A summary of issues from the Central sub-region facilitated discussion

Morning Session

• Acreage subdivision, infilling of wetlands, groundwater used to water lawns.
• Industrial lands: wholesale clearing of land, creating run-off.
• Strong disconnect between people's understanding about water and where it comes from. Lack of understanding that an individual wetland on your property is connected to others. All wetlands are connected – not just one is drained- 20 others on 20 other properties are drained. Scientists need to get out and talk to landowners about the consequences of draining wetlands – and how everything is connected.
• BHI provides tools to overcome wetland loss:
  • Conservation of wetlands idea from Strathcona: policy of no net loss of wetland.
  • Developers must replace wetlands altered or damaged within their development area.
  • Developers must choose whether to retain the natural systems or try to replicate/reconstruct it. If wetlands are being disturbed, a larger area offset is required to insure effects on natural systems are mitigated.
• Development pressures from Edmonton:
  • Industrial demands: Industrial development in the Industrial Heartland (IH) has/will result in extensive land clearance and changes in the hydrology of the area (surface and groundwater).
  • Rurban and acreages: fragmentation of farmland reduces wetland areas and affects water quality and storage capacity within the landscape. There should be more onus on municipalities to spend money to offset the detrimental effects.
• We are not protecting the natural landscape/ infrastructure, and we're giving it away so cheaply because of the development pressure.
• Confrontation with Ducks Unlimited (DUC). Camrose wants to do its own wetland management.
• Fragmentation: Lamont does not allow development on agricultural land.  They do allow fractured parcels based on working with landscape feature.
• Need for land use planning to support sustainability, conserve agricultural land and protect water resources. BHI is developing tools to address this.
• Few if any applications to modify wetlands in the Headwaters are refused because downstream effects are not being taken into account.

• Data is lacking. Some communities get their water from EPCOR.  Data collection is required regarding how water is used and who is using it. Also need data on water use for areas not on piped water systems.
• Well registrations are only done on a quarter section basis. This creates problems when there are multiple wells in a quarter, such as when there is country residential subdivision.
• Rural subdivisions are being approved without knowing specifically where the water supply will come from.  If from groundwater, there is no information on the local or regional cumulative effects that might be expected. Cumulative effects of multiple domestic water wells are being felt in some areas.
• Seismic affects on groundwater have not been identified.
• Upstream municipalities feel vulnerable to pressures from downstream water users for more water from dams.
• Current drought has significantly reduced agriculture access to surface water.  Alternate sources, such as the mainstem of the river or groundwater, are being investigated. Agriculture cannot access recreational lakes for their supply.

• Industrial Heartland/ Edmonton region – water management data base is needed.
• Water allocation model follows South Saskatchewan River Basin – knowing where the water comes from.
• Ball-bite watering reduces consumption by 60%, and is an economic investment.
• Regional groundwater assessment: some of these studies are 10-12 years old. Aquifer depletion requires that these be revisited. Concern that the cumulative effect of groundwater use by acreage development will result in future problems.
• Multi-lot subdivisions – there could be 50 wells on a quarter section. If an individual acreage owner has a problem with their well, and it is related to use by the quarter section – they have a problem.
• Introduction of water metering to small communities formerly on a fixed rate has significantly reduces consumption, which has numerous benefits.
• Water use measurements and information need to be publicly available.
• Declining recreational lake levels are expected to increase demands for diversions.
• Need to do more measuring of actual water consumption.
• There are opportunities to reduce both the use (amount diverted) and the consumption (the amount lost and not returned to the natural system).
• Some PFRA county groundwater surveys are outdated and need redoing. Counties may not be using the groundwater data available to them.

