Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy

The episode—from the Water in Southern Alberta podcast miniseries co-hosted with Bob Morrison which originally aired in June 2025—brings together legal and planning experts to unpack how Alberta’s water law and water market function, especially in southern Alberta. Arlene Kwasniak, a long‑time scholar of water law from the University of Calgary, outlines the complex legal framework governing water, starting from the Canadian Constitution’s division of powers between federal and provincial governments over issues like fisheries, navigation, federal lands, Indigenous lands, and provincial property in water. She emphasizes that alongside federal and provincial statutes, Indigenous law, common law, international law, and policy all influence water management, but her focus is on Alberta’s Water Act and water‑use rights. Before modern legislation, common law riparian rights gave only landowners adjacent to water bodies limited household and “extraordinary” uses, with built‑in equity and sustainability because all riparians shared the same rights and could enforce them in court. These rights were largely extinguished by the Northwest Irrigation Act, which vested ownership of provincial waters in the Crown and introduced the prior allocation principle—“first in time, first in right” (FITFIR)—where licence priority is determined by date of application and senior users are fully satisfied before juniors in times of shortage.

Arlene traces the evolution from the Northwest Irrigation Act to Alberta’s Water Resources Act and then the Water Act, noting that groundwater was brought under Crown ownership and FITFIR in 1962, replacing the old rule of capture. The Water Act introduced major river basin divisions and approved water management plans—currently for the South Saskatchewan, Battle, and Milk River basins—which must be considered in key regulatory decisions like transfers. It also created statutory authorizations: household and agricultural exemptions with quantified annual volumes, and licences that grant diversion rights for specified purposes (municipal, irrigation, commercial, habitat enhancement, recreation, water conservation objectives, and others) typically on renewable 10‑year terms, while older licences have no expiry and are easily renewed. New licences can include water conservation objective (WCO) conditions that allow the director to restrict diversions when flows fall below set thresholds, whereas older licences may have in‑stream objectives (IOs) that are generally less protective. Arlene contrasts both WCOs and IOs with scientifically determined in‑stream flow needs (IFNs), arguing that WCOs and IOs are more politically set and often below IFN levels, limiting ecosystem protection.

Assessing the Water Act against an idealized water law, Arlene finds major shortcomings. She notes that while there are some tools to curb impacts for new licences, existing licences are strongly protected, there is no expropriation power for water rights, and cancellation is only possible when rights have gone unused for three years with no reasonable prospect of use. The Act offers only limited mechanisms to secure sufficient in‑stream flows, does not recognize or secure Indigenous water rights, and does not integrate quantity and quality regulation, conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, formal watershed governance, clear rules for alternative sources (wastewater, rainwater, stormwater, saline water), or climate change mitigation and adaptation—though the government is proposing amendments on some of these fronts. Household use has the highest priority, partially securing basic human needs. Overall, Arlene would grade the Act a “D” and says she would not pass it, arguing Alberta could have moved away from FITFIR toward more equitable systems like those in Saskatchewan, Australia, and New Zealand, but powerful sectors—oil and gas, municipalities, and agriculture—resisted change. In practice, Davin McIntosh—a water rights consultant and broker who specializes in facilitating water transfers in Alberta, with prior experience as a planning and municipal development lawyer and involvement in a significant proportion of water transfers in the Bow River Basin and Southern Alberta—points out that priority calls under FITFIR are rarely made, with Alberta preferring voluntary reductions to avoid cutting off junior users, especially municipalities whose licences are technically subject to FITFIR but whose drinking water cannot realistically be curtailed.

Davin then explains why and how water transfers were introduced. As recognition grew in the 1980s–1990s that full exercise of long‑standing rights could push rivers below environmentally sustainable levels, the Water Act added transfer provisions, and a 2007 moratorium on new licences in many areas made transfers the main mechanism for reallocating water. He describes an eight‑step process:

* finding a suitable right (difficult because rights are rarely advertised and cancellation risk discourages signalling non‑use),

* negotiating price and contracts despite uncertainty of approval,

* confirming the licence is in good standing (including compliance checks and sometimes costly reconstruction of works to match old plans),

* submitting a paper application,

* responding to extensive and discretionary requests for information from the director,

* publishing mandatory public notice and handling statements of concern, possible public meetings, and finally a decision. He highlights the director’s broad discretion and evolving, often unwritten policies—such as disallowing transfers “around a corner” in a Y‑shaped tributary, apportionment rules limiting how much can move from a mainstem to a tributary,

* partial good‑standing determinations, and

* the 10% conservation holdback that created government WCO licences but is now proposed to be scrapped due to limited overall transfer volumes.

With only about 400 transfers approved since 2007, roughly half being arm’s‑length, the conservation holdback has not significantly boosted in‑stream protection.

Throughout the discussion, we stress that enforcement of ecological needs and federal powers has been weak. Arlene notes that IFNs are not directly recognized in the Water Act, that WCOs and IOs fall short of IFNs, and that private in‑stream flow licences are not currently allowed, though government can and has issued WCO licences to itself.

More water lessons within the Water In Southern Alberta miniseries.

Bob Sandford introduces himself to the Concerned Citizens on Climate Change (4C) group, in February of 2026, as a long-time Alberta-based water and climate expert who now serves as senior government relations liaison for global climate emergency response at the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, noting that his institute recently launched a major global report on “global water bankruptcy” at the UN General Assembly. He frames his remarks within UN principles and Indigenous rights, emphasizing that all cultures contribute to a shared human heritage. From his vantage point as an Albertan, he criticizes the UCP government’s libertarian direction, arguing that its policies undermine healthcare, education, and environmental protection while flooding the public sphere with divisive, misleading messaging that distracts from deeper crises and an apparent agenda to dismantle democracy and separate Alberta from Canada. He warns that amid these distractions, a long‑advancing global water crisis has become an even more immediate threat than accelerated climate warming, which Alberta’s government largely denies.

Sandford explains the UN “global water bankruptcy” concept as a post‑crisis state where societies persistently withdraw more water than renewable flows can support, depleting natural capital such as snowpack, glaciers, wetlands, and groundwater that provide “liquid income.” The report shows that even water‑rich countries like Canada, and regions such as southern Alberta, are not immune and may be nearing water bankruptcy, prompting initiatives like the Canada Water Agency. He argues that Alberta has failed to “repay” nature through forest, watershed, and biodiversity protection, and that maladaptive responses—creating weak watershed bodies, building more dams, drilling deeper wells, and diverting rivers—temporarily mask insecurity while deepening insolvency. Nature, he says, is now “initiating foreclosure” by shutting off water, as seen in glacier loss and shrinking snow and ice, and each drained wetland or logged headwater further erodes resilience beyond what engineering can replace.

Summary continues before this news update!

WOW: Did you see Hoekstra on Ryan Jespersen’s Real Talk?

With water bankruptcy—and the West Texas Intermediate system collapse on the horizon—can you believe what is coming out of Pete Hoekstra’s mouth?

Frequency of Contact with Alberta Premier:

Admits that he talks to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith “maybe once every three or four weeks” and speaks with her representatives in Ottawa “at least every week.”

Lack of Expertise on Canadian Perspectives:

States: “I’m not an expert on Canadian citizens or why they think the way that they do or what drives them and those kinds of things.” This is Pete’s job.

Acknowledgment of the “No Need for Canada” Position:

Confirms: “He says we don’t need Canada” — acknowledging that the president has made this statement on the record.

The Sales Approach:

Expects the Canadian provinces to “put on your sales hat” and actively pitch why buying from Canada is beneficial, rather than expecting automatic trade relationships.

Bob and Water Bankruptcy continued

Looking ahead, Sandford urges Alberta to formally acknowledge water bankruptcy risk and adopt transparent, fair rules for sharing scarcity, with participatory processes and strong social safety nets—conditions he says are absent under the current government. He links water security directly to food security and broader sustainable and circular economies, noting that water is often the only issue warring or divided groups can agree on, citing examples from the Middle East, the Northwest Territories, and transboundary agreements with Alberta. He highlights emerging climate science from James Hansen suggesting another El Niño and accelerated warming that could push global temperatures toward 2°C in the 2030s, with Canada warming at twice the global rate, implying severe drought, reduced snowpack, year‑round wildfire risk, and deep social and economic disruption in Alberta by 2027 and beyond. He likens the current moment to “Munich 1939,” arguing that Alberta is unprepared for three degrees of warming, with unpredictable precipitation, concurrent floods and droughts, and increasingly manipulated water licensing.

Politically, Sandford and other speakers connect water to a broader project of “rescuing, reviving, and restoring democracy” in Alberta, suggesting that the looming threat of water bankruptcy could galvanize citizens across issues like education, healthcare, and food security without relying on existing political parties.

TAKE ACTION

Join Public Interest Alberta’s, “No thanks. We choose hope.” Campaign!

The episode of The Gravity Well podcast features Jessica Chung from the Council of Canadians, focusing on AI data centres, their environmental and social impacts, and emerging cross‑Canada resistance movements.

Jessica introduces herself as a water and climate campaigner, formerly a Line 5 pipeline organizer with Sierra Club Canada, living in Guelph with her family. She shares a story about activist Kim Bradshaw lending her a car so Kim could travel by train to glue her hands to an airport tarmac in an anti–big oil action, illustrating “community in action.”

Jessica describes her unusual path into activism: she left law school after being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, then became a yoga teacher, which shaped her ability to “hold space” in movements. This conversation came after I watched a pro‑pipeline “Build Ontario Strong” ad promoting gas for AI infrastructure and wanted an Ontario perspective. Jessica recounts a recent two‑day Civil Society Summit on the AI industry, with 270 attendees and panels on Indigenous data sovereignty, environmental harms, gender‑based violence, labour, war, food systems, corporate accountability, and AI in media and arts. She stresses the summit was not about shaming everyday AI use (like email summarization) but about how AI is being used as a “front person” for oil and gas, justifying continued fossil fuel expansion under nationalist competition narratives.

Jessica frames AI as a neutral tool—like a hammer—whose impact depends on who controls it, what rules exist, and how power is exercised. I echo this, arguing AI can be used for “pro‑social” purposes such as organising toward a water‑centred economy, minimizing energy use, and keeping systems local rather than controlled by foreign entities. I link AI expansion to abandonment of international law and corporate accountability, warning of ecological collapse and citing examples of water contamination and freshwater loss in places like Texas and Louisiana.

Jessica explains that civil society is trying to reclaim the AI narrative from “tech bros” who have captured political attention, and to invite everyday people into the conversation. She notes that youth, highly adept with digital tools, are at the forefront of resisting AI data centres and can mobilise quickly even within short public‑input windows and confirms summit recordings are available at AICivilsociety.ca. I highlight @Alberta_Anti_AI, an Instagram group with over 3,000 members in under a month, and describes coordinated rallies in Alberta and Ontario, including a Unity rally and anti‑AI rally in Calgary, and a previous provincial‑wide day of action with thousands in Edmonton, Calgary, and [21] other locations. Check out @Solstice’s video from the main event in Calgary here.

Jessica cites Hamilton and Burks Falls (Ontario) as recent examples of local resistance, noting that some victories—like projects stopped before shovels hit the ground—are under‑reported but real. In Burks Falls, two 20‑year‑old women organized opposition that led the city to take a data centre proposal off the table. She emphasizes that activism often slows rather than fully stops projects, buying time for alternative paths to emerge. I agree, it’s a David‑and‑Goliath struggle where our wins are measured in delays and vigilance.

I describe Alberta communities organizing against massive data centres, including one 1.4‑gigawatt project (equivalent to 1.4 million homes’ energy use) that drew over 1,100 statements of concern. I criticize incomplete accounting that ignores upstream gas extraction and frac’ing, pointing out that water used in fracking is permanently lost. She mentions strong pushback in Grande Prairie and multiple sites near Calgary, with communities sharing strategies and resources like the airesistlist.org website.

Jessica tells me municipalities are key battlegrounds because AI data centres intersect with zoning, real estate, and venture capital. She describes efforts to support youth organizers who want June 27 to become a national day of action, prompted by BC Greens leader Emily Lowen. With only 16 days’ lead time, they are building a decentralized toolkit tailored to the Canadian context and engaging about 200 people across sectors to define what civil society should be in this moment. She argues AI threatens the entire political spectrum and cites Mark Carney’s “AI for All” strategy as essentially focused on ensuring adoption, not democratic consent.

I underscore AI is unifying issue across left and right, tied to water, surveillance, safety, jobs, and environmental destruction. I cite the Wonder Valley project, which she says would be the largest heat source in the world, and name large AI data centres “gas guzzling” and resource‑wasting infrastructure serving billionaires, contrasting them with low‑power, everyday AI uses. Jessica clarifies that “AI” is often used as a monolithic term, but the real empire project is the race toward AGI—machines outperforming humans on all tasks—requiring massive power to scrape the entire internet. She notes AI can also be small‑scale and community‑oriented, such as tools for preserving local languages. However, she argues current dominant uses deepen social inequity rather than reduce it.

I give a concrete example of AI‑enabled monetization: vehicles from 2026 onward reportedly requiring subscriptions for features like heated seats and full radio use, effectively taxing people’s own property and widening divides. I support national coordination and cites Taiwan’s Audrey Tang using digital tools to achieve 90% public support for policies before voting, as well as the town of Olds exploring people‑driven economic planning instead of elite committees. I link AI data centres to centralized power generation, arguing that renewables’ strength lies in decentralization and security, especially as wars make large {oil and gas] facilities, including AI centres, potential military targets.

Jessica reflects on a broader shift from “power over” to “power with,” calling solidarity a “miracle” given humanity’s long, often violent history. She notes that people now show solidarity beyond shared language or appearance, citing global concern for Gaza as an example. She argues big‑tent movements should not require full consensus and asks how much agreement is really needed to work together, given our survival is intertwined. She references Maud Barlow’s warning that within about 10 years there could be a 40% global water shortfall, stressing the urgency as billionaires continue extracting both resources and power. She highlights that many US AI data‑centre fights are led by everyday people—barbers, teenagers, young adults—and frames this as a moment where “the box has crumbled,” asking who we want to be.

I agree that anyone who cares can participate and recounts narratives that divide provinces: Alberta stereotypes about Ontario’s “Laurentian elites” and Ontarians allegedly seeing Albertans as backward “bow hunks” needing outside guidance. I warn these stories hinder cooperation even as shared threats like AI data centres and looming “water bankruptcy” (citing UN water expert Bob Sandford’s work) demand unity and ecological restoration. I ask Jessica how these narratives look from Ontario.

Jessica says her view of other provinces is primarily relational, shaped by people she’s worked with rather than media narratives, and she feels “unplugged” from many ads and stereotypes because she doesn’t watch organized sports. She acknowledges that separatist movements and social media algorithms fuel judging and generalizing about entire provinces. She stresses that relational work is “everything” because elites benefit when people are easily controlled by pre‑packaged narratives. She cites reports that first‑year university students struggle to finish full papers due to social media’s impact on attention, warning this undermines future capacity to read complex bills or arguments. She argues that change will come less from perfect arguments and more from thousands of people building relationships and community resilience as crises—especially in the Global South—intensify. She frames “divide and conquer” as a deliberate strategy of those in power and calls for stretching our capacity to see each other freshly, beyond conditioning.

I point to Gaza as both horrifying and inspiring, noting that people there have not turned on each other despite extreme conditions. I see this as a lesson in solidarity. I recall a Chinese government representative describing an “inevitability of peace,” which she finds a hopeful framing for this transition from power over to power with. I believe stopping further system deterioration would itself be a remarkable achievement and feel encouraged by emerging resistance.

In closing, Jessica emphasizes that activism is deeply personal and often happens in quiet, internal moments: noticing when we react to flattening narratives, asking who benefits if we believe them, and cultivating a habit of reflection. She calls this “life finding its own intelligence” and stresses that activism is not only public action but also slowing down with ourselves, questioning anger and manipulation before acting. I connect this to spiritual practice and “micro moments” of discernment—asking who is speaking, for whose benefit, and whether a message is truly for us—suggesting such practices are becoming more common.

Join the AI Civil Society today!

AICivilSociety.ca

Welcome and Introduction to Brad Chapin

Jenny:

Here. Thank you so much. Okay, Alex, why don’t you take us away, please?

Alex:

Hi, my name’s Alex. Welcome to The Gravity. Well, where we break down heavy ideas into small buckets anyone can handle in our work and at play, we seek the wisdom of elders, individuals, and communities that share our knowledge to care for our water, air, land, life, and resource needs. Caring for our homeland will be our guide.

Jenny:

Thank you for that introduction, Alex. Thank you everyone for joining us. Really appreciate you being here. Hi Michele. Thank you so much for being here. I am excited about this conversation today. Just going to take a moment though to reflect on last week. Angie and Merrill, thank you so much for being here. We had a great conversation. We spoke about why we’re doing The Gravity Well. We spoke about our mission statement, then we talked through what we see. Hi Dion. Thank you for joining us. We talked through how we want to handle problems that come up in conversations. We wanted to work through our method, the method that Alex and I took in this complex decision-making course, which helps us work through the six W approach to all of the problems we want to talk about in this room. Both Angie and Melanie helped us talk through building a community agreement, making sure that we have space for people to offer suggestions, and making sure that we’re using the tools in this room.

Brad, for your information, if you hold down on your image, you can do things like add emojis or images or things like that to help kickstart, just show support of a comment or anything like that. Awesome. Great job. We’re just going to use the tools in the room. There is a chat in the bottom left feature as well. Hi Merrill, thank you so much for being such a great supporter. and for being here. We’re going to use those tools to help us work through these conversations. And if we have any challenges, we’re going to look to our community and to our rules to make sure that we stay on course. This particular conversation has been a long time coming, not necessarily for Brad, but certainly for me. I met a woman that is from Calgary and she offered me her story.

Her name is Mary. She’s a mutual friend of Brad and I’s. And Mary grew up in Ontario. She moved to Alberta and had an accident on her bike almost immediately after moving to Alberta. And that accident put her life on a different course. One of the things that it meant for her was that she could no longer afford to drive or ride her bike because she was hurt. She took the bus and while using transit, ended up getting, she had, what ended up being, a stalker for quite some years, or certainly a significant amount of time. And the threats that this person put on her caused her tremendous PTSD. Mary was suffering from PTSD and started to get suicidal thoughts from that experience. And she thankfully wasn’t successful in that, but was because she was struggling with this for so long and she decided that she was going to just research and understand what she was going through.

She researched, and Brad, you can help me expand upon this story if you know it differently. She researched for years, or at least for a significant amount of time, and found Brad and Brad’s work. What Mary described from learning from Brad is that she was able to see what was happening to her in real-time, like physically. She said, that she remembers Brad walking through a diagram, which I’m going to share with you once I stop talking here. I’ll put a link in this chat so you guys can see the images that Brad presented to share for us to walk through today, but that his work changed her life and she feels that this work is vital in terms of helping people work through their fears and helping them shape a healthy life and make sure that we each have the tools to look after ourselves. That’s what Brad’s work is trying to do. I’ll stop there. Brad, if you please unmute yourself and just introduce yourself a little bit and what you’re hoping to bring to the conversation today, as well? Thank you.

About Brad Chapin and his behavioral health/self-regulation work

Brad:

Yeah, thank you Jenny for that introduction. Thank you for telling Mary’s story. I work with a lot of people from all over the United States and other countries too, but Mary’s story sort of sticks with you and we’ve stayed in contact for a number of years and she’s just been such an advocate, just a passionate advocate for mental health. And just also I think one of the things I’ve gotten from her, and it really pushes a person like that, pushes professionals to do work better too. She’s a motivator for me, but just to hear a person with lived experience and how the system is difficult for them to navigate and get where they need to be and how can we do things better for people who are looking for ways to help themselves. That’s really where I’ve spent the 20-some years of my career in the applied setting. I don’t sit on a university campus somewhere and tell people how we’ve been doing things for the last hundred years. And I think I appreciate those people and I read those journal articles and the work that they do, but there’s definitely something to be said and working in an applied setting. I don’t know, Jenny, if you want me to introduce myself a little bit here or

Jenny:

Yeah, please, Brad, if you wouldn’t mind. I have you in, is it Topeka, Kansas? Is that how you say it?

Brad:

It’s Topeka, Kansas, yes.

Jenny:

It’s great. Yeah, if you just wouldn’t mind speaking a bit about what you’re doing right now would be awesome.

Brad:

Sure. I’ll just share a little bit. I wish I just had to say right up front, I wish I had Alex’s voice. It would probably sound so much better. I probably could listen to him just report the weather. But for me, I’m a master’s level psychologist and spent a number of years at the beginning of my career doing therapy and psychological evaluations for kids and adults. And then 13 years I worked in what we call here, community mental health centers. Those are places that people go that don’t have very good insurance, sometimes no insurance, and we are set up with some government funding to help those folks be able to afford mental health care. That was 13 years. And then the last eight years I’ve been director of clinical services for large healthcare systems, behavioral health department. I oversee 52 inpatient psychiatric beds, 20 for kids and 32 for adults.

And then we have full outpatient services that we do for behavioral health. We do about 35,000 hours of mental health outpatient services a year for Topeka and the surrounding counties. We go from Frontier, what we call Frontier. Those are very rural areas, also a high Native American population. And then to urban areas, which Topeka, we call it urban. It’s about a hundred thousand people, but not massively urban. But by Kansas standards, it’s urban. That’s what I’ve been doing. And then my biggest passion though is self-regulation training. And I think that’s kind of what Jenny wanted me to come and talk here about, which is getting basic skills. You hear this language around mental health literacy is big right now. It’s getting basic information to people that they can use without having to wait on a list to go see somebody for therapy or maybe not understand what they can do to help themselves. How do we break these skills down into meaningful chunks that people can apply in their lives and see results very quickly? That’s my background.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. The piece that has stuck with me, Brad, is the fact that your work, as you’ve noted, is a person only needs six hours of training to have a significant change in their life knowing this work. Is that correct?

Brad:

Yeah, it’s so amazing. We started with kids with these skills because I mean, who doesn’t want to get there earlier? And I started my work with adults and it was just like, gosh, what if we could have gotten to this person 25, 35 years ago? Would they even need to come see me at this point in their life? We worked on developing evidence-based skill training guides for teachers and school counsellors to use with kids. We have an elementary curriculum, a preschool curriculum, and a middle school, and high school curriculum. And then I was reading some, and I knew this all along, but just the basic logic that was telling me, what if the adults aren’t doing well enough to get these skills to the kids? What if the teachers aren’t feeling well enough themselves? We had data to show that our teachers who were able to apply these skills in their own lives, the kids benefited from that, their scores, their self more than those who weren’t applying it in their own lives.

Our data is showing right now. I’ve done, I don’t know how many, we, of course, I’ve done training in 38 states and Canada, five or six times in Singapore, but we have data on over 5,000 kids and adults. But more recently, in our adult data, we’ve been focusing on educators and healthcare professionals. And a lot of that was brought on by Covid. Our health system, we have about 6,000 employees, and we’re a Mayo Clinic. I don’t know if you’ve heard of the Mayo Clinic here in the US, but a large healthcare system, Mayo Clinic care network partner. What we do is teach resilience and self-regulation. And of course, about three months into the pandemic, we realized that our healthcare professionals were not doing well, managing everything they were trying to manage. Our one-day training on self-regulation skills has been yielding a 40% reduction in what we call perceived stress.

And if you think about that concept, it’s really important. That’s how much control you feel like you have over your stress level. It’s not going to magically take your stressors away, but what we’re after is what can we put into your hands in a day so that you can walk away and feel like you have more power and control over the level of stress I’m experiencing? And I was like, what a wonderful way to spend a day. And then just the stories that we hear after the day, just some of the anecdotal stuff like I don’t fight with my teenage daughter anymore, my husband and I are getting along better. We’re having conversations around things that we were angry about before that we couldn’t even sit down and talk about meetings are going better. Just some of these really practical applications when people can manage themselves a little bit better. Some of the other stuff fixes itself to put it short.

Jenny:

Awesome. Before we go too far into your work, I want to just quickly take a moment and let Alex introduce himself as well. And Alex, if you wouldn’t mind just offering what you’ve done a bit of research on Brad’s work too, or just some of your perspective, some of what you’re bringing into this conversation. I’ll stop there.

Alex:

Sure. Won’t dive too deep into it, but I too am a person with lived experience and I’ve had to lean on professionals from time to time to overcome my obstacles and my stress-reactive tendencies. I was looking a bit into the history of some of the work that you do, and please, Dr. Chapin, correct me if I’m incorrect, but is the origin and developmental systems theory? Is it based on the human ability to simply at first acknowledge that there is a physiological stress reaction and in that acknowledgement the developed tools to at least manage or overcome those?

Brad:

Yeah, I love simple and you’re correct. Systems theory has a lot to do with this, and we know from systems theory that organisms systems do perform better when they’re balanced and systems will also seek out balance. It’s just, are the ways that they find healthy or unhealthy? I don’t want to get too deep into that, but yes, since you opened that door, that explains the first domain. We teach skills in three areas, physical regulation, emotion regulation, and cognitive regulation. And I think where you were going with that one was the physical balance of our biological system for great.

Who needs behavioral health/self-regulation training?

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, let’s get into this. Who needs self-regulation training? If you can just sort of expand on, as you’ve already done, you’ve touched on that this is children, this is adults, but just expand on who needs it and a bit more as to why it’s important just before we dive in.

Brad:

Yeah, sure. One of the first things I say in my opening line in my training is that if you’re not experiencing any challenge in your life or you’ve never experienced a challenge or won’t ever experience a challenge, you can probably go ahead and tune out. Experienced challenges in going to regulate in a healthy way or an unhealthy way in the face of challenge. There’s no way around it that I can see. It’s going to happen. And that’s what I think is interesting about when we work with kids. It’s like, well, we don’t have time to teach them or we don’t have time to do this. It’s like, well, they’re going to do it one way or another. They’re going to learn these things. They’re going to learn healthy ways to manage challenges in their life or unhealthy. And that’s as simple as I can put it.

To me, it’s a human skill. I love this topic too, because it’s unifying. If you’re a human being on this planet, you’ve experienced challenges. And also chances are you weren’t formally taught how to do that, especially how to manage social-emotional challenges. I think you probably what happens is if we don’t have a formal system for managing challenges, what we do is we absorb a whole bunch of vague advice or we dish out a bunch of vague advice. And I’m sure many of you on the call can relate to these kinds of things. Oh, for example, if people aren’t getting along, let’s say some people are polarized around an issue, some of the advice we might say is, why don’t you just get along? We all be nice. Let’s be nice. Everybody, be nice to each other and let’s get along and it’ll be just fine. We hear all kinds of vague advice when things aren’t going well, just hang in there, make better choices, and do better next time. I think we can do a lot better than that, but that’s what I hear a lot as far as solutions.

Jenny:

Thank you for saying that. Just so you know who’s in this room, a little bit of colour for you. Brad is Angie Alexander hosts a room on Thursday mornings in Clubhouse. And all of the participants in the audience here are regulars in Angie’s room. And one of the things that we talk about is often, you talked about two things there I just want to send back to you, which is number one that we say a lot of this is what we need, this is what we should be doing, this is what we want. But there isn’t a lot of the show that seems to be absent from what we’re doing. I think that’s what you were touching on. And then the other piece, I was actually, I’ll just stop there. If you could just talk a bit about how this system offers, like you said, some action around that because okay, my other thought was around the reason why we’re having these conversations is precisely because we need to lean into the challenges we’re facing. And like you said, if we’re in this position where we have people that disagree, well, we don’t have the option to just, as you said, get along. We have to talk through the issue. That’s precisely why I wanted to help start our conversations off in a healthy way by understanding a bit more about what you, I’ll stop there. Thanks.

Brad:

Yeah. Can I ask you how to get the little party thing off of me, is that just permanently stuck to my image?

Jenny:

No, it’s just for today, unfortunately, it’s basically celebrating your arrival on the app. Congratulations on joining Clubhouse. It’ll be gone. And actually, it’ll come back annually, just so you know, it’ll be an anniversary thing.

Brad:

Okay. Okay. I didn’t know if you’re recording this, but sometimes not everything we talk about is pleasant and I just didn’t want my picture always with the little party thing.

Jenny:

Yeah, excellent point.

Brad:

I like it, but it might not always be appropriate. I’m sorry, Jenny, you said a lot there, could you, yeah.

Beyond Vague Advice

Jenny:

Thank you, let me frame that up. Yeah, I’ll frame it a little better for you here. As you’re saying, we often are told that we just need to get along, and that’s not giving the how-to, that’s not, that’s not saying we’re going to get along by doing X, Y, Z. Do you know what I mean? I think that’s fine, thank you for clarifying. Okay. I’ll stop there.

Brad:

Yes, thank you for doing that. I probably started to feel a little bit threatened because that was a trigger or a challenge for me. I go to a lot of training too. I don’t just do training. I listen a lot, and I probably shouldn’t say this, but I go to big conferences and I sometimes challenge my listeners to say, Hey, write down how many pieces of vague advice you hear over the next two days of this conference, and then come back and report to me as far as how many hash marks you have. And that’s probably not fair to do to the other speakers, but there is so much of that. And there’s also what I like to talk about, there’s a big difference between knowing and doing. I’m super hooked on the word intentional right now. When you have a skill that you can practice, and I think this is just one of the biggest things that biggest hurdles to get over with people in schools and other systems is that if you don’t see behaviour number one as a skillset, you’re not going to be able to teach it. We see behaviour oftentimes as an expectation of others and without the skill training. I always think, what if reading was that way?

If we just had a poster on reading or like they do for responsibility, for example, there’s a poster, here’s how you’re supposed to be responsible, but no one’s there to teach you the skillset, but the expectation is always there. That’s kind of how it is with self-regulation. I think Alex used the word reactivity, and that’s kind of the opposite of being well-regulated is reactive. And what we know is that reactivity doesn’t work well. If you just take the logical step back from there and say, what is it that helps target reactivity and what are the skills you need to practice to reduce reactivity? I mean, that’s really how simple and logical we’ve kind of made the system. Yes, we don’t need more information and more vague advice. I usually don’t hear people say, yes, please give me more of that. It’s the how-to and intentional practice. Yep.

Jenny:

Okay. Alex, did you have Go ahead?

Alex:

Yeah, I think you kind of touched on something as I’ve been reading through this general systems theory. It introduced key concepts such as open and closed systems, stressing the role and importance of context and environment or the way systems could reach the same goal through different paths and hyper more systems, structural or behavioural or developmental features that are shared across, shared across systems. People may have different approaches to reach the same consensus. Have you found that when you’re working with people in your scope of practice that emphasises that in some cases people are, they may think that they’re arguing with each other, but they’re coming to the same resolution? And once they figure that out, it’s almost like a, how would I describe it, a short circuit. It’s like they’re both speaking English and they think that they’re arguing with each other, but they’re both saying the same thing differently.

Brad:

We see that quite a bit, especially when people are activated. When the fight-or-flight system is activated, they’re really engaged in that fight sometimes just to be engaged in the fight so that the content gets lost because of the process. They start to equate the other person as a threat instead of the content as threatening. That’s one of the benefits that we see when we can calm those two systems down, that becomes a lot more clear.

Jenny:

Yeah, I love that. It’s funny, I think Alex is making, he’s sort of hinting to our work style because Alex and I will find, make a comment on sort of a flip comment on something that’s in the news, and I’ll pause and say, well, what do you mean by that? And he’ll give an answer and I’ll say, well, but I think it’s this, and next thing we’ll find quickly that we agree. But the words he used or perhaps the person, that’s the other thing is potentially making it about an individual rather than an idea itself. I don’t know.

Brad:

Yeah, I think what’s challenging, and just to focus on those first two skills that we teach in self-regulation, the recognition of when or flight is engaged, and then how to create safety to turn that system off so that we can use our whole creative brain that makes us human beings and not a lizard. Yeah.

The skills to behavioral health and self-regulation

Jenny:

Can you walk through that a bit for us, Alex? Oh, sorry, Brad. That would be a great time for you to do that. Thank you.

