NWT asks Alberta to keep better track of water leaks, it awaits response

The Northwest Territories is proposing to amend its water agreement with Alberta to better monitor any spills that may enter its waterways. However, the company is still waiting for Alberta’s full response to the proposal.

In April, the NWT proposed updating the notification protocols of the NWT-Alberta Transboundary Waters Agreement.

It is suggested that specific thresholds, such as the size of the spill, the type of spill, and the location of the spill, would create clear triggers for when Alberta must notify the area.

The cross-border water agreement commits the province and territory to sustainable water management and to communicating changes that increase the risk of damage to water flowing north across the border.

“It’s a very important agreement on which democracies build their governments and societies,” said Michael Miltenberger, the NWT’s environment secretary, when the agreement was signed in 2015.

The proposal is in response to a mine tailings spill at Imperial Oil’s Kearl facility, one of the largest tar sands spills in Alberta’s history.

In 2023, the then-NWT Environment Minister said Alberta had breached the agreement when he learned of the spill through the media. He said it was a breach of the commitment to notify the NWT of developments that could impact the ecosystem.

Alberta disagreed, saying it has never violated the Transboundary Water Management Agreement.

Still, Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said in a statement that improvements are a natural part of any long-term agreement.

The NWT wants to be better informed about water flowing north from Alberta. The Kearl oil sands mine is located near the Athabasca River. That river flows north to Lake Athabasca, then via the Slave River into the NWT, to Great Slave Lake and the Mackenzie River, and all the way to the Arctic Ocean. (CBC)

A spokesperson for the NWT Ministry of Environment and Climate Change said the ministry could not release details about the proposal because it is still under consultation with Alberta.

He said there is no set timeline for completing the updates, only that they are aiming to complete it “as quickly as possible.”

The Alberta government did not respond to questions from the CBC about any objections to the proposed changes to the area or a timeline for its response.

The NWT Environment Minister’s spokesperson told CBC in an email that senior officials discussed the issue at a meeting the week of July 16, but that the territory “has not yet received a substantive response from Alberta.”

‘Ultimate downstream jurisdiction’

Miltenberger said the Northwest Territories are in a tough negotiating position as “the ultimate downstream jurisdiction” that holds Alberta accountable for its commitments to inform the territory about waterfront developments.

“We’re not saying fix everything and we want to fix those leaking reservoirs,” he said. “We’re just saying you’ve committed to informing us.”

He said the delay in completing the updates could be due to a number of reasons, but added that when a government doesn’t want to do something, they “just throw a spanner in the works”.

“And the pollution continues to leak out of all their ponds,” he said.

Michael Miltenberger, who was environment minister when the transboundary water agreement was signed, says the timeline for implementing changes to the agreement could be a huge challenge for Alta. (CBC)

Jason Unger, director of the Environmental Law Centre in Edmonton, said updating the reporting requirements would help the downstream jurisdiction — the Northwest Territories — make informed decisions about how to respond to spills in the watershed.

Under the agreement, the parties agree to report activities that “may” affect the ecological integrity of the other party’s aquatic ecosystem.

But Unger said it’s up to the upstream jurisdiction — Alberta — to assess the risk and decide whether to report it. He said it makes sense to take a precautionary measure and ask to be notified of all spills above a certain threshold.

“It could be that 95 percent of the reports you get are actually of no importance whatsoever,” he said.

“But that’s better than perhaps overlooking something that actually carries a big risk.”

Unger says these types of agreements test the willingness to work together in good faith.

“How are they going to respond to a jurisdiction further down the chain that has raised concerns in a timely manner and how are they actually going to address some of the concerns?”