Water markets: The Alberta government will face a battle

The Council of Canadians hosted a roundtable meeting in Edmonton today bringing over a dozen Alberta environmental, social justice, labour and First Nations groups together to discuss the threat of water markets in Alberta. Among them were representatives of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, Public Interest Alberta, Sierra Club, Treaty 8 First Nations, CUPE Alberta, Treaty 6 First Nations, the Environmental Law Centre, the Parkland Institute and members of landowner and surface rights groups.

Alberta is the first Canadian province to experiment with an open market for the sale and purchase of water licenses.In 1999, the Alberta government introduced the Alberta Water Act, which maintained FITFIR and for the first time allowed “water transfers,” or the right to exchange all or part of a water license between users. But it wasn’t until 2006, when the Alberta government – realizing there was no more water to give away – stopped issuing water licenses in the Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River basins, actually created the conditions for Canada’s first market for water. Senior license holders who use far less than their allotted amount saw an opportunity to make huge profits by selling access to public water resources.

In 2008, Environment Minister Rob Renner announced that the government would be reviewing the current water allocation system. It commissioned three reports all recommending deregulated markets allowing for water licenses to be transfered without public oversight. The line is that if water is priced, people will use it more wisely. Water markets have proven to be disastrous in Chile, Australia and other parts of the world where they have been established. In Chile, residents and small farmers have lost access to water while the majority of licences are owned by large energy and mining corporations.

At the meeting, groups raised concerns with the lack of public consultation. The Alberta government wants consultations wrapped up in June, yet none have taken place so far, and few Albertans are actually even aware of the issue. There are indication from the Alberta government that there may be nothing more than last minute online consultations.

First Nations groups have not been consulted in the process so far and the Assembly of First Nations has publicly declared markets a violation of First Nations Treaty rights.

Markets are antithetical to the principles of water as a human right and a public resource. The market system allows for water to be distributed according to ability to pay. In Alberta, this means municipalities will need to compete with big oil and gas corporations for water. It will also mean the public will lose its ability to control a vital resource.

A number of groups that convened in Edmonton today plan to roll out a joint campaign to send a strong message of opposition to the Alberta government. They will be inviting local governments and members of the general public to join them.

Comments

Submitted by Str. on March 19, 2010 - 12:44pm.

You can bet that water allocation, as determined by the ability to pay, will eventually lead to the full subsidization of this precious resource to the oil industry, and major shortages for the public; not to mention the widespread ecological devastation of the numerous watershed and habitat, left at the taxpayers feet. Albertans, get ready to experience what Californians have endured for decades at the hands of the agro-business; an industry, empowered by and in various ways own/controlled through many of the same petro-chemical corporations found pandering in Alberta.

Submitted by ACSial on March 24, 2010 - 7:38pm.

One thing that nobody wants to address is the problem of continuous population growth. The freshwater resources in Southern Alberta simply can't accomodate a 2M+ Calgary metro area. While there is much in-Canada migration, the bulk of Alberta's growth (2/3rds) comes from out-of-Canada immigration. All the low-flush toilets and xeriscaping in the city won't save us from escalating freshwater useage demands, caused by a population that just keeps on growing, with industrial use to match. There is also the impact of urban spraw, which is gobbling up farmland, grazing land and natural areas. Measures like Plan-It and water meters will only slightly slow the inevitable development of land and increasing water consumption associated with population growth.

Okotoks is one town that has taken an environmental lead, by imposing a population cap. Obviously, developers hate this and, along with banks, have lobbied for increasing immigration. 'Environmental' groups won't touch the population issue with a ten-foot pole, out of both political correctness and corporate bribery. For example, the David Suzuki Foundation is largely funded by BMO-Financial and RBC, who have lobbied for nearly doubling the immigration intake beyond the already completely unsustainable current levels (250,000-400,000 per year). This is because more warm bodies mean more real estate sales and housing starts. Look at the donors' lists of many 'green' groups in Alberta and you'll find developers, construction companies, banks, REITs and real estate brokerages.

Certainly, the tarsands and coalbed methane sectors are guilty of helping to overstress our water supplies. However, consideration must be given to arresting Alberta's runaway population growth, with its corresponding sprawl and residential water use. The twin foes of water and greenspace conservation are political correctness and business lobbies (financial, construction/development and real estate) that are preventing environmentalists from addressing the serious issue of the unsustainability of population growth.

Submitted by Sean in Ottawa on March 29, 2010 - 5:06pm.

Acusing Suzuki of being owned by the Royal Bank and BMO-- that's a new one!!!

Otherwise this is the same garbage you have been putting in several places tarting up anti-immigrant bigotry as some kind of environmental crusade.

Why don't you go after the urban planners? Why don't you have some other ideas about the environmental problems facing us-- no, you just use it as a way to couch your anti-immigration BS.

Submitted by ACSial on March 29, 2010 - 9:56pm.

Sean,

Here's the Annual Report for 2008, including the donor list. Note the developers, &c. on that list.

This isn't 'anti-immigration bigotry'. The lobbies behind population growth have been clever enough to frame the debate as one about 'race', making environmentalists unwilling to admit that endless population growth in Canada simply isn't sustainable. It's not immigration, per se, but the sheer overall volume that's a problem. And note that 1/3rd of the growth in population is from 'native' Canadians--that has to be addressed as well. Dense planning merely slows expansion of metro areas, without stopping it. And density still doesn't address issues like freshwater consumption and garbage production. Continuous population growth isn't sustainable, period. And this is a national/local issue, since we have control over our borders and how many people live where in our country.

Really, Canada should follow the lead of Okotoks and cap the population. There also has to be an absolute moratorium on greenfield development, or rezoning of agricultural land--something 'greenbelts' don't accomplish (developers merely leapfrog over them).