Brad:

Yeah, for sure. Those are the first two skills we teach in self-regulation training. And this is inside what we call the physical domain. We’re just talking about how our body responds to challenges here, and there are only two skills we teach. The first one is just that self-awareness. What do I feel like physically? What can I notice about myself when I feel threatened when I experience threat? Do I notice my heart rate increase? Do I notice my face feeling hot and red? Does my voice increase in volume? Do my shoulders get tight and tense? Does my jaw get tense because I want to say all these things and I’m holding it in? Does my stomach feel upset? These are real tangible things, and our research shows that three-year-old’s can start to tell us this kind of stuff. I know adults can do it, and I always tell people, if you don’t know what yours are, ask somebody who lives with you.

I bet you they can rattle off three or four of your warning signs in about five seconds. Increasing self-awareness around what those warning signs are, that’s number one. That’s the first skill. Those drawings that I sent you, Jenny, those pictures, those were done by nurses who’ve taken our course, and I’ll apologize, they probably put too much emphasis on the gastrointestinal system, but they are nurses, so that’s where the conversation always seems to go with them. But yeah, what we do is have people label those. What are the two things that you notice about yourself early on in the situation? The challenge. We know that our fight-or-flight system’s kicking in because it’s such a primitive system, it only has one goal, and that’s to eliminate the threat. I usually ask people, Hey, have you ever said terribly hurtful things to somebody that you deeply care about when you’re upset?

And people are reluctant to raise their hand in the room, but if they’re honest, probably everyone would do that. I’ll ask the question again. You guys have said something terribly hurtful and mean to maybe your favorite person on this planet, and they’ll say, yeah, yeah, we’ve done it. And I’d say, well, thankfully it’s not just a Kansas thing. I think my guilt is absolved a little bit because we all do that. But the next question is why? Because I’ll say, you guys look so smart and so empathetic and compassionate. I mean, you care about people, your teachers, your nurses, you care about the planet, you care about animals, you care about the people you work with, your family, you love these people, these compassionate, well-educated people are repeatedly hurting their favorite people on this planet. That logically doesn’t make any sense.

The explanation is that when we have this fight-or-flight system, that’s how powerful. That’s a really good, I think example of how powerful the system is. It can cause you to hurt your favorite person on the planet, and that’s powerful. What else can it do? This is where referencing back to Mary, this is where Mary became a real advocate for how powerful this system can drive someone to suicide or block them from hope and some of the things that could get them out of a suicidal situation. What we know is that, and I don’t want to go too deep into brain science, but when our fight-or-flight system is activated, the bottom part of our brain becomes extremely active. That’s the fight-or-flight, that’s survival mode. And the top part which we need for creativity, problem-solving, compassion, relationships, all that high-level stuff, that higher cortical area of our brain shuts down when we become upset.

This explains a lot of the behaviors we see when people are engaged in fight-or-flight when we feel challenged. And it’s really scary for me in my profession because somebody who’s experiencing anxiety or depression or lots of challenges or lots of failures, maybe a DH Ds driven them to a lot of failure in their life and a lot of restarts and lost relationships. We have people experiencing fight-or-flight. They’re down in that bottom part of their brain and sometimes we’re left with these questions. They do something to hurt themselves, and we’re like, why? They were such a nice person. They had so much potential and all these things going for them. Well, all that information is locked up in that top part of their brain, which they’re not able to access when they’re experiencing that level of challenge. It explains a lot of the behaviors we see, and you can see how it directly relates to people in conflict. Because if you’re sitting across the table from somebody who has a different view from you, different beliefs, different ideas, that’s immediately perceived as a threat by your body, your brain. You are going to behave differently in response to that threat. It’s so predictable. Systems are pretty predictable. Predictable, and human beings are pretty predictable as far as how we respond to threats.

The cure for that, what we talk about then, that’s skill number one, is to become more aware of that system for yourself and practice that identification of that skill. Number two, then how do you cure that threat response we promote safety because you can’t feel threatened and safe at the same time. That next question, what we practice is experiencing or creating a sense of safety so that we can access that upper part of our brain, be compassionate, be empathetic, be problem-solving, have insight, creativity, all that higher level stuff that gets us where we want to be.

Jenny:

Amazing. Okay, what I heard is you start with this training in terms of self-awareness, helping us understand individually how stress shows up for us or how when we’re faced with a challenge, what it looks like for us. And then once we get clear on what that looks like, being able to do it physically, I think I heard you say emotionally and mentally how it shows up for us, then it’s all about promoting safety. Is that right?

Brad:

Yeah, and the cool thing about safety is you can be proactive with it. You don’t have to wait around and say, oh, I’m the token mental health guy for a large healthcare system. When they want to do things like de-escalation training, they call us and say, Brad, can you do de-escalation training? Well, my response to that is, sure, we can do de-escalation training, but wouldn’t it be cool if we could do de-escalation training? If we know some things that promote safety ahead of time, why wouldn’t we want to do that throughout the day? Or if we know we’re going to start tackling a difficult issue or people are going to come into conflict, what can we do to promote safety upfront instead of waiting for people to get escalated and then try to de-escalate it? That system is well-designed to respond to threats. It just makes so much sense to be proactive and try to get ahead of it.

How does behavioral health and self-regulation education set us up for success?

Jenny:

Right on. I’m just going to, before I go on, just offer Michele who’s in the audience, a registered nurse and is focused on psychological safety in the workplace. If you do want to ask us any questions, I’m sure Brad would be happy to hear them, Michele. Thank you for being here. And then, the next thing is around where our self-regulation system takes us. I’ll tee off a question here unless Alex has one, but how does self-regulation, being able to, like you said, have this preemptive safety mechanism, how does it help us be successful in life?

Brad:

Yeah, I think I probably already alluded to that, but what we find is the fight-or-flight system was good for handling existential physical threats like five, 6,000, 10,000 years ago. Most of our threats were physical threats, and there are still definitely areas where people’s threats are still physical a lot of the time, but in today’s world, most, the majority of our threats for most of us are social and emotional threats. And honestly, most of those threats are created internally for us. These are things like self-doubt, all these anxious ruminating thoughts that we have, all the what ifs that we have, all those are threats. We have the interesting thing, human beings have the capacity to not only bring threat for today. Not only the two threats that I have in the next hour coming at me, but I also can bring a threat from three weeks from now, this challenge that I have out there on my calendar that I’m like, oh my gosh, what am I going to do about this?

But okay, that’s not even enough for us human beings. I can drudge up threat from two years ago. I remember what you said to me two years ago, and I can bring that in to today’s threat too. One of the key issues that we promote is something similar, and it doesn’t have to be this, but the one that we’ve had the most luck with is mindfulness, stress reduction training. That’s one of the ways that we promote safety is staying in the present, this practice of staying connected to the present, which I think, and I’ll plug mindfulness based stress reduction here, I was trained formally about 10 years ago in that, and we use it in our health system. I use it daily. I have a formal practice, but we use it with our patients who are suffering. And it’s just a great way to promote safety.

It also promotes gratitude, which fits into our third area of skill training, cognitive regulation. But I think, so Jenny, to answer your question, the best way for us to see success, I really don’t think people, I just don’t think you can be successful without regulating well in the face of challenge. What it brings is success in the face of challenge. And I thought about this a lot as an administrator in a healthcare system during covid. One of my favorite self-regulation or dysregulation stories comes from my wife is also a nurse, and she told me a story from the health system we worked at previously where a nurse had stayed over a shift because the weather was bad. The next shift couldn’t come in, couldn’t make it in. She was doing this really big favour by staying over, she’d already worked a 12 hour shift and happened to be surgery that was taking place in the morning.

The surgeon walked in and she accidentally called the surgeon by the wrong name. He interpreted that as a threat to his ego, or somehow interpreted it as a threat, and started to make some sarcastic, belittling comments toward her. Now she’s experiencing threat too. Now he’s sinking to the bottom part of his brain, and she’s sinking to the bottom part of her brain, which is this lizard brain. And you have a patient in the room who happened to be, this was a procedure that you could stay awake for. They’re listening to this whole thing, where do you think they’re going in their brain? Now you have three in a room with a surgical procedure about to take place and three lizards operating on this person. I think to me, that’s just a really good example of what I worried about during COVID-19, or what I worry about when people are trying to solve big problems is that they need to be in that cortex of their brain to have a chance at getting through complex issues. And when I see people in lizard brain trying to solve problems, I don’t think there’s a shake-my-head emoji on here, but it doesn’t have a very good prognosis.

Jenny:

Do you have a question to ask, Alex?

How does behavioral health and self-regulation education help us in our work?

Alex:

Yeah, I won’t take up too much of your time, but I have a background in heavy-duty construction services and private security services. Part of my detail was to do early morning patrols facing attics in whatever circumstances they happened to be in. In terms of de-escalation, what I was trained to do was always just make sure that I gave them one thing first, which was an acknowledgement of their existence, and then maybe even took some extra time to hear their story and understand their circumstance, who they were, how they got there, what was going on so that I could help facilitate how I could help them. At the same time, my fight-or-flight instinct was always there because I was alone in a dark alleyway with nothing but a stabproof vest, a flashlight and some charm with no backup. The threat metric was extremely high. And having done that for so many years, I found that even though I’m not doing it anymore, I just occasionally have this physiological reaction where my external life, everything that’s going on in my life could be butterflies and unicorns, but it feels like the other shoe is going to drop, right? Because I’m always trying to plan for the worst, but expect the best. And I have difficulty shutting that part of my brain down. I was just wondering if you helped anyone in those occupations too?

Brad:

Yes. I think nurses, so like ER nurses, trauma nurses, and first responders are such a fascinating group to work with on this self-regulation system because what we talk about, is one of the most powerful elements for creating safety and for turning off that fight-or-flight system is predictability. And so when I talk to nurses, when I work with first responders, the gentleman that I teach resilience for or with in the health system where I’m at now, he taught the resilience program for the military for six years. And so that predictability, so you guys are drilling and training and practicing these really intense situations just so, and to me, what that says to me is that you’re practicing that so that it becomes more predictable so that you can stay up in that top part of your brain in those challenging situations. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do with other people, is to be able to have that level of predictability so that I know I have this confidence that I’ve been through this before. I know what to do if this happens because I’ve practiced it and I’ve been successful at it. It adds that layer of predictability because of the practice. That’s why we’re so hung up on skill development and meaningful intentional practice because it adds that sense of predictability. That to me equals safety.

Jenny:

Amazing. Yeah. Thank you for joining us, Michele. It’s so nice that you have, I’ll hand over the mic to you in just a second. I just wanted to say back what I heard. Yeah, Brad, my husband is also a city firefighter, which is why I think Mary’s work was so resonated with me so much to your point about seeing trauma and quite frankly, being a part of trauma regularly has impacted not only my husband, but others that we know. We’ve lost friends to suicide as Mary has pointed out and how this happened. Yeah, I have a question, but I think I’m going to pause and just see if Michele has one ready for you. And please introduce yourself, Michele. Thank you.

What are the long-term consequences of an engaged fight-or-flight system?

Michele:

Hi, good evening everyone. My name is Michele Thomson. I am a registered nurse. I’m also a leadership coach and consultant, and my goal is to create psychologically safe workplaces that people will never want to leave. The question that I have for you, Brad, and thank you so much, this has been a really enlightening conversation. I’ve quite enjoyed listening as a nurse. I think that what I’ve seen definitely exacerbated by the pandemic and to the scenario that you spoke about earlier around people working a lot of long hours and short, often we’re seeing a lot more compassion fatigue, caregiver burnout and moral injury. And what I’m seeing is a little surprising to me that people seem to be more apathetic, which I think is giving maybe the impression that they’re emotionally regulated, when in fact people are so tired and burnt out that they just kind of feel like I just have it in me. And I’m wondering potentially if you have any thoughts about what the long-term consequences of that would be in terms not really displaying any external capacity of showing that someone is in distress. An employer may not know what to look for to support an individual, employees might not know how to support their colleagues. I’m just curious if you have any thoughts about that.

Brad:

Oh, Michele, I have a lot of thoughts about, thank you so much for that question. I was waiting for you to give me a good one there. This is an area near and dear to my heart. And so I said fight flight. There are also other options here that an organism does when it’s experiencing threats. What Michele’s describing there is what we consider toxic stress, this level of, because this fight-or-flight system originally was designed, and I’m talking like I’m the creator of this, but I’m not. But it was originally designed as an acute response. I see a bear, the system kicks in, I resolve, I either get away or I fight the bear, whatever happens, and then my system returns to baseline. And that all happens within a matter of minutes or at most a few hours. What we’re seeing with a pandemic, which is a physical threat, it’s a physical threat and a social, brings a lot of social-emotional threats, too.

We have a loss, we have unpredictability everywhere. There wasn’t a script for this, especially in healthcare or education. I mean, there were scripts, but they weren’t near what we needed to have for this. What we have are people who are experiencing this level of my fight-or-flight system has been activated since March 2020. And so you can fight for a while, you can flight for a while. And the last sort of another option when an organism is tired of fighting, not able to fight or can’t get away, is this sort of shutting down mechanism. Organisms will shut down, try to conserve energy. And I think you brought up just such an interesting dichotomy with healthcare professionals. It’s the same way for therapists. I spend most of my time supervising therapists these days, and it’s like, how can I as a therapist or as a healthcare provider stay compassionate enough to where I can stay in touch with all this suffering around me and not have so much get on me that I’m constantly in fight-or-flight mode?

And that’s such a delicate balance. With you on that, just because someone is quiet does not mean that they’re well-regulated. Just because they’re not making a lot of noise and don’t look really, really reactive on the outside doesn’t mean they’re not an absolute wreck on the inside. And I have the same discussion and encouragement for teachers, and one of my answers to this is screening people. We do quite a bit of screening in our system for social-emotional stress issues. And I always, here in the United States, it’s recommended that they are screening kiddos three times a year for social-emotional issues. What we’ve found, what research says is that sometimes we’ll catch some of those, what I call internalizers or those people that are struggling, and that might not say anything to their supervisor. Sometimes they will indicate that on a screening tool, and so we can catch them and reach out to them with some tools.

But I totally, that’s why I think we’re seeing so much burnout. It’s that the fight-or-flight system has been activated for so long that it becomes that toxic level and people are pulling away from the profession. This numbness can occur when you don’t look like you have any response period at all to anything. And that’s just such a dangerous place to be. I still think though, there’s hope here. Safety, what you’re doing, promoting psychological safety, not waiting for people to get bad and reach for it, but get that to everybody because I don’t know a person that wasn’t impacted by a significant level of social, emotional or physical threat. Everybody experienced loss, we all had change. You can’t go wrong by promoting that across the board, not waiting for people to get ill and then do it with just this group or just that group.

I like what you’re doing there across the whole system, but also there, and I don’t want to lose sight of this, we have two other skill training areas in this system. Emotion regulation and cognitive regulation, are an entire framework for a reason. For example, emotion regulation has three skills in there. And so one of those skills is ownership of emotion and healthy expression of feelings. Those are skills that what are we going to do with all that emotion they’re carrying around? What’s the outlet for that? What’s the healthy mechanism? What’s the skill for getting that out? I don’t want to lose sight. The first two we talked about and one hour is probably enough. I do six-hour full-day seminars on this. To be able to cover it all in an hour is not going to happen. But I do want to tell you that there are other skills other than those first two that we talked about.

Jenny:

I didn’t mean to be rude there. Sorry, Michele, can I just make sure that answered your question before I move forward?

Michele:

Yeah, it did very much so thank you so much. That was wonderful. And I think that you sort of began touch on another soapbox item for me, which is really around the language we use, and I hear it a lot in the healthcare space around resiliency and people feeling further triggered and burnt out by that word in that if they are feeling challenged by their emotions or overwhelmed by their emotions, we have kind of I think created some language similar to self-care that alludes that if I could just develop more resiliency or be more resilient, how come everybody else is doing okay? I guess I am not resilient enough. That sense of having to take ownership for the fact that people just don’t understand that your brain is not hardwired as you’ve stated, to stay in a constant state of fight-or-flight, and it’s just not sustainable. When you start to feel the effects of that, that’s your brain telling you it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do, which is to protect you. Thank you.

Brad:

Yeah, absolutely. And that was one of the things we talked about with our leadership at the beginning of this, my partner and I was that we have to be really careful about this term resilience and going to a group of people who have just been working super hard, nonstop through an incredible experience and making sure that that message is not coming across, that they’re not resilient. These are the most resilient people I’ve ever met. And so to acknowledge what they’ve been through, to acknowledge the challenge, to acknowledge the suffering, and then also to come alongside them with some tools though to provide some hope. And what we’ve found, healthcare professionals love science, they love logic, and they will listen to those things and they’ll give it a shot. When you’re alongside someone practicing along with them, it’s been great. It’s here’s one more thing that you have to do to be more resilient. I agree with you. The messaging is important.

How does our belief system affect our ability to self-regulate?

Jenny:

Awesome. I have a question. I think sort of in this realm, how does our belief system come into play with respect to our fight-or-flight system? I’m going to use the pandemic as an example. There are a lot of people that are just too burned out, as you say, broad from a first responder standpoint to even sort of talk about it anymore. And so it seems like when you talk about the science and people wanting to come together in data, it seems like a void in the system for that. And so I’m using, in this case, I’m using the pandemic as sort of the similar problem we have with the transition that we’re facing. We have this social, environmental, and economic crisis, and we’re talking about it in terms of healthcare in this particular case, but the same thing you could say is happening in other disciplines where people aren’t being set up for success. You’re describing Brad, we have people who repeatedly have to be a part of or their fight-or-flight systems are being challenged. And so I guess the first question I’ll ask out of this is, I’ll back up and ask how does our belief system comes into play. How does it impact how we self-regulate?

Brad:

Yeah, great question. Skill six in this framework of cognitive regulation is about identifying and regulating our beliefs, identifying extreme beliefs that are causing us a lot of pain and seeing if we want to keep those that way. You can use religion, you can use movies, you can use opinions. The basic premise of how beliefs relate to threat is that our beliefs define what’s threatening to us. It’s basically like you drawing a line in the sand in front of you, that’s your belief, whatever it is, whether it’s politics, religion, pandemic, whether you think Star Wars is the best movie ever, whatever that is, if your belief is extreme on that idea and you believe that, and then somebody challenges that, that’s going to be perceived as a threat. And so there you go. That’s the connection that’s going to set off that entire physiological response, and it doesn’t matter. It’s the cool thing about it and what we teach is that who has control of that line? Who’s the only person that controls your line where that’s at? You have the power to adjust that line however you want to. That’s the,

Jenny:

In that example, you used your wife, this patient, and three people in a reptile brain. I know you’ve talked about prevention, which is obviously where we want to lead, but when we’re there when we’re stuck, how do we get ourselves out of it.

Brad:

In fight-or-flight.

Jenny:

Right. I’m picturing that room and I’m picturing everybody sort of in their reptile state. What does your training help people in a moment, in a challenge if your belief systems are being challenged in the moment, if you are feeling threatened in whatever way, what does the skill training teach you to do in those moments?

Brad:

Yeah, so one of the things I want to be really cautious about here is that I get calls all the time, Hey, I have a 15-minute staff meeting can come to help people learn this stuff and be all better? That’s not going to happen. You’re working against a system that’s evolved for thousands of years if you don’t practice. I get emails from teachers that say, Brad, I tried to teach these kids how to calm down when they were upset and it didn’t work. You don’t teach people skills when they’re upset. If you haven’t practiced how to create safety and calm for yourself ahead of time, the chances of you being able to turn off a system that is evolved for the specific reason to keep you safe and to go from zero to a hundred in 0.6 seconds to keep you safe from a bear attack is not good.

Brad:

Prevention to me is really, really important. The other thing is early recognition of those warning signs. I can tell you right now, that one of my biggest warning signs is that I will feel myself in a meeting if someone says something that’s crossing one of my lines, I’ll feel myself start to disconnect and want to shut down. I won’t want to participate. And I know that goes back to some of my belief systems as a kid saying if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. I know those two are connected.

Jenny:

That’s a big part. That’s a big part of it though, right? Because I think to your point, I think we’ve been raised to, as you said, just get along and raise to just let it go and not engage in religion and not engage in politics. I think this is trying to say, well, this is what you do when we have to, or this is the result of potentially not having skills to deal with those things when we need to.

Brad:

For me, if that happens to me and I can just only really speak for myself, everybody’s plan is a little bit different. Safety looks different for different people. People’s fight-or-flight feels different to them. People who go through the course, end up with their personal plans for each of these seven skills. But for me, if I recognize that, oh my gosh, my jaw’s getting tight, I just push myself back from the table, my head’s down, I’m not even paying attention anymore. I’ll ask for a break. I also am pretty good after 10 years of practicing mindfulness to be able to calm myself without making too much of a scene, and I can do it in the space that I’m in there, but that’s practice at doing that. Intervention is possible. Then I’ll find a way to move through the other skills.

I’ll identify I’m angry, so that’s labelling that feeling. And then how do I want to express that? Do I want to say something about it now? Do I want to say something later? Do I want to write it down and think about it? How do I want that to come out in a healthy way? And then later I’ll of course reflect on that to see if I want to adjust my line or not about what was threatening to me when I’m reflecting on that. But that’s kind of how you step through that process at the moment. But without the training and practice, that’s darn near impossible.

Jenny:

Right. Go ahead, Alex. I think, and this will probably be our last question for you, Brad. I don’t want to keep you too long. Thank you so much.

Alex:

Sure. Well, actually, with what you just said, I think that’s a crucial thing in terms of being self-aware. To be cognizant of the fact that maybe it just woke up on the wrong side of the bed and you’re in a mood. Sounds are a little louder, you’re going to be a little more testy. And then just when you’re around the other people that you care about and you don’t want to be testy with them, you just give ’em a little warning just like, I’m sorry, I’m in a mood preemptive, I’m just going to isolate a little more maybe today just because I don’t know what it is. And I found that in de-escalation practices, just being honest enough with myself so I can be honest enough with other people to say, I don’t know why, I’m just a little impatient today. Something’s not right and not make it into something that is putting an onus on them to walk on eggshells or making them feel threatened.

Just helping them to be aware that it’s like, Hey, I might need to just duck out and listen to a song that’s going to reset me. You know what I mean? I found in terms of dealing with my trauma, that using music to program and reprogram myself has been a great asset. It’s been a motivator. Yeah, I think a lot of what you had to say is extremely valuable. And frankly, I just want to compliment you because we’re limited in time on this conversation, but I’d like to shout out another invite if possible.

How do we create safety or “put more fuel in the tank”?

Brad:

Yeah, thank you, Alex. I appreciate that question, and I love the fact that you mentioned that I love it when my wife can give me warnings like that. I’ve had a tough day, so that gives me a choice that I can either say, okay, I’m going to the garage for the rest of the night. No, I should never do that. Usually, the right thing to say would be, how can I help? How can I be supportive? We have a couple of lessons that we do with kids, one called Lengthening my Fuse, and it’s just like what you just said. It’s okay. Let’s say I did wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or I know that my capacity, how I explain that is we only have so much capacity to deal with threats. It’s not unlimited. How do we put more fuel in the tank?

How do we create more capacity to manage threats? And Michele could probably chime in here though by, how do I add safety? And music is one of yours, Alex, and we promote music a lot because it’s patterned, rhythmic, and repetitive. I bet you listen to the same stuff you probably listened to for years. It’s predictable the words. It’s your go-to the rhythm, the beat, all that is patterned, rhythmic, repetitive. Your brain hears that, and it’s like, I know what’s coming next. All that feeds into safety. Predictability is one of the most powerful ways we can create safety for ourselves. Music’s a great one. Exercise is another great one. Walking, being in familiar spaces, sometimes we just need those things. And if you can recognize when you need it, wow, I can’t think of a better way to meet the definition of self-regulation. And yeah, I would love to come back if you think this information is helpful or specific ways to expand on it to help you all meet your goals.

Jenny:

Amazing. Thank you so much, Brad. Before we do a round a wrap-up, I’m just going to, well, actually I’ll offer some closing takeaways, but also, Michele, if you have an additional question or comment to expand on what Brad was just suggesting in terms of safety tools that you go to, please lead us off. Thank you.

Michele:

Oh, thank you so much, Jenny. That’s very generous. Yeah, I won’t take too much time. I mean, I think that Brad’s the expert here. Some of the things that we look at in terms of psychological safety in the workplace to help people are just creating safe spaces. Spaces where people can go to talk about what they’re experiencing. Helping managers understand what it means to have an open door policy where they are not depleting themselves by literally having an open door policy 24/7. There can still be some healthy boundaries there, but they can offer support and guidance to people on what to look for in terms of when people might be struggling. Again, we already spoke with that a little bit, and coworkers as well. I think that we do a lot of activities between coworkers to understand how they can make someone feel validated and seen and heard when they are struggling and talk a lot about what that looks like.

And like I said, just I think the culture is, this is how we show up for each other. It’s okay if you’re not at a hundred per cent. It’s not normal for you to be at a hundred per cent every day. If you can come at 60%, you’re still valued and appreciated for being here. I think those are kind of the things in terms of self-soothing, we do encourage people to take regular breaks and to do just breathing exercises to do what they find helps to settle them. We know that two and a half minutes is all your brain needs to kind of self-regulate. I think I mentioned in one of Angie’s rooms too, one of the things that I learned in doing some research of other people’s research is that somebody chewing a hard can or sucking on a hard candy brings back a reflux that we had when we were an infant, when we would suck, and we lose that reflex as we grow because it’s no longer necessary for us.

But when you can suck on hard candy, it brings back that reflux or reflux, which helps to calm the central nervous system. I think just coming up with really simple creative things that people can do, we’ve also given out adult colouring books and people on their breaks have coloured, and that has been popular. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to chime in. And I guess my just question to wrap up would be for Brad where can we go to follow you and the work you’re doing and learn more about the amazing work that you’re putting out into the world?

Brad:

Probably the best way, I don’t know why I picked LinkedIn, but I put a lot of stuff out on LinkedIn. I’ve done similar to a masterclass video series for AccuTrain. It’s called AccuEd, and I don’t know Jenny if you want to share some of these links, but my basic website is selfregulationstation.com. There’s also, I’m super excited. I’ve spent most of my time working with people on how to get self-regulation skills to kids, and have an adult book coming out. This will be the first time targeting just adults coming out. This, it’ll be done this summer. We’re on the final rounds of edits right now, but basically, it’s a seven-week self-study course. You could do it individually or with a group of people, and it’s one skill a week. I’ve worked hard to keep it under 70 pages just to make it nonthreatening and manageable in plain language, leaving out all the jargon, and just straight to the real applied skills in the framework in the order that we talked about here tonight. Super excited about that. But I would, Michele, I’d like to hear some more information from you. I think we could probably do a whole session on psychological safety. We’ve got a lot of what you just talked about too, and then some other things. And I bet you’ve got more information there too.

Michele:

Well, please, you can feel free to reach out through Jenny. It would be an honour. Thank you.

Key Takeaways

Jenny:

Yeah, we’ll make sure, Brad, that we’ll include all of your links in our, we’ll do an accompanying blog with this recording as well. Thank you so much. I’m just going to offer some of my key takeaways from this. Angie and Melanie, I know Meryl, you’re mostly a listener, but if I’m mistaken, you’re welcome to come up and quickly offer your thoughts as well. But just for myself, I’ll just offer the key things that I’ve heard. Again, trying to understand your skills in terms of the conversations that we’re trying to host. The key takeaway for me in that regard is being able to acknowledge when we are witnessing people in fight-or-flight, not in an offensive way of course, but in a way that we can just sort of help each other know that we’re not able to see, like you said, from our human brains, from our human perspective, but rather we’re in a place where we’re not able to see.

We’ve talked about gaining perspective with others in conversation. That’s just an opportunity that I see out of this knowledge. Thank you. And the other thing is the predictability piece. That is something that Alex and I are trying to build into this process is to have a regular framework of how we host these discussions so that people can be at least predictable in the topics that we’re having and in the methods and in the way that we break them down for people. I think those are a couple of ways we’re trying to, that we might be honing some of the skills that you offer. Thank you for that. Alex, I’ll offer if you’d like to offer some closing words, as well.

Alex:

Well, the one that I’ve lived by my whole life is planned for the worst and expect the best. I’ve lived in a constant state of running the worst-case scenarios, but I’ve discovered that in most cases, reality doesn’t reflect those things. And through some training and hopefully additional training, I’m just going to become better and better at managing those types of personality traits so that I can just maximize how I can be of benefit to other people. And I think this conversation was extremely valuable and interesting. It didn’t take on the shape that I necessarily thought it would, but I think it gave me a lot to reflect upon. I just want to thank everyone involved, Dr. Chap. And I also want to thank you personally for taking the time, especially in different time zones for coming out and giving your contributions. And I look forward to future dialogues with all of you, whether you’re just listeners or want to contribute directly. There’s a lot of first responders, there’s a lot of people out there who need your help, and I think you’re well on your way to helping us all do that. Good night.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you so much, Brad. We’ll leave the closing words for you. And yeah, I’m going to try and link this up to some of the first responders that I know as well as in the city here. Yeah, please close us off and thank you again. As Alex said, we really appreciate you doing this with us.

Brad:

Yeah, thank you so much for the invitation. I’ve spent a lot of time sharing this information, and I think like Alex just said, there’s no shortage of people suffering. And if you can give people practical tools, support them with a little bit of education, some room to practice and understanding along the way, this basic information, it goes back to Mary because you opened with Mary Jenny. That was one of the things she told me, is that when you can take some information to understand yourself a little bit better and understand that this is normal, human beings responds to challenge, really follows some normal patterns that is game changing for a person who’s struggling. I appreciate you allowing me to share this further and look forward to future conversations with you all.

Jenny:

Thank you. Hail Mary. Yeah, I’m glad that she connected us. Brad, thank you so much. Okay. Feel free to unmute everyone and say goodnight. Thank you so much for your time, and have a good one.

Michele:

Goodnight everyone. Thank you so much.

Welcome to “The Gravity Well,” a podcast where hosts Alexander MacGillivray and Jenny Yeremiy tackle heavy ideas in manageable segments. They aim to provide information, ideas, and skills to positively contribute to listeners’ lives. The podcast was born from a conversation during an election campaign, where the hosts realized the importance of preparing for potential negative outcomes, much like the Apollo missions. They emphasize the need for community rebuilding and fostering a collaborative mindset rather than opposition. The hosts discuss the importance of respectful behavior, understanding different perspectives, and creating a safe space for open dialogue. They also explore their own personality traits and how these influence their collaboration. The podcast aims to address various crises by opening dialogues and encouraging contributions from diverse viewpoints.

About Your Hosts

I, Jenny Yeremiy, am a geophysicist and liability (oil and gas site clean-up and restoration) expert turned social and environmental economic activist.

Alexander MacGillivray studied Arts, is a jack-of-all-trades, an independent researcher and has a passion for bringing people together to learn and communicate big ideas.

In this first episode of The Gravity Well, I draw learning and inspiration from two thought leadership branding coaches trained in Positive Intelligence — Angie Alexander and Melanie Richards. Angie and Melanie share their recommendations for defining the ground rules of The Gravity Well community.

I have known Angie since our time at Apache Canada. Angie and I never worked directly together, but peripherally, she has been a steady ally in the roller coaster of our oil and gas careers. She and I had lengthy careers in oil and gas development, Angie as a reservoir engineer and me as a geophysicist. Geophysicists like me work with geologists to identify drilling locations and abandonment recommendations. Reservoir engineers like Angie work hand in hand with a production engineer to determine the economics and producibility of a well or oil field.

Angie and I have identified shortcomings in the executive leadership style — a traditional “command and control” approach that does not allow for debate. Angie became a coach to leaders to support their transformation to Sage Leadership, her coaching brand is based on the Positive Intelligence training system created by Shirzad Chamine.