• Three or more years since sturgeon have been caught in the Sturgeon River.
• Flood risk is minimal.
• While there is information available for the mainstem, there is almost none for the tributaries.
• In some cases, IFN requirements imposed by DFO are a significant constraint on development affecting water courses.
• Drought period – no flow in Sturgeon River – is a perceived downward trend.
• There has been a long term lack of water in many small tributaries in the central and downstream areas.  Best practices are needed regarding wetland and riparian areas.
• Stream flow is naturally highly variable in many tributary streams.  This makes IFN for them very difficult to define.
• There is no baseline for IFNs in Alberta. Note: NSWA is actively trying to develop an IFN for the mainstem as part of the IWMP.
• Counties do not seem to be aware of the fish study done for the Battle River.

• Are there any ‘good’ dams that should be considered, for example, that can provide ‘clean’ energy?
• Dams can add a dimension to the landscape where there few natural lakes.  Alternate view:  we should value the landscape as it naturally exists.
• Stormwater ponds -some people say we should increase the use of impervious ponds and fill the constructed wetlands. But we want to encourage the recharge and increase the filtration rates of natural wetlands.
• Decommissioning dams is never considered. Really need to look at growth management – maybe we need to say no to growth? Dams are a part of this. What is the true cost of them? We need to ask the hard questions.
• About 2007, AENV inventoried dam sites. Surveys from 1930's. Previous work on suitable dam sites – but no plan

• Municipalities manage water.
• GoA is not a lot of help. There were 96 applications for disturbance in a water body - not one was refused by AENV, but caused nothing but issues with Strathcona County.
• AENV has been pursuing a policy of encouraging regional water systems.
• Running numerous small water systems is difficult, particularly having qualified operators and dealing with operating challenges such a variable supply quality.  Regional water systems and pipelines are expensive, but they are often a much better option for supplying safe, reliable water.
• EPCOR is very concerned with source water protection.
• Public often wants equity in water pricing but does not recognize there may be significant additional costs to providing a regional supply.
• Planning typically doesn't take into account ecosystem services of storm-related capacity on the landscape. Stormwater facilities replicate natural conditions, led by a biophysical evaluation.

• Farmers in Camrose County are asking for potable water. Service provision is being requested, but there is no way to do it.
• Camrose County is trying to communicate what the county will look like in 25 yrs to their ratepayers. This is a challenge.

• Dealing with fire bans county-wide is difficult. One area may be in drought and other areas not.

• Lamont would like DUC to recognize its duty in this regard. DUC purchases the land, but there is a lack of land management and control of scentless chamomile – which is not good for agriculture.
• Strathcona had some problem like that. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and eradication is key - not just control/mowing.

• Landowners want to do the right thing – they never knew they were doing the wrong thing!
• Decision making is so often short term and so are people's memories.
• Communication is sometime so complex and prohibitive. Major works (roads/bridges/wetlands) turn into a 4-yr process. These are unacceptable time frames.
• There is disparity between AENV approvals and what local governments want.

Afternoon Session

• Septic compliance for private sewage systems.
• Rural water supply for livestock (non-potable water).
• County residential sprawl.
• Lack of locally –relevant information and convenient access to information (one-stop shopping/portal).
• Landscape modification -  both natural (from beavers) and human.
• Invasive species – conflict with Ducks Unlimited and land management.
• Improved communications between municipal departments and with their Councils.
• Identification and implementation of best practices for counties.
• Jurisdictional issues with other levels of government (GoA).

• Developers
• Approval authorities/appeal boards
• Ducks Unlimited Canada
• Land trusts
• Agricultural societies, landowners, industry, NGO's, village councils,  recreational groups
• Dark Skies; Friends of Elk Island; Friends of Cooking Lake-Blackfoot 
• Northeast Capital Industrial Association (NCIA)
• Urban Development Institute (UDI)
• Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta (ARECA)

• Societal expectations of having reliable water supply vs. the cost – resulting in expensive lifestyles consumers are not willing to pay for.
• Economic development - viability or sustainability - what's the priority?
• How will Land-use Framework (LUF) affect these discussions? No idea or clear direction here.
• Invasive species.
• Coal Bed Methane: What goes up comes back down again, especially from parkland regions with coal plants. Energy sources contribute particulate matter and it rains down in the end.  CASA is working on monitoring this.