Alberta
Saskatchewan landowners fight against illegal drainage washing out land, roads
WAWOTA, Sask. — Lane Mountney spreads a map over his kitchen table at his farmhouse in southeast Saskatchewan, pointing to yellow and orange arrows slithering across the document.
Many of the arrows represent existing channels and ditches, moving across fields and out of wetlands to drain water. The arrows eventually make their way to a creek, causing what he describes as a deluge of problems downstream.
“All these years, guys have gotten away with draining water and the next guy figures he can get away withit,” Mountney said in an interview at his farm near Wawota, Sask., about 200 kilometres southeast of Regina.
“If this keeps going like it has, I don’t know what Saskatchewan’s going to look like in 10 years.”
Mountney’s map depicts what’s called the Wawken Drainage Project, a plan developed by the local watershed group that has since been taken over by the Water Security Agency, which is responsible for overseeing drainage in Saskatchewan.
The project is nearly 14 square kilometres and contains 880 wetlands of various sizes representing a total of 2.4 square kilometres of water.
A project document indicates that 88 per cent of these wetlands have been drained, partially drained or farmed. About 12 per cent remain intact.
Most of this water is supposed to flow into a creek that runs through a parcel of Mountney’s land.
The plan developers believe the creek can handle the flows, but Mountney is not convinced.
Last year, he and his wife, Sandra Mountney, dealt with flooding ontheir horses’ pasture. They decided not to use their well water at the time because it was yellow.
“They were very excited to tell us that nobody inside the project area is going to lose acres, but they haven’t even looked at who’s going to lose acres miles down the line.” Sandra Mountney said.
Brent Fry, who farms grain and livestock, said it’s common for his land to flood for three days when people upstream get 50 millimetres of rain.
He said it has caused roads and access points to erode.
“There are about four farms out there and all they’re doing is draining whether they’ve got permission or not,” Fry said. “I don’t even know what to do because the government’s not doing anything — they’re siding with the big guys.”
Farmers have drained water in Saskatchewan for generations and many have done so illegally by digging ditches without permits.
Most producers drain because it allows them to grow more crops, helping them pay for land that has become increasingly expensive. However, it has caused yearly flooding for people downstream. Roads also wash out and habitat gets lost.
At the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention in February, reeves passed a resolution asking the Water Security Agency to require those who are illegally draining to remediate their unapproved works.
Saskatchewan legislation requires upstream landowners to receive permission from those downstream when they want to drain, but many say that’s not happening.
Sandra Mountney said the Water Security Agency hasn’t been taking concerns seriously.
“It’s hard to know who’s really protecting our waterways,” she said.
The Wawken project began about three years ago but hasn’t been completed. It’s among many drainage projects underway.
Daniel Phalen, a watershed planner, worked on the project as technician before he left for another job.
He said landowners had been draining water with no permits before the plan. His job was to determine how many wetlands were drained and what works had already been done.
Phalen said the plan was to put in structures that would slow down the drainage to reduce problems downstream.
It’s unclear what work had been done on the Wawken project to mitigate flows since Phalen left. The Water Security Agency did not respond to a request for comment.
Phalen said projects can get held up if affected landowners don’t come to an agreement. Expropriation is allowed but it’s rare, he said.
Another nearby drainage plan, known as the Martin project, has stalled because of landowner concerns.
Researchers have estimated Saskatchewan has lost half of its total wetlands over time for crop production.
Phalen, who also worked on the Martin plan, said it was concerning to see the number of wetlands sucked out.
“The Water Security Agency doesn’t have the manpower to do much about it,” Phalen said. “There’s such low enforcement already that if they had any policies in place, people would just drain anyways. It’s kind of a scary problem to be in.”
Sandra Mountney said she’s worried about losing wetlands because they help recharge groundwater supplies and filter contaminants — particularly important when it’s dry.
The Water Security Agency has released a drainage management framework that aims to prevent flooding and ensure Saskatchewan retains a “sufficient” number of wetlands.
Leah Clark, the Interim Executive Director of Agriculture Water Management, told attendees at a Saskatchewan Farm Stewardship Association meeting earlier this year that 43 per cent of wetlands are retained within approved projects. She added the province has “thriving” wildlife populations.
However, she said under the policy, landowners would be able to select which wetlands to retain.
“It will achieve a working landscape for landowners to continue to use their land for farming and ranching. This approach will allow for new development while retaining current drainage,” she said.
Phalen said Saskatchewan could look to Manitoba for solutions to retain wetlands.
Manitoba has historically drained most of its wetlands in the agricultural regions, he said, but the province has since developed a policy where landowners are paid for retaining them.
“You know, $100 an acre is not a ton of money, but it’s another incentive to help producers,” he said. “It’s such a complex problem where you got this huge financial incentive to drain.”
Lane Mountney said regulations just need to be enforced.
“It’s almost too late,” he said. “They should have been out there checking stuff before we got this point.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 4, 2023.
Jeremy Simes, The Canadian Press
Alberta
Province to double Alberta’s oil production
The Government of Alberta is working with partners to increase pipeline capacity in pursuit of its goal to double crude oil production and increase exports to the United States.
Alberta is a strong partner to the United States, currently delivering more than 4.3 million barrels per day to the U.S. The province is committed to increasing Alberta’s crude oil production and preserving and adding pipeline capacity, supporting North American energy security as well as enabling increased U.S. production.
The Government of Alberta is taking immediate action to accelerate its plan to increase pipeline capacity to get more product to market and more value for its product.