In the fall of 2022, Angie could see I was struggling with putting myself in public view. We met for coffee and she invited me to her weekly conversation. Have a listen to my first conversation in Angie’s Clubhouse Room. I was hooked the moment I joined Angie’s room as a regular, Thursday morning, 8 AM MST in Clubhouse. Thank you, Angie and my fellow Sage Leaders!

About The Gravity Well Podcast Season One

Alex and I agreed all issues in Alberta are on the table and couldn’t decide where to start. We agreed to take the DelftX Creative Problem-Solving and decision-making course to create a structure and flow to the conversations. Have a listen to the season one program outline here.

Welcome and Introduction to The Gravity Well

Alex:

Welcome to The Gravity Well, what we’re trying to do is tackle heavy ideas in small buckets that anyone can handle. My name is Alexander MacGillivray. Jenny and I have joined forces to bring you information, ideas, and skills with the goal of positively contributing to your insights.

Jenny:

Thank you, Alex. As you said, thank you, Angie, for noticing that we have the welcome message in our chat. We included that for everyone. Alex and I have spent the last four months working together. He and I met at the doors, it’s, I’ll be clear, the doors means, well, during the election when I ran in the election this year, last year, I door knocked. I had the opportunity to knock on Alex’s door, and I had been messaging consistently before and leading up to it that we were in the Apollo 13 moment that we needed. This province needs to put all of its resources on the table and have a discussion about how we’re going to do all the things we want to do. That was my message for months.

Jenny:

And people would hear it and say something interesting about it. But it wasn’t until I started talking to Alex that he said, yeah, but why Apollo 13 was successful? It was because of Apollo 11, and what he meant, I said, “Go on.” Alex said that it’s just like if you follow Michael Phelps, they anticipated negative outcomes and made plans to adjust based on those potential outcomes. For example, if we ran out of oxygen, what would we do? If, we were feeling a pressure change, how would we adjust if we were off trajectory, how would we fix direction? And because they took the time to do that because they took the time to learn what-if scenarios, they were ready when Apollo 13, they were faced with the Apollo 13 moment. That’s the opportunity I saw when I first reached out to when I first met Alex.

Jenny:

It was, “Wow, this is someone that just added a whole new dimension to my thinking”, and it helped me. I was like, wow, I’m reaching out to that guy no matter what happens out of this election. That was probably the best conversation that came out of it. It’s just been like that ever since. I would say that it’s just the way Alex is. He operates with a good heart. He has a good intention, and when he challenges me on something, we’re able to work through it because we both were operating from that place of best intention. That’s why we’re working together. And then what the purpose of this conversation is to, we want to rebuild the community. We have what I feel is a big gap in society where we have, we’re expected to take positions or be in camps and work potentially on opposite sides of the table. All of these things that we say, and it’s expected that we’re in opposition to each other, and that’s not where we need to be. We need to think in terms of “we’re all in this together” type of thinking. Yeah, please go ahead, Alex, add to that. Thank you.

Alex:

Thank you. Yeah. There’s a common saying when people just want to deflect, they say, “There are two sides to every coin, black and white, zero in one, these binary systems of thinking. But they are forgetting there are three sides to a coin. There’s the edge, and that edge is crucial. The edge is what holds the coin together, and it’s these dichotomies.

Jenny:

We’re all in this together.

Alex:

What we’re seeking to do is learn from other people who have varying views and who normally would be dichotomised in terms of opposing sides, and just kind of maybe make an attempt to bridge some gaps and creatively find a way to compete with each other rather than in competition solely that we make a difference over the long term. I mean, it’s a shot in the dark, but it’s worth a shot.

Jenny:

Yeah. Yeah. I like the idea of winning with each other. This concept is that we’re stronger together. Like I said, you give me more view of how I’m seeing something and others, I see Colin is in the audience. Thank you, Colin, for joining. Colin has been an amazing ally that Alex has now had the privilege to meet. Excited to be working with him.

Alex:

It was very nice to meet you, Colin. I’m sorry we didn’t have more time to chat.

Introduction to Angie and her Sage Leadership Crew

Jenny:

We’ll have Colin on in a few episodes. This is exciting to be building things with real people, with real connections. I can speak a bit about Angie. The reason why we have Angie and Melanie here today, and Carol, thank you for joining us, as well, is to speak with this group that I’ve worked with. Angie has a room in Clubhouse. Angie, when you are done with your dinner please pop your Clubhouse link into the chat somehow or tell me how to do that for you, I can do it. But yeah, Angie hosts a clubhouse room on Thursday mornings. I started in that, geez, I guess it must be just over a year, I want to say a year and three months, maybe a year and two months ago. But it’s been such a steady reinforcement of the principles that we’re trying to foster. And Angie, let me get a little bit more background, is Angie and I have known each other for more than a decade. We started working together at Apache Canada, one of the oil companies in Calgary back in, geez, I started there in 2005. Angie was already there, and no, I feel like we both were gone by you by 2009. Maybe you can say when you speak. But anyway, the point is,

Alex:

Did you work for the Apache Oil company or did you make the helicopters? That’s what I’m wondering.

Jenny:

Yeah. Yeah. I haven’t even said yet, but I’m a geophysicist. The oil company, and thank you for clarifying Alex. And yeah, Angie is an engineer, we worked together a little bit and just managed to become good allies throughout the years. I’m super grateful for that. Melanie participates in Angie’s room regularly, as do a few hours that I’m hoping might join pop in for a little bit of this today, too. Merrill, thank you so much for joining us.

Alex:

Welcome.

Jenny:

Merrill is a regular in Angie’s Room. Amazing. Thank you so much for being here. Okay. I guess just a couple more things, we’ll just add, we’ve got some time to just a little bit more about what we’re trying to do. Again, trying to have conversations about the crisis that we’re facing. However you see it, if you see it as just an economic crisis, a financial crisis, or if you see it as a social crisis like health or just belonging, whatever that looks like, or if you see it as an environmental crisis, the climate crisis is here, we need to be talking about it, and we need to do it in a way that’s open and honest. And so go ahead, Alex, your turn.

Alex:

Ultimately, if we’re going to be frank with each other and with ourselves, we’re faced with a polynomial crisis. There are crises on multiple fronts, and it almost becomes exorbitantly confusing to face all of them simultaneously. Why The Gravity Well is important is what we’re trying to do is just pick one and even a small bucket and start locally and open the dialogue so that these crises become manageable. And the more open the doors become, the more brilliant people from all walks of life can contribute, sorry, to whatever capacity they can. It’s a difficult message. It’s something that people who are much more powerful or influential than us trying to approach. There’d be many. Why not give it a shot? I figure the more the merrier. That’s just kind of where we’re trying to open up the dialogue to other people too.

Jenny:

Well, and to your point, thank you for saying that. Alex and I are trying to create a space that anybody can participate in. If we’re experts, people are feeling, “Well, I’m not an expert in that”, no, this is an everyone problem, which means that we need to make space for everyone to be able to feel like they can participate. We’re, that’s why we don’t need to be experts because we’re trying to bring ideas forward and gain that conversation around these problems. We took a course together. Alex and I took a complex decision-making course together, and the intention was for us to have a common language. That’s what we’re going to walk through today, is the common language that we’ve built ground rules. This structure of conversations, which, by the way, we’re referring to a slide in the presentation that we’ve attached to this meeting.

Jenny:

There’s an image of our rules of engagement. That’s what it is. First of all, start with the why we’re talking. Today we’re talking about rules of engagement and why we’re talking about it. Well, because we need to know how to operate in a way that’s safe for people to open up and be able to share their opinions, their questions and concerns in the space. Let’s just start with the who. First of all, Angie, thank you very much for joining us. Can we just take a moment and let you introduce yourself? What we’re going to do, Alex and I will frame the first question as we want people to show up with respectful behaviour. We’re going to describe what respectful behaviour looks like to us in these conversations.

Jenny:

And if you’re willing, we’d love your input on that. Thank you. Okay. Starting with that, I like to model myself. I’ll start with myself and say, respectful behaviour to me looks like we’re using adequate emojis like Angie just did. That’s one of the things I love about Clubhouse is that if you hold down your photo there’s an option to use emojis, which I’ll just give one of those back to Angie, and then there’s an option to do gifts. We’re going to use the tools that this room offers us to help make sure we’re, thank you, Angie, for using the space in a positive way, but make sure that people are moving in the right direction. Respectful to me looks like listening to what somebody’s saying and reflecting on what they’ve offered it is taking a moment to say, “Okay, I hear what you’re saying.” And then taking a moment to say, “And this is what I think you’re trying to”, how we can try and come together on it. To me, it’s showing up in this room and not bringing dialogue that might be offensive. It is making sure that we’re supporting each other like we just did. And so, yeah. Angie, why don’t you weigh in for us on, as a coach, what would you expect from people in terms of your facilitating ability? And Alex, maybe we’ll, both mute at the same time.

Angie:

Yeah, for me I love that you called out using the emojis. We love Merrill down in the audience because we know he’s listening and always giving us the emojis to let us know that he’s here with us, even though we’re not hearing his voice. So respectful. That’s what we’re talking about. I think it is allowing everyone the opportunity to speak and be respectful in how we respond to each other in that case. The other thing that I think as a moderator when you’re leading these conversations, you can create, and you’re doing this, Jenny, being very clear on how your room runs in terms of, and creating that. All of you that come to my room now, I think have that feel of how things go. That helps create that safe place and the respectfulness of it. I do love that when we can challenge each other because that’s where we grow.

Angie:

And having that curiosity from Jenny, this and the others in the room who are PQ trained, the yes and or everything that someone has to say has 10%, at least 10% is right. Being able to, even if we have that initial response, someone is saying something and it’s like, oh, I don’t agree with that at all. If that’s our first response to think, what is it about what they’re saying that I do agree with? Yes, what I like about what you’re saying is this and what it makes me think of. And I think that can create a lot of respectfulness, letting people know that they’re being heard. One thing that I’ve noticed, I don’t spend a lot of time in other rooms anymore, but I have had the experience of being in a room where I’ve spoken and not being acknowledged, had my, and then the moderator says, hardly even says, thank you, Angie. It’s just, okay, Alex, let’s hear from you. Yeah. Having that moment to acknowledge, and thank you for your contributions. I am a fan of reflecting a little bit on what I heard from you. I don’t think that has to be the case, but as a minimum, acknowledge that someone has spoken and that you appreciate their thoughts. I think that’s everything.

Alex:

Thank you for your contribution. Was I supposed to say that?

Jenny:

No, no, I think, as we’re saying, it’s this “pass the torch” type thing, Alex, that Angie is good at. She takes the time, she acknowledges what has been said by somebody, and she allows them the space to potentially say what they haven’t finished saying She’s a very good moderator. And yeah, appreciate your insights there, Angie. Thank you for that. Alex, our next question here was about perspectives versus perception. Did you want to ask Angie this one?

Perception Versus Perspectives

Alex:

Yeah, I’ll just say it real quick. When I was in art college, we’d sit in a studio full of 25 people and we’d be given a single sculpture in a room and asked to paint it. And when you walked around the room, everyone had a different perspective on what that sculpture looked like, but the sculpture itself didn’t change. I’m wondering what your views are on perception versus perspective.

Angie:

Is that for me, Jenny, or do you want to?

Jenny:

I can expand on that a little bit. Thank you, Alex, for you, this. Yeah, I’ll expand on it for Angie a little bit just to give her a little bit more colour on our thinking here. Alex is saying anybody, like any one sculpture in a room like that, wouldn’t be the same. It’s saying that the way we determine what we think is truth, fact, whatever is this construct that only really we have. We’re trying to create a place where people don’t take a position like that sculpture looks like this and say that that sculpture can’t look any other way, but rather say it’s a sculpture and it has these things. We’re trying to create a way to make sure that we’re not being positional versus being able to honour that somebody is just looking at something from their perception or their position.

Jenny:

We’re trying to separate those two things. One of the thoughts I have in that is to just potentially look to another person in the group. I know you do this sometimes, Angie is you’ll say, oh, I don’t know Michelle. If somebody comes in with a question, I disagree with that. You’ll say, what are people thinking? What do we want to say back? Anyway, I’ll just stop there. What are some ways to try and separate people’s position or the word perception, whichever you prefer, versus allowing them to gain some perspective?

Angie:

Yeah, interesting. I love this perspective. It’s great. For me, just my first thoughts around the difference between perspective and perception is that the sculpture, if I think about the sculpture idea, or we’ve probably some of, you’ve probably heard the parable about the elephant in the blind, men blind. It depends a bit on where you’re standing and what you’re looking at. That would be, I guess, your perspective. I can be standing on one side and I see it a certain way, and I’m looking at the same thing as you are and feeling the same thing that you are, but you’re on a different side of it. Your perspective is going to be different where you’re standing and looking at it, the perception could be coloured by my experience.

Angie:

What I’m seeing is maybe I’ve never seen an elephant before. I’ve never seen a sculpture like this before. My description and what I perceive it to be might be different. I think for me, when it comes to that, it’s really about curiosity and being open to say, well, this is what I see, and I know that that’s what I’m seeing and explaining even where I’m coming from. My background is this. I think it’s important when we know in some of the other rooms that I do around with the PQ coaches helping, where are you calling in from and where are you on the PQ journey helps us understand a little bit of the perspective that they might be bringing from that. The more that you know about me, “I live in Calgary, I have an engineering background, I’m a coach.” “This is how I know Jenny” or “how I know people.”

Angie:

All of that helps other people understand where I might be coming from. I think having that openness to share, without judgement, of myself or other people, and consider] what that might look like. And then to your point, I’m describing what I’m seeing, feeling, and perceiving from this experience, and then be open to understanding that someone else is seeing it differently, and how can I start piecing those together? The elephant in the blind men is someone over here talking about, well, it looks and feels like this, and someone over here is, it looks and feels like that, and none of them is fully correct. We don’t have the full picture. Being able to start piecing that all together, and I think especially as moderators being able to be listening to that and creating that picture for others in terms of, okay, I’m hearing this from all of these different perspectives and I’m creating a picture for myself. Let me test it out. Let me see if this is resonating and being open to that. I’ll stop there. I think that was.

Jenny:

No, it’s amazing, exactly what we’re looking for.

Jenny:

Alex, now let’s play the game. Let’s do, as Angie just suggested Angie does, can you parrot back a little bit of what you heard from Angie? Can you offer her some of the things you heard?

Alex:

Well, I found what she said, as per the emojis “a hundred per cent on point”. And I think strangely, in our justice system, for instance, that’s why we have juries because we need at least a minimum of 12 people’s different perceptions of what went on so that they can determine what’s closest to the fact beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think, yeah, here we’re a hundred per cent on point, it’s really important to know other people’s perceptions and perspectives on things based on their backgrounds. And I mean, other than that, I couldn’t add to anything that you said because I truly do feel that you pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

Jenny:

Yeah, I agree, Angie. Thank you. Okay, let’s move forward. Let’s talk about being stuck. I look at this as I said, we could get in a place where it could get positional. Let’s use it because we just described what positional is and trying to make sure that we understand how our experiences come into… Actually, and next week’s conversation, we’re talking to a psychologist who focuses on self-regulation training. I’m excited about that conversation. It’s a conversation, a long time coming anyway, but the point being, as Angie was saying, how our perceptions are a result of our experiences and our perspectives can also be a result of where we are physically in the world, but also where we are emotionally and mentally as well. But understanding those two things, understanding where people are coming from, that’s the opportunity in these conversations. When we’re potentially stuck, when we’re potentially having difficulty, what Alex and I have talked about is we want people to use the tools in this conversation.

Jenny:

Again, we need our participants to help us if we’re getting in trouble. For example, if somebody’s running long, I’m going to go into gifts and I’m going to pull up a clock, but try and do it in a way that’s sort of funny. We’re just wanting to give space for other people to talk. If we can just use, yeah, thank you, Angie. If there’s, and this is just an idea, but I’m curious, especially from Angie’s perspective, we haven’t tried that in your room, Angie and I are playing this out. But I do think I have every once in a while, again, in a helpful sort of funny way, to try and help. Anyway, go ahead, Alex.

Alex:

Sorry to interject as the mediator, but does Melanie have anything to contribute or does Merrill have anything to contribute?

Jenny:

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for suggesting that. If you guys did want to come up on stage, there is the option, in the bottom right corner, there’s the hand you can ask to come up on stage. Yeah, Melanie, of course. Yeah. Thank you for reminding me, Alex, we’d love you to come up and say a few words if you have anything to add. One thing that Melanie offered when we went through our dry run with the PQ coaches is this idea of making sure that we’re doing a feed-forward loop, that we’re making sure that we’re serving not only ourselves, but the people that we’re trying to work with in this, make sure that this positive feedback or feed-forward loop is happening. Thank you for that. That’s been something that Alex and I pull forward still. But anyway, when we’re stuck, we want to use the emojis as we said, but I’m also thinking that we need to look to others either in the audience or on stage to weigh in. Again, just to try and gain some perspective, as we were saying, if two people are sort of stuck in the same position, if you will, then we have to look to a third or audience member perhaps to offer something in the chat. What are your thoughts on that, Angie?

Angie:

Well, these are such great questions. Things that I am like, oh, what do I do in this situation? Because partly with our group, we don’t typically run into some of these problems. The running over the thing I think is always a challenge for me because I’m mindful that sometimes I feel like someone’s taking too much time, and I might backchannel someone when I had a co-moderator, I’d be like, should we be stepping in here? And I’d often get there, no, no, they’re saying good stuff, let it go. And watching what’s happening. If people in the audience are dropping off, that’s often a sign. But I love the idea of setting up the ground rules around using an emoji to kind of let people know. And part of that as we’re doing now, is being clear upfront that that is what we’re we’re going to do. I mean, I’m also a fan of sometimes to maybe step in with somebody, and at times you sometimes have to just kind of be like, okay. Yeah, that’s great, Jenny. And as a moderator, this is the other thing, you can always close my mic. If it gets to that, you can always close my mic, which can be kind of funny too.

Alex:

Thank you. Angie, may I, as a moderator, just would it be wise, just if someone’s going on and on, just suggest like, Hey, maybe we can take that up in the break room.

Angie:

If there is a break room.

Alex:

If there’s a break room.

Angie:

Yeah. Yeah. I think much of it is setting the stage ahead when you even invite people to speak to say, oh, give them some instructions on what it is that you’re looking for from them. And you’ll learn, especially if you have regular people coming into the room, you kind of get to know them a little bit. But I do think that sometimes my experiences with people especially, and you start to sense too when they’re getting a bit of a head of steam. If I were in person, you can sometimes feel when that person is that you can see it in their body language. Like, oh, they’re, they’re going to get up and start walking around because they’re now in lecture mode, for example. But even listening in and being prepared, and it’s a fine balance. It’s like, is this on topic? Is it getting disrespectful?

Angie:

Is it getting judgmental? Are we staying? Being able to come back to the rules that you’re setting, I think is great to be able to, you might need to step in and depending on your own, I hate stepping in. It’s not my favourite thing to do, but I’ll, because when you start to feel like it is being disrespectful to other people, I’ll just say, Alex and I might say it a couple of times, “Can we bring this back for a minute?” And clubhouse can be glitchy too, because sometimes we walk on each other without realising it or someone’s talking and someone else is like, you don’t know. But there are ways to do that. I love using the emoji. I think if you’ve set that up with people, that’s something I hadn’t thought of, Jenny, if you set that up with regulars in your room, somebody who’s going on too long is one aspect that you talked about others.

A moderator’s role in respectful conversation

Alex:

I’m just looking for advice as a moderator so that I can make sure that we stay on point, respect everybody’s time, and have the discussion that was intended. I genuinely appreciate that advice. Thank you so much. Sure.

Angie:

Yeah. Yeah. And ultimately also being flexible, right? That’s the other thing, Jenny, that you’ve probably, there are times when, and this is your room, and you get to decide how it goes and what the topic is. And if you have a topic that you want to stay on tonight to be able to speak to that, especially at the beginning, we’re going to try and stay on topic. We have a very specific thing that we’re working through tonight or, Hey, this is where we’re starting tonight. We’ll see where it goes. Sometimes even setting that at the beginning can be helpful.

Jenny :

Yeah, that’s a great intention. The intention of these is to give people some notice in advance. And Melanie, thank you so much for joining us. I’m going to try and tee up a question for you here first if that’s okay. And then we’ll let Angie weigh in again. But yeah, the intention is that we want to give people information in advance about these conversations, again, expecting as you do, Angie. Just to be clear, Angie does a similar thing with her room right now. She’s reading a book and she’s breaking down the chapters. I have no intention of reading the book because Angie’s doing a great summary of it for me. I get to just enjoy this weekly exploration that she’s doing, whereas others are going to read it, and that’s amazing. She leaves space for this whole range of participation, which I just think is important.

Jenny:

Just some thoughts. I’m trying to frame a question for you now, Melanie, as we’ve said we want to put forward an idea. For example, next week we have a psychologist, like I said, who is focused on self-regulation training. Helping people understand how to regulate themselves and the value that it adds to our well-being and our ability to overcome fears. Because a lot of what we’re dealing with right now is that people are afraid. Some people are financially struggling, people who are experiencing health issues, or people who are concerned about water in our neck of the woods. Let’s be clear, we have a big water shortage concern right now. It’s something that I’m working on and Alex and Colin, for example, who were in the audience earlier are working on it as well to try and bring awareness around this and to try and get people talking about it.

How do we invite people into difficult conversations?

Jenny:

That might be a conversation. The idea is that we give people information in advance of the conversations, take it or leave it, but to be able to work through a specific idea, talking about rules of engagement, what ways do you think is setting up, and this is what I think is a good question for you specifically. You are a very good bridger. You know how to help people get excited and connect with others. How do we help people understand that this is an invitation for something positive rather than this potential burden of information that is heavy for people to take in? I hope that’s a clear question and I’m happy to clarify if you need. Thanks.

Melanie:

Nope, it is. I think just as Angie suggests from a moderation perspective, maybe consider setting up community agreements. There’s a positive intelligence community of practice that I’m in. And one day something subtle happened that made a couple of first-time guests, including myself, a little creeped out. I’m the type of person, I’m going to go back and see if it clears. And then somebody went to social media without, maybe they were overly stimulated, so to speak. In response, a bunch of discussions happen, and there is now a community agreement, and the community agreement is shared at the top of every meeting. It could be a link that you pin at the top of the room, it’s there for people to view, it’s there for a reset, it’s there, maybe it’s on a Google Drive, for example. I think that’s what they do. And it’s shared for general knowledge. It talks about how complex conversations may happen with respect for privacy, with respect for others. And it frames what the standard of conduct is. I haven’t seen this anywhere else before, and it’s quite the same way. And it was something that they created in response to somebody’s creepy comments on social media, for lack of a better word. It might be a suggestion if you’re expecting difficult conversations.

Jenny:

I think it’s brilliant, Melanie, thank you so much. I think especially to set an intention that it’s a community agreement. Yeah, and I love it, like you said, it can be something that we go back to during an episode if we’re stuck as we were trying to describe, right? Is to say, “Remember, we have a community agreement here.” What would our community tell us? Or how does our community weigh in here? At the end of the day, it’s a shared experience. That’s why Angie’s Room is successful for us because we share that room. Right, Angie, do you have some additions to that? Thank you so much, Melanie.

Angie:

Yeah, I think that’s a great idea, especially if there’s a chance that you don’t always have the same people in the room. You always have new people joining. Having that something you can point back to in an in-person type facilitation, you would have them on a flip chart or the whiteboard or something, and you could subtly as a facilitator, if things were getting a little off the rails, I would move myself to be standing by those rules just to bring everybody’s attention to them. And I think you said Jenny earlier, that also it doesn’t have to be just the moderator or moderators that necessarily step in. Sometimes someone else in the room can bring the voice of reason or the question, because oftentimes, if I think about when we get stuck in positions, a good question or two can often pull the group out of that or pull the two.

Angie:

If there are two people, it’s digging underneath the position. That’s the explore power of the sage, as those of us in PQ know to be able to be curious and ask questions and understand what’s important underneath that position. There is a lot of opportunity there. And I think putting it in, I love the idea of pinning it to the top and reminding you can always, it’s good practice to reset a room anyways at some point. Just remind people, if you’ve got new people in the room, here’s what we’re doing. Here’s what we’re talking about tonight. If you want to click on the document, you’ll see the rules of engagement or what we’re doing as well as the topic that we’re talking about. Yeah, I’ll stop there.

Alex:

Melanie. Yeah. Wow. It sounds like there is some weight behind your experience and reasoning behind why you’re setting community standards. I was just wondering if you were willing to email us a sort of draught, like how you kind of set your ground rules so that maybe we could understand how to save face and stay safe at the same time while maintaining kind of open dialogues for a constructive end.

Melanie:

Be happy to ask one of the co-chairs of the committee to have a chance to reconnect with them next Thursday. One publicly and one privately. I’ll try and get back to you by the 19th.

Addressing Our Saboteurs

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s amazing, Mel. I mean, even a public website is enough for us to get that from you. Thank you. She provided in the chat, just in case you didn’t see Alex, what it includes, and I took a picture of it. I’ve got that for us. Melanie, I asked you a question, but is there something that you wanted to offer thinking we could explore our PQ? Both Alex and I took our saboteur tests so we could talk a little bit about that. But before, I assume otherwise, do you have something more to add in terms of what we covered already?

Melanie:

What you’ll love, since you both already took it, is that those community agreements occlude the need to create a space for PQ reps as part of a discussion. I’m glad you’re both in good hands and very familiar.

Jenny:

Heads up. We were talking about Alex and I taking the course together sometime soon. Cool.

Angie:

Yeah.

Jenny:

Think about that timing and won’t be for a little bit, I don’t think. But yeah, we can talk a little bit about Alex and my personality types. Carol, I know Merrill has probably already looked it, but I’ll just say there is a PQ saboteur quiz you can take to find out what might be holding you back, because ultimately what we’re hoping to achieve here is helping people reach their full potential. When we worked together, when we were collaborative and able to solve problems that were stretching our ability, we were reaching a further capability than we thought we could do on our own. We’re looking at our saboteurs together today to talk about what are the things that might be either A, holding us back or B, helping each other, complimenting each other. I’ll start with myself. What we’ll do, and then Alex, if you don’t mind, after, I’ll let you sort of walk through your personality style because in the basis of us trying to make sure that we create a space, like a community, sorry, a community agreement, that we’re doing it from a place of really honouring, understanding ourselves as well as we can and owning sort of our shortcomings and being ready to be humble, if you will, when we need to.

Jenny:

God, now that I say that, my top saboteur is controller, which I hate even saying out loud, but it’s something that creeps up for me, which is as Alex said, I’m excited or hyper about trying to make sure that people are connecting the dots. I have this intention for a meeting, let’s say, and I can get sort of controlling of the style of that discussion. It’s hard for me to let go of, for example, and then hyper achiever. I guess I’m just driven to solve problems in my case, that’s how I’d describe it. But anyway, restless. Yeah, I mean, I don’t do much sitting around. And then yes, I would say that’s where I get more argumentative with people, picturing my hyper-rational self coming out. But yeah, I mean the benefit of [knowing] these.

Jenny:

Angie, since you’re with us, I’ll let Alex, oh, and conversely, I’ll just say a little bit about Alex, which we talked a bit about, and then I’ll let you do the same. And then Angie, maybe when we’re done, you can kind of just say what are some of the takeaways we can talk about in terms of our personalities? What do we do with this knowledge? I’m going to offer, because I’ve already taken this course with Angie a little bit about, what this does for me, and Alex even knows this it helps me look at what Alex’s strengths and potentially the saboteurs are, being hypervigilant is a great trait. Being hypervigilant to a fault is sabotage. With Alex, if you notice, I don’t have hypervigilance as a high saboteur, it’s not something that comes up for me. Alex is vigilant in our working relationship because he’s able to, that is a strength of his, but also when he’s getting frustrated with me, it can be a sign for me now knowing that it’s his hypervigilance. I’m doing something that’s sort of just flip and not clear and we need to be more accurate or more precise in what we’re discussing. That’s just one example of how I think looking at, anyway, I’ll stop there. Go ahead, Alex.

Alex:

Yeah, I scored a 9.4 out of 10 on the hypervigilance categorization. I suffer from continuous and intense anxiety. I’m a reverse engineer. I look at all the worst-case scenarios and hope for the best, but I’m always looking for the worst outcome. And it becomes disabling when it gets in the way of me being able to just extend trust to other people. And as long as I keep it in the reins and acknowledge it for what it is, then I’m quite capable of accomplishing great things. It’s a constant battle there in terms of, it’s like a razor’s edge, walking between hypervigilant and productive. I’m also a pleaser. I try to gain acceptance and affection. Sometimes it’s to a fault, but where I disagree with the synopsis is it becomes resentful. I don’t become resentful, I just kind of beat myself up even more and probably go back to the hypervigilant thing. Those are the two main ones. I mean, I can go on and on through the pages, but those are the two main saboteurs that I’m struggling with on a day-to-day basis. And if I don’t manage it properly, it can become paralytic.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you, Alex, for being open. But the thing is it hasn’t been crippling, like let’s be clear, just to frame things for people is Alex has been extremely diligent and has been forthright and very collaborative and has, we set out to spoke in August and we said we were going to be launched by January, and we’ve done it and it’s been piecemeal, one bucket at a time, if you will, back to the gravity well message and it’s gotten done because, well, I mean quite frankly, vigilance is a very strong quality in Alex too. It’s kind of this, again, going back to this concept of the two-coin thing what’s our strength? I think a strength of mine is also being able to appreciate others’ perspectives and trying to be able to make sure everyone feels welcome in a space and their input is valuable and that can be controlling sometimes, but I think with the right intention. I don’t know, do you have, just before we hand it over to Angie to give us a little bit of feedback, Alex, do you have anything to offer on what you’ve learned from me based on my personality profile? And do you have it handy here for you to look at?

Alex:

Yeah, I think one of the things that’s been challenging but fascinating about you is you’re a driver. You set out to do something and you have a specific outcome in your mind. And even though we’re both speaking English, sometimes it can be very difficult to translate. And that’s been an amazing challenge. And I would not have taken a course at a Dutch university on the other side of the world if it were not for you driving and motivating me to challenge myself beyond what I maybe my saboteur thought I was capable of. It’s been a real blessing. And I mean it’s only been since August of last year that we set out to do this together, and I’ve learned much and I’ve acquired many new skills and I’m grateful for having the opportunity to have met you and set about something completely different because a little bit of backstory for me if I don’t take up too much of your time, is I was a ditch digger and a security guard and a construction worker and a cook, and learning to code and build websites and stretch out into a new horizon has been a real challenge.

Alex:

But Jenny and her driving forces strangely helped me allow me to utilise the anxiety to do something I didn’t know I could do. And it turns out that her drive helped me succeed so far. I’m looking forward to the future.

Jenny:

Wow, man. Thank you so much, Alex, I just had to weigh in there briefly. Thank you so much. Okay, Angie, can you give us some feedback? What can we do with all this?

How Saboteurs Play Off Our Strengths

Angie:

Yes, I would love it, I’m excited. How much time do we have? A couple of things. First, just a reminder for all of this, for all of us and those who are PQ coaches, this subtle language change. I’m not a pleaser, I have a pleaser saboteur, I’m not a controller, I have a controller saboteur. I think that’s important to just remind ourselves of that. Secondly, it was so interesting because as you were talking, I was pulling up some notes that I have about the different saboteurs. The reminder that our saboteurs overplay our strengths, and Jenny, you said it, there’s nothing. What I’m going to correct or adjust is there isn’t anything good about hypervigilance, but there is a lot of strength in vigilance. There’s hyper achievement, not great, but achievement, high achievement is great. Thinking about the fact that when our saboteurs are dialled back down and we now access those strengths, we call them our sage strengths, and you both talked about them.

