Part 2: Water Act Engagement Survey
Due June 30th
Continued, this is the last part!
Section 3
Question 3.1: Indicate your level of support for identifying circumstances that would be defined in regulation as lower risk inter-basin transfers. These could include transfers for:
Municipal water supply applications, for example regional water lines/systems.
Drinking water is high quality and poses little risk to people or the environment, particularly when piped between municipalities.
Groundwater applications.
Aquifers typically yield much less water than surface water sources
The act could also consider hydrogeology, including aquifer properties as well as base of groundwater protection.
Where a project or operation is located on both sides of a major river basin boundary, and the overall impacts would be lower if water is sourced from an adjacent major river basin compared to where water is used
If the project were located anywhere else, the licence would be relatively straightforward.
Treated wastewater applications.
Reusing treated wastewater can avoid taking new water from a natural water body, reducing net environmental impact and could provide a net benefit even in an inter-basin transfer context.
Applications that fall below a specified volume threshold, where the potential for adverse impacts is considered unlikely or is no greater than typical smaller Water Act licensing applications.
Amounts could be tailored to reflect the differences in major basin sizes and supply.
Answer: I do NOT support this proposed change.
1. The Existing Requirement for a Special Act Serves as a Vital Safeguard
The current requirement for inter-basin transfers to be approved through a special act of the legislature ensures:
Democratic accountability,
Rigorous scrutiny,
And meaningful public debate.
This safeguard reflects the unique and irreversible ecological implications of moving water between basins, especially under changing climate and hydrological conditions.
2. Risk Is Context-Specific — Not Easily Categorized as ‘Low’
Even small-volume or “treated” water transfers can have disproportionate impacts when:
Cumulative effects are not understood,
Source basins are over-allocated or under-monitored,
Downstream First Nations or communities depend on flow volumes and timing for cultural, ecological, or legal reasons.
The assumption of low risk often fails in real-world implementation, particularly in Alberta’s closed or stressed sub-basins.
3. This Change Could Open the Door to Regulatory Loopholes
Creating a regulatory carveout for “lower-risk” inter-basin transfers risks incremental erosion of public protections.
There is concern that such a provision could be exploited for resource extraction, municipal expansion, or industrial growth, bypassing the higher bar of legislative approval.
4. Undermines Watershed-Based Management and Local Authority
Inter-basin transfers — even of groundwater or reclaimed water — can:
Undermine cumulative watershed planning,
Disrupt regional efforts to maintain water conservation objectives (WCOs), and
Create precedents for cross-basin water markets that prioritize economic demand over ecological and community needs.
Alternative Recommendations:
If specific low-risk transfers must be addressed:
Strengthen the emergency use provisions already available under Section 107 for critical public needs.
Instead of a blanket exemption, require any proposed inter-basin transfer — regardless of scale — to:
Undergo a public environmental review,
Demonstrate no harm to source watershed,
Provide Indigenous consultation evidence, and
Include monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion
I oppose the creation of a regulatory category for “lower-risk” inter-basin transfers, as it opens the door to cumulative degradation, diminished oversight, and potential water equity issues. Alberta must maintain a strong, precautionary approach to protect its watersheds for future generations.
Share any feedback on situations or issues where special Act of the legislature would remain warranted.
1. When Transfers Cross Major River Basin Boundaries
Transferring water between major basins (e.g., from the Peace-Athabasca to the South Saskatchewan) disrupts the natural hydrological integrity of both the donor and receiving watersheds.
These decisions are irreversible, precedent-setting, and carry long-term ecological, social, and economic risks.
A Special Act ensures transparent, deliberative, and public decision-making, appropriate to the scale of consequence.
2. When the Transfer May Affect Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs) or Instream Flow Needs
Many Alberta basins already face seasonal low flows, over-allocation, and ecological stress.
Inter-basin transfers risk depleting source basin flows, especially during drought or climate-induced shifts.
Legislative oversight is needed to balance economic demand with ecological responsibility and treaty obligations.
