout were threatened by forestry, energy development or overuse.
As a result, cutthroat populations are estimated at five per cent of historic levels. Bull trout — Alberta’s provincial fish — have lost at least 70 per cent of their original range. Arctic grayling, once common in the north, are down to 10 per cent of historic levels.
Alberta is required by federal legislation to address problems with native fish species.
“It’s really clear we have an issue with native trout species,” Phillips said.
Although she warns stream closures may be reconsidered, she said her department will take other steps this season.
Biologists will review relevant research and identify where the conflicts between fish habitat, industrial development and recreational use are most intense.
The government will spend more to rebuild damaged stream banks and improve infrastructure that blocks free movement of fish. It will also increase funding by $100,000 for groups to do similar work and undertake public education programs.
A program of citizen science will be developed to monitor ongoing impacts.
Phillips acknowledged the energy and forestry departments are also crucial players in those watersheds. She pointed to the government’s caribou recovery plan as evidence those departments can work together.
“We already have a reasonable amount of co-operation,” she said.
Jordan Pinkster of the Alberta Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, who said Wednesday the closures weren’t justified by the science, welcomed the news.
“We’re very encouraged that’s where the minister want to go,” he said.
He said he was cautious but optimistic about Phillips’ promises to bring industrial users to the table to talk about cumulative impacts on watersheds. The government’s plans for the Castle Wilderness Park in southern Alberta suggests that it is willing to make tough decisions on balancing the environment and the economy, Pinkster said.
But he added the government can be inconsistent, pointing to approvals for clearcut logging in the Highwood Pass area.
“We have some conflicting decisions being made,” said Pinkster. [Emphasis added]
Alberta anglers fear stream closures coming, blame industry, recreation
The Canadian Press, February 21, 2018, Calgary Herald
Some Alberta anglers are worried that the province is about to ban the sport in a number of popular rivers and say they are taking the fall for the government’s failure to deal with the effects of heavy industrial and recreational use.
“Anglers are being used as a scapegoat for what we see as broader problems,” Jordan Pinkster of the Alberta Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said Wednesday.
Pinkster said government officials outlined their plans to concerned groups at recent meetings in Calgary and Edmonton. [Getting ready to take all the water and fish habitat and give it to the frac industry.]
“The plan talked a little bit about some of the habitat implications, but the real focal point is the angling closures,” he said. “It’s the only thing they had any concrete information on.”
The proposed five year closures could include some of Alberta’s best trout streams such as the Ram, the Clearwater and the Kakwa rivers. It could also include popular rivers such as the North Saskatchewan.
[Yet ten year frac water licences are granted, even for companies not knowing where they are going to frac yet, or get their fresh water from. Alberta Environment’s new frac frenzy water directive says it expects companies to source non-fresh water with which to frac, but companies use fresh water to frac for many reasons, greed the most important.
Alberta regulators could easily dictate that fresh water must never be injected for fracing, but, they give industry what ever they want. Not that it matters because most Albertans dont give a damn about water and if they do give a damn, do scant little about it, and companies like Encana ignored the Water Act and water diversion requirements with blessings and cover-up from authorities like the AER and Alberta’s past Deputy Minister of Environment Peter Watson, who is now HCH (head-corrupto-honcho) of the National Energy Board.]
A provincial spokesman confirmed consultations have been held.
“Alberta Environment and Parks routinely consults on changes to fishing regulations each year,” said department spokesman Matt Dykstra.
“No decisions regarding potential closures have been made at this time.”
Duane Radford, former fisheries director for the anglers, said it’s not fair to shut down a catch-and-release fishery when the real issue is sedimentation caused by roads, stream crossings, logging, random camping and off-highway vehicles.
“What the sediment amounts to is a death warrant for fish,” said Radford. “It just reduces the overall productivity of a stream.
“If they have a problem, it’s primarily related to habitat issues, not angling.”