Angie:

I just want to remind you what those are. Jenny, first of all, I’ll just go, Alex was talking last, about what you described about Jenny and her ability, she’s a driver, and she’s getting stuff done. If I read to you the strengths that a controller saboteur is overplaying, confident, action-oriented, decisive, persistent challenges, self and others, ability to do the right thing, even if it’s not popular, seeing possibilities and activating self and others towards an outcome, has a can-do spirit. Sounds a lot like ar Jenny for sure. And then the other one that she has high up is a hyper achiever. Again, hyper achiever is not great, that’s the saboteur, but when we dial it back, we’re into that high achiever. Characteristics, strengths, driven, adaptable, self-directed, capable of growing self and others to achieve full potential. That’s all the sage strengths that you were describing, Alex of Jenny.

Angie:

What happens, and I think having listened to Jenny’s stories that the combination of the controller and the hyper achiever saboteur, when they take over, that’s when you see, I mean Jenny is driven and sure that what needs to be done and that can be trying to control all the things and all the people and all the things and this drive to win, do the best, be the best, and get the accolades for that. That’s all those avatars that are at play. And Jenny’s done a lot of work and we’ve seen a lot of being able to dial back into those strengths that we’ve just seen. I think that’s awesome. And then let’s flip back over to Alex. Did you talk about hypervigilant and pleaser? I think those were the two. Hypervigilant, the strengths. Again, vigilance is a good thing. Being able to be heard is one of the strengths, being sensitive and aware of the true risks and dangers to self and others, guardians of the community and institutions. They’re the reliable ones, making sure everything’s okay, taking care of everybody. They feel safe to be around, they’re loyal, dependable, hardworking, capable of perseverance and consistent work towards objectives. They have a seriousness and firmness about them, and we feel good and safe when we’re around them. Again, if the saboteur overplays, it’s into that anxiousness that you were talking about, Alex that always wondering, always wearing, always like, right? And that spills over into the people around you.

Alex:

Thank you. Just might interject a little bit here. Yeah, it’s the anxiety, trying to predict all the variables can be paralytic, right? There’s always going to be a variable that I don’t see. What I’m trying to do is scale things back and just kind of look at what’s at hand so that I’m not overextending variables, that no information provides. I mean, right?

Angie:

Absolutely.

Alex:

I can go to the moon and back, but it’s like really all I have to do is just build a bloody website,

Angie:

Alex. I think there’s absolutely some learning to understand that saboteur and asking yourself some really good questions about what would happen, what’s the worst that could happen, what if it did happen? Kind of coming back to that. Lots of conversations that we can have there. I just wanted to speak to the pleaser also because one of my top saboteurs has strengths that the saboteur is overplaying. Again, it’s taking all these things that we’re good at and overplaying ’em, empathetic, loving and giving, tuned into others’ feelings and needs, emotionally self-aware, and likely has pretty high emotional intelligence. All of those things are probably things that have drawn you and Jenny or Jenny to you. And that is often the case that when there’s a good partnership, it’s the opposite attraction sort of thing.

Angie:

And I think just that reminder of, I thought it was interesting that you said one of the things that didn’t resonate with you around the pleaser was the resentfulness. Because for me personally, with that pleaser saboteur, that is 100% when I know that my pleaser has completely been overplayed because I’m giving and giving and I’m doing things for people, and then all of a sudden I start feeling like, why is it that I do all of this for everybody else and then I have to go pay to get coached? And why is it that as soon as that voice starts to run in my head I’m like, oh, there’s the resentment I give and give and give and I don’t get anything back. Yeah,

Alex:

And maybe this is wrong of me, but resentment, I have a history of addiction. Resentment is the poison that I take to kill the other guy. It’s a futile endeavour. In a strange way, I’m very fearful of it. I just choose to let that person go and move forward and forgive ’em at the same time. Much to my detriment. But no, I just don’t have a place for resentment in my life. It’s bad. It’s a vampire.

Key Takeaways

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you so much. I see we’re past the hour. Angie, you gave us lots there to take away. I’ll just say the things that stuck with me from this conversation are just really getting clear on what are the good qualities of our personalities and understanding when they’ve overplayed like you said, rather than thinking that it’s who we are. It’s a behaviour shift that has happened. And just acknowledging that Melanie, thank you again for offering your thoughts around setting up a community practice and rules of engagement and membership suggestions. Yes, thank you. I’m going to make sure that we have a space on our website to include some suggestions in that space. Carol or Marilyn, if you have any other suggestions, thank you so much for being here and hope that you will catch some of the other episodes. I’ll just say thank you and that’s my sort of, we’re going to always do a positive and negative and a takeaway in each of these things. That’s my summary and I’ll let you, Angie, I don’t know if you have something quickly to add before, and then we’ll just go around the room.

Angie:

Yeah, thanks. Yeah, great job. And I think even over the hour that we’ve been together, I’ve seen the rhythm starting to build between Jenny and Alex and how you’re going to run the room. I think that’s been great and the openness that you’ve shown to bring us in and sharing your thoughts. And I’m excited to see where this goes for you and happy to be here to support you.

Alex:

Just want to say thank you to all of you for taking the time to listen and contribute where you, me, if you choose. And I do feel that Jenny and I are starting on something quite important and I look forward to learning from all of you in the future. Thanks again.

Jenny:

And Melanie, we’ll leave the last word for you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Melanie:

I’m trying not to cough. In chat, I say thanks for the opportunity to join you and Alexander, my three hypers are part of my top four now with the avoider. And just hang in there. Your transparency and your vulnerability will help continue to lighten the load and thanks for doing that in a safe space.

Jenny:

Amazing. So great. Thank you for being a part of this. This is something that, like Alex said, we feel is special. Thank you for helping us get started. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a great evening. Bye

Angie:

Bye. Thanks, Jenny.

Jenny:

Thanks.

Alex:

Thanks.

I threw a microphone on my spouse Chris last week—you may recognize him from Season 1, Episode 5 or the Leadership Training series in Season 2. Our conversation explores common Alberta narratives about other Canadian regions and the federal government, and then connects these narratives to environmental policy, resource extraction, and changing provincial values.

Albertans often view Quebec as a “taker” province that receives special treatment, keeps its wealth, and benefits from federal transfers while restricting Alberta’s ability to develop oil and gas. Quebec is perceived as having different values—linked mainly to French culture—and as opposing Alberta’s oil and gas interests, especially around pipelines and environmental protection. At the same time, I note that Quebec’s stronger climate stance and bans on practices like frac’ing are seen as positive environmental leadership, even if they clash with Alberta’s extractive priorities.

Chris explains that many Albertans misunderstand equalization, believing Alberta should get back exactly what it pays in federal taxes, when in reality the federal government redistributes funds based on national priorities, meaning Alberta may not see a direct return on every dollar. This feeds a perception that Quebec and Ottawa benefit from Alberta’s wealth and block its development, reinforcing grievances that fuel separatist sentiment.

Comparisons are drawn between Alberta’s oil sands and Quebec’s large-scale hydro, mining, and industrial projects; many Albertans feel Quebec gets easier federal approval and preferential treatment for its projects, while Alberta faces more scrutiny. I question whether this perception is actually true, emphasizing that it is a narrative rather than a proven fact.

The discussion then shifts to Ontario and the idea of “Laurentian elites,” described as longstanding political and industrial power networks in central Canada—families, capitalists, and industrial behemoths concentrated along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence corridor, historically shaping national decisions. Alberta’s story about Ontario includes a sense that central Canada is the political center that decides national outcomes because of its population, leaving the Prairies feeling numerically and politically sidelined.

I recount past experiences of Ontarians viewing Alberta as backward or insignificant (e.g., being asked if Edmonton had paved roads), contributing to a feeling that Ontarians see Albertans as beneath them. Today, Chris notes that Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government is more moderate than Alberta’s United Conservative Party, and that Alberta Conservatives may not see Ontario Conservatives as truly conservative. I highlight that Ontario’s premier has recently adopted more Alberta-like rhetoric on pipelines and natural gas, suggesting some current alignment around resource development.

Despite these political dynamics, many Albertans still believe people in Ontario don’t understand or care about life in Alberta. I challenge the assumption that Ontarians broadly look down on Albertans, suggesting many Ontarians may share similar distrust of government and Ottawa, and that the “they think less of us” story may be overstated.

Narratives about Ottawa in Alberta center on the belief that the federal government is “handcuffing” Alberta, imposing rules that don’t make sense locally and preventing the province from thriving. Chris uses the example of federal restrictions on strychnine for prairie dog control, explaining how the poison moves up the food chain and harms predators and other animals, and how federal scientists pushed for restrictions to protect biodiversity. Political pressure from farmers led Ottawa to loosen these rules, illustrating tensions between private property rights, environmental science, and federal regulation.

We argue that private land use must respect “natural law,” especially in sensitive areas like riparian zones and creeks, where leaving buffer strips and protecting vegetation can benefit both farms and ecosystems. We frame riparian areas as critical infrastructure that reduce flood risk and protect surrounding lands, and suggest that better protection of such areas could have solved many environmental problems.

I advocate for nation-building projects focused on ecological restoration—re-willowing riparian zones, restoring wetlands, and headwater forests—as nature-based solutions that reduce long-term costs from climate-related disasters like severe hailstorms in Calgary, which cause billions in damages and higher insurance costs. Chris notes that current infrastructure spending tends to favour hard engineering (rocks, culverts, road works) because that’s where the money is, while the benefits of ecological approaches are poorly quantified.

Turning to the Maritimes, Albertan narratives often claim that Atlantic provinces have too many federal seats relative to their populations and that residents work just enough to qualify for employment insurance, reinforcing another “taker” stereotype. I recall the older concept of “have-not” provinces and the idea that wealthier regions should help those with fewer opportunities, and wonders if this solidarity has eroded.

Chris explains how the collapse of Atlantic cod fisheries transformed the region: scientific warnings about declining stocks led to calls for quota cuts, but political backlash weakened restrictions, and combined with technological advances and corporate consolidation, this drove overfishing and ultimately a catastrophic stock collapse that has not recovered. This history is used as an analogy for Alberta’s oil industry: I suggest Alberta could face a similar collapse if it over-extracts, especially given constraints like water transfers between basins, risks of over-pressurized formations, and evidence of freshwater contamination near Cold Lake. We argue that while private capital may sees Alberta oil and gas as a good short-term investment, environmental limits and potential catastrophes could force a rapid shift.

Our conversation concludes by tying these regional narratives back to Alberta’s internal identity. Chris says some Albertans behave like a family member who insists on having their way all the time and refuses criticism, even though Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. As a lifelong Albertan, we feel the province has changed: where Alberta once invested in campgrounds, forest rangers, wildlife protection, and a sense of balance, economic development and in-migration have shifted priorities toward making as much money as possible, often at the expense of natural infrastructure that will eventually need repair. This reinforces the broader point that many Alberta narratives about other regions and Ottawa are shaped by political messaging and economic anxiety, and that rebalancing toward environmental stewardship and interprovincial solidarity may be necessary.

Do you agree? What did we miss or where did we go wrong?

This episode focuses on water, cumulative impacts, and long‑term consequences of AI data centres, rather than just short‑term economic promises. Olds resident, concerned citizen turned leader of a local resistance around water sovereignty and now AI data centers, Janey Olson, joins me to explain.

From my perspective—as a geophysicist and oil and gas environmental liability expert—what’s happening in Olds is both shocking and emblematic of a wider pattern: residents are blindsided by huge, high‑impact projects—Synapse and Data District—framed as “done deals” by local and provincial economic arms before people have real information or a meaningful say. Janey highlights that Synapse is a 1.4‑gigawatt project—equivalent to adding about one million homes’ worth of power demand—and that there are two data centres proposed in her small town. I note more proposals appearing near Calgary, in Bonnyville and Fox Creek, and Wonder Valley in Grande Prairie.

A 1.4 gigawatt facility is like adding 1.4 million homes to Alberta’s grid “suddenly” and will affect everyone’s power costs and the province’s competitiveness, and it risks turning Alberta into a “sacrificial lamb” for a federal AI and data‑centre agenda. I explicitly connect this to a push to monetise natural gas and build massive fossil‑fuel‑driven power infrastructure—hundreds of diesel generators, turbines, and chillers running 24/7—just to feed these centres.

I outline who stands to gain from these AI data centers in this conversation with Charlie Angus on Meidas Canada.

Note: Wonder Valley is backed by UAE (https://www.theenergymix.com/70b-wonder-valley-project-still-a-mirage-as-olearys-ai-dream-stalls-in-alberta/) while Kuwait and Qatar are partnered with Brookfield’s Investment partners for Synapse.

Water is at the heart of our concerns. We stress that rural residents are already facing “very scary stuff” around water access and control, and that these data centres are “high draw water users” arriving in a context of growing scarcity. I explicitly thank Janey for “following the water” and say that water is “central to everything we want to have in this world,” making it unacceptable to hand it over to AI data centres “to compete with China” for something that doesn’t add value to the common good. I bring in the warning from UN water advisor Bob Sandford about us being on the “cusp of water bankruptcy,” and argue that this is precisely why cumulative water‑impact safeguards are being stripped away—because honest assessment would stop “this obscenity.”

The removal of environmental impact assessments is, to me, one of the most alarming pieces. I echo Janey’s point that environmental impact assessments—which check cumulative impacts of water and power—have been removed for both Wonder Valley and Synapse, leaving the AUC to look only at project‑specific issues rather than the bigger picture. I call this “critical” at a “critical point in time” and say it’s “quite obvious” that these safeguards have been “thrown out the window” precisely because they would block such “obscene” developments.

Janey notes a deep contradiction between years of carbon‑tax pressure on ordinary people and the sudden willingness of governments to green‑light massive, round‑the‑clock fossil‑fuel power plants for data centres, without robust cumulative environmental review. Janey describes how, after years of being “plagued with carbon taxes,” governments are now “throw[ing] the doors open” to polluting projects in order to “beat China” and make Alberta the “sacrificial province,” and I explicitly underscore that framing for listeners. I emphasise that this is “very big stuff and not something to be taken lightly.”

At the same time, I’m inspired by the scale and quality of local resistance. Janey explains how a small kitchen‑table group in Olds has grown into a record‑setting intervention at the Alberta Utilities Commission, with over 1,100 people stepping up to participate in proceeding 30732. I stress that the AUC staff themselves seem to be trying to do their jobs well and help residents navigate the process, even as higher‑level political decisions strip away environmental safeguards.

Take Action: use Little Town Big Data’s Guide to submitting a Statement of Intent to Become an Intervenor

To amplify these local efforts, clarify timelines and tools for public action, and connect the dots for my audience between Olds, other proposed data‑centre sites, and broader provincial and federal policy directions, Janey walks listeners through the significance of the 1.4‑gigawatt load, the AUC proceeding number (30732), and the steps for filing a Statement of Intent to Participate, and I commit to following up so the public can “jump in when it’s most helpful.” Janey also encourage people to contact the province and the premier directly to demand a moratorium or slowdown so Alberta doesn’t become a “data‑centric guinea pig.”

Here’s the Premier’s Email: Premier@gov.ab.ca.

Olds fight as part of a larger pattern Alberta has seen before—like the coal‑mining battles—and standing up for water is critical for everyone, not just Olds. I call Janey and her neighbours “heroes for Alberta” and emphasize that these projects are deliberately sited in smaller communities where there are “fewer voices to be heard,” which is why broader provincial support from you and me is essential.

CBC Reporter, Eagle Andersen called me to hear my thoughts about the updated information provided by Kevin’s “O’Leary Digital” team in advance of their open house slated from tomorrow, June 4 from 4-7 pm at Grovedale Community Hall in Grande Prairie.

I criticize the new newsletter about a proposed data centre project for omitting key information about what powers the facility, assuming it will rely on natural gas and arguing that this leaves out major parts of the electricity, water, and contamination story. I highlight that the project is expected to use about six billion liters of water per year (six million cubic meters), which is roughly equivalent to the annual allocation for the Greenview District, effectively doubling municipal water use for a single project and with no guarantee that usage would remain capped at that level. I also note concerns about power demand, citing examples like Lake Tahoe where residents were reportedly told they could no longer get grid power due to a data facility, and emphasize that a seven‑gigawatt facility would be a massive addition, equating five gigawatts to the power needs of five million people.

I argue there is “zero benefit” to Canada and Albertans, claiming the project offers only limited construction and operations jobs and primarily serves U.S. government interests, which they accuse of trying to push Canada toward violating international law, climate obligations, and stability. I add that, especially after the war in Iran and anticipated resource shortages, leaders should make “extreme choices” to limit use of fossil fuels and ensure benefits do not accrue mainly to fossil fuel interests.

When asked what information the company should provide, I say the full scope of the project must be disclosed, including how power will be generated and the associated infrastructure, pointing to the example of Olds where oil and gas workers understand the gas turbines, roadways, and infrastructure needed for such projects. Drawing on personal experience working near Grande Prairie, I speculate that a large gas cap over an oil field might be used to extend the life of a field instead of addressing environmental cleanup obligations, calling this a likely costly error. I also reference the prime minister’s recent statement that the U.S. is misleading and argue Canada should not follow a “mega pipeline drill, baby drill” agenda.

On public engagement, I describe significant opposition in Olds, describing “major outcry” and strong grassroots organizing, including people handing out posters and flyers and encouraging Albertans to file statements of concern against the project. I mention an upcoming open house in Olds on June 24, to be attended by the premier and local MLA Sawyer, and question whether Grande Prairie has been given a similar opportunity. For the upcoming open house in the Grande Prairie region, they say they hope the project is “shut down immediately,” arguing Greenview County should prioritize supporting farmers and the agricultural economy and focus on water restoration and cleanup operations instead. I suggest stopping the project now to limit any damages O’Leary’s business could claim, referencing the Grassy Mountain coal project as a precedent where the answer was to “settle.”

I explain my participation a recent webinar through Public Interest Alberta was to inform the public about environmental liabilities and the impacts of data centres on water use, cybersecurity, and water security, describing these facilities as “non‑starters” and noting similar projects have been stopped elsewhere. I see data centres as another face of fossil fuel expansion and argue that carbon capture and storage is not a genuine climate solution, based on their industry experience. I insist fossil fuel expansion for hydrogen, LNG export, or data facilities—especially those they say could benefit “nefarious actors”—must not proceed, and that public opposition and on‑the‑ground action are the only ways to stop such projects.

Regarding the webinar’s reception, I report that hundreds attended and feedback was “really good, really strong,” and they mention a planned follow‑up interview on their platform “The Gravity Well” and further efforts by environmental organizations to keep sharing information. I warn that data centres should not be appealing to Albertans because they bring in large corporate and billionaire interests that do not help the province through challenging times.

When asked why I care, I explain how this is about “our present and our future,” citing their two children and Alberta’s role as a headwater province that should focus on restoring water rather than extracting more fossil fuels. They reference the “keep it in the ground” philosophy and carbon pricing as concepts originating in the oil and gas industry, arguing that remaining resources are not worth extracting and would cause irreparable harm, which motivates them to do this work even without pay.

Here’s the link to Eagle Andersen’s article, please follow him as he will be attending the open house tomorrow and hopes to gain a statement from the Sturgeon Lake Chief. Jody MacPherson of The Missive is following the Wonder Valley story closely: https://www.theenergymix.com/hidden-wonder-valley/.

Thanks to Raul of Charlie Angus / The Resistance’s Meidas Canada, I am thrilled to share the presentation that University of Calgary Public Health Professor, Lindsay McLaren, and I gave at the Public Interest Alberta (PIA) Common Purpose, Collective Action 2026 conference in Edmonton last month. The presentation outlines our backgrounds, a better vision, our experience, an action, and how to join us! Lindsay and I outline the need to recenter Alberta and Canada’s economies around public and planetary health. That comes with:

* Recentering decision-making around water and land restoration, not energy growth.

* Recognizing we are in a polycrisis: seeing multiple and additive crises with the common root causes: extraction, accumulation, and exploitation.

* Unwinding the neoliberal playbook of manufactured scarcity (cutting of public services), division, deregulation, private wealth accumulation, and stunting of our imaginations.

* Reclaiming the term “economy” as “caring for one another”. Own the economy you wish to foster.

* Grow alternatives which include principles of reciprocity, solidarity, and equity.

* Look to other jurisdictions, including the Canadian Quality of Life Framework, to help shape your local well-being economy.

We hope to have a similar meeting in Calgary this fall to continue this effort, stay tuned! A special shout out to TheBreakdownAB for all of Nate Pike’s help in gaining support for recalls.

Should you wish to join Lindsay and I in shaping a well-being economy in Alberta through the PIA Democracy Task Force in Alberta, please email Brad Lafortune of PIA here: brad.lafortune@pialberta.org. Help Brad (or I) know what you’d like to see from the Democracy Task Force.

The Gravity Well | Public Interest Alberta Collaboration

I had the pleasure of joining Brad Lafortune of PIA in co-hosting a webinar on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) data center explosion happening in Alberta, across North America, and the world. Locally, the United Conservative Party of Alberta did not run on a platform of AI water and power consumption or foreign surveillance intensification. The webinar features Representative Melanie Sachs of the House in Maine. Melanie created and passed a non-partisan AI ban bill, ultimately vetoed by a single elected official. Melanie shows the specific project at play in her area and its derelict conditions.

It’s vital Albertans follow the success, and learn from the failures, of other jurisdictions in order to stop AI data center construction in Alberta and Canada.

Stay tuned for more updates on this from Brad, Lindsay and I.

I sat down with Matilda, a grade 10 student at William Aberhart High School, today, on Menstrual Hygiene Awareness Day. She shares her project to install free feminine hygiene product dispensers in the girls’ bathrooms so that no student is ever left without supplies when they need them. And explains that her motivation comes from a personal experience of getting her period at school, finding no products available, and recognizing how stigma keeps students from openly asking for help or even naming what they’re going through. Matilda has turned that experience into advocacy, launching a change.org petition and promoting her work through her Instagram account “@AbeFlowsFree,” where she’s also organizing a bake sale to support the cause. Beyond menstrual equity, she speaks candidly about broader problems at her school, from overcrowded, noisy classrooms without enough desks to packed yoga classes where 35 students can barely move without bumping into each other, underscoring how urgently students need better learning conditions.

Jenny: Okay, thank you for joining me today, Matilda. Let’s start with who you are, what you’re up to and just a little bit about you for people listening. Thank you.

Matilda:

Yeah, thank you for having me. My name is Matilda. I’m a grade 10 student at William Aberhart High School. And yeah, this is my project to get free feminine hygiene product dispensers in the girls’ bathroom.

Jenny:

Excellent. And remind us, today’s a special day, right? What’s today for folks who don’t know?

Matilda:

It’s Menstrual Equity Day and Menstrual Awareness Day. A day to make people aware of people that have periods and how they deal with them and the barriers that are in their way and just kind of an advocacy day.

Jenny:

Amazing. Out of curiosity, is there anywhere people can go to find information about that on today?

Matilda:

Well, there’s a website that I like or an Instagram account called The Period Purse. I follow them. They’re a Canadian-based organization and they have a lot of good information.

Jenny:

Amazing. Thank you so much for that, Matilda. Okay. You’re trying to make sure that feminine hygiene projects are free for any student that needs them in high school, at your high school, correct? Yes. And so what does that look like? Why are you doing that? What’s the rationale behind the project?

Matilda:

Well, I just thought that it kind of started with a feeling that I had when I got my period in a bathroom one day and there was nothing there. I was like, “Well, there’s got to be other girls like me.” And it was a really, really bad feeling and there was nobody else there and I didn’t know that my school had stuff, which they don’t. I was like, “Well, I want to do something to stop this.”

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s nuts. I can actually remember a very similar scenario, not just once but many times when I was in high school where I felt I forgot to prepare myself. And yeah, it’s also something that we don’t talk about enough because it does feel like it’s your own thing that happens and not really just an understanding of what it’s like for before it comes kind of thing.

Matilda:

Yeah. Especially in high schools, there’s lots of stigma around it. People will just say, “I’m not feeling well. I need to go home to a teacher instead of like, I’ve got my period. Nobody will ask each other for products when they need them.” And people will just pretend they don’t have it or they’ll laugh about it like, “Ha ha, I got my period when it’s a serious biological thing.”

Jenny:

Yeah. I’ve heard there are certain cultures that will celebrate it and it’ll be a big moment for people and you’re right. That’s amazing to hear that it hasn’t changed much since I was in high school because I remember having all of those same experiences of shame almost with it or like trying to hide it or just make light of it and not take it seriously. And a lot of problems come with it too. I remember having lots of pain and in some cases where it was debilitating. So yeah, it’s something we should really understand better and be okay with talking about, right?

Matilda:

Yeah, definitely. And that’s like a tangent to my project, of course, my main thing is to get the feminine hygiene products, but I also want to increase awareness and increase people talking about it at my school.

Jenny:

Amazing. So important. I really appreciate you taking this initiative. So how can people help? What can people do to get involved? Let’s start with adults like me and then we’ll talk about students.

Matilda:

I have a change.org petition. So you can go on their website and search for William Aberhart and my petition will pop right up and you can sign that. You can reach out to if you have kids or if you know people who have children at schools, you can email their principal or the administration to ask what their kind of situation is. You can get involved in parent councils or you can email school board trustees and MLAs.

Jenny:

Amazing. Thank you. Those are all awesome and I will try to make sure to give as much information as possible when I post this conversation for folks. What about students? How can students get more involved in what you’re doing, Matilda?

Matilda:

When you’re at school and you have something you can first of all just talk about it, even if it’s a friend or two friends, that’s people that know about it. You can mention it to your guidance counsellor in their appointment. You can insist with your teachers and your principals and your assistant principals tell them that this is something that we need because the more students that bring up this issue, the more likely they are to move forward with it.

Jenny:

Yeah, absolutely. And you’re right. It’s something that we should be expecting of our classrooms, our schools, I should say, because the thing that we think is important is the thing that we will start feeling is okay and safe to talk about, things like that. Amazing. I can see the value in what you’re doing. It’s wonderful stuff. So can you talk a little bit about the state of education for you, Matilda? What’s it like these days? Do you have concerns? What are your thoughts for people?

Matilda:

Yeah. So schools right now, the class sizes are so big that, for example, in my math class, half of the students needed help in the trigonometry unit, but the teacher could only help a few of those students because there wasn’t enough support for all of them and all of their questions because each student had multiple questions and they needed the teacher to go over it multiple times. It’s just crazy. It’s too big and it’s always so loud and sometimes there’s not even enough desks in the classrooms for everybody to sit at.

Jenny:

Thank you for saying that because I’ve heard people try and tell me online that that’s not true. And I had heard that William Aberhart was one of those schools that there literally was not enough seats for students to be in in some classes. It’s crazy.

Matilda:

Yeah. It’s ridiculous. And even in classes like yoga, there’s not enough space in the yoga room for like 35 people to do yoga and not crash into each other every pose we’re doing.

Jenny:

Right. I can just imagine. I’ve been in a yoga class that’s packed and that 35 is nuts. That’s a huge room that’s required for that. Wow. Well, thank you so much, Matilda. Is there anything else you want to add before we close? I’m hearing that people should go to change.org. They should check out your petition. They should talk to the schools that their students go to, make sure that this is accessible and that students should talk about this amongst themselves and with their guidance counsellor and with their teachers and make it a priority. Anything more you want to add?

Matilda:

Students can talk to their parents too. And if you support me, follow me on Instagram at @abeflowsfree and I believe we’re doing a bake sale this month or maybe next, so I’ll follow up

Jenny:

With that. Excellent. So they can look to your Instagram, which is ABE Flows [Free]. Is that correct?

Matilda:

Yes.

Jenny: Great. So @Abeflowsfree on Instagram, find out about the bake sale that’s coming up shortly. Thank you for all you’re doing, Matilda. Make sure you poke me when you’re doing that so I can make sure people know to get out there and get some baked goods with you, support the cause.

Matilda:

Yeah, for sure. Thank you so much.

Jenny:

Thank you. Take care for now.

The episode of The Gravity Well podcast features fellow Alberta activist Chelsea Barnowich (also known as “Chelsea Loves the Moon”), focusing on organizing against separatism in Alberta and broader threats to democracy and public institutions. We begin by outlining an Alberta-wide day of action in Calgary, including a noon event at MLA Mickey Amery’s office, a memorial walk, a march from City Hall to McDougall Centre (with Handmaid’s Tale costumes), and an evening gathering at Riley Park featuring music, biking, booths, and speakers to showcase the province‑wide movement for unity.

Chelsea then explains her current federal petition (E‑7340), originally rooted in Section 35 treaty rights but now focused on asking the federal government to investigate the Alberta Prosperity Project for foreign interference and links to U.S. actors, including Trump‑aligned officials. The petition quickly gained about 10,000 signatures in its first 72 hours and has since surpassed 15,000, with 25 days left at the time of recording, and Chelsea emphasizes that large signature counts make it harder for Parliament to ignore.

Chelsea and I argue that Premier Danielle Smith and the UCP are effectively aligned with separatist forces, citing Smith’s trips to the U.S., her mixed messaging on separatism, and the use of a “firewall letter” strategy attributed to Stephen Harper that seeks to isolate Alberta economically and leverage separatist sentiment to force federal concessions such as Senate reform. They warn that this approach is “playing with fire,” drawing parallels to Brexit and suggesting that even a partial separatist vote could be used by Donald Trump to claim Albertans want “liberation,” especially given Alberta’s large oil reserves and Trump’s openly stated ambitions. I situate this within a broader “MAGA and separatist sandwich,” linking Alberta politics to Project 2025 and a wider right‑wing agenda aimed at dismantling public institutions, entrenching a billionaire class, and promoting a supremacist order.

The conversation also highlights a long list of grievances against the Alberta government: attacks on workers’ rights, attempts to mine the Rocky Mountains, gerrymandering, creation of a provincial police force, underfunding education, benefiting from war‑driven windfall profits, stoking separatism, cutting disability benefits, threatening pensions and CPP, restricting books and critical thinking in schools, and undermining ecological stability, which they argue is essential for any functioning economy. They stress the centrality of treaties as law, not optional policy, and note that Premier Smith has recently spoken about rewriting treaty law, which they see as part of a revisionist and ongoing attack on Indigenous rights.

Chelsea draws on her previous House of Commons petitions on Gaza—one of which gathered 30,000 signatures in 30 days and was followed by a symbolic airdrop of aid—to show that petitions can influence federal discourse and action, even if responses are often limited to explanatory letters. She argues that legal victories, such as recent First Nations court wins on Section 35 and treaty rights, are crucial but insufficient when facing actors like Donald Trump who, in her view, disregard international law, as illustrated by his role in the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president. Her core fear is that a separatist referendum, even with modest support, could be used as a pretext for U.S. intervention in Alberta.

We call for escalating but non‑violent disruption modeled on successful right‑wing tactics, such as highway slow‑rolls and occupations, while repurposing them for the public good. Chelsea advocates repeating the message that “THE UCP IS THE SEPARATIST PARTY” to reach moderates and notes that separatist supporters have been flooding UCP memberships and online spaces. We cite examples such as MLA Jason Stephan’s resignation after pro‑separatist writings, Rob Anderson’s involvement in separatist meetings, polling showing UCP supporters as the strongest base for separatism, and a committee process on the Forever Canadian petition that was allegedly pre‑empted by a pro‑UCP press release, demonstrating democratic erosion.

The episode closes by promoting multiple ongoing and upcoming efforts: other federal petitions (including E-7269 on limiting the notwithstanding clause,

banning AI data centers, [House of Commons petition # e-7427]

and a forthcoming petition about the U.S. ambassador’s use of voter lists), and a June 27 multi‑city, now multi‑provincial rally under the banner “Albertans for United Canada in solidarity with Treaty 6, 7 and 8,” coordinated through Chelsea’s emerging “United Alberta Collection” and website unitedab.ca. That rally aims to bring together Indigenous speakers, recall activists, labour groups, Palestinian protesters, and other movements in Calgary, Edmonton, and Victoria, emphasizing unity, relationship‑building, and mutual encouragement as a way to “charge batteries” and make it harder for the government to ignore public opposition. Chelsea ends by framing the current moment as a “war for our democracy,” urging people to show up in large numbers this summer, occupy the legislature if necessary, and ensure Alberta does not become the “51st state,” while I stress that petitions and street actions can be both effective and joyful forms of civil resistance.

