Public Meeting: August 6, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. MDT – Excite Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta (101 Exhibition Wy S, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4R3)
On behalf of the International St. Mary and Milk Rivers Study Board, please visit the following webpage announcing the Public Comment Period for the ISMMR Study Board Final Draft Report and Recommendations: https://ijc.org/en/smmr/final-draft-report-comment. The report is ready for review and comments from July 30 through August 31, 2026.
The Report offers reasonable administrative (modified annual balancing) and infrastructure (canal restoration) options to improve receipt of entitlements while meeting current water demand. Regarding the study recommendations SAGE is supportive of the general recommendations regarding water management modelling (6.1.1), data analysis and visualization (6.1.2), infrastructure investments (6.1.3), integrating aquatic ecosystem considerations (6.1.4) and engagement of Advisory Groups following completion of the study (6.1.5). Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils may have an important role in the last two general recommendations.
On the other hand, SAGE is disappointed by the lack of attention and resources paid to assessing current health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and potential impacts of administrative and infrastructure options on river health. It was clear from the outset that water supply to meet entitlements and irrigation demand (current, but also future) was the primary motivation for considering changes to the current water management. There was no appetite for considering restoration of flows below major dams and diversions. The one aquatic ecosystem performance indicator considered when evaluating options involved a July to September monthly instream flow needs for bull trout (a Species at Risk consideration in both jurisdictions) in the upper St. Mary River.
SAGE is generally supportive of the recommendation for implementing the modified annual balancing administrative option (6.2.1) with the provision that effects on bull trout and cottonwoods in the St. Mary River in Montana and Alberta be assessed and monitored. Our support for rehabilitation of the St. Mary Canal to its original design capacity of 850 ft3/s (6.2.2) and control structures on Upper and Lower St. Mary Lakes (6.2.3) is also predicated on addressing potential impacts on aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
Regarding long-term storage development on the Milk River (6.2.4) I view this not as a ‘recommendation’ of the Study Board but rather a statement about modelling results. The concept of damming the Milk River in Alberta for Canada to receive its full, but relatively small, entitlement raises major questions and challenges regarding river resilience, sustainable water and land use in a semi-arid environment, who benefits, who pays and shared governance of water management between two countries that are currently experiencing strained relations.