Previous studies have outlined problems in Alberta’s fish-spawning rivers. In 2015, a study found virtually all southern Alberta streams that spawn native trout were threatened by industrial development or overuse.
Scientists suggest land that contains trout streams shouldn’t have more than just over half a kilometre of trail, cutline or road per square kilometre. The 2015 study found disturbance density in parts of the Oldman River watershed was nearly 10 times that.
As a result, cutthroat populations are estimated at five per cent of historic levels. Bull trout — Alberta’s provincial fish — have lost at least 70 per cent of their original range.
Arctic grayling, once common in the north, are down to 10 per cent of historic levels.
Lorne Fitch, a fisheries biologist and adjunct professor at the University of Calgary, said some Alberta rivers need drastic action.
“Some sections of those watersheds are at such low levels that even catch-and-release angling could have an impact on the ability of those populations to get to a stage where they are sustainable again.”
He said provincial environment officials are doing what they can to address habitat issues, such as closing some off-highway vehicle trails and improving culverts for fish movement.
He points out the Environment Department has little control over logging or energy development. Officials from those departments need to work more closely to reduce habitat disturbance, he said.
“It’s unfair to categorize provincial fisheries biologists as not doing anything about habitat. They do not control the levers related to logging, for example.”
Pinkster agreed.
“If we’re identifying the health of our native fish populations as being a priority, then that should be something that cuts across a variety of departments. The ministers for these departments should be sitting around a table and saying, ‘What do we collectively need to do to make this happen?”‘ [Instead of giving 10 year frac water licences to the oil and gas industry, under the guise of companies doing cumulative impact assessments, just like the lie AER blithers about granting companies blanket approval to enable the frac frenzy. Emphasis added]
Water review alarms ranchers by Barb Glen, February 22, 2018, Western Producer
Sixteen years is a long time in which to resolve a licence application, even by government standards.
But it was the government, specifically Alberta Environment and Parks, that told southern Alberta rancher Aaron Brower in late December that water licence applications filed by Brower Ranching Co. Ltd. in 2001 were now being reviewed and at risk of cancellation.
He isn’t the only one to receive such a notice.
The department is reviewing more than 1,000 Water Act applications in the South Saskatchewan River region, according to government spokesperson Matt Dykstra.
Brower, a fourth generation cattle rancher, was taken aback by a government letter that indicated the need for further information about several of the numerous wells and dams on his property, which he uses for the household and for livestock.
The letter said requests for information had been made but no response received so the files would be closed. Further diversion of water would be in contravention of the Water Act, the letter stated.
All of that was news to Brower, who said he never received requests for more information about his water use.
He met in early January with Jeff Gutsell of Alberta Environment to sort out the matter.
“I’m not asking for a green light on the application by any means,” Brower said he told Gutsell at that meeting.
“If there is a problem on this 16-year-old file that you guys have dusted off, we’ll address the problem, but you have to tell me what your problem and concerns are. I thought that was pretty fair.”
However, he was unable to resolve the matter with Gutsell or with other Alberta Environment officials whom he contacted later.
“This is probably going to get very loud and very ugly because nobody wants to deal with the problem,” he said in an interview Feb. 7. [But how many ranchers and farmers have been silent for the last two decades on the many water contamination cases and massive amounts of fresh water lost for frac’ing, keenly taking oil & gas lease money from more and more wells and facilities, to vacation in Arizona in winter?]
“I’m not going to be quiet about it because there’s a lot of other people that could be affected by this. So as a citizen of this province, I’m going to make everything that happens here public.” [Excellent!]
Brower has filed an appeal with the Alberta Environment Appeals Board, a legal process handled by his lawyer, Keith Wilson. [That board is just another pollution and water taker enabler like the AER]
“The effect of the government’s action is to strip the Browers, and anyone else who’s received one of these letters, of their traditional agricultural user rights that many of us and livestock groups fought very hard for,” said Wilson.
