Alberta's Water Resource Allocation and Management System:

Transcription

1 Alberta's Water Resource Allocation and Management System: A Review of the Current Water Resource Allocation System in Alberta W.L. (Vic) Adamowicz University of Alberta June 2010 David Percy University of Alberta Marian Weber University of Alberta/ Alberta Innovates

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3 INTRODUCTION 1

4 A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT WATER RESOURCE ALLOCATION SYSTEM IN ALBERTA Introduction Government Ownership Allocation of Rights to Water A. Exempted Uses 2

5 i. ii. Household Users Traditional Agricultural Users 3

6 B. C. The Requirement of a Licence The Prior Allocation Principle Management System: A Review of the Current Water Resource Allocation System in Alberta 4

7 The Features of a Water Licence A. Legal Characterisation B. Transferability (The Original Approach) 5

8 6

9 C. Reforming the Prohibition against Transfers (Compulsory Reallocation) 7

10 8

11 THE ALBERTA WATER ACT: A MARKET-BASED APPROACH 9

12 10

13 Environmental Safeguards A. Allocation Decisions 11

14 B. Instream Flows and Unlicensed Uses i. Initial Allocation 12

15 13

16 ii. Restoration of Instream Flow Levels C. Monitoring and Enforcement 14

17 IS THE CURRENT WATER RESOURCE ALLOCATION SYSTEM SUSTAINABLE? 15

18 CASE STUDY 1: The Lower Athabascan River Basin 1 To the best of our knowledge this basin does not yet have an approved water management plan and thus it does not have a specified set of water conservation objectives (WCOs). The second phase of the WMF is expected to help generate information that will lead to a water management plan and WCOs for the region. FinalReport_2007_OS_MSC.pdf 2 Ohlson et al provides a report on the process of the development of the Phase 2 objectives. This report on the Phase 2 Committee process outlines the main areas of disagreement between the stakeholders, most notably the issue of an environmental base flow exemption. 16

19 Evaluation of the Performance of the Current Water Allocation System in the Lower Athabasca River 17

20 18

21 Meeting the Conditions for an Efficient Market: The Case of the Lower Athabasca River 19

22 Summary 20

23 FIGURE 1: Approved Licences for Water Use Sourced From the Athabasca River for Oil Sands Mining Project / Company Status Annual licensed water-use, GL Annual licensed water-use, m 3 /s Max. instantaneous pumping rate, m 3 /s Suncor Existing Syncrude Existing Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP), Albian Sands Fort Hills Demonstration Plant, Petro-Canada Joslyn SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage), Total E&P Canada Ltd. Existing Existing Existing Total existing Jackpine Phase I, Shell Approved Horizon, CNRL Approved Fort Hills Project, Petro-Canada Approved Kearl, Imperial Approved Total approved Total existing & approved CASE STUDY 2: The South Saskatchewan River Basin 1 Alberta is allowed to consume 2,600,000 cubic decameters annually, even if this exceeds 50 percent of the natural flow; but Alberta must maintain a minimum flow of 42.5 m 3 /s or half of the instantaneous natural flow, whichever is less. 21

24 Allocations in the South Saskatchewan River Basin 22

25 FIGURE 3: Licensed allocation of surface water in the South Saskatchewan River Basin by sub-basin and major sector River Sub-Basin Municipal Livestock Licensed Allocation Surface Water (Mm 3 ) Crop Watering Commercial Petroleum Industrial Other Sectors Oldman River , ,231.4 Bow River , ,561.2 Total Lower South Sask. River Red Deer River Total , , At the start of the season, the system administrator determines the forecast water availability in light of licensed use. If not all licences can be supplied, then the administrator declares a licence seniority cut-off date that determines who will receive their full licensed volume (licensees more senior to the cut-off date) and who will receive no seasonal allocation (those holding licences that are junior to the cut-off date). 3 Many municipal and industrial users were not licensed until the mid-1980s. Individual domestic users do not require a licence, and not all licensed users are required to submit actual consumption numbers. 23

26 4 Fifty-one percent of irrigated land is used to grow forage for winter feed such as timothy and alfalfa. Cereals (primarily wheat and barley) are grown on 30% of irrigated land, while specialty crops such as sugar beets and beans are grown on 14% of the land. Oil seed crops such as canola and flax make up the remaining irrigated land. 24

27 5 Instream objectives were the only mechanism for achieving instream flow needs prior to the use of water conservation objectives under Water for Life and the Phase 2 of the South Saskatchewan River Basin Management Plan. Instream objectives are attached as constraints on licences whereas water conservation objectives are the result of balancing social, environmental, and economic criteria and are not the same as instream flow needs which are defined solely by ecological criteria. 25

28 Trading 26

29 FIGURE 4: Matter and Factors That Must be Taken into Account for a Water Transfer Matters and Factors Existing, potential and cumulative effects on the aquatic environment Existing, potential and cumulative effects on any applicable instream objective and/or WCO Efficiency of use Net Diversion (See Definition) Existing, potential and cumulative hydraulic, hydrological and hydrogeological effects.»»»»» Guidelines No significant adverse effect on the aquatic environment No significant adverse effect on existing instream objectives and/or Water Conservation Objectives Industry standards and best practices Quality and timing of return flow should be benign or beneficial for environment Only net use portion of the allocation is transferable, unless new user has a net consumption operation. Existing, potential and cumulative effects on household users, traditional agriculture users and other higher and lower priority licensees With respect to irrigation, the suitability of the land to which the allocation of water is to be transferred for agriculture. The historic volume, rate and timing of the diversion under the original and proposed licence.» From the Water Act, Section 82(3)(b): the transfer of the allocation, in the opinion of the Director, does not impair the exercise of rights of any household user, traditional agriculture user or licensee other than the household user, traditional agriculture user or other licensee who has agreed in writing that the transfer of the allocation may take place» The land must be suitable for irrigate agriculture: Class 4 or better in accordance with the standards of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Location of the existing diversion and the proposed new diversion. Water quality (including public health and safety and assimilative capacity). Linkages between surface and ground water and the effects or changes in overall water use.»»» No significant adverse effect on public health and safety. No significant adverse effect on assimilative capacity No significant adverse effect on groundwater quantity or quality Existing, potential and cumulative effects on the operation of reservoirs or other water infrastructure. Master Agreement on Apportionment (Alberta's commitments to Saskatchewan)» No significant adverse effect on operations unless the reservoir or infrastructure licensee agrees it is feasible to adjust operations to mitigate effects» The terms of the Apportionment Agreement will be respected First Nation Rights and Traditional Uses» Government of Alberta First Nation consultation policies and guidelines on Land Management and Resource Development Agreements with First Nations The Water Act (82)(5)(c)(iv) also provides that the Director may consider any other matters applicable to the transfer of the allocation that the Director considers relevant.» Evaluation of the Performance of the Water Allocation System in the South Saskatchewan River Basin 27

30 Meeting the Conditions for an Efficient Market: The Case of the South Saskatchewan River Basin 28

31 29

32 Summary 30

33 31

34 CONCLUSIONS 32

35 BIBLIOGRAPHY 33

36 34

37 35