The impact of oil sands development on water and people reaches beyond Alberta’s borders. This message was delivered from non-governmental organizations, First Nations, and experts again and again to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during its fact-finding trip through Alberta this May. The all-party committee visited the region to look at oil sands development with a federal lens on water resources issues. The committee recognizes that these issues affect not just Alberta but also downstream communities on the Athabasca and Mackenzie Rivers. The committee visited First Nations in the Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan areas on May 11. Two days of testimony by various interests followed in Edmonton on May 12, and Calgary on May 13.

Witnesses at the hearings included technical experts, industrial operators, First Nations, and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs). Also appearing as a witness was the Deputy Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Visit Water Mattters’ resource page on the hearings to access individual testimony and submissions quickly without having to scan the entire hearings transcripts.
Alberta government representatives were conspicuously absent, however. Committee staff confirmed that several notices and invitations were extended to the Alberta government and agencies, such as the Energy Resources Conservation Board, but no witnesses were provided.

Missing in action – the case for more federal involvement in oil sands development

Legal experts presenting to the committee were clear that federal absence from oil sands development is unacceptable. “The federal government has been somewhat missing in action in an area where it has clear responsibilities,” said Barry Robinson, staff lawyer for Ecojustice. (Robinson testimony)

“The federal government has been somewhat missing in action in an areawhere it has clear responsibilities,” said Barry Robinson, staff lawyerfor Ecojustice.Owen Saunders of the Canadian Institute for Resource Law concurred, “There are important federal interests here and a clear need for federal leadership, which has largely been abdicated by the federal government over the past three decades.” Saunders outlined federal government transboundary responsibilities on water quality where the federal government has been too deferential. Saunders also outlined federal responsibilities for carbon capture and storage where the federal government has yet to show interest in the transboundary nature of deep saline aquifers where carbon dioxide might be stored in the future. (Saunders testimony)

Arlene Kwasniak, a law professor from the University of Calgary, echoed these sentiments focusing on the lack legal mechanisms to protect instream flow needs. She noted the difficulties in enforcing the Fisheries Act when damage results from multiple sources on the landscape. (Kwasniak testimony) As if to underscore this point, a recent report by the federal Auditor General’s office points out the shortcomings for both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada to safeguard fish habitat with respect to monitoring, compliance, and defining proactive roles to meet the mandate of the Fisheries Act. (More details on the Auditor General’s report)

Landscape impacts

Many of the witnesses described the extensive physical effects on northern Alberta and downstream areas from oil sands development. Technical experts David Schindler, William Donahue, and Mary Griffiths demonstrated the quantifiable effects of tailings pond leakages, withdrawals from rivers, and in situ mining effects on groundwater.

Donahue made note of decreases in the Athabasca, including a 50 percent decline in the last 30 years in the amount of water coming from the catchment area downstream of Hinton . Such changes will be magnified by climate change, he argued. He noted this trend is on a collision course with expected growth in oil sands extraction, anticipated to increase up to 2.3 million barrels per day by 2020. (Donahue testimony)

Schindler and Griffiths underscored the looming effects on the Athabasca region from different perspectives. Schindler outlined findings from his recent studies that discriminate between natural oil sand seepage into the river and contaminants resulting from oils sand development by looking at 18 sites both upstream and downstream of development. He found that aluminum, arsenic, and mercury all increase substantially downstream of the oils sands and in some cases double their upstream concentrations.

Schindler also presented evidence from the Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative that looked at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – chemicals associated with the oil in the oil sands. While these naturally seep into local water bodies and cause mortalities and deformities, they accounted for up to 95 percent of fish egg mortalities downstream of oil sands mines. (Schindler testimony)
Griffiths focused her presentation on the effects of oils sands on groundwater resources. Because 90 percent of oil sands are too deep to mine, drilling or in situ techniques are used. In situ techniques in this region will have serious consequences for groundwater resources. In 2007, nine million cubic metres of non-saline groundwater were being used for in situ operations, Griffiths stated. (Griffiths testimony)

The effect of this groundwater use on wetlands and surface water will be profound but, according to Griffiths, even the basic data on the affected aquifers is incomplete. Griffiths also pointed to effects on groundwater quality. She pointed out that Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), a drilling technique used with in situ oil sands extraction, heats formations to temperatures that release naturally occurring arsenic into groundwater.

Life downstream — First Nations

Several First Nations witnesses put a human face on the cost of oil sands development for the panel. Fort McKay’s Chief Jim Boucher quantified the loss of his small First Nation’s ability to pursue its way of life. He stated 60 percent of local trap lines were lost to oil sands development and 57 percent of the lands within 20 kilometres his community has been mined or approved for mining. He argued Fort MacKay’s treaty rights to its traditional territory have effectively been extinguished by oil sands leases, which now cover most of his people’s traditional territory.
Boucher noted that, after 40 years of operations, there are no proven and viable reclamation plans for old tailing ponds, which by 2025 will hold one billion cubic metres of degraded processed water in tailing ponds. These ponds are the world’s largest wastewater storage facilities. He implored the federal government to become more involved where it could. (Boucher testimony)

Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation spoke of the dilemma of depending on an increasingly toxic landscape. Since the early 1970s rates of cancer, lupus, asthma, and skin diseases have escalated in the community of Fort Chipewyan. Seventy-eight percent of his community still traditionally harvest food from the land and water as a necessity because of the crushing cost of delivered food such as $13 jugs of milk. He spoke of the frustration of seeing the professionalism of Dr. John O’Connor, the community’s doctor, placed under scrutiny by Health Canada for raising concerns about the connections between oil sands development and his community’s health. (Adam testimony)

J. Michael Miltenberger, Deputy Premier and Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, for the Government of the Northwest Territories (NWT) suggested existing legal agreements could ensure that the impact of oil sands development on the NWT are considered. He noted the 1997 Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Water Agreement, whose signatories are Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories. Miltenberger suggested this agreement has not been fully utilized. He called for a national water strategy as well. (Miltenberger testimony)

Where will the federal government go from here?

The Committee will be preparing a statement for the federal government on how they can improve protection and regulation of water resources in the oil sands region. However, the decades-old trend for the federal government to avoid oil sands development issues will be difficult to alter. While committee members asked penetrating questions of the witnesses throughout the hearings, there was no indication of unity towards greater federal involvement in the oil sands. Nevertheless, Canadians increasingly display their concern about oil sands development in tandem with international attention on the region’s “dirty oil.” MPs who may be receptive to this pressure will also be mindful of Alberta’s resistance to federal involvement, most clearly displayed by the province’s avoidance of the hearings altogether. The strength of the Committee recommendations and future federal government action may be uncertain, but the hearings did act to put the federal government on notice as to their responsibilities and the widespread impacts of oil sands development on water resources. In that respect, there can be no turning back. Look to future issues of the Water Log for updates on the committee’s progress.

Visit Water Matters’ resource page for convenient access to the testimony to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on oil sands and water.

Sources

Government of Canada. 40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd Session Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development – Evidence. Tuesday, May 12, 2009.

Government of Canada. 40th PARLIAMENT, 2nd Session Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development – Evidence. Wednesday, May 13, 2009.