“And the government’s bureaucrats, through their conduct, are defeating those protections that were put into law.” [No better way to take water away!]
Wilson said he can only speculate about the reasons for the government’s recent actions but suggested they are due to either “gross incompetence” or a plan to close the Milk River basin to new allocations of surface water. [Wilson, as usual, is giving the government way too much credit]
“That would mean that not only would these farmers not be able to apply for lesser rights, they would be able to apply for no rights. And that’s troubling as well. [Again, what better way to take water away? Colorado ranchers have been suffering similar for decades. Every rancher and farmer ought to have seen this coming since frac’ing started increasing in Alberta and especially since 2013, REDA, when all Alberta’s water for the energy industry was slickly zipped under the law violating AER]
“One of the explanations as to what’s happening here is that the bureaucrats and the environmentalists in the department wanted to maximize the amount of water in the basin that they could reallocate to environmental and conservation and other goals. [Fracking!]
“And one way to do that would be to cancel all these applications because then all the water that’s being used by those ranches and farms would then have to stay in the river. [Not for long!] And then if they close the basin at the same time, they’ve then got a whole bunch of water that they control and farmers can’t use.
“And that is deeply troubling, if that is going on. That is deeply, deeply troubling. In fact, it’s illegal.” [Since when does the Alberta government, the oil and gas industry and their pawns, the AER and AEP heed the law?]
However, Dykstra said in his email that the Milk River basin is not closed to surface water allocations.
“We are still accepting and processing water licence applications for small stock watering and municipal purposes,” he said.
“The department is not cancelling traditional agricultural registrations nor water licences in good standing.”
That runs contrary to information in Gutsell’s letter to Brower. [Since when does AEP tell the truth?]
“Legislation is in process that will likely close the basin to all surface water sources, [while giving the frac companies open 10 year licences to permanently remove most of it] leaving true groundwater aquifer sources as potentially the only option,” the letter said.
With respect to the Browers’ case, Dykstra said the department is helping the ranch file a new and complete application.
In the meantime, temporary authority will allow the ranch to divert water needed for livestock.
Some of Brower’s 35 water licences date back to 1910 when the North West Mounted Police used the property and the water. In 2001, after the Alberta government replaced the Water Resources Act with the Water Act, it had farmers and ranchers apply to have their traditional water rights recognized and entrenched in law as permanent rights.
Now the government said it is addressing “a backlog of water licence applications, some of which are missing critical information.”
Dykstra said the department has closed a small number of water allocation applications that had insufficient information that it had tried and failed to obtain.
Brower said the department could not provide him with any proof that it had asked for more information, nor has he been able to determine exactly what the department needs.
“At the end of the day, if they decide that I don’t have a licence and I can’t use the water and I can’t divert the water coming into it to store, I’m out of business. If I don’t have water, I don’t have anything,” he said.
“I don’t know what’s going on over there, but I can tell you, I don’t have a good feeling. I know that much.”
Wilson said others who have received the government letters might not be aware that they have 30 days from receipt to respond. Brower’s letter did not contain that information.
“This is really unbelievable that the government would be putting such a complex obstacle in front of farmers and ranchers for no good reason and in a manner that reveals (government) incompetence [or pure evil serving the oil and gas industry and AER?] on such an extreme scale,” said Wilson.
“It’s just bizarre that the government is comfortable with the fact that it’s taken their bureaucrats over 16 years — 16 years — to process this application.”
The Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association posted a notice to inform ranchers about the 30-day appeals period. It also expressed concern about the process and the potential reasons behind it.
“It would appear the underlying agenda is that government is trying to claw back some water allocations on the almost fully allocated Milk River by targeting rural home and agricultural use. This would represent a blatant disregard for the rights of these ranchers,” the association said.
Tim Romanow, executive director of the Milk River Watershed Council, said he’s heard from a number of ranchers in the region who are concerned about letters they’ve received regarding water licences.