3. When Transfers May Set Precedents for Water Markets or Commodification
Even seemingly small or “low-risk” transfers can establish legal and administrative precedents for future, larger-scale diversions or trade-based water reallocations.
A legislative process is essential to debate and control the scope and intent of such actions — especially in relation to equity, Indigenous rights, and public interest.
4. When Indigenous and Treaty Rights May Be Affected
Water is a treaty-protected resource for many First Nations. Transfers that impact baseflows, fish habitat, or culturally significant watersheds require meaningful consultation and recognition of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
A Special Act process ensures these rights are acknowledged and debated in the open.
5. When Cumulative Effects and Long-Term Impacts Remain Unclear
Watershed-scale hydrology is complex and climate-sensitive. Even well-intended transfers may produce unintended ecological, geological, or hydro-political consequences over time.
Requiring legislative approval helps ensure that rigorous review and adaptive governance mechanisms are in place.
Conclusion
The requirement for a Special Act of the Legislature is not bureaucratic redundancy — it is a vital democratic safeguard that reinforces Alberta’s responsibility to manage water as a shared, public trust. Especially in an era of growing scarcity, inter-basin transfers must be exceptional, not routine. They demand the highest level of scrutiny, public transparency, and ecological foresight.
Question 3.2: Indicate your level of support for mending section 47 of the Water Act to introduce two categories of inter-basin transfers:
1. Higher risk transfers or large-scale transfers, which would continue to require a special Act, and
2. Lower risk transfers, which could proceed through the standard licensing process without requiring a special Act.
Enabling of any review processes for inter-basin transfers described in regulations would also require added authority for the Minister to make regulations under section 169.
Authority to approve a lower-risk inter-basin transfer could be shifted from a special act to either:
Cabinet, by a Lieutenant Governor Order in Council, similar to how these transfers can be authorized under section 107 during a water-related emergency; or
Minister, if the inter-basin transfer meets the lower risk criteria set out in regulation.
Answer: I do NOT support this proposed change.
1. Inter-Basin Transfers Are Inherently High-Stakes and Require Full Legislative Oversight
The requirement for a Special Act of the Legislature exists precisely because inter-basin transfers — regardless of size — carry far-reaching ecological, legal, and social implications.
They alter natural flow regimes, impact cumulative watershed function, and undermine the principle of basin self-sufficiency that is central to sustainable water management in Alberta.
2. The Terms “Low-Risk” or “Small-Scale” Are Highly Subjective
These categories are difficult to define objectively, and once enshrined in regulation, they can be incrementally expanded under political or industrial pressure.
Cabinet or Ministerial discretion lacks the transparency, accountability, and democratic safeguards of a legislative process.
3. Creates Precedents That Erode Watershed Integrity
Introducing a two-tiered approval system weakens the legal and symbolic weight of section 47.
Even one exception to full legislative scrutiny could be used as precedent for future deregulation, leading to normalized inter-basin transfers and market-based water speculation.
4. Current Water Governance Gaps Do Not Support Decentralized Approval
Alberta lacks:
A provincial water security strategy,
Public basin-level water budgets,
A functioning cumulative effects framework, and
A system for assessing interactions between groundwater and surface water across basin divides.
Until these tools exist, no inter-basin transfer should occur without full legislative review.
Conclusion
Water flows define ecological, cultural, and regional identity. Any diversion across basin boundaries, no matter how “small,” risks undermining both environmental function and public trust. Alberta must continue to hold inter-basin transfers to the highest standard of scrutiny — through a Special Act of the Legislature.
We urge the government to maintain the current legislative requirement and instead focus efforts on:
Water efficiency within basins,
Strengthening local and regional collaboration, and
Restoring watershed resilience through nature-based solutions.
Question 3.3: Indicate your level of support for consolidating the list of major river basins, including combining the Peace/Slave and Athabasca River basins (that converge within Alberta) to form the Peace-Athabasca-Slave River Basin.
Answer: I do NOT support the proposed changes.