Thank you, Chelsea, I hope to see The Gravity Well community on Friday in Calgary, I’ll be at all three events with the WaterNotCoal.ca petition and a Handmaids’ Tale costume.

“Faith Leaders Across Alberta Oppose” features four leaders of the Alberta faith community with diverse Christian backgrounds who describe their spiritual journeys, articulate commitments to pluralism, and explain why more than 200 faith leaders signed a public letter opposing a recent Alberta government–backed Christian gathering that sought to shape policy through a narrow, right‑wing religious agenda. Across the conversation each of them stress the importance of inclusive public life, interfaith respect, and the “inherent dignity of every person,” warning against privileging one religious voice in policymaking and calling instead for leadership grounded in hospitality, social and environmental justice, “preference for the poor,” abundance rather than scarcity, and everyday spiritual practices that help people respond to rising fear, polarization, and separatist politics with courage, love, and shared responsibility for the common good.

Key themes which emerged throughout the four separate discussions are best summarized by Reverend Dr. John Pentland: hospitality, spirituality, social justice, and risk. Now is the time for faith leaders, all leaders really, to take risks. It has never been more important than right now.

Additionally, plurality is explained throughout this conversation. The importance of seeking different views and multiple outcomes. Not seeking one unified goal.

I am happy to hold more conversation with these leaders or others who support or have signed the letter of opposition. Here’s the full transcript to assist your listening.

Introductions to The Gravity Well and Alberta Faith Leaders

Jenny (00:00:04):

Welcome to the Gravity Well podcast with me, Jenny Yeremiy. I host the Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load.

I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty seven and Metis Districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships.

This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

Positions taken by participants, either individually or collectively, do not necessarily represent those of the Gravity Well.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts.

If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe!

Thank you so much for joining me, Leslie. I’m super pleased to have Leslie Gardner in the studio today. We are today speaking about spirituality and about the recent meeting that the provincial government had with some specific religious leaders and just to break down this issue and opportunity together. Leslie, can we start with a little bit about you, your spiritual journey and what brought you here today? Thank you.

Leslie:

Sure. Thanks, Jenny. I’ve had varied exposure to different religious organizations in my life. Started off Anglican and then as a kid in the country with a Baptist church and then as an adult, became Roman Catholic and I’m now participating in congregations that are Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. I’m also part of a group here in Lethbridge who started what we call the Lethbridge Inclusive Catholic Community Fellowship led by a woman priest.

Jenny:

Fabulous. And remind me, Leslie, when we spoke earlier, you were mentioning you do studies at the University of Alberta, is that correct?

Leslie:

Yes. Yeah. I’m also part of a community around St. Stephens College, which is a theology college on the campus affiliated with the University of Alberta and had its roots in the United Church. And we’re still very much involved with the United Church, but it’s also much broader than that in the master’s programs and demand programs that we offer.

Jenny:

Incredible. Thank you for all that work. What a journey. Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, now evangelical and united. That’s wonderful. You’ve dabbled in everything Christian, is that right?

Leslie:

Not exactly, but lots of influence from important people that you meet, influencers of various kinds, people you admire. What do they have to share with you? And I’ve been really fortunate there.

Bill:

Hello, everyone. My name is Bill Way and I lived in Alberta for 50 years in Calgary and now I’m five years on Vancouver Islands. My spiritual journey is pretty interesting. I was born Catholic and was brought up to go to church and be a good boy. Around my years in high school and university, I joined a folk choir and I started singing at church. That little tiny version of the Catholic church really appealed to me and we had families that we raised with each other’s children and a really good community. And in that journey, I met a lovely lady from the United Church and my wife’s father was a minister. She was a preacher’s kid. I was Catholic. There’s lots of things that weren’t good about this, but basically that just kept adding to the diversity of my spiritual background. We raised our kids with a concept called double belonging, which means that our kids were too young to know that we’re going to go to church at the Catholic church at nine and then we’re going to jump in the car and we’re going to go to the United Church at 10:30.

They just think that’s what people do. By the time they got to be teenagers, they’d kind of had enough of church. We just sort of did that. And I got more and more involved with the United Church. I actually, without becoming a member, I became secretary of the Church Council. I was on the committee that hired and fired ministers and I continued on with the music too. I was in the choir in the United Church. Interestingly enough, this strange phenomenon called the Roman Catholic women priests came into my life. Not only did I just jump back into the Catholic church, I loved the fact that the RCWP movement abandons a lot of the things about the Catholic church that I don’t like, like exclusivity. In the past, I’d say 10 years, I’ve been an active member of RCWP Canada. About my spiritual journey, it includes my travel.

When we were travelling together, we have travelled to Turkey, to Thailand, to Guatemala and in all of these places, the dominant religion is not the one I was brought up with. And I just learned, you know what? There’s plenty of pathways to a spiritual life. There’s nothing exclusive about it. And the more you kind of hold onto a belief and say, “This is my truth and you better accept my truth.” That is like a bell ringing in my ear saying, “You’re actually not in the right path at all. “ In a nutshell, I’ve gone from Catholic to United. Now I’m back to a new version of Catholic.

Jenny:

Incredible. And I love how you said you, well, first of all, the double belonging, providing space for both of you to continue that faith journey and then eventually wrap around to something that was merging the two ideas together in a sense. It’s so neat. And I love the idea of the dropping some of the things that you didn’t like about the one faith that you were raised in and being able to carry forward a message that you still can get behind. Wonderful.

John:

My name’s John. I am the lead minister at church in Chicago. I grew up in Ontario and moved out here in serving a rural parish for four years where I learned a lot. And then a suburban church in Southern Calgary for 10 years and three years at Calgary, an area United Way. A nonprofit in the city where I learned a lot about how the cities are connected to the great people that are doing amazing work within the city. And then I’ve been at Hillhurst United for 21 years, which is a historic building over 115 years. We’ve been in the neighbourhood. Four practices, hospitality. We believe you got to eat and drink together to know each other better through spirituality. Religion’s got a bad name in the world. We seek to live with religion, honouring the soul and diversity of each person. Social justice, how do we take what we say and sing and pray into the world to transform it and love?

And the last one is risk. Jesus’ most common phrase is being unafraid. And right now we’re living in a time where religious people and secular people are fearful and encouraged to be fearful and hateful is judgmental and we need to risk being open, honest, vulnerable, and loving. That’s a bit about who I am. I cycle every day. I got four kids, a dog and two cats.

Jenny:

Amazing, John. Thank you so much for that wonderful summary. I think those principles are just something I will absolutely underscore as we go through here. It’s just so nice to hear the thought of being courageous now and the importance of people to recognize that fear is growing and that it takes courage and leadership to overcome it. I’m pleased to have Reverend Samaya Oakley in the studio today. First, can we start with an introduction please, Samaya? Thank you.

Samaya:

Absolutely. I am privileged and honoured to serve the fine people at Calgary Unitarians. I had the delightful pleasure of serving as their intern minister back in 2013, 2014. I went away and did ministry in other contexts and other settings in 2023. Early in the year, it was like, “Hi, I need full-time ministry.” And Calgary was looking for full-time ministry and our styles aligned and I ended up joining them as their minister in August of 2023, 10 years later. It was quite a serendipitous connection that we had. I knew them, they followed me. It was a match kind of made in, I’m going to say in heaven, haha we have been doing great ministry together over these last three years that I’ve been with them.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Have you always been a part of the Unitarians movement, Samaya?

Samaya:

I’ve known the Unitarians at a point in my life when my life blew up, my career blew up, my marriage blew up and I was on my own with a four-year-old and two different friends in two different social circles said, “You’d find a home in the Unitarian Congregation.” I ended up joining the congregation in North Vancouver. They’re the congregation I credit with making me the minister that I am today. They really supported me in my path and I speak very fondly of them. Just about 30 some years ago that I have followed the path and I work continentally as well as nationally. I did youth ministry for 15 years and then I officially became a minister and ordained and still do comprehensive values-based sexuality education training, our whole lives program that we run involved nationally with our ministers, the UU ministers of Canada, just finishing my second term three years as my president.

Served as three years another time and just finishing my second term in my three years. So quite involved, lot of professional development. I tend to focus a lot of mine in the area of sexuality and also racial justice. Those are two very strong passions of mine. We have a comprehensive values-based sexuality education program that I mentioned that we’re going to be kicking off this fall. We’re starting with kindergarten grade one program and also a young adult program that will be kicking off, but I’m a facilitator in seven different levels of age-appropriate sexuality education.

Jenny:

Yeah, that sounds very important. I think it would be helpful for people to understand what age-appropriate sexual education looks like and knowing that it is coming from faith leaders, that this is with the best moral and community interest in mind. Yeah, wonderful.

Samaya:

Yeah. One of the things I think that really sold me in Unitarian Universalism is I was sitting around a table just after I joined the NorthShore congregation and it was the first time in my life I had ever sat down. I was young, relatively young, early 30s, that’s young-ish. And it was the first time in my life I sat down with humanists and atheists and mystics, people like me who come from a pagan background and how enlivening that conversation was and how much it opened my perspective and my view on the world because up until then having been raised in a pretty traditional Catholic religion, there’s one answer. And in this conversation there were so many different answers and they were all based on people’s lived experiences, people really passionately looking at their own worldview. I say, when you come through our doors, your work is just beginning because we’re not going to tell you what redemption means or salvation means or how to live a good life.

That is actually something that we encourage people to do for themselves. We will journey with you in that spiritual practice and we will be there with you as you ask those big questions of life that we all ask of life. What does it mean to be a good person? How does my life have meaning and purpose? What is it that I can do and give to the world and how can I do that? How do I make sense of the world in which I live? We don’t have the answers to that. We will journey with you in that exploration. And I think that that is such a beautiful gift that it’s one of the reasons why I signed this letter because of our tradition’s deep commitment to religious pluralism, the inherent dignity of every person and the importance of maintaining a healthy boundary between government and any one religious voice.

That is such an important thing for me.

Jenny:

Oh, that’s wonderful. You’re making me remember because just to give you a litle bit of my religious background, I was baptized in the United Church but went to Catholic school because of proximity. But what I remember most about Catholic school is high school where we learned about the other religions, like you said. And to me what was really neat about that was finding the common threads between each of the religions. I think that was probably the time when I really enjoyed religious studies the most is learning about those different ways of approaching things, but finding those underlying moral values. Is there anything more you’d like to say by my way of explaining pluralism for folks just to understand that better?

Samaya:

In Unitarian Universalism, my congregation here in Calgary, we have people who are about humanists, about atheists. We also have mystics. We also have people coming from various other world traditions as well and that is celebrated here. It becomes part of the tapestry of who you are as a human being. And it is in that interchange in that tension between holding what is really important for me and listening deeply to what is important for you and somehow finding a way through that. It’s living in the tension, living always in that tension and being comfortable with discomfort.

Jenny:

Wow, that is a really important lesson, I think, for all of us right now. Why don’t we underscore the letter please?

Can you help people understand what was in the letter, why did you sign it and the purpose of it? Thank you.

Samaya (00:16:15):

Here’s one of the things sat with me that I was really sort of thinking about is that the gathering was a Christian gathering. I do understand that public officials regularly attend to get at events and faith leaders and myself and premiers. We should all be free to participate in the life of our own religious communities. And I know for us, we would welcome opportunities to host elected officials within our own traditions. And at the same time, I don’t think the heart of the concern is about any one of those elements in isolation. It’s about what that event represented in the broader public context. When a sitting premier convenes or lends significant weight to a gathering that is framed as shaping public policy through a particular lens, particularly one that appears ideologically narrow, I’m wondering what message it sends to those who are not in that circle.

I’m wondering about how it affects the perceived independence and inclusion of other faith communities. And that’s a place where I hear resonance with another concern that I’ve seen named is about the tone and the impact of the event and whether or not it contributed to a sense of a shared civic belonging. I actually wondered if it might even narrow it.

Jenny:

Yes, absolutely. One thing I will say is not only are you concerned about policy being shaped by what has been said in that, there has been policy shaped by this narrow group of people, I’ll be specific. There’s an organization called Cardus, which is very aligned with evangelical Christian faith and is during the strike, for example, the teacher’s strike, they made specific recommendations for the province to take and all of those recommendations were taken by the government. There is evidence of that. And then this event was in my mind then solidifying that for people because it was narrow in its invitation list. Is that right?

Samaya:

That’s correct. Yeah. I think public policy needs to be shaped for the people who are living in a place where the policy is going to be affected. And does that policy really fit for all Albertans, for instance? I don’t think so. And to add to that, it’s also in the public realm where there is one religious voice and I want to counter that with another religious voice because there are other religious voices that are very important and need to be taken into consideration. And that’s where the rub is for me.

Jenny:

Right. I’m going to underscore that there are at least 180 last I looked faith leaders who signed this from many ... Oh, now it’s 202. Sorry.

Samaya:

202. Okay.

Jenny:

And people should see it’s many different faith backgrounds, Anglican, there’s United, there’s Mennonite, there’s Unitarian, there’s the United Church of Canada. I know there’s a Catholic group in here because I am trying to seek voices. There’s an evangelical church in here as well. So many different faiths have taken the time to sign this, faith leaders, excuse me, and members, I should say, who signed this. And I’m just going to underscore some of the things that were mentioned in the letter for people. They speak to a public life is one that makes room for all voices and not to diminish some voices. You want to have a gathering that is shaped by welcoming and humility and that it shouldn’t be shaped by privilege or a limited access and that many traditions are not being represented in that. To understand that’s that plurality piece you spoke to again, helping people who are in the margins and understanding that there should be a diverse chorus of faith communities who are helping shape the province that we share.

Anything else in there that I missed? I know there was something about diversity as well.

Samaya:

When I listen to you list all of the traditions, they all tend to be traditions that have come out of Christianity. That raises a question for me. Where are the indigenous voices in that? Where are voices that come from, let’s say the Sikh tradition or the Muslim tradition or the Jewish tradition? I’m wondering about that because what I would love to see is a more inclusive vision of religious life in Alberta. It’s not necessarily a Christian vision of religious life in Alberta. As I said, there are humanists and atheists in our congregations in the province and how does that impact their view? I just really want to highlight that. When we look at public policy as being shaped by one tradition and one viewpoint, is it really public policy that benefits us all?

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. So important to mention that this is limited what seems like to Christian views so far. I think I would encourage anybody who’s listening from another faith, please reach out to the organizer of this. I’m certain there’s room for everyone to sign. It would be great, like you say, and maybe I’ve missed it, but to have some other voices on this protest list, if you will.

Bill:

I found out about it through the Roman Catholic woman priest in one of my churches. And as soon as I got involved with it, I said, “Ho, ho, okay, this is not the right pathway.” And what I understand about the letter is that instead of embracing the message from one branch of the church and then try to make that into government policy, to me, that rings true about the Catholic church in about 300 AD when they decided, “Well, you know what? It’s okay to have Rome in charge of the religion. And by the way, it’s now the law and you’re going to be crucified if you don’t get involved with this. “ I’m getting a little bit emotional, but

I really believe that all major religions have a special message about taking care of each other and especially in terms of taking care of people who have no voice, people who have less education, people who are basically different.

Again, I studied quite a bit of Buddhism and a little bit of Islam and certainly Christianity. That base message is, yeah, take care of those people who don’t have a voice because it’s your responsibility You just do that. I was concerned because the event that was described, I think it was May the 5th, really looked like it was exclusive to people with money and really inviting people who had the same echo chamber about what the message was all about. In other words, let’s try to do something for the privileged people, the powerful people, let’s try and get the wealthy people and we’ll gather them together, which I know is a recipe for political strength that if you can tap into people with money and all that, it’s good for politics. It sucks for spirituality. And I guess I’d rather talk about spirituality than religion because the word religion itself just breaks us up into groups.

I’m not into that. I’m into gathering the groups together.

Jenny:

That’s such a wonderful message. And yes, it’s again, a theme I’ve heard from the others who have spoken in this is the importance of standing up for those who don’t have a voice and standing up for those that are marginalized, who are considered different and are not feeling supported in society rather than the ones that are well established and have the power already, let’s say. I’d

John:

Just like to begin by quickly saying clearly this is not a prayer breakfast.

This is the present government lending its ear and its authority to a movement within the province that wants to replace secular law with one religion’s rules, which is Christianity.

As a Christian minister and leader for 65 years I’ve been in the Christian community, the Jesus that is being portrayed by the right wing in this province is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is Jesus that’s manipulated to fit a particular lens on the world.

My first comment would be that this breakfast was not inclusive, that it was who was targeted to the right wing conservative movement within the province. We did have a United Church ministry who attended and his report back to our community was that a group of people who certainly have on religious view and that’s Christian and one particular agenda, which is right wing. He says another talks about banning abortion, eliminating made, promoting anti-trans view in the culture and opposing the anti-hate law.

All of these things are religious questions and issues and concerns. And the fact that these things are talked about without recognizing the interreligious culture of Alberta is really important was at a breakfast last week in Calgary and there were nine different religious communities gathered, 250 people with interfaith, which is far more representative of Alberta and certainly of the world. Christianity is one religion among many. And it was wonderful to hear that all religions are about human rights, all Christians, Buddhist speaks, et cetera. And we need to be standing up and speaking out where these kinds of narrow religious quote unquote statements are being made. Just in short, it wasn’t interfaith. It was not representative of even the Christians. The United Church certainly is more progressive than some of the other churches, but we certainly honour and respect and work with the Catholic community, the Baptist community, the Seventh Day Adventist community, and the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The diversity even within Christianity is something that we have to honour and respect and be engaged with. It was faulty and two basis just to end this. It wasn’t inclusive of other world religions and it wasn’t inclusive of the diversity of the Christian faith itself.

Jenny:

Brilliant. One thing you hit home with me is this, if we look at the goals, if we look at the goals and the objectives of this event and try to actually tie that back to Jesus, back to the teachings of the New Testament, where are the examples of those things being fulfilled? To me, it’s the idea of the co-opting of Jesus and what he stood for that is just so important to underscore for people. Thank you. And just the fact that it’s not interfaith even, it’s not representing Christianity as a whole, let alone any other religion. Thank you for that.

Leslie:

I am a believer in free speech and the right to gather and I value diversity. What that means is that not everybody is going to think the way I do and that’s okay with me. I think healthy debate is important. I also have values so that’s what disturbed me about the event because it seemed to be championing and in an exclusionary kind of way, a certain way of being and living and thinking as our letter, the faith leader letter says, Alberta is home to people of many backgrounds, many faiths, many ways of living a good life. That’s what disturbed me was that the event seemed to be very much excluding some people and setting one way of being and thinking and living up as Not only the best way, but the only way. I think that that’s shortsighted.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. It’s very important to represent all people and all faiths in the province. So thank you so much for taking a stand for that and making it be known. Leslie,

Can you chat a little bit about the role of faith leaders that you see today, especially in these uncertain times that we are in? The importance of terms like plurality and diversity, which you already mentioned, please.

Leslie (00:30:28):

Absolutely. I think it sits with that word leadership. Faith leaders are leaders. And I think one of the most important things that leaders can do for us is give us a vision of the kind of world that we want to live in and the kind of people that we want to be and that we aspire to be. And I really appreciated the values that were spoken to by the faith leaders in their letter of welcome and humility and inclusion. If you believe in diversity, then it is diversity for all in all circumstances and faith leaders can lead us in seeing the opportunities for doing exactly that. And of course, faith leaders can encourage all of us to participate in different events that practice the values and the vision that they speak about and that we ascribe to them and that we try to be like in a Christian faith, we have a model there of someone who absolutely practiced inclusion and we have an understanding in the writing that’s left behind about the importance of what’s called God’s preference for the poor.

If we understand poverty in a broad kind of way, then I think our faith leaders can help us see all the ways in society from social structures and policies that result in people being “poor”, that it isn’t just economically poor but held back and barriers to success in all kinds of ways. That’s what I mean when I say the poor.

I think the faith leaders have a real role in translating what that phrase “preference for the poor” means in this troubled world.

That’s what I would expect. Faith leaders are role models and cheerleaders and in all kinds of ways are talking about what we should be doing and show us what we should be doing by the way they live their lives.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s wonderful. I’m glad for you to underscore this concept of preference for the poor. Sounds like a faith leader’s role is to help ensure that those barriers and those potential exclusionary issues are addressed and that that is the focus is to try and make sure that that is something that is supported and lifted through the church. Is that right?

Leslie:

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Another phrase that we can turn to coming for abundance, that we’re expected to live a life of abundance and personal alive, alive in all the different ways that we can be alive. Church as one of the holders, wisdom holders has a role to play again in terms of interpreting what that means day-to-day. What does that abundance mean and how do we celebrate that abundance but also make that abundance available? It has to do with access, access to abundance.

If we believe that the abundance is there and I do, then how do we help every one of us access that abundance and break down barriers and build ladders and lift people up, lift people up? Our job is to lift one another up.

Jenny:

That’s wonderful. Yes. This term abundance is so particularly important right now in these uncertain times. The thought of individualism being at a peak right now, people feeling isolated, not necessarily feeling in community with their, say their neighbours or their organizations. To me, that’s one of the main issues is this thought of competition and this thought of individualism and that can lead to less abundant thinking and rather scarcity thinking. It’s just so important to help people see that.

Leslie:

What happens when 5,000 people share what they have? There is enough if we know how to share and if we know what exactly the structures are that will promote that kind of sharing and that’s what we need. We need those ideas and values of sharing and the collaboration that sort of the other side of what you’re talking about, the individualism. In the West we learn from our historians and our philosophers that we have a very strong culture that emphasizes individual freedom and that’s a good thing. It was a good thing at its time given the context that it was developed in. But I really like the phrase that says, “You know what? Your freedom to swing your arms stops where my chin begins.” And I think it’s important for us all to think about not only our own s, but our collective chin and other people’s chins and how much more abundance we receive when we’re in it together, when we’re all in it together, again, trying to lift one another up as opposed to me trying to get to the top and climbing over whoever is there so we can accomplish so much more together collaboratively as a team, thinking more about in this group, whatever this group is, who’s in the best position right now, who has the resources, who has the energy, who has what’s needed to do what we can all see as needed for the group right now.

That’ll change day to day depending on what’s happening in each person’s environment and life. But if we think of ourselves collectively, all working for the collective good, then it’s a constant conversation and negotiation. “Am I in the best position to do this? Are you? And if you are, then great. I’m happy to let you do it. I can help you if you need my help. “Thinking that way instead of being in competition as you put it.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s so great because I’ve thought of often sometimes it is better to relinquish that leadership role if somebody else is more knowledgeable or better suited, like you said, in terms of relationships or whatever that looks like. And you’re right, it is a constant check-in question. And I love that you underscored the idea of collective good and how that helps us feel. It’s that feeling of reward that you just don’t get from those individual opportunities I think the same as you do when you accomplish something as a team.

Bill:

Leaning back into the years that I was in the United Church, we had a minister who regularly just kept looking for other sources. It wasn’t only the Bible. It was that plus, plus, plus. And one of the things that she tapped into was just the ground level taking care of each other. I believe that was a fantastic thing for me to experience, that the leader of our United Church would regularly challenge us to think a different way, to accept different things. This plurality is just a lovely richness that adds to what people ... And so I don’t believe that it’s the job of the spiritual leaders to tell people what they should believe. It’s the job of the spiritual leaders to invite them to think fully, to think wholly, to think in small ways completely away from the easy way. It’s easy to love your neighbour if it’s the same person as you, but we are surrounded in this world by other people and the word other should be a keynote that we got to communicate to the other people, not to the people who are in our basket, if you want to call it that.

I believe that real hospitality is another message that I’ve heard before. There’s mystics in the Middle Ages that basically welcome people as innkeeper, take that as a model.

A real good innkeeper invites everyone into their place, feeds them all, clothes them all, takes interest in where they came from and that’s the way I see us. I think we’re in keepers saying how diversity helps the RCWP group that I’m in also takes a look at First Nations wisdom and First Nations attitudes. We’ve gone way beyond the territorial acknowledgements to think about this being the world that we’re sharing with people who have been here for 20,000 years and we have screwed up pretty badly and we still have the choice to get together, listen to each other, benefit from each other, and not just exploit each other.

Jenny:

Oh, that’s wonderful stuff. I had the opportunity to interview Harley Besting, who was an elder of the Piikani Nation. And the way he spoke to me, I feel like our conversation resonated for months afterwards. It wasn’t as if he answered my questions. It was more about having me think about what he was saying and leaving me with some stories that would linger rather than telling me directly the things that I was missing. I love this concept of real hospitality and being in keepers for people and not potentially shaping, I think is what you’re saying, people’s thoughts, but rather just being open to how people come to the same or different ways of seeing a similar issue. And yeah, I just love the concept of accepting, thinking differently and forcing ourselves to think of another way rather than just the comfortable way that we generally like to think about our issues.

Love it.

Samaya:

Well, I was talking with a colleague of mine the other day and at the end of the day, I think ultimately our job is to help people make meaning out of their lives. Right now we are living at a time of such polarisation and a sense of othering. It makes me curious about how is it that we are creating a world, creating a province, creating a city, creating a society where every single person is honoured for who they are, for their inherent worth and dignity, for just existing for being who they are. And those are the people I’m really wanting to reach out to to say, yes, you matter, you matter in this world, you matter in what happens. We are bombarded with a lot of misinformation. How do we help people make meaning of that? How do we help them stay true to who they are, the integrity of who they are and participate in our public life, in our public discourse?

We do live in an interdependent web and when one part of the web is hurting, we are all at risk. The web becomes weakened when one part of it is not as strong as it could be. To me, it’s how do we strengthen the ties that bind us together as human beings? And there’s a lot of room in that for so many different worldviews, many different religions, many different ways of being in the world and it is beautiful and complex all at the same time. When I went to seminary, it was always your job as a faith leader is to afflict the comforted and comfort the afflicted. And we’re constantly living in that tension of challenging the status quo so that we can become better as a society, so that we can become better as human beings as well as providing that comfort for people who are really suffering from how society is minimizing their worth and their dignity.

And so that’s the struggle.

Jenny:

I think of as a parent trying to make sure that your kids are living up to their full potential, but also not pushing them too hard. That’s why I talk about having that balance between support and helping people develop their ... I love hearing being better human beings, making meaning in this world where we are experiencing so much polarization and othering of each other. Yeah, I think that’s really such a great place. And I wonder, there must be practice in this with respect to holding that space for people being able to be in that tension.

Samaya:

Here at Calgary Unitarians where I get the privilege of serving these people and we’re having so much fun together in a lot of different ways, it’s just a delight to serve them. My biggest message for them has been always, do you have a spiritual practice? And if you do not have a spiritual practice, get one. I don’t care what it looks like. It could be a mantra as you were brushing your teeth. It could be as you are out there walking your dog, whatever it is that works for you. And somebody said, “Well, why, Reverend, do I need to do this? I’m a humanist. What is this thing that you are talking about? “ And I went, my answer was what we’re doing is we’re developing a spiritual muscle so that when things happen in the world, we don’t either freeze and stop action or react and make the situation much worse.

When we have the capacity and have developed the spiritual discipline of really focusing in on who I am as a being in this world, when we have that, we then open up a third response. It gives us that breathing space. We learn the techniques to slow down what is happening and respond in a way that acknowledges the flourishment and the betterment of us all. That’s been my biggest message for Calgary Unitarians. It would be my biggest message for anybody is, do you have a spiritual practice? What is it? What does it look like? Because that gives you the spiritual and emotional muscle to respond differently when events in the world are driving us to be filled with anxiety, to be fearful. It opens us up to a new way, a third way, which is a beautiful way.

Jenny:

Beautiful. Yeah, I think of the instinctual versus reactive versus gives you that opportunity for the responsive mindset. And when you say a spiritual practise, I’m going to say in anticipation of this discussion, I’ve been reflecting on potentially my lack of spiritual practice and I used to have, this is going to sound silly, but I used to have a gym class that we used to call our religion. We used to say- Absolutely. And when I think of the potential underlying reason for that label might be just that regular accountability to each other and that sense of belonging and the sense of accomplishment together. Is that a good way to ...

Samaya:

Absolutely. And I also want to throw in another ... When I worked with youth, because I was always talking about spirituality, I was like, okay, a lot of my youth, they played soccer. I said,

“When you are on the soccer pitch and you’re in that zone where it’s just you and the ball and the game and there’s no room for anything else, that’s a spiritual moment. You are in the flow.”

When I was rock climbing, that’s a spiritual ... There’s no room for anything else other than me and the rock and it is like that. How do we develop those practices? And it could be the gym, it could be anything along those lines. That’s why I say I don’t care what it is. It could be walking your dog. Some people actually, that is part of their spiritual practice. They’re out walking their dog morning and night. That is a reset for them throughout their day to sort of, who am I in this moment? What have I got left to do? How do I want to be for the rest of my day? It pulls us into that capital S self of who we are. It connects us with that capital S self. Some people call it that, some people God, some people spirit, whatever your name is for it, it connects us with that and it helps us to feel like we belong to something greater than ourselves and that sense of belonging is something that we all hunger for because we’re not coming from place of fear or anxiety or anything along those lines.

We actually come from a place that is true to our hearts and an integrous place.

John:

And we’re living in a very challenging time. We came out of COVID not long ago and are in some ways still learning what do we learn both the positive and negative of that pandemic that affected all of us. And that was challenging for many people to then have the challenge of the United States and what’s gone on in our relationship with the United States and its place in the world. That’s a challenge economically and emotionally, I would say. What is the role? I mean, I think we need to be an oasis in a world of conflict and division. That doesn’t mean we stick our heads in the stands. It actually means that we encourage people to know they’re not alone

In this challenging time. I think we need to encourage people to understand that in Christianity, the Jesus that is presented in the gospel is one that’s about peace and inclusion and welcoming of the other. Jesus clearly takes the 613 commandments of the Hebrew Bible down into the trend that become the 10 commandments into the sermon on the mount, which is the attitudes that call about the blessedness of those who more and blessed or the peacemakers, blessed are the meek, et cetera. The philosophy and essence of Jesus gets set up when he gets asked, “What’s the greatest commandment?” And he just clearly says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” And I underline the word neighbour as yourself because a lot of what is being preached is division and hate and judgement and clearly those are all things Jesus was again.

It’s a challenge for leaders, but they have to also say to themselves and look themselves in the mirror, which Jesus am I preaching the one that reflects the ideas I have or the ones that reflect Jesus’ vision for the world. It’s a challenging time, but I’ve been doing this 38 years, it’s never mattered more. I’ll say that again…

I’ve been doing this 38 years and it’s never mattered more because we are called to be speaking up and out so that passion is lived in the world.

I think the world yearns for good Christian religion to be spoken and preached and taught and it’s up to us to ensure that we are having people familiar with the Bible, not just saying, “Oh, that’s what it says without actually reading it or speaking to it. “ It’s calling us up and out. Interestingly enough, the word blessed is not a passive word. It means get up, get up and speak out is not just a political thing. It is a compassionate way to encourage people to embrace the world and all of its diversity, which frankly is a gift.

Jenny:

Wow, thank you so much calling us up and out. I’m assuming up from our our seats, let’s say, up from just potentially being…

John:

You know what, COVID kept people indoors and there’s lots still indoors. I think we have to get off our couches and say this matters. My biggest concern right now as I think about the separatist movement in our province is that people are saying, “Oh, it’s just going to go away or it’s not important or we don’t believe in that. “ Well, I think we have to get up and out and say, “Yes, we love our country. We’re part of this country and let people know that have a very small, narrow, non-historical view of the Confederation to speak up and out about this. “ This is really important that we engage with others, not to beat them up, but to help understand and educate each other about the gift of this country and our place, in it,

Jenny:

Incredible. And I could not agree with you more. We absolutely need to take this separatist movement seriously. You spoke earlier about what’s happening in the United States and I will say the clear coordination between the United States and the separatist movement, it is not something to be taken lately. As you said, I loved that you underscored 38 years. There’s never been a more important time. I could not agree more. I’ve been living my adult life since 2000 and really feeling like it’s now or never to uphold the things that we want to see for Canada and for our communities. Last question for you. Okay. Last question for you, Leslie is, and this is about, again, appreciating that faith leaders or spiritual leaders have a very important role to play in terms of helping the social and environmental justice movement more broadly.

