Alberta Water Allocation Review

[RHP]

Hi Everyone:

 

I just read the threads from January discussing the Alberta Government's review of water allocation and water markets in the Province. I was involved with two of these reports and hope that this post will provide a perspective (and opportunity) which has not yet been discussed.

 

The government is assessing ways to deal with existing and future water shortages. In the South Saskatchewan Basin, there has essentially been a moratorium on the issue of any new water licences since 2006. There is thus a need to reallocate water between existing users in order to mitigate the shortages. Licences can currently be transferred between users in the South Sask., on both a temporary and permanent basis. However it is a cumbersome process. Accordingly, input was solicited on ideas to make both allocations and transfers of existing licences more effective, while at the same time protecting the public interest.

 

As noted three reports were requested by the Government and submitted to them:

 

1. Alberta Water Research Institute Report on water licencing practices in other jurisdictions.

2. Alberta Water Council Report on principles for establishing a water market in Alberta: “Water Allocation Transfer System Upgrade Project” (WATSUP)

3. Report from a Minister’s Advisory Panel on water allocation practices (MAP).

 

In addition, a report was submitted independently by Water Matters and Ecojustice Canada: "Share the Water". The ‘Water Matters’ review is probably the most visionary of the reports. A difference, however, between WATSUP and MAP, and the ‘Water Matters’ review is that the first two focus on potential solutions within the existing legislation and status quo, rather than on a major redefinition of the allocation practices. Given Alberta political realities, I believe it is more likely that the solutions will be defined within the existing allocation framework and principles. There are still significant opportunities within this.

 

Some of the common recommendations in both the WATSUP and the MAP Report are:

 

1. Establish effective protected water, for environmental purposes, within each major watershed. This water would remain outside of any consumptive allocated purposes. This is intended to be a priority and to be a prerequisite before encouraging an active water market in the Province. The reports are very strong on this point.

2. Regulate this protection through the creative licencing of instream flows. These would be under an existing legislative measure know as ‘Water Conservation Objectives’ (WCO’s). They are flexible, and can be specific to the needs of individual reaches, streams, or watersheds. WCO's would be licenced, under FITFIR, with a priority assigned to their date of issue. In many cases these priorities would be effective against future encroachments on the protected flow level.

3. Amending the Water Act to allow NGO’s and individuals to hold WCO Licences and a new class of private instream licences. At present WCO licences can only be issued to the government.

4. Ensuring that a maximum 10% 'water conservation holdback' is taken every time a water licence is transferred between users.

5. Ensuring that each licence transfer application is assessed under a 'no significant harm' principle which would assess potential harm to the environment and other users.

 

There are many details and complications in the reports. They do provide a framework for immediate action. There is reason to be quite excited about the potential, especially if we realize that there has essentially been no specific protection of environmental water to date.

 

The best example is in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB). When the SSRB was closed to further allocations in 2006, a WCO licence was committed to preserve 40% of the natural flow, measured at the border. This is a very low number and a general approach. On its own, it won’t create effective preservation or rehabilitation measures for environmental purposes. However, the reports recommend that this WCO should be applied more strategically, and could act as an umbrella for a series of smaller individual WCO’s within the watershed. For example, a series of headwater WCO’s, at a high percentage of natural flow, would meet sensitive environmental needs; preserve water for future downstream needs; and not interfere with existing users.

 

I believe that the government is open to an immediate consideration of these recommendations and would welcome input from individuals and organizations during the review process.

 

Perhaps a pragmatic approach to action is for all of us to submit ideas and support for the 'protection' recommendations in these reports. They could lead to significant progress in the protection of sensitive areas.

 

 

 

 

[Harps]

Hey TailingLoop,

 

Excellent summary of what is available under the existing legislation!