1. Undermines Legal Clarity and Watershed Protection
The current distinction between Peace/Slave and Athabasca River basins reflects important hydrological, ecological, and jurisdictional differences.
Consolidating these basins would reduce legal safeguards by redefining inter-basin transfers between them as intra-basin — thus removing the requirement for legislative approval under Section 47 of the Water Act.
2. Risk of Deregulating Inter-Basin Transfers Through Technical Redefinition
This proposal appears to be an administrative workaround to facilitate inter-basin water transfers that would otherwise require a Special Act of the Legislature.
Merging basins that are functionally distinct — especially without full public consultation — sets a precedent for regulatory weakening through definitional manipulation.
3. Peace and Athabasca Basins Have Distinct Ecological and Cultural Significance
These basins support different Indigenous territories, ecosystems, and resource pressures.
The Athabasca Basin, in particular, includes oil sands development with serious implications for downstream water quality and quantity.
Combining them could mask cumulative impacts and weaken basin-specific protections.
4. Fails to Reflect International and Interjurisdictional Responsibilities
Alberta’s existing basin designations correspond with Canada’s national and transboundary water governance frameworks, including the Mackenzie River Basin Agreement.
Merging major basins may create discrepancies with national reporting, Indigenous water agreements, and interprovincial commitments.
Conclusion
Consolidating the Peace/Slave and Athabasca River basins may seem technically convenient, but it carries serious risks:
Weakens basin-specific governance,
Erodes legislative oversight for inter-basin transfers,
Undermines Indigenous sovereignty and cumulative effects tracking.
We urge the government to retain the existing basin definitions and instead invest in improving:
Cumulative effects monitoring,
Basin-level water budgeting, and
Transparent governance mechanisms that reflect both hydrological function and socio-cultural realities.
Section 4
Question 4.1: Indicate your level of support for creating a mechanism to authorize reuse of wastewater by an entity other than the producer. This may include defining responsibilities of wastewater producers, users, and regulator(s) related to alternative water sources in the act, regulation or policy.
Answer: (Conditional) Support for Authorizing Reuse of Wastewater by Entities Other Than the Producer
I support this proposed change — with strong environmental and public interest safeguards. Reasons for Conditional Support:
1. Enabling Wastewater Reuse Can Advance Water Conservation
Reusing appropriately treated wastewater instead of diverting freshwater can reduce pressure on rivers, aquifers, and ecosystems, particularly in closed or stressed basins.
It supports water-use efficiency, aligns with New Water Paradigm principles, and contributes to a circular water economy.
2. Supports Innovation and Reduces Reliance on Freshwater
In sectors like oil and gas, agriculture, or industrial cooling, the ability to use treated effluent from another operator can reduce net water withdrawals.
Municipalities and industry could collaborate on fit-for-purpose reuse systems that make better use of existing resources.
Risks and Required Safeguards:
1. Ecological and Health Risks if Poorly Managed
Not all wastewater is equal. The composition, contaminants, and treatment levels vary widely depending on source (e.g., fracking flowback vs. municipal greywater).
Risks include:
Introduction of emerging contaminants or residual chemicals,
Harm to aquatic ecosystems if return flows are reduced or quality is degraded,
Inadequate oversight of how wastewater is stored, transported, and applied.
2. Wastewater Should Not Become a Loophole to Avoid Licensing
Some actors may seek to reclassify freshwater withdrawals as “wastewater” to bypass licensing requirements or shift regulatory burdens.
The reuse of wastewater should not be a backdoor into inter-basin transfers or freshwater substitution without accountability.
Recommendations for Mitigation and Policy Design:
Wastewater reuse should remain subject to licensing under the Water Act and/or EPEA, except in very low-risk scenarios with defined thresholds.
Require a fit-for-purpose treatment and risk assessment framework tailored to the intended use and environmental context.
Establish clear accountability:
Producer retains responsibility for quality until handoff,
Reuser must monitor application and ensure compliance,
Regulator oversees tracking, data reporting, and enforcement.
Develop a public registry of reuse agreements and discharge points to ensure transparency and enable local engagement.