How do you or your organization, how do you ensure that you are supporting those efforts or getting involved in those efforts, let’s say?

Jenny (00:55:49):

Thank you.

Leslie:

I think the faith leaders stay in touch just by virtue of their own networks. Many of our faith leaders of all different kinds are connected to groups that are thinking about and acting in social justice kinds of ways. Our faith leaders are already connected to those people. They make those opportunities known to us. If there’s a campaign, a letter writing campaign, we write a letter. We write a letter as a group. The Lethbridge Inclusive Catholic Community Fellowship has already done that with regard, we’ve written a letter to our government representatives expressing some of our concerns about proposed recent legislation. We can do that. We can attend if we know that there’s a rally and a protest, a gathering that’s in support of things that we believe in. We can go to those. I mean, I think it’s important generally that we’re not just armchair cheer.

I think we have to be out there. We have to be doing something. We have to have action and those faith leaders because of the people they know and the networks they move in and the congregants too. I mean, all of us have our own networks and our own ... We watch podcasts, we find out about things and so we can each act in our own little community as well as participate in the big ones.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Yeah. This letter is a perfect example of an action that you guys took together collectively. That’s really great to hear that you’ve written letters with respect to policy and things like that and that yes, I think it is just a matter of connecting and having those relationships and listening when your members or others from the public could bring something forward and assessing whether you support it and put boots on the ground. As you say, it’s just so important for people to see these places being represented and understand that it is a place that we can go to when we are concerned about something deeply.

Samaya:

You can check out our website, CalgaryUnitarians.ca. You can also reach out to me as the minister, minister@calgaryunitarians.ca. I won’t give you my phone number, but email will work just fine. I’m pretty responsive. We will be at the rally on May the 29th. We’re going to be there with Calgary Alliance for the Common Good because we’re a founding member of CACG. And please come out and come to the rally, come find us. We’ll be there with our Calgary Unitarians banner and email me. I would love to hear from people.

Jenny:

Wonderful.

John:

I think we have to encourage people that it matters if they show up. I think that’s the one sort of all I would say for all people if they’re able to be there and to lend their voice and support to say these things matter. I am working within the United Church of Canada to say that we are the United Church for Canada, not just of Canada. The United Church people will be hopefully present to let that be known.

It’s a matter of engagement. Politics is got such a bad reputation, but it used to be something of service for the common good. The word politics means polish, which is the affairs of the city. So everything’s political. The coffee drink, the car you drive, the lawn fertiliser, everything is political. So let’s not say it’s a bad thing and keep it separate. Let’s say what is this call Helping us too. And so my hope is that we encourage people to see a bigger picture and a more loving and compassionate feel themselves and their place in the world. So it’s got to be done with love and joy and not hate and fear.

Jenny:

Love that.

Bill:

I believe that we start out with understanding that there’s two really strong motivations in human life. One of them being love and the other one being fear. I believe that if we get down to the roots of love, then we are going to try to embrace other people. We’re going to try to get out of our comfort zone because we know that we’re being invited to do that as opposed to an atmosphere of fear where you say, “Well, I kind of understand this group’s point of view, but I really don’t understand these other guys because they’re really out there.” By starting out with what we have in common and working together on what we know is our root values, we’re going to get on the right track. And I guess we just have to keep telling ourselves we aren’t in search of the answer that we’re going to publish to everybody else.

We’re actually walking down the same road with a lot of different people. We’re looking for guidance and we get guidance. Yeah, we get guidance divinely. I meditate. I’m very quiet and I know that that helps my prayer life, if you want to call it my prayer life. We keep walking the good road. This is another message that comes from the First Nations version of the New Testament, which is another source. It’s reading the same Bible except it’s reading it through the eyes of the people who have been here for all these years on Turtle Island. And it’s lovely. It’s lovely to think about it in an open way and then you get down to the message first and then you backtrack to, okay, this is how it applies. The other thing that is really key to me after having seen Buddhism in Thailand and seeing Islam in Turkey, let’s get past what we’re different about and let’s take a look at what we do for each other.

What is it that our group does to help people who are disadvantaged? How do we equalize a very unequal world? And you know what? It’s not an enormous task that we can’t do. It’s something that we can make choices in our little zone and just watch the ripples go out from there.

Jenny:

Coming in with that expectation of how do we equalize a very unequal world is a really powerful place to come from. And understanding that it’s our care for each other that ultimately is how we should be measured.

Bill:

Two messages that mean a lot to me right now. And one of them is connection. I want to see connections between me and my grandson and me and the wacko guy who lives down the block from me because I can choose to build those connections. I don’t have to ignore them. I don’t have to say it’s too tough for me to do. The other message that I’ve kind of gathered in this journey lately is the idea that there is plenty for us. We have enough of a world we can make this world work without saying there’s going to be winners and losers because there is enough. Enough is one of the key words that I try to start with every day. I actually got it tattooed to my arm that I won’t show you, but yeah. That’s

Jenny:

Incredible. I love it because yes, this idea of scarcity and that we’re somehow in competition for everything when there is enough is such a beautiful message to leave with. Thank you, Bill. This has been wonderful. I’m so glad we had a chance to connect and I hope we have an opportunity again in the future.

Bill:

It’s been a pleasure. Thanks for asking.

Jenny:

You talked about our interconnectedness. The way I was describing it offline was these pillars of society and just understanding that faith, that spirituality is a pillar of a healthy society and for us to be making sure we look to leaders in this space and understanding that there are really meaningful ways to move us forward if we slow down and just think about how we can include each other’s perspectives.

Samaya:

Have a spiritual practice.

Jenny:

Yes. I heard that too. Thank you so much.

Leslie:

Thank you, Jenny.

Jenny:

Thank you so much, Leslie. I am so appreciative of your time. Lethbridge, I find has a very strong and healthy faith community, let’s say. It’s really nice to have an opportunity to speak to you and to hear more about what you’re doing.

Leslie:

Thank you so much, Jenny. I really appreciate the opportunity. All the best to you.

Bonus questions: what do you suggest people do to help regain a sense of community?

Jenny (01:05:30):

I’m going to ask one extra practical question of you just because you raised it earlier. A common concern I have, and I know others do too, is around, like you said, our neighbours, us being divided. I’ll be specific. My neighbour had flags out of many kinds that were hateful. We’ve lost relationship with them. Or what do you suggest people do to help regain a sense of community?

John:

Well, what I say to my community is this, you begin with the phrase, “Help me understand.” The phrase, your neighbours, help me understand why you want these particular flags up. Help me understand what’s driving this. It is an engagement to have people articulate why they’re feeling the way they are. That’s step number one, I think. The second is you’re going to have a flag that you can fly too. It begins with conversation. It will probably end with disagreement, but hopefully it’s done respectfully. And I know that. I mean, I flew a Canadian flag in my house last year. I’m going to get it out again. It never happened in my lifetime.

Jenny:

Right, me too.

John:

The tragedy in this is I’ve never had to defend why I live in Canada to other Canadians. Easy.

Jenny:

Absolutely.

John:

If you want to know who really gets this, talk to an Uber driver. They’ll tell you what’s like to live in a place that is not safe where governments have influenced in a negative way. It’s really asking people to pay attention and I encourage people to do that.

Jenny:

Wonderful.

John:

Thanks so much.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. Take care for now.

The episode is features Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), about Alberta’s first province‑wide Day of Action scheduled for Friday, May 29, framed as a broad, democratic protest against the current provincial government’s direction and a starting point for a longer‑term movement.

Gil describes the AFL as Alberta’s oldest and largest worker advocacy group, an association of 27 unions representing about 175,000 workers in public and private sectors, founded 114 years ago in Lethbridge by coal miners and tradespeople to fight for the eight‑hour day, health and safety, and minimum wage. He shares his background as a rural Alberta farm kid turned journalist who became active in his union and eventually AFL president.

Gil explains that unions in the AFL decided in December to create a province‑wide day of protest on May 29 because they and many Albertans felt “things were going off the rails” under Premier Danielle Smith’s government. The immediate trigger was Bill 2, which forced striking teachers back to work and stripped their constitutional right to strike, but they quickly saw broader concerns: workers’ rights, two‑tier healthcare, attacks on education, cuts to supports for disabled people, and targeting of Indigenous communities and vulnerable LGBTQ+ kids. He characterizes the government’s approach as “MAGA North” tactics of divide, distract, and scapegoating, and says many Albertans are “quietly horrified” by this direction. Traditional democratic tools like petitions and letters are being ignored, he argues, while the government uses a “flood the zone” strategy—constant policy attacks and chaos—so he believes a unifying protest movement is needed to bring together people with many different concerns.

Warm up your protest voice by singing to the “Injustice” Minister, Mickey Amery, at his office (920 36 Street NE) from 12:00 to 1:30 pm. Here is the chorus, feel free to bring a verse or two!

May 29 is deliberately on a Friday to move from symbolic weekend demonstrations at an empty legislature to at least some level of disruption while MLAs are actually at work. Instead of a single rally in Edmonton, they chose a decentralized, grassroots model: protests “everywhere,” with local committees in 14 communities, including Edmonton, Calgary, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and smaller towns. They launched the Fight Back Now campaign and website (fightbacknow.ca) as the organizing hub for May 29 and potential future protest days, inviting both labour and non‑labour civil society to lead and participate. Gil notes that in Calgary, for example, there will be a large rally at Riley Park at 5:30 p.m. and a smaller protest at Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s constituency office at noon, targeting the “injustice minister” for enabling a separatist agenda.

Then ride your bike down to Riley Park!

Event schedule:

* Gather in the NW corner of Riley Park (8 Ave and 12 Street NW)

* Celebrate with dance music

* Optional: Bring your bike and join the Critical Mass ride at 6:30 pm

* Meet many groups working on diverse causes

* Hear from expert speakers

* Take part in the solidarity song writing contest! Perhaps we’ll have a full Mickey song to share.

Gil and I argue that the UCP’s current agenda lacks a democratic mandate: the 2023 election was close—decided by roughly 3,000–6,000 votes in a handful of Calgary ridings—and the party did not campaign on two‑tier healthcare, exiting the Canada Pension Plan, or separatism. We highlight that the government’s first major bill was the Sovereignty Act, which was not part of the campaign platform. Gil calls the government “founded on dishonesty” and says many UCP voters now feel betrayed because “this is not what I voted for,” and the May 29 protests are also a platform for those disillusioned supporters.

We delve into the ideological roots of the current agenda, focusing on the “Free Alberta Strategy,” co‑authored by Rob Anderson, Danielle Smith’s campaign manager and current chief of staff, which Gil likens to a Canadian version of the U.S. Project 2025. He says the document lays out a blueprint and timeline for moving Alberta toward MAGA‑style politics and separatism, and that Smith has been following it “component by component,” starting with the Sovereignty Act. Polls show separatism is supported by only 25–35% of Albertans overall, but it is a majority view within the UCP and is especially popular among higher‑income earners (over $150,000) who feel economically insecure. Gil and I connect this to oil and gas interests, noting that many leading separatist and UCP figures come from the sector, and that wealthy investors with heavy stakes in fossil fuels oppose anything that might limit expansion, such as climate policy or energy transition.

Gil frames this as part of a global “incumbent’s dilemma”: oil and gas, historically the most powerful industry in the world, now faces serious competition from increasingly cheap renewable electricity. Instead of pivoting and investing to remain competitive, he argues, many incumbents are “stacking the deck” through politics—lobbying, capturing governments, and seeking subsidies—while criticizing renewables for subsidies even as major oil projects now rely on public support. He sees the rise of separatism and MAGA‑style politics in Alberta as a desperate attempt by fossil fuel incumbents to protect their status by rigging the system rather than preparing for a different future, and warns that this is against the long‑term public interest, including that of oil and gas workers.

I stress the need for responsibility beyond Alberta’s borders, especially regarding water that flows to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, arguing that separatist rhetoric shrinks responsibility to “imaginary borders” and ignores interprovincial obligations. The oil and gas industry, with the largest footprint on the landscape, must lead in land and water restoration. I want to return to the industry to focus on stewardship. I also note that subsidies like the Site Rehabilitation Program are preferable to subsidizing new pipelines with questionable markets, and uses this to illustrate how public funds could support reclamation rather than expansion.

The organizing model for May 29 draws inspiration from the U.S. “No Kings” movement, which mobilizes mass protests in defense of democracy against Trump‑era authoritarianism. Gil says they deliberately adopted a similar grassroots, self‑organizing structure: the Fight Back Now website serves as a hub where local committees form, meet online, and then organize real‑world actions, with many committees now meeting independently. The goals mirror No Kings: show people you are not alone, counter the exhaustion caused by “flood the zone” tactics, and create a single space where multiple issues—healthcare, education, worker rights, separatism, minority rights—can converge into a unified movement against authoritarianism.

Gil situates this within a broader historical context, citing movements like Poland’s Solidarity and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution as examples of successful citizen coalitions that united diverse groups against authoritarian regimes. He emphasizes that May 29 is intended as the beginning, not a one‑off event: the AFL recently helped convene an Alberta Civil Society Summit with about 200 participants from unions, Indigenous groups, student organizations, seniors, and racialized and immigrant communities, and they plan more protests and another summit in the fall to deepen cross‑sector networks.

I underscores the importance of “organizing for power” and praises the labour movement’s experience in structured organizing: having hard conversations, clarifying expectations, and building long‑term solidarity rather than one‑time actions. I note that AFL’s role is to seed and support, not control, the movement; in Calgary, for instance, the May 29 committee has more non‑union than union members and is chaired by community activists, which Gil welcomes as evidence of genuine grassroots growth. Gil recounts that the premier’s office mocked him and predicted failure when Fight Back Now was announced, pointing to past efforts like general strike threats and recall campaigns, but he argues that thousands of Albertans were mobilized through those recalls despite artificially high thresholds, and that these experiences built a base of activists now moving into “phase two.”

Gil and I frame the UCP’s rule‑changing as a hallmark of creeping authoritarianism: lowering thresholds for separatist initiatives while imposing high hurdles on citizen‑driven recall and initiative campaigns, and changing laws to shield the government from court decisions. We argue that Alberta’s political stereotype—conservative, pickup‑driving, oil‑patch “Joe Alberta”—obscures a much more diverse population, and that the UCP’s MAGA‑style project is “awakening a sleeping giant” of citizens who want to remain in Canada, protect public services, and reject authoritarianism. Gil insists that these citizens are likely the majority and that their real power lies in collective action, which the May 29 protests aim to facilitate.

In the final part of the conversation, I ask Gil to address accusations that the AFL is simply an arm of the NDP and to explain why a widely expected general strike did not occur after Bill 2. Gil responds that while many union activists vote NDP, the AFL and NDP are functionally separate: only 2 of 27 affiliated unions are formally connected to the NDP, and most unions are officially or functionally non‑partisan, with members repeatedly telling the AFL not to dictate their votes. He argues that workers naturally gravitate away from a government that refuses to raise the minimum wage, attacks public services, and strips the right to strike, and that his job is to defend workers’ interests, which currently means opposing the UCP. He also notes tensions with the NDP: the AFL has developed its own “Worker Agenda,” a detailed policy blueprint on affordability, wages, public services, jobs, and the economy, including proposals like a $20 minimum wage, public auto insurance to lower Canada’s highest auto premiums, and re‑regulating Alberta’s fully deregulated power system, which he says was effectively designed by former Enron figures. He wants the NDP to adopt more “progressive populist” policies—“more like Bernie than Hillary”—but stresses that the AFL’s platform is independent.

On Bill 2 and the missed general strike, Gil gives a candid account: anticipating use of the notwithstanding clause against striking workers, the AFL created a “Common Front” of AFL and non‑AFL unions and a “Solidarity Pact” pledging mutual defence if any group’s right to strike was attacked. When the government used the clause against teachers in October, ordering them back to work with threats of $500‑per‑day fines for individuals and massive fines for the union, the teachers’ leadership decided not to defy the order, partly because they had already been on strike for three weeks and lacked a strike fund. At a critical October 29 meeting, some major union leaders argued they could not ask their members to undertake illegal strikes and face similar fines if the teachers themselves were not defying the order, and “the air went out of the balloon.” Gil and AFL vice‑president Corey Longo did move a motion for a one‑day general strike and many unions were ready, but without teacher defiance the plan collapsed. Gil says he will not blame teachers, but believes the labour movement “missed an opportunity,” let Albertans down, and emboldened the government to escalate; organizing the May 29 Day of Action and future protests is, in his view, part of atoning for that failure.

The episode closes with my reiterating that separatism, though a symptom rather than the root cause, is serious and well‑funded, and that the May 29 protests are a chance for people to stand together on whatever issue matters most to them—separatism, healthcare, education, worker rights, or democratic norms.

Thank you, Gil, for your leadership! Failure and learning are part of the process of building a long‑term solidarity movement.

The episode of the Gravity Well podcast, with Professor Duane Bratt of the Mount Royal University, focuses on two major themes: gerrymandering in Alberta and a massive voter data breach tied to separatist movements and foreign interference.

On gerrymandering, Bratt notes there are no major updates: an MLA committee has been named, but its advisory body and final maps are still pending. He expects the final outcome will differ from both the majority and minority reports and involve significant redrawing of boundaries, not just adding two seats. He contrasts Alberta’s long timeline (next election likely October 2027) with the United States, where maps are being redrawn even as they approach a November 2026 vote.

The main focus is a large-scale data breach: Elections Alberta’s voters list for 2.9 million people was legitimately provided to the new Republican Party of Alberta, which had not run in the 2023 general election but had only contested three by-elections. That list was then transferred—possibly sold or given—to the Centurion Project, a pro-separatist organization that is not a political party. Elections Alberta detected the leak because they “salt” each party’s list with fake names; those fake names appeared on the Centurion list, tracing the breach back to the Alberta Republican Party.

Bratt explains why this is far more serious than a “phone book,” contrary to Centurion leader David Parker’s claim. The voters list includes polling station information and other data never in phone books, and unlike phone books, individuals cannot opt out; people who would normally hide their information (judges, police, some teachers, people fearing harassment or doxxing) are exposed. He calls it a huge breach of privacy and security.

He outlines potential harms: doxxing of public figures (Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney’s personal data have already been released), risks to victims of domestic abuse and child custody disputes, resale of data to companies, and use as a baseline for identity theft (names, addresses, emails, phone numbers). Politically, the Centurion Project held the list for at least a month while gathering signatures for a petition to trigger an Alberta separation referendum in October 2026; Bratt raises the possibility that some petition entries could have been filled using voters-list data without consent, especially since only signatures would need to be added.

Multiple investigations are underway: Elections Alberta, the Alberta Privacy Commissioner, the RCMP, and Edmonton Police Service are all investigating. Elections Alberta has issued cease-and-desist letters to at least 600 Centurion affiliates who had access to the full list, though the true spread is unknown due to the group’s multi-level-marketing-style recruitment (each person recruiting ten more, and so on). Bratt stresses this is a massive breach with political, civil, and criminal consequences, some of which may only emerge over time.

On legal exposure, Bratt notes that distributing the list can carry fines up to $100,000 and up to a year in jail, though he doubts every volunteer will face such penalties. He suggests key figures like David Parker and Republican Party leader Cam Davies could be in serious legal jeopardy, and notes that separatist leader Jeff Rath had previously directed people to Centurion before later distancing himself. Note: Parker is not complying with the Elections Alberta investigation at the moment.

Bratt then details links between the United Conservative Party (UCP) and separatist actors: Mitch Sylvester, leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, is also a UCP constituency association president; UCP MLA Jason Stephan wrote an op-ed advocating separatism; and a UCP staffer attended a mid-April Centurion meeting where Jason Kenney’s personal information was released. The NDP reported the staffer’s presence to Elections Alberta and the RCMP, yet Premier Danielle Smith has blamed the NDP for not informing her, even though her own staffer was at the meeting, which Bratt calls “bonkers.” He questions why a premier’s staffer was at a private, invite-only separatist organizing meeting and what report he provided afterward.

Bratt and about 40 Alberta academics (political scientists, law professors, criminologists) are calling for a broad public inquiry, arguing that existing investigations are too narrow and focused on legalities rather than ethics and systemic issues. They want an independent, well-resourced, and fast-moving inquiry, given the planned 2026 referendum, to examine questions such as whether parties should receive voters lists at all and whether all parties should be treated equally, especially brand-new or fringe parties. Bratt cites Calgary’s 2021 municipal election, where Elections Calgary withheld the voters list from all mayoral candidates because one candidate, Kevin J. Johnston, was a known doxxer facing criminal charges; the election proceeded smoothly, suggesting parties may not need such lists.

TAKE ACTION! Join the 40 Alberta Academics in Calling for a Broad Public Inquiry

To: generalinfo@oipc.ab.ca

Subject: Request for a Public Inquiry Outside of the Government of Alberta’s Reach

To Whom It May Concern,

The RCMP and Elections Alberta investigations regarding the doxxing of 2.9 million Albertans, including myself, are insufficient and are likely to not be complied with. This breach cannot be considered limited to Alberta as separatism aims extends to British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The scope of a nation wide investigation must include:

Such an inquiry must be:

* Independent, with leadership free from political influence;

* Transparent, with proceedings open to public scrutiny;

* Comprehensive, with the authority to compel testimony and documents;

* Forward-looking, offering clear recommendations to prevent future breaches and strengthen safeguards; and

* Ideally completed before Albertans cast ballots in any future election or referendum.

Considering the investigations undertaken by the current Government of Alberta (example: the Alberta Health Services procurement scandal) have been scope-limited and conducted by individuals with connections to the United Conservative Party of Alberta, it is imperative an investigation occurs from outside the province or outside the GOA’s control.

Please take this threat seriously, as the future of our country is on the line.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, Calgary-Bow

Include your postal code

The conversation broadens to foreign interference and separatist propaganda. Bratt notes that David Parker has said he obtained the organizing technology from U.S. Republicans, indicating foreign tactical influence, while the underlying data in this case came from Alberta’s voters list. He points to evidence of separatist-related disinformation originating from Russia, the Netherlands, and Florida, and warns that foreign actors may now have access to the leaked list. Some foreign actors, he says, want to break up Canada (Trump has talked about annexing Canada), others like China seek to sow chaos in democracies, and some simply want to profit by producing AI videos and other content.

They discuss AI-generated propaganda such as the “Sovereign Steel” video, played at Alberta Prosperity Project rallies, which portrays stereotypical rural male roles, marginalizes women (only shown as wife, daughter, and Danielle Smith), and caricatures Mark Carney as a mocking monarch. The creator, “Full Metal Patriot,” is an American who has produced similar content for the U.S. and U.K., illustrating foreign involvement. Bratt notes that while some videos are crude “slopaganda,” they still amplify existing divisions on issues like equalization, immigration, oil and gas, transgender rights, and COVID, by exaggerating kernels of truth.

Bratt references Canada’s recent public inquiry into foreign interference in the 2021 federal election, which found that foreign actors focused on nomination races and misinformation in non-English/French media, potentially affecting a handful of seats even if not the overall result. He argues foreign actors (China, Russia, and now the U.S. element) have reasons to target Alberta as well. He contrasts UCP claims—via Mike Ellis and Danielle Smith—that the RCMP found no foreign interference in the Alberta referendum with CSIS’s director, who told CBC’s The House that foreign interference is occurring; Bratt concludes that foreign interference, broadly defined (misinformation, money flows, attempts to influence outcomes), is already underway even before any vote.

Politically, Bratt notes that Mark Carney has commented on the breach, while Pierre Poilievre and all Alberta Conservative MPs have remained silent, unlike non-Conservative MPs who have spoken out. He criticizes separatists’ “situational ethics”: they oppose government data collection (e.g., gun registry, census) yet downplay the release of data on nearly three million people when it serves separatist goals.

Within the separatist movement, the breach has triggered infighting. Longtime separatist Corey Morgan has condemned the privacy violation and warned it harms the cause; Mitch Sylvester and Jeff Rath are distancing themselves from David Parker, while Morgan and Rath feud publicly. Duane and I also discuss the Overton window and how repeated exposure to propaganda normalizes extreme ideas.

They touch on definitional issues: RCMP and CSIS reportedly do not classify overt statements by foreign politicians (e.g., J.D. Vance campaigning with Viktor Orbán, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent endorsing Alberta separatism, or a potential Trump endorsement) as foreign interference, focusing instead on covert actions. Bratt notes that U.S. commentators like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck have publicly called for military intervention in Canada to remove what they describe as an undemocratic government; while not necessarily criminal, he argues these are deeply unethical interventions, especially given Carlson’s speaking tour in Alberta that included Premier Smith.

Throughout, Bratt emphasizes that not all harmful or unethical behaviour is criminal, and that a public inquiry is needed to address broader ethical, democratic, and systemic questions beyond the scope of police or privacy investigations.

Want More?

Have a listen to my latest conversation with Charlie Angus / The Resistance in Edmonton last week!

In light of the closing of the Alberta Water Council—as we learned from Jay White—and the 2026 Global Water Bankruptcy report—courtesy of Bob Sandford—now is a great time to revisit Engineer J. Bruce Smedley’s recommendation to form a public water agency.

This conversation from August 2024 centers on Alberta’s escalating water crisis, framed by drought conditions, failing infrastructure, and inadequate government planning and oversight. I outline recent drought impacts, including four southern Alberta communities that had to have water trucked in, and highlights the auditor general’s findings: modelling is limited to parts of the province, most basins lack conservation objectives, there is weak monitoring of water pressure and risk triggers, and enforcement of water licenses and compliance is ineffective. Bruce stress that current models assume “water in equals water out” and ignore losses from heat and evapotranspiration, and that surface water analysis is largely missing, with monitoring focused on rivers and streams rather than the full hydrological picture. We also connect Alberta’s decisions to downstream regions, noting that Alberta is effectively “the taps” for Saskatchewan and Manitoba,—not the Mississippi basin (oops!)—so local choices have far-reaching consequences.

Against this backdrop, Bruce presents his proposal for an integrated water resource preservation and restoration agency that is public, independent, apolitical, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and accountable.

Bruce’s Water Agency Framework

* Terms of Reference: coherent initiative of social planning with an interdisciplinary approach to managing water basin resources and their uses to identify and satisfy water resource stability and sustainability sufficient to secure ecological, social, and human subsistence indefinitely given resource conflicts, external disruptions, and climate change.

* Scope of work: to include intake, withdrawal and loss of every drop of surface water, groundwater, aquifer, relative to watershed management including; flood control, tourism, hydropower, fisheries, water quality, navigation, sand and gravel extraction, and riverbank enhancement, erosion, relocation, etc.

* Adequate data collection and information consistent with the scope and modeling requirements.

* Scenario modeling and analysis including climate change, extreme weather, financial and institutional risk.

* Government and public response, input, and real time communication and information.

* Forecast modeling consistent with sustaining food, health, safety, ecosystem, and biomass sustainability.

* Agency accountability that ensures system integrity and optimized investment decisions, allocation of capital resources, time horizons, and project implementation and operations.

* Communication to inform public awareness. disaster readiness, and ensure contingency plans are available for rapid disaster response, food and water security, as well as communicate cost, liability, and inherent risk in real time, consistent with global weather fluctuations of hours, days, and weeks.

* Government and industry funding, staffing, scheduling, and accountability.

His letter calls for a 10,000‑foot, river‑basin‑wide perspective that considers future water supply under climate change, glacier loss, and increasingly extreme and erratic weather, rather than just current allocations. He argues that no one is currently modelling entire basins or systematically integrating rainfall, aquifers, usage, and ecosystem needs across agriculture, urban, recreational, and wildlife uses. The proposed agency’s terms of reference include tracking intake, withdrawal, and loss of every drop of water from mountain precipitation through snow and ice fields to river flows, recognizing that only about 25% of falling moisture becomes usable river water. It would use complex systems modelling and advances in mathematics and AI to run scenario analyses, identify failure points, and guide long‑term, province‑wide planning, funded on a multi‑decade horizon rather than political cycles.

The discussion then broadens into practical implications, governance gaps, and examples of both failure and opportunity. We describe failing and aging infrastructure, such as Calgary’s major water pipe installed 49 years ago and similar vulnerabilities in other systems, noting that promises of “hundred‑year” assets outlast the people responsible and erode accountability. We criticize fragmented watershed councils that can only advise, not veto projects like proposed Bow River dams, and point out that infrastructure‑heavy solutions are being pursued despite scientific skepticism and uncertainty about future water availability. We highlight how development, oil and gas, and gravel extraction are expanding water use in sensitive areas even as shortages loom, and how sampling is mis‑targeted—focused on rivers rather than wells where contamination and drying are actually being observed by landowners. Bruce’s experience with government responses underscores a pattern of political “feel‑good” letters that claim things are under control without engaging the urgency or substance of his proposals, reinforcing the need for public pressure and stakeholder‑driven change.

Finally, we emphasize accountability, equity, and systemic thinking about water, food, and land use. Bruce insists that all humans need water and should be treated equitably, and that agriculture, urban use, and industry must be reconsidered to reduce waste, including shifting to local food systems such as rooftop or vertical farming to cut transport and water use. Alex cites Dutch vertical gardening and local greenhouse operations as proof that low‑water, local production is feasible and could reduce emissions and pesticide use. We argue that small changes—like replacing imported strawberries with local production—can significantly alter complex models because everything is interrelated, and warn that once we alter systems (e.g., dams, clear‑cuts, urban heat islands), there is “no going back,” so interventions must be carefully evaluated for ecosystem impacts on flora, fauna, and even jet streams.

Next Up, I’ll jump ahead reshare Bob Sandford’s outlining of risks of Global Water Bankruptcy. Stay tuned!

Help me get to 500 subscribers on YouTube and 1000 here on Substack! Like and share this video.

An update on the long-coming illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran and the broader Gulf Region, or West Asia. Wesam Cooley and I discuss the need for Canadians, Iranians, and Native Americans to come together—The Love Boat, let’s call it—to fight the corrupt and evil political “Epstein Class” of people, as outlined in our March conversation and again in my Sunday, May 3, 2026 conversation with Mikayla Resists. In this discussion, we uncover past errors in the post-World War I Socialist Revolution. That Coronel Larry Wilkerson, Larry Johnson, Scott Ritter and others have said the United States is being led by a mad man, and that the best analogy of where we are is Star Wars. The need for us to be rebel forces finding our own “Strait of Hormuz” choke points in order to regain control of public policy: social justice and environmental regulations.

TAKE ACTION: Participate in the Friday, May 29th FIGHT BACK NOW Day-of-Action!

Following the lead of historical social justice movements, the Alberta Federation of Labour is planning a workers day-of-action in Alberta. With the No Kings movement in the United States, coupled with the knowledge that former workers’ success has come through system disruption, Alberta is beginning her very own “No Queens” movement on Friday, May 29th. Have your voice heard, make your displeasure known. Have a listen to Gil McGowan and Nate Pike’s great conversation about the event on TheBreakdownAB.

Until next time, Comrade Wesam, in solidarity! Find Wesam on Facebook and Instagram under @CalgaryPeoplesAssembly.

The energy discussion I mentioned:

Mikayla Resists returns to The Gravity Well to update us on what she’s been up to since our last conversation on February 4: of the Reclaiming Alberta Report. Mikayla sat in on at least two separatist town halls and one virtual meeting regarding the separatist movement. Topics covered:

* The Alberta Prosperity Project to the Centurion Project hand off.

* The latest meeting where David Parker described the “technology” being used, aka voter lists.

* The soldiering up and educating of separatist leaders to bring in followers using an app.

* Alberta’s relationships between the United States, Israel, Gaza, and the war in Iran.