“This is literally their livelihood,” he said. [So? Ernst lost her career and business because of speaking out about Encana and AER/AEP breaking the law and frac’ing contaminating her community’s drinking water supply. She has had no income since 2011. How many ranchers and farmers in Alberta care?]
“These are sources of water that they’ve used for decades or longer, and it’s a pretty difficult situation to be put into, I think.”
He said dry conditions last year put a strain on the watershed, and in general it is becoming increasingly difficult to receive approval for water projects, including on-farm dugouts. [Emphasis added]
Excellent comment on FB to the article above:
Tony Boschmann There is a water law for domestic and agricultural purposes and one for oil and gas. One for the poor and one for the rich. Guess which one gets enforced?
Securing Water Rights: Analyzing the Water Act, Case Law and Lessons for Lenders in Alberta by Miller Thomson LLP, February 20, 2018
- Water License
- Exempted Agriculture User
- Traditional Agriculture User
The Act also establishes a system of priority referred to as “First-in-Time, First-in-Right” or FITFIR. A license or registration’s priority is determined by its priority number, which are assigned at the time of issuance, in ascending order. The older the entitlement, the lower its priority number will be. Generally speaking, in times of water shortage, those with numerically lower priority numbers (and thus an older license or registration) will take the full allocation of water allotted to them by their entitlement, as they were the “First-in-Time”. Those with later registration may be forced to go without. As such, the lower the entitlement’s priority number, the earlier the entitlement was established and the potentially more valuable the allocation.
I. Rights
1. Water License
A water license stipulates a volume of water permitted to be diverted for a prescribed purpose. Pursuant to s. 58 of the Act, the license will specify either land or an undertaking to which it is appurtenant (pertaining). The license is inseparable from that land or undertaking, and thus runs with them on disposition (unless the Governor in Council orders otherwise).[2]
The allocations made under these licenses can be transferred. Further, despite s.58 of the Act, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has found that a water license can be severed from the land.
In Royal Bank v Hirsche Herefords (Hirsche), a receiver was empowered to sell the assets of a debtor, which included certain lands, and the water license appurtenant to said lands.[3] The receiver listed these lands, including a statement which specified that the water rights would be sold separately, which was acknowledged by the purchaser in the purchase contract. The question of whether these rights run with the land was not fully settled, however Justice Strekaf found that the water license was an asset of the receivership. It was also held that a transfer of the allocation under the license was for the Director under the Act to approve.
Despite any presumptions that a mortgage over the lands would contemplate the water license appurtenant to such land, it is possible, where a transfer is approved by the Director, for those rights to be severed from the lands. Accordingly, lenders should pre-emptively take a specific assignment of any water licenses when securing real property, particularly with borrowers who are in the business of agriculture where this would be a valuable asset. Lenders should also use specific reference to water licences in their general security agreements, so as to avoid any doubt whether such collateral constitutes personal property for the purposes of the Personal Property Security Act(Alberta).
2. Exempted Agriculture User
Section 19 of the Act allows persons who, on or before January 1, 1999 diverted water for the purposes of raising animals or applying pesticides to crops, as part of farm unit, and on (or after) January 1, 1999, owned or occupied land adjoining certain water features, or under which groundwater exists, to divert up to a maximum of 6250m3 of water for the same purposes. They can do so without obtaining any approval, licensing, or registration under the Act.
However, due to the lack of licensing or registration, exempted users have no priority under the Act. As a result, in times of shortage this entitlement quickly loses its value, both practical and monetary. Lenders should be aware that some of their agricultural borrowers may be relying on this exemption and should require that a proper registration, as set out below, is made in order to avoid business interruptions during periods of drought.
3. Traditional Agriculture User
Traditional agriculture users are similar in most respects to exempted users. However, section 24 of the Act requires that the land in question has a registration appurtenant to it. As a result, these users are assigned a priority number. Priority is assessed amongst licensees and traditional agriculture users together, not simply against entitlements of like kind.[4]. Registrations, in the same manner as licenses, run with the land.[5] These registrations should form an integral element of a lender’s due diligence, as water shortages in the prairies are becoming more of an issue which means an increasing risk of lost revenues for farming operations.