Prioritize reuse within the same watershed unless an environmental review confirms that export will not degrade flow or ecosystem function.
Conclusion
While wastewater reuse can offer environmental and economic benefits, it must be implemented through strictly regulated, transparent, and ecologically informed frameworks. We support the creation of legal mechanisms for wastewater reuse, but only if they uphold the precautionary principle, protect watershed integrity, and ensure public accountability.
Question 4.2: Indicate your level of support for amending the definition of water to clarify that it includes rainwater captured before it hits the ground.
Answer: I support this proposed change.
I support this proposed change — with clarification and appropriate thresholds for licensing exemptions.
Reasons for Support:
1. Provides Legal Clarity for Rainwater Harvesting
The current absence of rainwater in the Water Act leads to regulatory uncertainty for individuals, municipalities, and businesses considering rainwater collection systems.
Clearly defining rainwater within the Act — as distinct from stormwater — will:
Support responsible water innovation,
Provide a foundation for future policy and program development, and
Reduce confusion among regulators and the public.
2. Promotes Water Conservation and Urban Resilience
Rainwater harvesting can reduce demand on potable freshwater supplies, especially for:
Irrigation,
Toilet flushing,
Industrial or commercial greywater uses.
This supports goals of water efficiency, drought preparedness, and urban water resilience, particularly in over-allocated basins.
3. Prevents Unregulated Large-Scale Harvesting
Including rainwater in the Act allows Alberta to set clear volume thresholds for what constitutes exempt small-scale use (e.g., household barrels) versus what requires licensing (e.g., large commercial collection and reuse systems).
This ensures that cumulative effects — especially in dense urban developments or industrial zones — are accounted for and mitigated.
Recommended Policy Design and Mitigation Measures:
Amend the Water Act definition of water to clearly include rainwater captured before it reaches the ground.
Introduce a licensing exemption for:
Individual residential rain barrels,
Rooftop cisterns for non-potable indoor or outdoor use under a defined volume threshold.
Require licensing or regulatory oversight for:
Large-scale or commercial systems with potential cumulative impacts,
Uses that involve distribution or sale of collected rainwater.
Clarify that rainwater use must remain within the same parcel or watershed, and cannot be used to bypass licensing for inter-basin transfers or consumptive commercial withdrawals.
Conclusion
This amendment is a practical and future-forward step toward enabling conservation innovation while protecting water security. With appropriate thresholds and oversight mechanisms, Alberta can both support household and business rainwater reuse and protect against unregulated large-scale interception of precipitation.
I support this change.
4.3 Stormwater Use: Indicate your level of support for enabling stormwater diversion without requiring a water licence, at volumes up to the net difference in runoff between pre- and post-development.
Answer: I do NOT support this proposed change.
1. Stormwater Is a Critical Component of the Natural Water Cycle
Stormwater plays essential ecological roles:
Replenishing groundwater,
Supporting wetlands, riparian zones, and baseflows, and
Carrying nutrients and sediments important for aquatic life.
Diverting stormwater — even modest volumes — without oversight can disrupt hydrology and water quality at a sub-watershed level.
2. The “Net Difference” Test Is Difficult to Monitor and Enforce
The proposed threshold — up to the net difference between pre- and post-development runoff — introduces high regulatory ambiguity.
Measuring and verifying these volumes requires site-specific hydrological modelling, and without licences or permits, regulators lack tools to enforce limits or track cumulative effects.
3. Cumulative Impacts Could Undermine Ecosystem Health
Even small diversions, if left unregulated and repeated across many developments (e.g., industrial parks, subdivisions, agricultural operations), can cause:
Lower return flows to streams and wetlands,
Reduced resilience during drought,
Increased flood risks from poor management of modified flow paths.
These risks are particularly acute in closed or over-allocated basins like the Bow, Oldman, and Red Deer.
4. Existing Licensing System Already Allows for Reasonable Use
The current 6,250 m³ exemption under the Water (Ministerial) Regulation provides sufficient flexibility for low-risk use of stormwater in most cases.