* TAKE ACTION: Demand Warren Dreichel’s Removal from The Edmonton Police Service

While our city continues to mourn the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza, Police Chief Warren Driechel travelled to Israel to meet with the police force notorious for its human rights violations, with the Police Commission's blessing. While the trip has been framed as an "educational" expedition, for Edmontonians this trip was a betrayal. Mayor, Andrew Knack rightly noted that this trip has damaged the social fabric of our city. Yet, in the face of this outcry, Chief Driechel has remained defiant, stating he "stands by his decision."

We, the signatories, demand:

* The immediate resignation of Police Chief Warren Driechel, on the grounds that his actions have undermined public trust and jeopardized community cohesion.

* An independent, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the purpose, funding, itinerary, meetings, and outcomes of Police Chief Driechel’s travel to Occupied Palestine including full disclosure of any official or unofficial engagements undertaken during the visit.

* The immediate suspension and subsequent termination of any current or future institutional partnerships, training programs, exchanges, or collaborations between the Edmonton Police Service and zionist policing or security agencies, in accordance with municipal, commitments to human rights, international law, and ethical governance.

We know that human rights should never be taken for granted. We know that what Warren Dreichel did was wrong, and he must face the consequences of his actions.

In this episode, Kennedy Halvorson of the Alberta Wilderness Association returns to the studio (last appeared in The Future of Water in Southern Alberta) to co-host coal expert, Cornelis Kolijn with me. This conversation aims to break through coal misinformation causing calamity in the Province of Alberta, and beyond. Cornelis graduated from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. He has over 40 years of experience in international mining and metallurgical coal (coke and ironmaking). He’s worked in countries across the globe from Canada to Europe to Australia and all over Asia. He worked for Teck Resources in 2019 and since then has been a consultant for metallurgical coal and coke making, including alternate hydrogen-based direct reduction process and assessing alternatives to blast furnaces. He mentors young engineers and geologists. Thank you to Cornelis and Kennedy for the fabulous conversation!

Resources

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s Statements on Coal Demand

Coal Demand | Alberta Energy Regulator

Battery Circularity and Canada’s Need to Catch Up

Coal Price Volatility, Outlook, Grassy Coal Quality, Rock Waste Piles

AUSTRALIA Resources and Energy Quarterly December 2025

Due to decreasing global coal demand, and an increasing focus on high quality coal, benchmark hard coking coal prices are trending to sub-$200 USD/tonne.

Trading Economics, on April 19, 2026

Benchmark metallurgical coal prices are trending to $185 USD/tonne.

Australia Resources and Energy Quarterly, September 2025

Graphs showing India and South East Asia have been making up for China’s—and others—declining coal imports (left) and Australia’s high quality coal dominates the export market (right).

SMS Group Insights March 2024, The Steel Industry in 2050

Tables highlighting a 71% to 33% blast furnace decrease expected (left) and increasing scrap steel availability from 0.9 to 1.5 Megatonnes per year (right) between 2022 and 2050.

Wood Mackenzie, Steel Value Briefing Tokyo, August 2024.

Remembering that good climate policy is good economic policy, scenarios adhering to climate policy may drop global oil demand by as much as 3/4 of current global metallurgical coal demand.

* Base Case consistent with 2.5oC global warming, as per Wood Mac’s Long-term of 2024Q1. Steady advancement of current and nascent technologies.

* Pledges consistent with 2oC global warming, aligned with Net Zero by 2070 pledges in COP26, in 2021. Incl. policy response to current energy crisis & geopolitical challenges to global economy.

* Net Zero 2050 scenario consistent by 1.5oC global warming, net zero by 2050. Aligns with most ambitious goal of Paris Agreement in 2015.

Cornelis’s Expert Evidence Report on Grassy Mountain

Cornelis expects coal quality to decline rapidly from seam to seam at Grassy Mountain. Coupling this with demand decline, he sees reclamation dollars being unavailable when needed most.

A graph showing the quality of Grassy Mountain Coal being well below Prime Hard Coking Coal quality benchmarks CSR and the neighboring Elk Valley coal seams. As a consequence, Grassy's coal product will have lower market value and pricing compared to the Elk Valley's coal. CSR is the coke strength in the Blast Furnace's process conditions; Extreme Temperatures and aggressive gas-attack degrading the coke, potentially "smothering" the process.

The Fluidity, this is the softening, partly melting of coal during carbonization in the oven is lower than Elk Valley's Prime hard coking coal. Usually, an optimized blend of coking coals is charged into the coke oven and heated to approx. 1100oC. Upon softening and release of gas and tar, the coal solidifies into solid coke. Low Fluidity coals are not as effective interacting with the other coals in the coal blend to form the strong coke structure required in the Blast Furnace.

A graph showing the opening and closing of coal mines between 1996 and 2016. Overall mines were offline 1/3 of the time.

A table highlighting the overstated economic value and employment opportunities across three mines in British Columbia between 1999-2019.

Research on subsidence from underground operations in Alberta and Beyond

Significant movement and ground deformation at the location labelled P4 towards the road and Smoky River: Ground deformation due to natural resource extraction in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin - ScienceDirect.

Two maps showing the pits and waste rock (left) and proposed mine plans (right) for the Tent Mountain mine. There is evidence of sluffing of the stock piles due to the topography and increased material volume and load in this Google Earth satellite image.

Tent Mountain Google Earth Satellite Image Slumping Waste Rock Pile 1 Aug.2025-2

Underground mining is far from “out-of-sight-out-of-mind”. Apart from the impact on the watershed, methane is likely to escape through the cracks into the atmosphere, adding to the atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution. In some mining areas (Appalachians) in the USA escaping methane caused some homes and buildings to explode. In some cases, escaping mine-gas methane is being flared. The Crowsnest coal seams can be very “gaseous”, referring to underground mine explosions of the past.

Towards an Inventory of Abandoned Mines in Australia

Southern East Slope Geology Complexity and Thinning Compared to the Elk Valley

Two maps showing the surface expression increased complexity (left) and thinning of the coal seam thickness (right) from West (Elk Valley) to East (Crowsnest Valley).

The Joint Review Panel Report Decision, Page 19, finds the project is not in the public’s interest: https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/decisions/2021/2021ABAER010.pdf.

This Google Earth image roughly shows the original rejected mine footprint (red) and the newly proposed footprint (yellow). As you can see, very little has changed. The map also highlights the tributaries that flow into the Crowsnest River, including Gold Creek and Blairmore Creek, highlighting their direct connection to downstream water systems that will receive contaminants.

Markham is a Canadian journalist and CEO of Energi.Media, one of Canada’s leading independent news organizations. Thoughtful Energy Journalism currently averages over 6 million views/reads per month, and is celebrating its 18th year. Markham also has a sizable and growing US audience.

I was introduced to Markham during the run up to the 2023 election. He was my first energy specific interview. Through his work and our continued collaboration through the Energy Circle, I have been exposed to a much more realistic view of Alberta. A view in line with my lived experience in the oil patch as a Geophysicist and liability expert. I have been introduced to and now work with many of the people Markham has interviewed: including Mark Dorin of the Polluter Pay Federation - PPF, Philip Meintzer of The Drill and Dash Report, and, of course, Charlie Angus / The Resistance. Markham introduced Charlie and I.

Markham started the Energy Circle at the same time I began The Gravity Well podcast. We meet online Thursday afternoons at 3 pm MT to discuss all things energy transition, political, and water related. I am very grateful for Markham’s work, his friendship and for his coming to Calgary to host this event with me! Thank you to everyone who participated and welcomed Markham back to town.

Next Event in YYC

Join the Coalition For Responsible Energy (C4RE) and me on Tuesday, May 12 from 7-8:30 pm at the Bowness Seniors’ Centre (6422 35 Ave NW) in Calgary. The Alberta Government is planning to ram the Mature Asset Strategy (MAS) through the legislature—a backroom deal that pushes the cost of oil and gas clean-up from the industry onto taxpayers. Learn more about what MAS is, how it will impact you, and our plan to stop the handout to the oil and gas industry. Let’s take action together!

Meet other campaign volunteers supporting environmental and social justice.

This episode of The Gravity Well features a discussion about the LaRose v. Her Majesty the Queen (now His Majesty the King) climate change lawsuit on Earth Day. The conversation includes Sadie Vipond, a plaintiff in the case, and Andrew Gage, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

Sadie Vipond is a university student studying environmental science with a specialization in ecology and conservation at the University of British Columbia. She has been involved in the case for seven years, starting when she was in grade seven or eight. The case involves multiple young plaintiffs who have all experienced climate change impacts including fires, heat, extreme weather events, flooding, and medical conditions exacerbated by climate effects.

Andrew Gage works for West Coast Environmental Law and has been focusing on climate change for about a decade. His organization joined the case about a year ago when the David Suzuki Foundation stepped back, providing communications, fundraising support, and legal case development assistance. The lead legal representation is handled by the Arvay Finlay LLP firm.

The case challenges the adequacy of Canada’s climate action under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. The plaintiffs argue that Canada’s Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act falls short of constitutional obligations to protect youth rights. Importantly, the plaintiffs are not seeking monetary compensation but rather a science-based climate recovery plan to hold the government accountable.

The case faced initial legal challenges when it was struck down by courts for being too broad, but the Federal Court of Appeal allowed it to proceed after the plaintiffs amended their pleadings to focus specifically on the Canadian Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act. This appellate decision itself represents a significant precedent recognizing climate change as affecting human rights rather than being merely a political issue.

The case is scheduled for trial in October 2024. Both sides have exchanged expert reports, and the plaintiffs will be submitting affidavits describing their personal experiences with climate change impacts. International Court of Justice rulings confirming climate change as a human rights issue will support their legal arguments.

The public can follow the case through West Coast Environmental Law’s social media channels and Our Children’s Trust. Donations to support case costs can be made through West Coast Environmental Law’s website at wcel.org/climate-litigation. The plaintiffs emphasize that their goal is to start conversations about climate change as a human rights issue and to hold the appropriate entities accountable rather than blaming individual citizens.

Climate change is not your fault, as my partner reiterated yesterday, the fossil fuel industry has chosen to renege on addressing the harms they’ve created. It is up to us coming together to hold them to account! Thank you, Sadie and the other 14 plaintiffs who stood up for your future and mine!

Follow and support Our Children’s’ Trust for plantiffs like Sadie who has spend a quarter of her life defending your rights.

This episode is a discussion between host Jenny Yeremiy and Professor Duane Bratt from Mount Royal University about Alberta’s Electoral Boundaries Commission process, their one-of-its-kind report, and recent government intervention which looks a lot like gerrymandering.

TAKE ACTION: Email Your MLA, the Premier, and the Justice Minister, cc’ing every elected official in Alberta. Scroll down for an example letter!

On the Original Commission Process

The Alberta government created an Electoral Boundaries Commission in 2024 to redraw electoral maps for the 2027 election. The commission was structured with five members: a retired judge (Justice Miller) as chair, two government appointees, and two NDP appointees. They were limited to increasing seats from 87 to only 89.

The commission spent about a year conducting public hearings and reviewing submissions, ultimately producing a unanimous interim report that all five members agreed upon. The report recommended adding seats in Calgary, Edmonton, and Airdrie due to population growth, while amalgamating some rural ridings in Central and Northern Alberta.

The Split in the Final Report

Something unusual happened between December and January - the two United Conservative Party (UCP) appointees completely changed their position and created an entirely different map . This resulted in two separate reports: a majority report (supported by Justice Miller and the two NDP appointees) that largely maintained the interim recommendations, and a minority report from the two UCP appointees that proposed extensive “hybrid ridings”.

The minority report extended urban ridings far into rural areas - for example, a Lethbridge riding extending to the BC border and Calgary’s Glenmore riding extending almost to BC. Professor Bratt argues this appeared to be gerrymandering designed to dilute urban (NDP-leaning) votes by combining them with rural (UCP-dominated) areas.

Summary continues below ad.

Join Markham Hislop and I, THIS FRIDAY from 6-8 pm in Calgary at the Montgomery Community Association. Let’s talk water, energy, and any other concerns you’d like to discuss under Danielle Smith’s Alberta and Mark Carney’s Canada. Ask me questions about the recall campaign, ask Markham about guests and what he sees coming in the global electric revolution.

Don’t let the ticket price be a barrier, grab a Student & Senior free ticket!

Government’s New Process

Rather than adopting either report, the government announced yesterday they will recreate the entire process. They’re establishing a new legislative committee chaired by MLA Brandon Lunty, supported by another independent panel with the same structure as the original commission. This new process will take only six months instead of over a year and won’t hold new public hearings.

Constitutional and Legal Concerns

Justice Miller’s majority report stated the minority recommendations were likely unconstitutional under Section 3 of the Charter of Rights (fair elections). Unlike other Charter sections, Section 3 cannot be overridden using the notwithstanding clause. If a gerrymandered map is adopted, court challenges are expected that could nullify it, potentially forcing use of the old 87-seat map despite significant population changes.

Broader Democratic Concerns

Professor Bratt places this within a pattern of “erosion of Democratic norms in Alberta,” including attacks on universities, judges, municipalities, weakening Elections Alberta, and frequent use of the notwithstanding clause. He argues this undermines public trust in electoral fairness and feeds into separatist narratives.

The timeline is also problematic - Elections Alberta needs about 18 months to prepare for elections, but the new report won’t come until October 2026, just one year before the 2027 election, while also handling up to 10 referendum questions.

My Take

Smith’s UCP wants to forget the ABEBC’s efforts and use the 2023 maps, this way urban votes count less than rural votes and defeat the entire purpose of the commission to begin with: to balance the population growth.

TAKE ACTION: Write the PM, your Premier, justice ministers, and MLAs!

Subject: Stand up for democracy - accept majority electoral boundary commission report!

To: mark.carney@parl.gc.ca, ministerial.correspondenceunit-mailout@justice.gc.ca, premier@gov.ab.ca, ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca, Calgary.Bow@assembly.ab.ca Cc: Rajan Sawhney , Peter Guthrie , Angela Pitt , Glen ven Dijken , Scott Cyr , Sarah Elmeligi , Danielle Smith , Diana Batten , Amanda Chapman , Irfan Sabir , Joe Ceci , Mickey Amery , Janet Eremenko , Peter Singh , Julia Hayter , Samir Kayande , Parmeet Singh , Myles McDougall , Court Ellingson , Nagwan Al-Guneid , Ric McIver , Lizette Tejada , Eric Bouchard , Kathleen Ganley , Gurinder Brar , Tanya Fir , Rebecca Schultz , Matt Jones , Luanne Metz , Mike Ellis , Jackie Lovely , Joseph Schow , Todd Loewen , Chantelle de Jonge , Justin Wright , Andrew Boitchenko , Nate Horner , Peggy Wright , Nicole Goehring , David Shepherd , Sharif Haji , Gurtej Singh Brar , Sarah Hoffman , Janis Irwin , Heather Sweet , Lorne Dach , Jasvir Deol , Christina Gray , David Eggen , Lori Sigurdson , Jodi Calahoo Stonehouse , Rhiannon Hoyle , Nathan Ip , Naheed Nenshi , Brooks Arcand-Paul , Rakhi Pancholi , Brian Jean , Tany Yao , Jackie Armstrong-Homeniuk , Nolan Dyck , Ron Wiebe , "R.J. Sigurdson" , Devin Dreeshan , Shane Getson , Jennifer Johnson , Brandon Lunty , Scott Sinclair , Nathan Neudorf , Rob Miyashiro , Chelsea Petrovic , Rick Wilson , Muhammad Yaseen , Dale Nally , Tara Sawyer , Dan Williams , Adrianna LaGrange , Jason Stephan , Jason Nixon , Kyle Kasawski , Searle Turton , Marie Renaud , Garth Rowswell , Grant Hunter , Nate Glubish , Martin Long

Prime Minister Mark Carney, Justice Ministers, Premier, and my MLA for Calgary-Bow

I am writing as a deeply-alarmed Albertan concerned by the UCP's clear move to gerrymander this province's electoral map ahead of the 2027 election while the clock is ticking.The 2025-2026 Electoral Boundaries Commission (ABEBC) issued a final report recommending a net gain of two new seats, one in Calgary and one for Edmonton, to accommodate population growth, and consolidate two rural ridings. The commission chair, Dallas Miller, a retired judge appointed by Danielle Smith's own cabinet, joined with the UCP and NDP-appointed commissioners supported their majority report unanimously.Suddenly, the two UCP-appointed commissioners decided it wasn't good enough, and issued “the minority report”. I personally opposed it, with a few other RecallNicolaides.ca community members, in the January Calgary public hearing. We outlined the clear attempts by my MLA Demetrios Nicolaides and neighbouring MLA, Rajan Sawhney, to gerrymander Calgary-Bow while he was being recalled.Their minority report would slice Alberta's cities into a pizza pie "urban" ridings, deliberately diluting NDP urban support across the province, eerily similar to Greg Abbott's model efforts this year in Texas. The commission chair himself warned that the minority report's approach is likely unconstitutional, running afoul of Section 3 of the Charter, which protects the right to meaningful representation. The majority report noted that the minority's recommendations appear "motivated by other considerations" rather than effective representation and sternly remarked that "our friends south of the border may have a term for this type of redistricting." https://www.assembly.ab.ca/docs/default-source/about-documents/legislative-assembly-office/other-reports/ebcfinalreport.pdfYes, it’s called gerrymandering!What makes this even more concerning is Justice Minister Mickey Amery's reversal. Before the final report was released, Amery had repeatedly stated that the government does and will not draw the boundaries and that he would respect the independent process. Once he saw that the report didn't suit the UCP's interests, he announced that "all options are on the table". As Opposition Leader Nenshi put it, "anything short of implementing the majority report in its entirety is election rigging," and he's absolutely right.The integrity of the process used to determine electoral districts is foundational to representative democracy. Any partisan interference poisons the legitimacy of the electoral outcomes. This raises the very real possibility that district boundaries will be drawn to guarantee a result on voting day rather than reflect the will of Albertans.Minority reports from government-appointed commissioners complete with alternative maps are unprecedented in Alberta electoral history. What the UCP is doing is a page ripped out of the authoritarian playbook. Canadians, and Albertans, have watched this play out south of the border, and we said that it cannot happen here. But now it is, under the UCP government.I demand:1. The majority report must be implemented in full. No cherry-picking, no incorporation of the minority maps, and no hybrid compromise that rewards bad-faith participation.2. Minister Amery must publicly commit to honouring the independent process he promised to respect before the report was released.3. The Legislative Assembly must not be weaponized to override an independent commission's findings for partisan gain.Albertans are not ignorant, we know what gerrymandering looks like and we know what a blatant power grab looks like. We will remember, at the ballot box and in the ridings that you are so eager to redraw, who stood up for democracy and who is trying to actively dismantle it.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph

Calgary-Bow, Alberta, Canada Resident

Hat tip to someone on Facebook I’m happy to give credit to for this fabulous summary for our leaders!

When Public Education is under attack, What Do You Do? Stand Up, Fight Back!

To unpack the Government of Alberta’s latest assault on Public Education and what to do about it. I am joined by: Heather Quinn, the President of the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) for Edmonton Public Local 37; Jay Prockter, an Edmonton Public School Teacher and district representative for Edmonton and Fort McMurray with the ATA; Trisha Estabrooks of Friends of Medicare, Former School Board Trustee and Journalist; and Brad LaFortune, the Executive Director at Public Interest Alberta.

Enjoy this fabulous conversation with Heather, Jay, Brad, and Trisha, thank you four for all you do. Read more about it from Good Trouble on Substack here:

Join Markham Hislop and I, next Friday, April 24th at the Montgomery Community Association in Calgary from 6-8 pm. Markham will update us on the global electric revolution by sharing his discussions and analysis with experts in Energy and Geopolitics. I will share my expertise in oil and gas development and restoration efforts right here in Alberta. This will be a great night, please share this event with your friends!

Reminder: if you were a volunteer for Recall Nicolaides, message me so I may add you to my guest list! AB Resistance has issued pins for you, as thanks, too.

The annual Public Interest Alberta (pialberta.org) “Common Purpose, Collective Action” conference is in Edmonton on Friday, May 8th and Saturday, May 9th at the Barnett House in Edmonton to discuss all collective action taken in the publics’ interest in Alberta and how we can find the links between us to strengthen our efforts. I will be be there, you should be there, too!

I just had another fabulous conversation with Charlie Angus / The Resistance about Kevin O’Leary’s “Wonder Valley” project proposed in Alberta. The project will:

* Add 7-12 million homes in terms of power usage while Alberta has the highest energy costs of all provinces

* Use more than a Sylvan Lake amount of water annually, while the agriculture sector is limited to 1/4 of this amount.

* Provides the USA access to our information via the Cloud Act.

* Benefits United Arab Emirates (UAE) investors… meanwhile, their revenue has been halted by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

* A federal impact assessment must be required, the agriculture sector cannot afford this water draw, nor can the environment.

Contact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, request a Federal Impact Assessment be done on this project and any project planned in Alberta. It is clear Alberta is not being governed or regulated well here.

Correction: I said the US emissions are off by 7 per cent. I meant they’re off by 7 times. Here’s a study led out of McGill University on the subject from last year: Sevenfold Underestimation of Methane Emissions from Non-producing Oil and Gas Wells in Canada.

#cdnpoli #abpoli #AIsurveillance #cloudact

This episode examines Alberta’s draft South Athabasca sub-regional land use plan and its implications for woodland caribou, water, biodiversity, Indigenous rights, and long-term regional sustainability. Program director Tara Russell of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern Alberta explains that sub-regional plans were originally conceived to manage competing industrial and recreational uses on public lands in ways that would recover endangered and threatened caribou populations by meeting well-established habitat thresholds, including at least 65% undisturbed habitat and sufficient mature forest within each range. She notes that all 15 woodland caribou populations in northern Alberta are threatened and that most home ranges now have over 90% disturbance, leaving less than 5% undisturbed habitat.

TAKE ACTION BY APRIL 9, 2026!

Use the Public Engagement Guide | 2026 Created by CPAWS Northern Alberta, Alberta Wilderness Association, The Alberta Chapter of the Wildlife Society and Nature Alberta to stop the eviction of caribou TODAY!

Tara describes how the new South Athabasca plan overrides the earlier Cold Lake sub-regional plan and the unreleased Wandering River plan, despite years of multi-stakeholder work that had produced precedent-setting approaches such as clear habitat targets and timelines. Their analysis, captured in a public engagement guide produced with several conservation organizations, concludes that the draft plan removes caribou recovery as an explicit objective, fails to commit to restoring critical habitat to the 65% undisturbed threshold required under the federal Species at Risk Act, and provides no transparent assessment of how its measures will affect caribou or other species at risk.

The discussion highlights that the sub-region is already heavily impacted by forestry, in situ oil sands, conventional oil and gas, roads, seismic lines, and recreation, yet the plan is structured around an explicit goal of doubling oil and gas development without robust mechanisms to reduce cumulative disturbance or address water use and contamination, including tailings. Proposed improvements—such as limiting primary roads, adjusting riparian buffers, setting road-density and disturbance parameters, and restoring “unproductive” infrastructure—are undermined by broad exemptions for in situ project areas and existing operations, vague definitions, lack of incentives or enforcement, and thresholds that are not tied to ecological needs.

In forestry, the plan introduces long-term harvest deferrals in high-value caribou habitat, which Russell views as a positive step, but these apply only to logging and not to other industrial activities, and the harvest schedule appears to keep disturbance above what caribou can tolerate for at least the first 40 years, with no clear explanation of how habitat targets will be met. Access management and recreation provisions similarly lack ecological grounding and enforcement: road-density targets are not linked to caribou needs, in situ project areas are exempt from access rules, and off-highway vehicle restrictions are limited to a single area despite broader impacts on wildlife and waterways.

The plan’s proposed conservation area within the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, envisioned as Indigenous-led, is welcomed in principle but criticized as it would still allow renewal and potential expansion of oil and gas activities and appears to be managed under rules similar to adjacent “go zones,” with no clear prioritization of species at risk. Russell stresses the need for meaningful Indigenous leadership across all nations whose territories overlap the sub-region and for conservation designations that genuinely safeguard caribou and boreal ecosystems.

Economically, Tara explains that a strategy centered on short-term industrial expansion at the cost of species loss, degraded forests, and damaged waterways cannot support long-term regional prosperity and may contravene federal Species at Risk Act obligations, especially after Alberta’s Section 11 conservation agreement with Canada expired in October without its commitments being met. Tara and I warn that continuing on this path risks ecological collapse, threatens downstream watersheds including the Northwest Territories, and accelerates climate and biodiversity crises, particularly if oil production and associated water contamination are doubled.

The episode concludes by framing the South Athabasca plan as one of up to 11 sub-regional plans expected under the current provincial mandate, cautioning that if similar approaches are replicated across Alberta, the result could be the expedited loss of woodland caribou (and trout species, I must add) and widespread degradation of boreal ecosystems. Tara and I emphasize the importance of public participation in the ongoing consultation (closing April 9) and encourage use of the engagement guide developed by CPAWS and partners to push for land-use planning that genuinely centers ecological limits, Indigenous rights, and long-term watershed and community health.

This episode features disability advocate Zachary Weeks, who was born with cerebral palsy in Edmonton and has long worked as a spokesperson on accessibility and social justice issues, consulting on major public developments and challenging ableism and discrimination. Zachary describes his unexpected path into advocacy, shifting from training as a funeral director to volunteering with a nonprofit after facing exclusion from the funeral industry, where his potential as an advocate was recognized. The conversation centers on Alberta’s lack of provincial accessibility legislation—making it one of only two provinces without such a law—and the development of a comprehensive Accessibility Act led by MLA Marie Renaud in collaboration with people with disabilities, lawyers, nonprofits, and business groups, including the Alberta Chambers of Commerce. He explains that the proposed act aimed to embed accessibility across employment, housing, transportation, justice, healthcare, the built environment, and digital services, including accessible websites and government communications. Zach criticizes the UCP government for striking down the bill over objections to the definition of disability and concerns about “overreach” by a committee of people with lived experience, despite extensive consultations and cross-sector support.

The discussion then turns to income support reforms, contrasting the long-standing Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) with the new Alberta Disability Assistance Program (ADAP). Weeks warns that thousands of recipients will be moved from AISH to ADAP under an assumption that many can work, despite the difficulty of qualifying for AISH and the reality that most recipients are unable to work. He highlights that ADAP will reduce monthly income from $1,940 to $1,740 after a temporary $200 transition top-up and will lower the amount people can earn before clawbacks from about $1,100 under AISH to $700, after an initial proposal as low as $300–$350. Zack argues that these changes, combined with clawbacks of the $200 federal Canada Disability Benefit, effectively balance the provincial budget on the backs of people with disabilities and undermine their ability to secure and maintain employment, especially in the absence of robust accessibility measures.

The conversation also addresses broader systemic issues, including inadequate consultation with the disability community—where government “town halls” lacked even basic accessibility features like captioning—and a political climate that increasingly targets disabled people, seniors, and immigrants. Weeks and I connect these policy choices to early childhood cuts such as reduced Program Unit Funding (PUF) funding, framing them as part of a “race to the bottom” that harms current and future generations. We further explore the complexities of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), with Weeks emphasizing personal autonomy, the need for strong safeguards, and the ethical tension created when people facing chronic pain and poverty are simultaneously stripped of supports and confronted with rising costs and housing insecurity.

Throughout, Zachary stresses that everyone is “temporarily able-bodied” and that disability cuts across all identities, making accessibility and income security issues that should matter to all Albertans. He calls for cross-community solidarity—across faith groups, LGBTQ+ communities, Indigenous peoples, and others—and encourages listeners to share knowledge, build alliances, and support efforts to secure meaningful accessibility legislation in Alberta. You can find Zachary at ZacharyWeeks.ca, his social media links are all there!

Mark your calendar, Calgary!

Markham Hislop is coming to town on Friday, April 24th, JOIN US from 6 to 8 pm at the Montgomery Community Association. As explained in this preview episode on Energi.Media, he and I will have a dual podcast discussion about the energy transition and water restoration needs in Alberta. The event is LIVE on Eventbrite, please get your tickets. If you are a member of the Recall Nicolaides team, please reach out to me directly if you’d like to attend. You are wanted there and AB Resistance has provided me with a small token of their appreciation for all the work you did. I just met with a handful of Recall leads and the exhaustion is real. Please reach out to anyone you know who was heavily involved in recall efforts and give them an extra word of thanks, they deserve it.

Forever Canadian Updates

I had the privilege of meeting Thomas Lukaszuk in Calgary Tuesday afternoon. Thomas is planning to commit another spring and summer to the “Unity Bus” to raise awareness and to get-out-the-vote for the October 19, 2026 referendum on separation and other heinous objectives. He will be hitting every town and city across the province. Thomas explained it is not a coincidence that the separatist petition announced they have their numbers this week as it is expected the petition signature collecting will be stopped by the courts to rightly support Indigenous rights. Please go to Forever-Canadian.ca to join this vital phase two effort.

If you haven’t already, check out my conversation with him on Charlie Angus’s Meidas Canada titled: ALBERTANS FIGHT MAGA & DEFEND CANADA.

Water Not Coal

Become a canvasser with the WaterNotCoal campaign underway. The pace seems to have picked up again, perhaps in light of further legislative changes to both the recall and citizen petition initiatives. The Alberta Government created a two-year black out period around the election and are allowing the MLA or justice minister, respectively, the ability to appoint a scrutineer. Go to waternotcoal.ca to get involved. I am working on a couple WaterNotCoal conversations for The Gravity Well, stay tuned!

The Coalition for Responsible Energy (C4RE)

I have been working with a group called the coalition for responsible energy, you can find us by searching cleanupyourmess.ca. We have a few town halls planned in:

* Provost on Wednesday, April 22, at the Provost Recreation and Cultural Center, doors open at 6 pm.

* Airdrie on Wednesday, April 29th at Inspire Airdrie from 7-8:30 pm, and

* Calgary at the Bowness Seniors’ Center on Saturday, May 9 from 2-3:30 pm.

Common Purpose, Collective Action

Public Interest Alberta: Common Purpose, Collective Action Conference in Edmonton, May 8-9. They want more Calgary people! I will be there presenting on a participatory democracy effort. Charlie Angus is a keynote speaker at it.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: May 29th Alberta Day of Action!

The goal is to have 1,000,000 Albertans on the street that day. This effort is being led by the Alberta Federation of Labour, please go to: Fight Back Now! - Alberta Federation of Labour, subscribe to spread the word and organize. It’s gonna be quite something! I have an interview planned with a representative at the Alberta Federation of Labour soon.

Seb Kennedy, an energy journalist turned market analyst, has transitioned from covering renewables to focusing on natural gas and LNG, launching Energy Flux to provide insights into these markets.

This discussion highlights the volatility in the LNG market, exacerbated by geopolitical events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US attacks on Iran leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he shows the significant supply disruptions to oil gas and global commodities, including fertilizers and other non-energy goods, which could lead to broader economic consequences.

The conversation further explores the challenges and opportunities for LNG investment in North America, particularly in Canada, where the potential for windfall profits is weighed against the risks of long-term market volatility and technical issues at existing facilities. Seb emphasizes the importance of reducing reliance on natural gas by investing in renewable energy and infrastructure to enhance energy security and resilience. The conversation concludes with a call for strategic investments to mitigate exposure to commodity cycles and support a transition to more sustainable energy sources.

For more insights, Seb can be followed through the Energy Flux newsletter, LinkedIn, Bluesky and other digital platforms.

Updates from me

I am Jenny, broadcasting from Calgary, Alberta. I’m a geophysicist turned oil and gas liability expert turned podcast host and public activist. I’m here to create a better story for Alberta than one of pollution and populism by breaking through the propaganda machine. Please remember to like and subscribe to The Gravity Well, your doing so helps boost the voices and views of these stellar people and important issues.

Recall updates

Mark your calendar, Calgary-Bow! Markham Hislop is coming to town on Friday, April 24th. He and I will have a dual podcast discussion about the energy transition and the phase 2 project for Recall Nicolaides campaign. I will create and share an Eventbrite for this event ASAP! I am working with the other recall leads to collaborate on this as well as some water focused friends. Remember to go to OperationTotalRecall.ca to support the recall campaigns still underway.

