One way to evaluate policy is to determine whether the stated goals reflect the public interest and are matched by real tools and management decisions. If the practical implementation of the policy does not uphold the goals, something is amiss.

This is precisely the conundrum facing readers of the November 23 Minister's Advisory Group's (MAG) Recommendations on Water Management and Allocation that provides observations and recommendations on how to improve Alberta's water management and allocation system.

The challenge of the MAG report is that a reasonable person who only reads as far as its recommendations might easily believe there is a correct balancing between the competing uses of water. Unfortunately, a closer reading reveals this isn't the case.

The MAG report's recommendations assert many of the right principles for securing water for human use and the environment. But instead of making direct choices to achieve these particular outcomes, the tools the report sets forth does little more than embrace ineffective tools being used under the current First in Time First In Right System. Meanwhile, the committee recommends a significant acceleration of Alberta's existing water market.

The practical outcome of implementing the MAG report is to expand Alberta's water market without providing more protection for water for aquatic ecosystems and basic human water needs. In fact, we argue that implementation of the MAG committee recommendations will actually threaten aquatic ecosystems more than the current system does.

This is not to say the MAG report does not contain important observations and recommendations for Minister Renner. The report does a good job to illustrate some of the significant challenges with Alberta's current system of water management. And while the report contained some forward thinking recommendations that should be seriously considered by the Minister, it is the close reading of the report's implementation of those recommendations that should be viewed cautiously or even rejected.

Narrow questions lead to narrow answers

It is reasonable that the Alberta government seriously consider all alternatives to manage water — not simply the current one. Oddly, the MAG group side-stepped evaluating alternatives to Alberta's current First in Time, First in Right system and suggests the current system works just fine. This avoids facing up to some difficult facts.

Whatever future system is embraced in Alberta, it is crucial that Alberta shifts from a system that assumes a large supply of water to one that is organized around a limited supply of water. Water Matters and Ecojustice put forward one possible alternative in Share the Water — the adoption of a "share based" system that can currently be found in Australia and Colorado. In our view, this system more closely matches the principles Albertans value: water for all types of users based on current, protected water, and flexibility to transfer water between users without impacts to others.

Protected Water: Legal or Not?

Frequent readers of the Water Log know that protecting the environmental values of rivers means greater protection for other values like water for people and the economy. The MAG report correctly acknowledged that a certain amount of water should be left instream for the protection of the environment. The first recommendation of the report said "Protected Water for watercourses must be established in accordance with science and community values and must then be legally protected." The recommendation is good but a reading of the text below doesn't suggest much more than embracing the current system.

The committee wrongly suggests legal protection can be afforded to Protected Water under the current Water Act. Its assertion that "it is relatively simple to establish Protected Water in river basins that are not close to full allocation" is far from the mark. Rather, the committee recommended the use of a Water Conservation Objective — a water license for the environment. WCOs basically treat the environment like another player participating in the FITFIR's priority system. But not just any player — the least and last. A WCO gives the environment a priority to water — but only of as of the date it is established. This means the environment must stand in line behind the other users in a water shortage. Albertans should not think for a minute that this tool legally or by any other perspective protects any amount of water left in the river. WCOs simply do not protect water, they just mean the environment has a spot in the line up of demand — one near the back.

Let's take the North Saskatchewan river, for example, since it is a basin that is considered, for all practical purposes, under-allocated. Establishing a WCO in this basin will not protect instream flows. It simply says the "environment" must stand behind existing users water from the river. In a low flow situation, the environment will not receive any legal protection. In other words, the intent to protect water and leave it instream will not work even in a basin with theoretically allocation to spare.

The MAG committee is well aware of this problem and suggested some solutions that would start to solve this problem. For example, they suggested the government could "acquire" senior water for the environment. But they did not suggest how this could happen. They supported licensing holdbacks (up to 10 percent of every water transfer can be held back and reclaimed by the government) but did not suggest how this would lead to Protected Water. And they suggested that private organizations can try to acquire water – something that the Alberta government current considers illegal.

Albertans should not accept that the MAG recommendations add up to legal protection for Protected Water. In essence, the committee assumes that an acceleration of Alberta's water market will somehow create this water – something that has never been tested.