Larger or cumulative uses should continue to be subject to licensing or transfers — especially in basins where all available allocations are already spoken for.
Conclusion
Stormwater is not a waste product — it is a vital flow within our natural and built environments. Enabling its diversion without a licence, based on vague pre/post-development comparisons, would:
Create regulatory blind spots,
Undermine ecological water budgeting,
Weaken the ability of watershed managers to track and govern total withdrawals in already-stressed systems.
I strongly recommend retaining stormwater licensing requirements and improving data, modeling, and coordination instead.
Share Feedback:
Feedback: Stormwater Supply and Use by Third Parties Must Be Controlled and Regulated
We strongly recommend that the supply and use of stormwater by third parties remain subject to regulation and oversight. Reasons for Regulation of Third-Party Stormwater Use:
1. Stormwater Is Part of the Public Water Cycle
Stormwater is not a private asset. Once it enters collection systems (e.g., municipal drains, ponds, wetlands), it is part of the managed hydrological system and contributes to:
Recharge of rivers, wetlands, and aquifers,
Water quality control, and
Downstream ecological flow needs.
Its use — especially by third parties — must be managed with the same care and accountability as other water sources.
2. Unregulated Third-Party Use Risks Commodification and Hoarding
Without oversight, third parties could begin treating stormwater as a private commodity, leading to:
Unmonitored diversions or withdrawals,
Monetization of a public resource, and
Equity concerns for downstream communities and ecosystems.
3. Cumulative Impacts Need to Be Managed
While individual stormwater uses may seem minor, aggregate use by third parties (e.g., construction firms, agricultural operations, or landscaping contractors) can:
Lower return flows into the environment,
Alter local hydrology,
Impair Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs), and
Undermine resilience during drought.
These effects are especially concerning in closed basins and urbanized watersheds.
4. Regulation Ensures Quality and Safety
Stormwater can contain pollutants, sediments, hydrocarbons, or heavy metals. Without regulation, third-party users may apply stormwater:
Inappropriately (e.g., crop irrigation or dust control near sensitive areas),
Without treatment, or
In ways that create public health and environmental risks.
Policy Recommendations:
Require licences or permits for all third-party uses of stormwater above a clearly defined low-volume threshold.
Establish fit-for-purpose quality standards for stormwater use based on its intended application.
Ensure that all third-party use:
Occurs within the same watershed as collection,
Does not conflict with existing return flow expectations, and
Is reported, tracked, and assessed for cumulative impact.
Municipalities and regulators should retain primary control over stormwater systems, with clear authority to approve or deny third-party arrangements.
Conclusion
Stormwater must be treated as a public, regulated water source — not an unclaimed or privately exploitable flow. Any use by third parties must be managed under a clear licensing and oversight framework to protect ecological flows, water quality, and public interest. Unregulated access is inconsistent with responsible watershed management and climate-resilient infrastructure.
Question 4.4: Return Flow
Answer: I support this proposed change.
I support this proposed change — with provisions to protect ecological flows, prevent speculative use, and ensure watershed integrity. Reasons for Support:
1. Return Flows Are Essential to Watershed Health
Return flows — particularly from municipalities and industry — help sustain instream flows, meet Water Conservation Objectives (WCOs), and support downstream users, including ecosystems and transboundary partners (e.g., Saskatchewan under the Apportionment Agreement).
Clarifying the legal definition of return flow will help ensure these volumes are accounted for, protected, and not diverted for other uses without oversight.
2. Prevents Speculative or Unlicensed Reuse
Without clear legal definition, there is a risk that entities could attempt to recapture or resell return flows, especially where high-value water markets or water stress exist.
This creates legal ambiguity and opens the door to double-counting or secondary appropriation of water that was presumed to be re-entering the ecosystem.
3. Strengthens Accountability and Monitoring
By bringing return flows under clearer regulatory authority, the province can:
Better track actual water consumption vs return,
Improve flow forecasting and management, and
Hold licence holders accountable for maintaining return flow conditions specified in their licences.
