N.W.T. is asking Alberta to keep it more informed about spills in its water

The Slave River in August 2022. The Northwest Territories is proposing changes to reporting requirements in its water agreement with Alberta. If accepted, that would better inform the N.W.T. of developments in the waterways flowing north. (Natalie Pressman/CBC)

By RCI, CBC

Territory proposing updates to water agreement with Alberta

The Northwest Territories is suggesting updates to a water agreement with Alberta that will keep it more in the know about spills that could flow into its waterways, but says it’s still waiting for a full response from Alberta on its proposal.

In April, the N.W.T. proposed updates to notification protocols of the transboundary water agreement between the N.W.T. and Alberta.

It’s suggesting specific thresholds like spill volume, type of spill and location of the spill would create clear triggers for when Alberta would be required to notify the territory.

The transboundary water agreement commits the province and territory to managing water sustainably and to communicate changes that increase risk of harm to water flowing north across the border.

“It’s a very important agreement that democracies build their governments and society on,” said Michael Miltenberger, the N.W.T.’s environment minister when the agreement was signed in 2015.

The proposal is in response to a tailings leak at Imperial Oil’s Kearl facility, one of the largest oilsands spills in Alberta history.

In 2023, the N.W.T’s then-environment minister said that Alberta breached the agreement when he learned of the leak through the media. He said that violated a commitment to notify the N.W.T. of developments that could impact its ecosystem.

Alberta disagreed and said it has never violated its transboundary water agreement.

Still, Alberta’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said in a statement that improvements are a natural part of any long-term agreement.

A spokesperson for N.W.T.’s Department of Environment and Climate Change said the department couldn’t share the details of what it’s proposing since it’s still a matter of discussion with Alberta.

He said there is no set timeline for finalizing the updates, only that they’re aiming to complete it “as soon as possible.”

The government of Alberta did not respond to CBC’s questions about whether is has any concerns with the territory’s proposed changes or a timeline on its response.

The press secretary to the N.W.T.’s environment minister told CBC in an email that senior officials discussed the matter at a meeting the week of July 16 but that the territory has “not yet had a substantive response from Alberta.”

‘Ultimate downstream jurisdiction’

Miltenberger said the Northwest Territories is in a difficult position to negotiate as “the ultimate downstream jurisdiction” holding Alberta to account on its commitments to inform the territory of developments in the water.

“It’s not like we’re reaching in and saying you have to fix everything and we want to patch those leaky reservoirs,” he said. “All we’re saying is you committed to notifying us.”

He said the delay in finalizing the updates could be for any number of reasons but added that when one government doesn’t want to do something “they just rag the puck.”

“And the pollution continues to leak out of all of their ponds,” he said.

Jason Unger, executive director of the Environmental Law Centre in Edmonton, said that updating the notification requirements would help the downstream jurisdiction — the Northwest Territories — make informed decisions about how to respond to leaks into the watershed.

According to the agreement, the parties agree to notify of activities that “might” affect the ecological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem of the other party.

But Unger said that leaves it up to the upstream jurisdiction — Alberta — to assess the risk and decide whether to report. He says it makes sense to take a precautionary approach and ask to be notified on all spills of a certain threshold.

“It may be that you get 95 per cent of notifications are not really of any consequence,” he said.

“But that’s better than perhaps missing something that actually carries some significant risk.”

Unger says these kinds of agreements put commitments to co-operate in good faith to the test.

“How are they going to respond to a downstream jurisdiction who has expressed their concern in a timely fashion and really address some of the concerns they have?”

This article is republished from RCI.