II. Licenses Compared
Fishing licenses pose as an interesting comparison to water licenses. In Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada,[6] it was found that a fishing license granted pursuant to s.7(1) of the Fisheries Act[7] met the definition of property under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act[8] and the Personal Property Security Act[9]. This was due to the fact that a fishing license is more than mere “permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful”; it is coupled with a proprietary interest in the harvest.[10]
In contrast, there is no indication that the government intends to grant property rights in either the Act or the typical water license.[11] While it permits diversions and use of water that would otherwise be unlawful, there is typically no accompanying proprietary interest in the water diverted. In that sense, they are a simple license.
Despite the lack of explicit property rights granted in respect of the water that is used pursuant to a water licence under the Act, the value associated with the water in agri-business is vital. Lenders should proactively take security in water rights and ensure registration under the Act is effected with respect to the water diversion rights granted to their agriculture industry clients. By securing the water rights, lenders will endeavour to secure and take priority over these assets in accordance with personal property legislation and the Act and will also ensure that a receiver can deal with them in the event of a default. In an environment that is constantly changing, with effects such as global warming, the risk of water shortage is becoming an ever more problematic issue and one that lenders should always keep in mind.
AEP letters regarding water licences creates issues for Alta. by Jamie Rieger, February 8, 2018, Prairie Post
Farmers and ranchers with water licences should check their mail to see if they have received a letter from Alberta Environment and Parks indicating that their licences are being reviewed.
Letters sent out right before Christmas indicated that water licence applications from 2001 and earlier were not complete and further information was being requested to complete the process or even that the file was being closed.
When the Alberta Water Act was enacted in 1996 it included provisions for farmers and ranchers to continue their traditional use of water, but needed to apply to bring their licences up-to-date and current with the new regulatory framework and this needed to be done before Dec. 31, 2001.
The issue that is arising is the letter suggests that the landowner can reapply for a new licence, but Sec. 73 (4)(d) of the legislation states that the right to apply expired on Dec. 31, 2001.
Attorney Keith Wilson, who is representing a landowner who is currently appealing the decision by AEP to close his file (and water licence), said the situation is troubling.
“This is serious stuff. A rancher can’t run a ranch without water. The concern is that a lot of ranchers don’t even know that the reality is you can’t re-apply,” said Wilson. “When the first Water Act was introduced in the 90s, the first version was terrible and didn’t recognize some of these water licences. Then, expressed provisions were put in to recognize them. Now, what they are doing is preventing ranchers from acquiring the water licences.” [All part of the frac plan!]
What is not indicated in the letter that was sent out by AEP — but is in the legislation —is that people have 30 days to respond.
Southeast Alberta rancher Aaron Brower is one of the recipients who received the letter, dated Dec. 20, 2017, which he received on Dec. 27.
“This file sat there for 16 years and mine isn’t the only one. When you take the legislation and lay it over this letter, you have 30 days to respond, then you’re out of luck,” said Brower.
“Closing files without consultation is very heavy handed and arbitrary.”
One of the wells in question on the Brower ranch was dug by the Northwest Mounted Police in 1910 and has been a part of the family operation for a century. After facing one roadblock after another in trying to discuss the matter with the AEP Lethbridge office and with Edmonton, Brower sought legal council and the file was submitted to the Alberta Environment Appeal Board for review.
“The problem I have is that they didn’t want to have conversation with me [that’s cause the regularors only want to talk to the polluters & frac’ers and enable them. Water for ordinary Albertans is so yesterday] so I have to take the other route,” said Brower. “There is supposedly exemptions for stock water application and household and that is what this water is for. All the water that is the heart of my operation is part of this conversation. Water for pastures will no longer be usable and will put me out of business. If there’s a problem, I will be there to have a conversation. At the end of the day, if it will affect my business. These waters are traditional waters and I am wondering if I will have anything left by the time they are done.”
