26 June 2025

The Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE) appreciates the opportunity to participate in the discussion on amendments to the Water Act. The objectives of this phase of the Enhancement of Water Availability engagement seem to have focused mainly on water management that maximizes water use (and economic opportunity), while neglecting to adequately consider the protection and restoration of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. As such, SAGE would like to reiterate some environmental concerns that could be better addressed in the Water Act.

The engagement outlines the foundations of water management, including: “The Water for Life strategy and its goals and directions remain, where water is managed for community, economic and environmental needs, including traditional use needs and environmental objectives to support ecosystem health.” There are two elemental criteria from which these environmental objectives might be derived: the first is to establish science-based instream flow needs for aquatic health; the second is to monitor natural storage in the headwaters and instream flows and provide this data in real time to the public. ‘Enhancing water availability’ means, foremost, making water available to meet Water Conservation Objectives (as a minimum) and instream flow needs (for ecological sustainability).

Instream flow needs determinations were completed for the South Saskatchewan River Basin and documented in a 2003 report (Clipperton et al. 2003) for consideration in development of the Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin (Alberta Environment 2006). This science-based determination considered fish habitat, water quality, riparian vegetation and channel maintenance. The current Water Act identifies Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs) that consider aquatic and riparian health as well as needs for tourism, transportation, waste assimilation. The WCOs are not ecologically sound. The amended Water Act should reflect instream flow needs. A 2024 Surface Water Management Performance Audit by Alberta’s Auditor General found that (p. 9) “the Department of Environment and Protected Areas has no water conservation objectives in most basins; does not know if existing water conservation objectives are working; lacks robust processes to monitor water pressures, assess risks, and decide when water conservation objectives are needed, and; has ineffective processes to approve licences and monitor compliance, such as not enforcing licensee compliance with conditions.”

The second criterion for meeting environmental objectives is the measurement of instream flows and monitoring indicators of aquatic ecosystem health such as managing for the approximation of natural flow regime, fish populations and their habitat, riparian health, and water quality (e.g. dissolved oxygen, turbidity). Monitoring of groundwater recharge, late-summer flows and overall water yield are influenced by the natural storage capacities of headwaters which provide 80% of the water flowing in the rivers of the South Saskatchewan River Basin.

To summarize, the amendment to Alberta’s Water Act might consider more robust and science-based definition of instream flow needs and the measurement, monitoring and reporting of river flows and indicators of environmental health. Enhancing water availability at the expense of environmental health risks many nature-based functions and services including resiliency to floods and droughts, erosion prevention, sediment capture and transport, recharge of groundwater aquifers, water purification, pollination, productive vegetation and important habitats for fish and wildlife. The health of aquatic ecosystems is a measure of how sustainably we live in a watershed.

More specifically to the engagement guide provided for Phase II of this process, SAGE has the following concerns:

1. ‘Point of use’ amendments loosen the control of licencing agreements on cumulative effects within a water basin, particularly return flows and hydrological and ecological impacts. They also may represent a creep away from meeting water conservation objectives by, essentially, allowing new allocations in already-closed basins.
2. The proposed amendments continue to promote the notion that water licences are ‘property rights’ rather than a ‘right of use’. The FITFIR approach to water management has inherent limitations considering the anticipated water regimes under prolonged drought scenarios under climate change. These limitations are complicated by the notion of property rights. Water transfers should maintain public transparency with identification of risks and benefits to the environment and the public good.
3. The management of holdbacks for water transfers is a small but important mechanism of maintaining river flows in overallocated basins and under diminished flows due to the impacts of climate change. Relying on the largess of decision-makers to meet future instream flow needs puts aquatic health at risk.
4. That the commitment to measuring and reporting reservoir operations and river flows is supported mainly for ‘increasing water availability by identifying unused volumes, managing water transfers, and streamlining issuance of new licences.’ The focus should be on first meeting instream flow needs for aquatic and environmental health.
5. That the definition of ‘low-risk’ interbasin transfers of water remains unclear and, problematically, decided at the discretion of Directors without clear public notice, environmental risk assessment or right of appeal. Ecological integrity and public trust are at risk when robust, science-based processes are circumvented.
6. What is the motive for adjusting the definition of major water basins that merge rivers that eventually meet? Does this allow greater latitude in inter-basin transfers? Does it change the expectations of meeting apportionment agreements to other jurisdictions? Does it obscure river-specific measures of water quality and instream flow needs? SAGE recommends retaining the current definitions of watershed basins and suggests improving basin-specific monitoring, assessment and management.
7. Wastewater reuse may become an opportune mechanism by which industries dispose of waste with varying concentrations of contaminants and levels of treatment. Wastewater that is toxic and difficult to treat must be disposed of in ways safe for human populations and environmental health. Allowing it to be used (sold?) as a supplement to other water-users (under less controlled conditions) is not in anyone’s interest. Types and levels of contaminants in wastewater should be clearly delimited in an amended Water Act, with robust point-of-discharge monitoring, and strong producer accountability for compliance. Treating wastewater to quality levels that may be safely returned to the water cycle should remain the primary goal under the Water Act.
8. Rainwater, stormwater, and return flows would normally refresh groundwater and/or become river flows. They are essential to maintaining instream flow needs that support aquatic ecosystem health. Managing the capture and use of these sources of water should be part of the water management process at gross volumes (with a priority on meeting instream flow needs). Net diversions and return flow credits would be too complicated (and potentially subject to abuse) given the current level of monitoring and reporting. Would there be legislated requirements for the condition (water quality, temperature, volume and timing) of return flows? And how would this be measured and monitored? How would the cumulative impacts on aquatic integrity (affecting water quality and flow regimes) from capturing and releasing water be monitored and evaluated? Would large-scale water capture be considered a diversion and become transferrable under a water license? Would water-capture become an industry at the expense of natural replenishment in the environment? Again, the notion of measuring and managing the use of these sources requires serious environmental consideration.

SAGE would like to re-emphasize the importance of ‘enhancing water availability’ to meet science-informed instream flows needed to sustain aquatic integrity. This is the ultimate measure of the limits of making water available for other uses. And this requires robust regulation, measurement, transparent evaluation and enforcement. The amended Water Act must guide decision-makers to prioritize the protection of our water against the challenging demands of other uses. The Southern Alberta Group for the Environment has been a leading voice for a health and environmentally sustainable community in southern Alberta for the past 40 years.

You may also be interested in:

Arlene Kwasniak with the University of Calgary Faculty of Law (ABlawg): Water Availability Engagement Survey – Available to Whom for What? – ABLawg

Jason Unger with the Environmental Law Centre: Water Availability Webinar: Proposed Water Act Amendments reviewed. – Environmental Law Centre & https://elc.ab.ca/post-library/recommendations-on-proposed-water-act-amendments/