Using storage to our advantage

There is also a very important recommendation that we do more to use existing and new storage as a "beneficial tool" in water management and allocation. What does that mean? In general, it means that we can achieve many of our water supply goals (including goals for the environment) by how we operate our dam system.

This recommendation has merit. Water management largely through the alternative operations of dams and diversions could provide some remarkable benefits to the environment and even to a more efficient way to assure water availability is maximized.

Groundwater is part of the system

The committee rightfully agreed that there was a need for an integrated systematic management of groundwater and surface water. This has been an outstanding concern in the southern basins where groundwater is still licensed for use while surface water licenses have been closed.

Promoting conservation or promoting trade?

A strong water allocation system would ensure all users have a strong incentive to conserve water. But without changes to the current system, the incentive to conserve will remain largely with junior licenses — those with less water security. The main incentive for a senior license holder will be to sell unused — not make more efficient use of the existing allocation. Don't count on this happening again if the MAG report is implemented. In 2001, senior licensees saw their unused water as a resource they could share. Under the accelerated market proposed by the MAG report, senior licensees are going to see dollar signs in their unused water.

Expanding Alberta's water market

The advisory committee, heavily leaned toward "invigorating" the process for transferring existing water allocations. In other words: "Let's get this water market moving!"

Some will see Water Matters' scrutiny of these recommendations as "anti-market." In fact, we are neither pro-market nor anti-market. We are only interested in assuring water is set aside for the economy, people, and environment with real legal protections.

We draw attention to the committee's 5th recommendation — one that the Minister should consider very seriously. Its resolution will play a significant role in the amount of water left in rivers as well as in the issue of ensuring water is allocated for people.

Recommendation #5: The Minister must clarify the amount of water the licencee is entitled to transfer. The Water Act does not deal clearly with this and it must ultimately be resolved for the transfer system to achieve its full potential.

This is a good recommendation. Why is this important? The Alberta government estimates that water users utilize only 55 percent of the amount of water that is licenced for use. There is a clear opportunity for the government to cancel water that has not been used, reclaim it as public water, and then determine whether some of that water can be left instream or re-allocated to for human use.

Undermining this recommendation is a key assertion by the committee. They argue that water should not be "taken away against the wishes of the licencee." In other words, they say water that was given away by the government for free as long as 50 or 75 or 100 years ago is effectively a property right that can be sold by the owner and not appropriated by the government. The implications of this position are enormous. Consider this: Alberta's river systems depend heavily on this "non use" of water. If the government pursues the committee's recommendations allowing for the selling off of unused, water it could very likely threaten rivers systems more than any other recommendation made in this report.

Streamlining or Deregulating?

Finally, the report states that "operational barriers" should be removed as they place significant costs on the transferee and transferor of water. Consequently, the committee suggests the creation of a new system that is streamlined, simple, and reduces complexity. It sounds good but the practical considerations are most important as many of the so-called barriers were actually designed to provide for public oversight of the system.

Finally, the committee's recommendation to abolish Water Management Plans is significant and troubling. This surprising recommendation was premised on one very misguided assumption: that once water is protected, there is no need for such a plan. But remember, the committee really didn't recommend legal protections for Protected Water. It recommends a WCO that does not create legal protections at all.

Moving forward

The Alberta government signaled that they wish to bring forward a set of options to the public in the spring. It is very likely this report commissioned by the Alberta government will form the basis of that proposal. We caution against full adoption of this report as it sets a very dangerous precedent for a water market that does not truly embrace the idea of ensuring water is protected and set aside for the environment, people, and the economy.

There are some very tough decisions facing this government. There is a legacy of decisions made for over 100 years under our First-In-Time First-In-Right system that must be confronted. We cannot avoid the reality that the current system needs significant improvements. We need options that confront our water allocation problems directly and clearly. We have tried to assert some in our Share the Water report, and look forward to bringing more options to Albertans in the coming months.

Sources

Alberta Environment. 2009. Minister's Advisory Group: Recommendations for Improving Alberta's Water Management and Allocation. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. (accessed November 24, 2009).