Deputy Reeve Delilah Miller will lobby the Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon to require a petition of 10 per cent of the affected landowners for objections to water treatment facilities that affect whole communities, following past appeals in Turner Valley.
“I don’t think that it is fair to any municipality to be held at ransom over one person objecting,” she said at the June 26 council meeting. “I think if there was an issue people would still be able to exercise their right to object, but it has to be a certain percentage of the population.”
Council endorsed the draft resolution following a discussion regarding protecting residents’ right to appeal if affected by a facility and an adjustment to the wording.
The resolution requests the Rural Municipal Association (RMA) ask the AEP to adjust the processes on municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities approvals or renewals to “require that for a statement of concern of appeal to be valid, 10 per cent of the landowners deemed to be affected would have to endorse the statement of concern or appeal.”
Miller and CAO Harry Riva Cambrin worked on the resolution together to make the wording effective to cover both rural and urban residents.
“I had a concern with it as a rural issue, where say you were opposing a gas line going through your property, how would you get 10 per cent of the whole of Foothills County,” said Miller.
As a result, the resolution specifies the 10 per cent must come from the landowners deemed to be affected—essentially, should a project affect one landowner they would constitute their own 10 per cent, rather than an entire town or county. Should more landowners be affected, the 10 per cent petition would be required for a letter of concern or appeal, in order to protect the interests of the community.
“They can still go to a hearing, it still covers people’s rights to appeal, but it stops one person from appealing, such as the case was in Turner Valley—or two people, in that case,” she said.
Coun. Rob Siewert expressed concern in the original wording of the resolution—which originally read as “Municipal approvals or renewals,” prior to the addition of “water and wastewater treatment facilities”—believing it could interfere with a landowner’s right to express valid concerns.
“My concern with what we’re asking for—if we have one person affected, so there might be (a service for) 100 people, if it’s an issue that only affects the one then they would be not allowed to put in a letter of concern,” he said.
Miller said the Province would have to rule if the landowner was affected or not, and if they were affected it would still be valid.
“If they’re not affected I really don’t see why they should be allowed to hold up the project,” she said. “They can voice their concerns, they can still write letters to the Province saying their concern, and then the Province can weigh in and have a look at it.
“But I don’t think they should be allowed to hold the process up and cost the municipality millions of dollars (when) they have no valid concern in the issue.”
While the resolution is specified as directed to Water and Wastewater Approvals, council agreed to add the specification in the wording of the final paragraph to reiterate that the resolution only applies to those treatment facilities—which are a required service.
“If it’s a water facility, which you’re being forced to build in the first place—there has to be a certain number of individuals, not just one that can throw this out,” said Riva Cambrin.
He used the example of the Blackie water treatment plant: should the Province change the standards under the current system, when the plant would go for a renewal of its licences, an appeal process could be started by one complaint.
“If you have one person that files a statement of concern about the water that we’re producing there and then we end up in appeals, it’s going to cost us 500 grand to go to this appeal,” he said. “Shouldn’t, in that case, there be 10 per cent of people that receive that service that have to sign on to file a statement of concern and take this to an appeal, not just one person.”
With the addition of the specification of “municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities,” council endorsed the resolution and the choice to use the 2015 SRRUC appeal case as background.
The resolution was inspired by the Sheep River Region Utility Corporation (SRRUC) having spent nearly $600,000 on the last appeal process in 2015 in legal fees and engineers, due to what Miller said was a single letter of concern.
The hearing was held in response to Roxanne Walsh and Julie Walker’s appeals regarding the construction of an infiltration gallery residents in the Sheep River and its connection to the water treatment plant.
Walsh and Walker claimed the town’s drinking water was unsafe and asked the Alberta Environment Appeals Board to require more testing and the Town to provide data proving the safety.
Though the Province declared the drinking water safe in the fall of 2015, the Alberta Minister of Environment and Parks at the time ordered the Town to change its water monitoring process and improve communication with the public.
The appeal process cost the Town of Turner Valley $584,563.
The Town recovered the costs of a prior appeal process in 2015 through the Disaster Recovery Program (DRP), as the gallery was required to fully restore the combined water supply that existed in the two towns prior to the flood.
With the water returned to pre-flood conditions earlier this year, SRRUC would not be able to claim the expenses of another appeal process should one incur.
Miller said at the meeting in June that the corporation does not have the money for another appeal, and would likely fold if the resident was to contest again.
As an essential service for the region, if SRRUC was to fold Turner Valley, Black Diamond, and Foothills County would have to pay out their shares. With Turner Valley and Black Diamond having shares of 45 per cent each and the County at 10, it would affect those communities hard, said Miller.