Wilson is advising recipients of the AEP letter to seek legal council and to contact their local MLA for political intervention. (To see the correspondence, go to http://albertagrazinglease.ca/)
Cypress-Medicine Hat MLA Drew Barnes is aware of the situation and encourages people to contact his office if they have received a letter from AEP suggesting their water application files are being closed without due process.
“First, property rights. By doing this, a family’s right to raise their livelihood is being challenged by the Government of Alberta. This government continues to over reach,” said Barnes. “Second, with this government bureaucracy, how can a licence that was applied for 17 years ago sit dormant and nothing happens with it until now? I have been to the Minister’s office to talk about it and now we have a stressful situation on our hands. It’s another reminder of why people’s property rights need to be protected. I would like to hear from those who are being affected by this.” To contact Barnes on this matter, people can call his Medicine Hat constituency office at 403-528-2191 or call toll-free at 1-866-339-2191. He can also be reached via email at cypress.medicinehat @assembly.ab.ca
(Editor’s note: representatives of Alta. Environment were contacted, but did not wish to comment on specific questions at this time). [Emphasis added]
Southeast Rancher Hung Out To Dry By Government by Pat Stier, MLA Livingstone-Macleod, by February 15, 208, Gateway Gazette
Dear Editor,
In December, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) sent out letters advising Albertans that water license applications submitted over 15 years ago were being closed and water access related to those applications revoked. Southeast rancher Aaron Brower, whose ranch has been operated by his family for generations, was one of the recipients of the letters. Mr. Brower was told his application filed in 2001 by his father was being closed because the application was deemed incomplete and his traditional access to this public asset was cancelled.
To claim that a form filed with the government over 15 years ago has only now been deemed incomplete, therefore causing his file to be closed is outrageous. [How better to take your water to give to frac’ers?] Mr. Brower made several attempts to have the issue resolved with the AEP in good faith, but AEP soundly refused forcing Mr. Brower to proceed with a time consuming and costly appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board.[which is just as dirty and anti-ordinary Albertan as the AER]
Despite the ranch operating in the area for generations where traditional water usage was guaranteed, the Provincial Government is now attempting to usurp this traditional access through questionable means. It is disturbing to think that that the Government did not seek a mutually agreeable solution before taking such drastic action. Now Mr. Brower will be paying legal fees and taking time away from his ranch to challenge the decision with the Environmental Appeals Board.
A local rancher is left without critical water access for his livestock because of repeated bureaucratic bungling by this Provincial Government. Albertans know that water is essential for our ranchers, for the success of their business, and ability to support their families. With the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen a ranch that has been in continuous operation for over a century is under threat. [No worries! The oil men can buy their beef from China]
Unfortunately, this appears to have become a common theme in the Milk River Basin. Several Ranchers in the area have had their livelihoods threatened by an unreasonable and incorrect interpretation of the Water Act, or in the case of Mr. Brower, had their file arbitrarily closed without any consultation or attempt to find an equitable solution.
The Official Opposition will be raising this very serious issue in the legislature when the session resumes in March.
Source: Submitted by Pat Stier, MLA Livingtone-Macleod via email submission as a Letter to the Editor. [Emphasis added]
Refer also to:
“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”
― Pat Miller, Willfully Ignorant
The same techniques are used by industry and its enablers the AER and AEP, and Ministers of Environment like Rob Renner and Shannon Phillips, to take your drinking water (and fishing) away.
2004 08 01: National Energy Board Looking Ahead to Frack Us All and Take our Water?
It was suggested that a new regulatory framework may be beneficial, and that regulators could consider a “blanket approach” to approve drilling programs for this type of [unconventional] development [including fracing shales]. [Emphasis added]
Slide from Ernst presentations