A critical step towards achieving this goal includes working directly with industry. This is why Alberta’s government has signed a letter of intent with Enbridge, which will form a working group with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission (APMC). The working group will evaluate future egress, transport, storage, terminalling and market access opportunities across the more than 29,000 kilometres of the Enbridge network in support of moving more Alberta oil and gas to Canadians and American partners.
“The world needs more Alberta oil and gas, and we need to make sure Alberta is meeting those needs. Our objective of doubling oil production aligns with Enbridge’s plans to enhance its existing pipeline systems and we look forward to partnering with them to enhance cross-border transport solutions. This will also allow us to play a role in supporting the United States in its energy security and affordability goals.”
The working group will focus on preserving and optimizing egress, developing opportunities to expand along Enbridge’s current footprint, and developing new solutions to improve global market access and maximize the value of Alberta’s commodity. Additionally, it will work with government to cut red tape and streamline regulations and permitting approvals. It will also assess opportunities for shared investment and benefit to both Albertans and Enbridge by leveraging BRIK (Bitumen-Royalty-In-Kind) barrels.
“A strong and growing Alberta oil and gas transport and storage network will allow the Government of Alberta to maximize the economic benefits for all Albertans from our bitumen and natural gas royalties. We must also pursue regulatory reform where needed so Alberta can continue to be an attractive place for companies to invest.”
“Enbridge has 75 years of experience delivering Alberta’s energy, safely and cost-effectively to support the region’s economy, unlock export value and help meet North American demand. We’re prepared – and exceptionally well-positioned – to work with producers and governments to deliver capacity as production ramps up, providing cost-effective, scalable, executable solutions now and through the decade that support North American energy security, reliability and affordability.”
Alberta
Albertans still waiting for plan to grow the Heritage Fund
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
In February 2024, the Smith government promised to share a plan to grow the Heritage Fund—Alberta’s long-term resource revenue savings fund—with the public before the end of 2024. But 2025 is upon us, and Albertans are still waiting.
The Lougheed government originally created the Heritage Fund in 1976/77 to save a share of the province’s resource wealth, including oil and gas revenues, for the future. But since its creation, Alberta governments have deposited less than 4 per cent of total resource revenue in the fund.
In other words, for decades successive Alberta governments have missed a golden opportunity. When governments make deposits in the Heritage Fund, they transform onetime (and extremely volatile) resource revenue into a financial asset that can generate more stable earnings over time. Eventually, the government could use annual income from the fund to replace volatile resource revenue in the budget.
Historically, however, rules that would have helped ensure the fund’s growth (for example, a requirement to deposit 30 per cent of resource revenue annually) were “statutory” rather than “constitutional,” which meant Alberta governments could easily disregard, change or eliminate these rules once they were no longer convenient.
And they did. The government changed that 30 per cent requirement to 15 per cent by 1982/83, and after an oil price collapse, eliminated it entirely in 1987/88. Due to a lack of consistent deposits, paired with the real value of the fund eroding over time due to inflation, and nearly all fund earnings being spent, the Heritage Fund is expected to be worth less than $25 billion in 2024/25.
Again, while Premier Smith has promised to grow the fund to between $250 billion to $400 billion by 2050, we’ve yet to see how she plans to do that. Whatever plan the government produces, it should heed lessons from other successful resource revenue savings fund such as Alaska’s Permanent Fund.
The Alaska government created its fund the same year Alberta created the Heritage Fund, but Alaska’s fund is worth roughly US$80 billion (or C$113 billion) today. What has the Alaska government done differently?
First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. This type of “constitutional” rule is much stronger than a “statutory” rule that existed in Alberta. (While Canada does not have separate provincial constitutions, it’s possible to change Canada’s Constitution for province-specific measures.) Second, the Alaska government must set aside a share of the fund’s earnings each year to offset the effects of inflation—in other words, “inflation-proof” the principal of the fund to preserve its real value. And finally, the government must pay a portion of fund earnings to Alaskan citizens in annual dividends.
The logic of the first two rules is simple—the Alaskan government promotes growth in the fund by depositing mineral revenue annually, and inflation-proofing maintains the fund’s purchasing power. But consider the third rule regarding dividends.
The Alaska government created the annual dividend, paid out annually to Alaskans, to create political pressure for future governments to responsibly maintain the fund. Because citizens have an ownership share in the fund, they’re more interested in the state maximizing returns from its resource wealth. This has helped maintain and reinforce robust fiscal rules that make the Permanent Fund successful.
Based on this success, if the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofed the principal, it could pay each Albertan a total dividend between roughly $600 to $1,100 from 2024/25 to 2026/27, or roughly $2,300 to $4,400 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.
Almost one year ago, the Smith government promised a new plan for the Heritage Fund. When the plan is finally released, it should include a constitutional requirement for consistent contributions and inflation-proofing, and annual dividends for Albertans.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
Trump Needs To Take Away What Politicians Love Most — Pork
-
National1 day ago
Former Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall on working with (or against) Justin Trudeau
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Trump Calls Biden’s Drilling Ban ‘Worst Abuse Of Power I’ve Ever Seen’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Facebook to get rid of fact checkers and promote free speech
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Trump Administration Must Bring Moderna to Heel
-
Crime24 hours ago
UK’s Liberal Gov’t Is Imploding As Mass Rape Scandal Roils Country
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Musk Completely Derails UK Political Establishment, Accuses PM’s Party Of Covering Up Muslim Rape Gangs
-
COVID-192 days ago
Calls for COVID-19 vaccine recall – FDA’s own study finds DNA contamination in Pfizer vaccines