4. Supports Adaptive Management and Climate Resilience
In a changing climate, return flows become even more critical to maintaining baseflows during low-flow periods.
Defining and regulating return flows enables the province to model and manage cumulative impacts at the sub-basin level.
Recommended Implementation Provisions:
Define return flow in the Act as:
“The portion of a licensed water diversion that is returned to a surface water body, after use, treatment, or other modification, and is not consumed or lost.”
Clarify that return flows:
Are part of gross diversion volumes, but must be accounted for and not repurposed without licensing.
Are subject to quality standards and discharge conditions under both the Water Act and EPEA.
Require approval for any reuse of return flows by the original user or third parties.
Prohibit transfers of return flows that would alter flow regimes, WCO compliance, or downstream commitments without full environmental assessment.
Conclusion
Return flows are a critical component of Alberta’s water balance. Clear legal definition and licensing of return flows will:
Prevent unauthorized reuse,
Strengthen water budgeting and ecological protections, and
Ensure Alberta’s water governance system remains transparent, equitable, and sustainable.
I support this proposed amendment.
Clarification on Gross vs. Net Diversion and Use of Return Flow Credits
Key Points and Recommendations:
1. Gross Diversion Should Remain the Primary Legal and Regulatory Framework
The current system, where licences are issued based on gross diversion volumes (i.e., total water withdrawn), provides clarity, enforceability, and consistency.
It ensures that all users are equally responsible for reporting, managing, and accounting for their full impact on the water system — including:
Consumption,
Losses (e.g., evaporation), and
Return flows.
Recommendation: Confirm that gross diversion remains the default legal basis for all water allocations and licence issuance in Alberta.
2. Return Flow Credits / Net Diversion Should Only Be Considered in Highly Controlled, Limited Circumstances
In theory, recognizing return flow credits could incentivize:
Efficient water use, and
The reuse of non-consumptive volumes,
Especially in industrial or municipal systems with consistent, monitored return flows.
However, in practice, the following risks and limitations must be addressed:
A. Risk of Double-Use or Water Hoarding
Without robust oversight, return flow credits could be used to reclaim, reallocate, or trade volumes already assumed to benefit the ecosystem.
This undermines assumptions behind WCOs, instream flow needs, and downstream access.
B. Monitoring and Enforcement Complexity
Measuring actual return flows — especially their volume, timing, and quality — is complex, and often dependent on:
Infrastructure capacity,
Flow conditions, and
Changes in operational practices.
Any return flow credit system must require real-time metering, transparent verification, and public reporting.
C. Water Quality Concerns
Not all return flows are environmentally benign. Even treated wastewater or industrial discharges can contain thermal, chemical, or nutrient pollution that alters aquatic ecosystems.
Any return flow that contributes to crediting must meet stringent water quality thresholds that protect downstream users and aquatic health.
When (and only when) Net Diversion or Return Flow Credits May Be Considered:
We recommend the following criteria for limited-use pilot programs or regulated applications:
Return flow is metered, monitored, and traceable to the licensed activity.
Return is made to the same surface water body and sub-watershed within a short distance and time delay.
Return flow meets or exceeds predefined environmental quality standards, especially regarding temperature, nutrient load, and toxic substances.
Net diversion accounting does not exceed the original licensed allocation volume or rate under any conditions.
Return flow credit cannot be used to justify inter-basin transfers or significantly altered timing of withdrawals without full environmental review.
The system is part of a publicly transparent reporting platform, with third-party or community-based monitoring where applicable.
Conclusion
Gross diversion should remain the foundation of Alberta’s water licensing system. Net diversion and return flow credits may offer some efficiency benefits — but only where scientific, legal, and ecological safeguards are strong, and transparency and accountability are guaranteed. Misapplication of return flow accounting could lead to over-allocation, ecosystem degradation, and erosion of public trust.
Any exploration of return flow crediting should proceed cautiously, preferably as limited, well-monitored pilot projects within closed basins where flow restoration and water security are priorities.
Provide additional info, comment, and submit.