Comments for Environmental Law Centre (Alberta)

Comment on Environmental groups denied standing on water appeals. by Adam Driedzic

Adam Driedzic — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:12:25 +0000

Thanks for the insight Jeremy. Anyone concerned with water ethics and Alberta in particular should check out Jeremy’s blog and research: http://jeremyjschmidt.com/

Change of license purpose amendments were within found to be within the discretion of the Director in the sister Eastern Irrigation District appeal. http://www.eab.gov.ab.ca/dec/10-043-R.pdf

Water Matters and the Western Irrigation District requested to intervene and were denied (Appeal No. 10-043-ID2, March 29, 2012). Water Matters was denied on the basis that it sought to discuss water policy. Despite this exclusion the EAB made recommendations for policy review, for example:
-Clarity around how much water can be included in license amendments
-Clarity around choice of amendment and transfer provisions
-Expectations in the environmental community that holdbacks can enable the restoration of river flows.
-How the Director can save water from from efficiency gains made by irrigation districts.

Comment on More Changes to Federal Environmental Assessment Laws on the Horizon by Brenda Heelan Powell

Brenda Heelan Powell — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:49:34 +0000

Hi Again Barry

If the amendments are passed as proposed, the regulations will include new oil sands mines with a bitumen production capacity of 10,000 m3 per day or more. As well, the regulations will include expansion of an existing oil sands mine that would result in a 50% or more increase in the mine area and a total bitumen production capacity of 10,000 m3 per day or more.

Heavy oil and oil sands processing facilities will no longer be included in the regulations. Nor would in situ oil sands operations be included.

Under CEAA, 2012, there is the possibility for the Minister to direct environmental assessment of a project that is not on the list. However, this process is at the discretion of the minister.

Brenda

Comment on More Changes to Federal Environmental Assessment Laws on the Horizon by Barry

Barry — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:43:18 +0000

thanks Brenda, one more quick question if you don’t mind? that link tells me that additions will be made to cover “expansions to oil sands mines.”
and then later on, deletions include:

“and treating appropriately oil sands projects, including in situ oil sands projects”

if i understand it correctly, it seems that this shift in language essentially excuses in situ development from the process and implicitly says it is as environmentally benign as conventional production?

new surface mines will not occur due to already poor project economics, and only expansions will be suitable so the surface mining aspect of this has little relevance in practice i think.

the in-situ exclusions along with the groundwater extraction exclusion is a big deal since many in situ producers will rely on groundwater.

Comment on More Changes to Federal Environmental Assessment Laws on the Horizon by Brenda Heelan Powell

Brenda Heelan Powell — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:24:30 +0000

Hi Barry

Thanks for your question.

The best source to look at is the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) that accompanied the public notice regarding the proposed amendments. This document and the regulations can be obtained online at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=87EAF61E-1 (the CEAA Agency website). In particular look at page 3 of the RIAS.

Brenda

Comment on More Changes to Federal Environmental Assessment Laws on the Horizon by Barry

Barry — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:07:50 +0000

do you have a source for the “recently proposed amendments to the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (RDPA)”? i have looked around but can’t come across anything.

Comment on Environmental groups denied standing on water appeals. by jeremy schmidt

jeremy schmidt — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:48:53 +0000

I recall reading about this debate in the minutes of the Alberta Hansard when the Water Act went through. Specifically, the previous Water Resource Act had a public standing clause (you could apply for water to be held in the public interest) and this was taken out of the new legislation. From the minutes of the committee debates the discretion of “the Director” was where the authority was deigned to lie.

Comment on World Water Day: Celebrating a public resource, now about those laws… by fionalauridsenburningwater

fionalauridsenburningwater — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 05:55:47 +0000

Reblogged this on burning water.

Comment on Environmental assessment and duplication: “Don’t we have a photocopier?” by Jason Unger

Jason Unger — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:55:51 +0000

Fair comment LG Whyte, and I can understand the frustration with such delays. The blog (and the photocopy idea) was formed due to my frustration about the “overlapping” and” duplicative” arguments made, in a largely unsubstantiated fashion by proponents and accepted by the federal government (and resulting in legislative changes). From an Alberta perspective it seemed more focused on minimizing the federal government role notwithstanding their legislative and constitutional mandate to protect aspects of the environment. Should there be efficiency in EA? Certainly, but not at the expense of a robust and fulsome review of impacts.

A recent study on timelines in EA by the federal government found that the timing of the federal assessments (excluding larger hearings) were not overly long when compared to the US. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/cjfas-2012-0411

Comment on Environmental assessment and duplication: “Don’t we have a photocopier?” by LG Whyte

LG Whyte — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 02:39:00 +0000

I was involved in the EA for Mt. Milligan in British Columbia. There was a full 9 month time lag between the provincial and federal assessment processes. In my opinion, that delay combined with the duplication is unjustified and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars, and unfair to the proponent and stakeholders. Several community stakeholders complained publicly to the federal government that the consultation requested of them had become a burden.

It sounds to me the author has no experience with the EA process or he would be less flippant in making the argument that one should simply use a photocopier rather than acknowledging that the process is costly to all of us.

Comment on The times, are they a-changin’? Standing and the ERCB by Landmark Alberta Fracking Lawsuit Resumes in Calgary Court-Klippensteins, Barristers & Solicitors | Welcome to The Indian Reporter

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:08:41 +0000

[...] Court of Appeal decisions show the ERCB has a history of not upholding its own laws and even the Royal Society of Canada chided the agency for a 2007 incident in which the regulator [...]