Forever Canadian on Charlie Angus

My Meidas Canada—Thomas Lukaszuk interview is out. It’s called ALBERTANS FIGHT MAGA & DEFEND CANADA. The best part, in my humble opinion, is around 19 mins in where Thomas explains the absolute impossibility of Alberta independence: physically, economically, and practically. Yes Thomas, our only market would be the USA and we would be absorbed by them instantaneously.

Sign up for their newsletter to get involved at forever-canadian.ca!

Water Not Coal

Become a canvasser with the WaterNotCoal.ca campaign which is underway. I am working on a couple Water Not Coal podcast conversations and am very much enjoying meeting the people who are going out of their way to sign at my home.

The Coalition for Responsible Energy (C4RE)

I have been working with a group called the coalition for responsible energy, you can find us by searching cleanupyourmess.ca… The Rural Municipalities Association conference is underway in Edmonton right now. There is a lot of media coverage on oil and gas site clean up happening from Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen to Markham Hislop to The New York Times.

C4RE members are planning a few town halls in Provost, Calgary-Northwest and in Airdrie. Stay tuned for the dates and details!

Common Purpose, Collective Action

Public Interest Alberta: Common Purpose, Collective Action Conference in Edmonton, May 8-9.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: May 29th Alberta Day of Action!

The goal is to have 1,000,000 Albertans on the street that day. This effort is being led by the Alberta Federation of Labour, please go to: Fight Back Now! - Alberta Federation of Labour, subscribe to spread the word and organize. It’s gonna be quite something!

The Gravity Well project as an effort to use dialogue to address environmental and social dilemmas, with a particular focus on water crises in Southern Alberta and the Eastern slopes as “taps” that are being degraded by logging, coal mining, oil and gas, and roads, as referred to in my conversation with Harley Bastien. This episode, released in August of 2024, features environmental historian, Shannon Stunden Bower, an associate professor at the University of Alberta, a white settler scholar working in environmental history and historical geography, and a leader in the Network in Canadian History and Environment (NiCHE), which aims to bring historical perspectives on human and non‑human nature to researchers, the public, and policymakers through blogs, books, and other publications. Bruce Smedley, a professional engineer with 50 years’ experience in environmental projects worldwide, adds that water has been central to industries from pulp and paper to mining and fisheries, and that his long engagement with climate change and environmental impact assessments has made him attentive to how industry, governments, and Indigenous communities intersect around water issues.

Shannon then situates the famous “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s in a longer climate and economic context, explaining that settlers arrived during an unusually wet 15‑year period and mistook those conditions for normal, whereas tree‑ring records show that multi‑year droughts are part of the Prairie West’s long‑term climate. The 1930s crisis was intensified by three factors: lower‑than‑expected precipitation, collapsing wheat prices during the global depression, and accumulating damage from unsustainable agricultural practices such as black summer fallow, which degraded soils. We connect this to colonial policy, noting how agricultural colonization and the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 were intertwined with the Department of Indian Affairs under Duncan Campbell Scott, reserve segregation, and legal mechanisms that dispossessed Indigenous peoples and blocked their emerging agricultural success, such as among the Blackfoot in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Shannon elaborates that agricultural settlement was “tightly coupled” with Indigenous dispossession, genocidal policies, and measures like the Peasant Farming policy that forced Indigenous farmers to use outdated technology while neighbouring settlers used modern machinery, all within a broader “clearing the plains” project described by James Daschuk.

Our discussion turns to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), created in 1935 as part of Canada’s “New Deal” response to the 1930s emergency, and operating until its elimination in 2009 under Stephen Harper’s government in what some have called a “war on science.” Shannon describes PFRA’s early soil‑conservation strategy of strip farming—alternating cropped and fallowed strips to anchor topsoil—which produced unintended consequences by creating more field edges that favoured wheat stem sawflies, leading to severe pest outbreaks that caused some farmers to abandon strip farming despite ongoing soil loss. PFRA’s small‑scale water development projects, such as dugouts and stock‑watering ponds, are presented as relatively successful in providing reliable water for households, gardens, and livestock without large‑scale irrigation, whereas later large irrigation schemes were more complex. Shannon also recounts PFRA’s role in international development in northern Ghana, where Canadian expertise was exported to build water infrastructure; the project had mixed technical success but led to serious unintended health impacts due to increased water‑related diseases carried by snails and mosquitoes—risks that had not been present in the Canadian prairies—highlighting the dangers of transplanting models without local ecological and cultural knowledge.

From there, the conversation broadens to contemporary farming, irrigation, and governance. Bruce notes that many prairie farmers historically arrived with little climate knowledge, took decades to learn the land, and now face soil deterioration and micronutrient loss after a century of farming, while cultural mismatches—whether Europeans in Canada or Canadians in Africa—underscore the importance of local knowledge. Shannon explains that farms have grown larger since the 1930s, making intimate, soil‑attentive management harder, and that the elimination of PFRA and other public agricultural science capacity under neoliberal “small government” has left farmers more dependent on corporations like Monsanto, whose mandate is profit rather than public interest, thereby increasing farmer vulnerability. She traces Alberta’s irrigation history from small individual schemes to corporate and cooperative models, and then to a 1930s shift that framed irrigation as a public good to justify state investment in large infrastructure, with later efficiency gains in the 1960s–70s; nonetheless, she stresses that “you can’t build your way out” of most problems and that more infrastructure alone often creates new issues. We contrast proposals for more dams, irrigation, and even north‑south water transfers—raising concerns about species transfer and failing infrastructure like the Oldman Dam and St. Mary Reservoir—with their preference for restoring headwater forests, removing roads and industrial sites, and enhancing natural storage and habitat.

In the final part of the conversation, we explore potential paths forward. Alex advocates for wetland restoration as a low‑cost way to filter water, maintain movement to reduce sulphates and phosphates, and increase biodiversity, citing artificial wetland basins in his own community that effectively filter hill runoff before it reaches treatment plants. He and others draw parallels between past and present “New Deals,” migrant promises, and cycles of empire, industrialization, and monocropping, arguing that large machinery and annual GMO seed systems from companies like Bayer have disconnected farmers from their land and trapped them in unsustainable models, while small‑scale, greenhouse‑based local food production offers more intimate, resilient alternatives.

Check Out More from Shannon and Bruce in the Water in Southern Alberta podcast mini-series.

Michelle Robinson (Red Thunderwoman) of Native Calgarian Podcast joins me on The Gravity Well to discuss the meaning of treaties and the opportunity for all Albertans to embrace their meaning to repair them. The Treaty 6, 7, and 8 Chiefs are leading the country and the world in upholding international agreements. Alberta is home to leadership of many forms, those who aim to uphold the treaties are operating in the best interests of everyone, Indigenous and settler people alike. Michelle reminds us the treaties were signed with the crown, not the Canadian government. They are the highest level of authority on the land, above Canadian laws.

Much more to learn and discover while we seek to uphold the agreements of our ancestors. A area of education and growth for me, I am excited to explore more.

Updates from me:

Good afternoon, I am Jenny Yeremiy, I’m broadcasting from Calgary, Alberta. I’m a geophysicist turned oil and gas liability expert turned podcast host and public activist. Defined by Mark Dorin: a person who stands up for citizen and indigenous rights and public safety then damn right I’m an activist. I’m here to create a better story for Alberta than one of pollution and populism by breaking through propaganda. We would not be living in this tumultuous time without it. Please remember to like and subscribe to The Gravity Well, your doing so helps boost the voices and views of these stellar people and important issues.

Recall updates

There are 4 recalls of interest rounding down: Recall Mickey in Calgary Cross; Recall Jackie in Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville; Recall Justin Wright in Cypress-Medicine Hat; Recall Wiebe in Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Thank you again to everyone who stood up against this unconstitutional government!

Recall Nicolaides is working on some data analysis for you, look to our socials for them! That’s @RecallNicolaides Shout out to all my recall Nico-laides, thanks Aimee for pointing this pun out! To get involved in phase two of the recall efforts, subscribe to Recall Nicolaides for now.

PLEASE go to OperationTotalRecall.ca to support the final 4 campaigns. Also, BOOST their social media posts!

The Gravity Well updates

Last week, you got a glimpse into my Calgary Citizens on Climate Change group, as Bob Sandford presented to us in it. Check out the episode titled Reclaiming Alberta from Water Bankruptcy. And I had a fabulous conversation with Wesam Cooley of Calgary Peoples’ Assembly, please check it out. We discuss the illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran in Reclaim the Middle East from US-Israel Domination. This illegal aggression is changing the global economic system dramatically . New limits are being exposed, fertilizer travels from that area and has been choked off. This will impact producers in North America. Wow! I am chatting with Seb Kennedy of Energy Flux on Monday about the changes to the oil and gas volumes before and after February 28th. That is going to be great.

I also just concluded a joint podcast with Michelle Robinson of Native Calgarian Podcast. I hope to share it with you on Tuesday next week.

Forever Canadian & Charlie Angus’ Meidas Canada

Phase two of the forever-canadian.ca is underway. Thomas Lukaszuk—former MLA, Minister and Deputy Minister for Edmonton-Castle Downs from 2001-2015, where I grew up—is now focused on re-activating, educating, and ultimately voting down Smith’s 9 referendum questions. Thomas and I had a stellar conversation on Meidas Canada, I am looking forward to watching it myself. Hoping it might be out tomorrow: Sunday, March 15.

I am supporting the leader of the Calgary Forever Canadian volunteer effort, Janel’s been an organizing mentor, I am super grateful for her leadership. Sign up for the newsletter to get involved at forever-canadian.ca! I’m excited to see how this project grows!

Water Not Coal

Become a canvasser with the WaterNotCoal.ca petition is underway. I have been bringing it around with me and now have a permanent signing location in Cougar Ridge, you can find it on WaterNotCoal.ca I am very much enjoying meeting the people who are going out of their way to sign, I met a wonderful couple from Drumheller on Thursday night. A shout out to Andrew and Jody, it was such a pleasure to meet you!

The Coalition for Responsible Energy (C4RE)

I have been working with a group called the coalition for responsible energy, you can find us by searching cleanupyourmess.ca. Mark Dorin has been increasing awareness in a big way lately. Firstly, Avi Lewis came to meet with Mark about the Reclamation Boom that Alberta is being held back from. Thank you to Avi for taking the time to understand the risks and opportunities for Albertans and Canadians in this space.

In addition, Mark is making landowners aware of their right to address messes on their lands. Check out his conversation with Markham Hislop on Energi Media from yesterday.

Common Purpose, Collective Action

I am co-presenting an Alberta Participatory Water Democracy (PWD) project with Colin Smith. It is directly related to Robert Sandford’s address to my Calgary Citizens on Climate Change (4C) group last week. Which I will get to in just a moment.

Charlie Angus is a keynote speaker, and I am thrilled to be co-hosting a plenary, at the Public Interest Alberta: Common Purpose, Collective Action Conference in Edmonton, May 8-9.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: May 29th Alberta Day of Action!

The goal is to have 1,000,000 Albertans on the street that day. This effort is being led by the Alberta Federation of Labour, please go to: Fight Back Now! - Alberta Federation of Labour, subscribe to spread the word and organize. It’s gonna be quite something!

Jody MacPherson – AI Data Centers

Jody MacPherson, a journalist with a background in the oil and gas industry, is currently engaged in investigative reporting on AI data centers and their connection to oil and gas production in Alberta. Her work focuses on the Wonder Valley Project, a proposed $70 billion AI data center in the Grand Prairie area, and the Olds project, which is progressing rapidly. These data centers are linked to the government’s strategy to double oil and gas production, raising concerns about their environmental impact, particularly regarding water and energy usage.

The projects have faced scrutiny over their approval processes and the lack of transparency, especially concerning water permits and indigenous consultation. Local communities have organized to express their concerns, particularly about the environmental and social impacts of these developments. Jody’s investigation also touches on broader issues of data sovereignty and the role of large American tech companies in these projects.

Jody’s work is supported by donations through the energy mix and her Substack, where she provides additional insights into her investigations. She continues to explore the implications of these data centers, including their potential benefits and the challenges they pose to local communities and the environment.

Excellent investigative reporting you won’t want to miss! If you’re interested in following them or the issue you can do so on Facebook search: Old’s Community Transparency Project.

Jody’s coverage of this issue:

Hidden Wonder Valley series: https://www.theenergymix.com/hidden-wonder-valley/

Latest on Olds:

https://www.theenergymix.com/developer-presses-ahead-with-mega-gas-plant-after-alberta-regulator-rejects-deficient-plan/

Latest on Wonder Valley:

https://www.theenergymix.com/alberta-municipality-bets-tens-of-millions-on-wonder-valley-data-c

More coverage on AI data sovereignty here (Canada is mentioned near the end):

https://www.theenergymix.com/openai-calls-for-100-gw-of-new-power-each-year-to-secure-ai-dominance/

The Energy Mix donations page: https://www.theenergymix.com/donate/

Subscribe to Jody’s Substack newsletter:

Send Jody news tips on Signal at: JodyMacPherson.64.

Her social media links here: https://about.me/jodymacpherson.

Caffeinate her to keep up with her grandson: https://buymeacoffee.com/jodymacpherson.

Wesam Cooley rejoins The Gravity Well (see Season 1, Episode 20 and Season 2, Episode 7) podcast to delve into the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics, including the ongoing conflicts involving Iran, Israel, and the United States, and the broader implications for global stability. The discussion also touched on the role of media in shaping public perception and the strategic responses of nations like Iran in the face of external pressures.

Note: some audio issues occur when Wesam shares important information around the University of Calgary student protests. Here’s what Wesam was hoping to share:

“The broader progressive movement in Alberta has allies in the anti-imperialist struggle and it’s important that we work together as allies. The movement against the genocide in Gaza is the best example of a mass movement in a critical historical moment that could have been so much more impactful, even on politics in Alberta, if it had received full support across the progressive spectrum.

The Calgary Palestine movement has been battling police and state repression and defending protest rights that will affect the civil liberties of all of us. The most important of these battles relates to the police/provincial scandal around the crackdown on the University of Calgary encampment. You’ll remember that in May 2024 a group of students established an encampment at the U of C protesting the University’s complicity in the genocide, and the Calgary Police came in with tear gas and batons and violently dispersed them, putting several people in hospital. That police action was so controversial that it got referred to an ASIRT investigation, but the whole thing ended up getting covered up and ASIRT in the end declined to investigate. A later FOIP request revealed that a conversation had taken place between then-Calgary Police Chief Mark Neufeld and Safety Minister Mike Ellis where Ellis assured Neufeld that there would be no substantive investigation by ASIRT into the issue. We have it on record that Ellis and Neufeld essentially decided the result of ASIRT’s investigation before any investigation had even taken place. This was reported by Jeremy Appel at the time.

In other words, we uncovered smoking gun evidence that the Smith government directly participated in an outright cover-up of what was likely the worst case of police misconduct and violence against peaceful protesters in Calgary’s history. If that had received any real attention from progressives in this province, it might have dealt a serious blow to Smith and her cronies. (Who knows, it might have been enough to even take down her government? Neufeld himself ended up resigning, for reasons that weren’t stated publicly but were most likely related to this, since the Police Commission used his resignation as an excuse to not look into this issue any further.)

So when I say you have allies in the anti-imperialist movement that you aren’t utilizing, I’m not saying it in some general or sentimental way. I mean what might have been the best opportunity progressives may ever get to actually take down the Smith government is slipping through their fingers because most (white) progressives in this province still see Palestine as an “alien” issue and aren’t willing to stand with us. And they do that not only to Palestine’s detriment, but to their own as well. We’re still here, still fighting the same fight you are, and this issue is still out there if anyone wants to pick it up and help us try to blow the Smith government wide open with it.

But it will require progressives to actually ally with the Palestine movement. And it seems to me that there are some “progressives” in this country who would rather see us all become Yankees than take a stand in support of Palestine.”

The podcast encourages listeners to engage with these issues critically and to participate in actions that support peace and justice, both locally and globally. Here are some ways to take action:

Actions for Peace

Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran Rally Sunday, March 8, 3 pm at Calgary City Hall.

Withdraw Canadian troops from region assisting US/Israeli aggression on Iran

Write your federal representatives here: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/withdraw-canadian-soldiers-assisting-us-aggression-on-iran.

Daily Phone Pledge

Call your MP before March 11, 2026 to confirm they are voting “Yes” to Bill C-233 to close loopholes for weapons to Israel. Use: https://armsembargonow.ca/phonepledge/ as your guide.

Tell Carney: Oppose Illegal Attacks on Iran

Join Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) in emailing Prime Minister Carney and Foreign Minister Anand to demand that they retract their support for illegal US-Israeli attacks on Iran and impose sanctions on Israel. Go to: https://www.cjpme.org/carney_iran.

Recall updates

The recall campaigns are down to 6: Nate Glubish in Strathcona-Sherwood Park; Recall Mickey in Calgary Cross; Recall Jackie in Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville; Recall Justin Wright in Cypress-Medicine Hat; Recall Wiebe in Grande Prairie-Wapiti; and saving the best for last Recall Danielle Smith in Brooks-Medicine Hat). Remember to tell your Brooks-Medicine Hat friends to call: 587-448-8911. It’s truly a 9-11 situation here in Alberta.

PLEASE go to OperationTotalRecall.ca to sign and support the final 6 campaigns.

Podcast updates

I had a fabulous conversation with Mary Stuart of Desmog regarding our premier’s addresses from May of 2025 and Feb 2026. Desmog is a global news organization focused on cutting through the climate misinformation machine. Yesterday, I posted an episode with the address that Robert Sandford offered my Calgary Citizens on Climate Change group called Reclaiming Alberta from Global Water Bankruptcy.

Forever Canadian

Phase two of the forever-canadian.ca is about to be start, the goal is to educate, activate, and ultimately get Albertans out to vote down Smith’s 9 referendum questions on October 19, 2026. Go to Forever-Canadian.ca to join in.

Water Not Coal

The WaterNotCoal.ca petition is underway. It’s very well organized and great community spirit around it! Go to WaterNotCoal.ca to join.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR ALBERTA: May 29th Alberta Day of Action!

The goal is to have 1,000,000 Albertans on the street that day. This effort is being led by the Alberta Federation of Labour, please go to: Fight Back Now! - Alberta Federation of Labour, subscribe to spread the word and organize. It’s gonna be quite an accomplishment.

After I provide updates (see below) on the growing grassroots movement in Alberta, this episode features a discussion led by Robert Sandford, a senior government relations liaison for the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, focusing on the global water crisis and its implications for Alberta. The speaker highlights the concept of “Global Water Bankruptcy,” a term used to describe the unsustainable overuse of water resources, which is becoming a critical issue even in water-rich regions like Canada. The report co-authored by Bob and released by the UN emphasizes the need for Alberta to acknowledge its water management failures and to protect its natural water-generating capital to avoid severe consequences.

The discussion also touches on the broader implications of climate change, with references to recent scientific findings predicting accelerated global warming and its potential impacts on water resources and weather patterns. Bob criticizes the current Alberta government’s policies, which are seen as neglecting environmental concerns in favor of industrial growth, and calls for a shift in focus towards sustainable water management and democratic engagement.

Additionally, the conversation explores the interconnectedness of water security with food security and economic stability, stressing the importance of collaborative efforts to address these challenges. Bob advocates for a reframing of the sustainability narrative, arguing that the term has been diluted and misused, and emphasizes the need for honest acknowledgment of environmental realities to drive meaningful change.

Bob concludes with a call to action for Alberta to lead by example in addressing water and climate issues, suggesting that this could also serve as a catalyst for broader democratic renewal in the region.

Updates from me:

Good afternoon, I am Jenny Yeremiy, I’m broadcasting from Calgary, Alberta. I’m a geophysicist turned oil and gas liability expert turned podcast host and public activist. I’m here to create a better story for Alberta than one of pollution and populism by breaking through propaganda. We would not be living in this tumultuous time without it. Please remember to like and subscribe to The Gravity Well, your doing so helps boost the voices and views of these important issues.

Recall updates

OK, first let me update you on the recalls. The recalls are down to 6: Recall Fir in Calgary-Peigan; Recall Peter Singh in Calgary-East; our Healthcare Minister and MLA for Red Deer North, Recall Lagrange are complete;

Nate Glubish in Strathcona-Sherwood Park; Recall Mickey in Calgary Cross; Recall Jackie in Fort Sask-Vegreville; Recall Justin Wright in Cypress-Medicine Hat; Recall Wiebe in Grande Prairie-Wapiti; and saving the best for last Recall Danielle Smith in Brooks-Medicine Hat). Remember to tell your Brooks-Medicine Hat friends to call: 587-448-8911. It’s truly a 9-11 situation here in Alberta as our government now looks to mount more than $100 billion in debt.

PLEASE go to OperationTotalRecall.ca to support the final 6 campaigns. It’s getting harder with the aggression from the separatist agenda. Lots of women are leading these efforts. I am so grateful to everyone who took the leap with me. Our community is 30,000 people strong, and growing! You can check out my interview with Radio Canada about the recall outcomes in the substack post which will accompany this episode.

Podcast updates

I had a fabulous conversation with Mary Stuart of Desmog, please check it out. Desmog is a global news organization focused on cutting through the climate misinformation machine. Desmog’s founder, Geoff Dembicki, is an Albertan and the author of The Petroleum Papers, which is being made into a series, btw. The book outlines the climate misinformation machine centered out of Alberta since the mid-90s using organizations like the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, founded by none other than Jason Kenney. When you consider his influence on our province please understand that he started in 1995 not 2019.

Remember, I have the pleasure of speaking with Charlie Angus on Meidas Canada. Please check out the few episodes I’ve done with him already, the latest being one on Danielle Smith’s address to the nation, titled: RECLAIM ALBERTA - DANIELLE SMITH IS LOSING IT.

We speak about Danielle Smith’s addresses and the many grassroots movement in Alberta! Like… Forever Canadian.

Forever Canadian

Phase two of Forever Canadian is about to be start with a new partner the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta (ACFA). Thomas Lucaszuk and the Forever-Canadian.ca campaign team are now focused on activating, educating, and ultimately voting down Smith’s nine referendum questions. I am supporting the leader of the Calgary effort, Janel’s been an organizing mentor to me. Sign up for their newsletter to get involved!

Water Not Coal

Become a canvasser with the WaterNotCoal.ca petition is underway. I have been bringing it around with me and now have a permanent signing location at the Calgary Waldorf School in Cougar Ridge. I’ve already had 3 people sign and TWO offer to get me a local lineup! Tons of fun, get involved. It’s very well organized! Again, go to WaterNotCoal.ca

Common Purpose, Collective Action

I am co-presenting an Alberta Participatory Water Democracy (PWD) project with Colin Smith. It is directly related to Robert Sandford’s address to my Calgary Citizens on Climate Change (4C) group last week. Which I will get to in just a moment.

Charlie Angus is a keynote speaker, and I am thrilled to be co-hosting a plenary, at the Public Interest Alberta: Common Purpose, Collective Action Conference in Edmonton, May 8-9.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: May 29th Alberta Day of Action!

The goal is to have 1,000,000 Albertans on the street that day. This effort is being led by the Alberta Federation of Labour, please go to: Fight Back Now! - Alberta Federation of Labour, subscribe to spread the word and organize. It’s gonna be quite something!

Bob Sandford–Global Water Bankruptcy

OK! Now onto Bob Sandford, I am so grateful to my friend James for introducing me to Bob Sandford. I first came into contact with James and Bob on World Water Day in 2024. He and Kevin Van Tighem presented together at a World Water Day Virtual Event in 2024. Highly recommend you listen to it, especially in light of Bob’s Global Water Bankruptcy report released in January.

Bob is the Senior Government Relations Liaison for the Global Climate Emergency Response team within the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, joined the Calgary Citizens on Climate Change (4C) meeting last week to explain how the Global Water Bankruptcy impacts water decision-making in Alberta.

This is the first glimpse into both the new reality, sustainability has failed, climate emergency talk has failed, we are now aiming to avoid water bankruptcy. I am super excited and ready for the mountain of work and opposition that is ahead of us. It will be up to you, dear listener, to convince the public to care about this.

Before I share Bob’s presentation, I wish to offer my regret and disappointment to the people of Iran and the broader gulf region. The illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran will have drastically detrimental impacts on the global economy, the ecology, and of course supply chain for both food and water. Tune in again today at 5 pm MT/7 pm ET, I will be rejoined by Wesam Khalid to discuss this in detail. There is a LOT to unpack as I haven’t spoken with Wesam since May of 2025 before the 12-day war which we were told ended in World Peace. Not so much!

I am proud to share this discussion with Bob and look forward to continued discussions with him. Please listen to the end for Bob’s heartfelt compelling call-to-action. Have a great rest of your day everyone.

In this episode of The Gravity Well podcast with Jenny Yeremiy, Mary Stuart of Desmog Canada joins me to break down Premier Danielle Smith's addresses to the province from May 2025 and February 2026. DeSmog is a global organization working to clear PR pollution blocking climate action, including in Canada. Get your updates on grassroots movements in Alberta, focused on environmental activism and social justice. I update you on recall petitions against separatist movements against unjust government actions, such as the use of the notwithstanding clause by the justice minister, MLA for Calgary-Cross, Mickey Amery. Visit recallmickey.ca to upend him. Have your friends in Brooks-Medicine Hat text or call 587-448-8911 to remove Danielle Smith from her seat. Go to OperationTotalRecall.ca to support a recall campaign near you. Join waternotcoal.ca to gather signatures to stop coal mining in the Eastern Slopes. Or, if you aren’t a part of the Forever-Canada.ca already, join it to learn how to ensure the Alberta Government’s referendum is met with an informed Alberta public.

Take Action

Use this post to write to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (contact@cppib.com), let them know you oppose funding genocide and ecocide (via fossil fuel expansion).

In this episode of The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy, I give the week’s highlights in Alberta politics before sharing my in-person interview with Dr. Younes Alila of the Department of Forestry and Environment at the University of British Columbia. I remind you to sign your recall petition, you can find your Member of the Legislative Assembly at operationtotalrecall.ca.

The episode also highlights the importance of public education, the teachers’ strike, and the role of teachers in political engagement. I emphasizes the need for collective action against government policies and the significance of using scientific evidence and indigenous knowledge in decision-making. The podcast is available on YouTube and other streaming platforms, I encourage you to like and subscribe to spread awareness of the valuable work being done in Alberta and beyond. Younes’s interview starts at ~24:30.

The Gravity Well Updates

I had three stellar conversations recently. First, with Mikayla Resists who’s been attending and sharing separatist signing locations and events to call out the misleading and treason. Andy Sytsema walked us through what Project 2025 is and what it would mean for Alberta if we were to fall to the USA. And Grande Prairie teacher, and former chair for the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s central bargaining committee, Peter MacKay on what teachers have done and continue to do to reclaim Public Education in Alberta. Please listen to those conversations.

What we do in the resistance matters, it’s already making a difference. As Peter MacKay reminded me, the teacher’s strike prevented an early election in the 2025. The polls were suggesting Smith’s Government of Alberta was set to gain even higher popular support last fall. Those polls did not factor in the overwhelming public support for the teacher’s strike. They tried hard to villainize teachers but failed. Well done teachers. It is the time to be political, and you have rose to the occasion!

Remember, Alberta needs a better story than one of treason and tyrants. I am proud to share the people, places, and plans to Reclaim Alberta. Join your nearest OperationTotalRecall.ca team or join The Gravity Well community.

Minister Nicolaides Lashes out at City News

Calgary-Bow MLA, Demetrios Nicolaides is upset with himself over his decision to fly the Alberta flag on Mount Kilamanjaro.

As Tania Vanderland asks in this the City News article which set Nicolaides off, “It is curious to see him use this platform to raise the Alberta flag,” she says. “And it is also curious that he chose to do that as well on this Mount Kilimanjaro trip, which is a different issue that he was trying to raise awareness around.”

The recall petition for Nicolaides failed to reach the required benchmark of 16,500 signatures by nearly 10,000. It was the first of 26 launched against members of the legislature in the final months of 2025. Twenty-four are against members of Smith’s caucus, including herself. Two are against members of the Alberta NDP.

However, Vanderland says the failed recall bid wasn’t a total loss, as it led to political engagement.

As for the flag, she wants to know why Nicolaides chose the one he did and feels, given he is a provincial minister, it is an appropriate question.

“Why didn’t he raise a Canadian flag?” she asks. “Or was it necessary at all to use that platform and that moment to raise a flag? You know, I understand the trip was about his sister.””

I appreciate Tania’s curiosity but Nicolaides feels quite differently. A letter (photo below) from his office explains he will make no further statements on the matter with CityNews. That they need to remove the story and apologize. Oh my!

It’s important to note that recent changes made to family violence legislation in Alberta have increased the likelihood for more violent behavior by cutting the family violence death review committee.

Remember, Minister Nicolaides and MLA Angela Pitt pay no mind to the more than 8,700 Albertans who formally expressed their objection to them as representatives of their constituencies.

Many recalls are wrapping up this weekend, do your best to give them a final boost at OperationTotalRecall.ca.

Take Action

Alberta is Canada, Canada is Alberta Rally

Attend your local rally for Alberta in Canada tomorrow, Saturday, February 21. I will be in Lethbridge on Sunday to sign the People’s Petition against Neudorf as he faked his own recall campaign.

Let’s bombard the CPPIB meeting

I will be at the BMO Center on Monday, Feb 23rd at 6 pm. The Edmonton event is on Wednesday, February 25. The link to register for either is here: https://www.cppinvestments.com/public-meetings/.

There’s a better story to be told by you for Alberta and Canada.

In this episode of The Gravity Well, I focus on the crisis in public education with guest Peter McKay, the former chair of the central bargaining committee for the Alberta Teachers’ Association and a Grand Prairie Middle School teacher and advocate. The conversation highlights the systematic underfunding of public education in Alberta, which has led to larger class sizes and insufficient resources for disabilities and immigrant students. The podcast also addressed the Alberta government's use of the notwithstanding clause to bypass negotiations with teachers, which has led to a lack of enforceable class size and composition conditions. The episode concluded with a call for teachers to become or remain politically active and engaged, emphasizing the need for grassroots efforts to address the challenges facing public education and other public services.

The teachers’ strike has changed the direction of the political conversation in Alberta and Canada, let’s keep the conversation going. A fabulous conversation you won’t want to miss!

This episode begins with highlights from my collaboration with Charlie Angus / The Resistance in the “Reclaim Alberta” feature. In the latest episode:

Charlie and Jenny address concerns about foreign interference and misinformation by the fossil fuel industry. Charlie highlights the importance of grassroots efforts to pushback against the impact of deregulation on the oil and gas industry. It is evident the resistance is growing.

Andy Sytsema of Taking Alberta Forward, an online presence and community Andy built to pushback against “Take Back Alberta" misinformation. Andy shares a background in the oil and gas industry who calls for transparency and integrity in government and advocates for universal public healthcare, education, social services, and the environment. He researches and writes online often about issues that matter to Albertans, in this episode he shares information around Project 25: its connection to Christian nationalism and executive overreach in Alberta’s politics.

The podcast also covers various recall campaigns in Alberta, encouraging public participation and highlighting the importance of democracy activism. The conversation concludes with a call to action for a rally celebrating Alberta and Canada, emphasizing unity and community engagement on February 21, from 10 am to noon. I will be at the rally at Calgary City Hall.

This weeks’ action

Use this EcoJustice letter writing tool to send an email to your MLA calling for a public inquiry into the $130 billion oil and gas liabilities not dealt with. Demand a public inquiry to keep Alberta’s Polluter Pays principle alive. Add: “No More Pipelines” until the liabilities are funded.

Expect a canned reply from your MLA like I received from Demetrios Nicolaides:

Dear Ms. Yeremiy,

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns regarding Alberta’s Mature Asset Strategy and the management of historic oil and gas liabilities. I appreciate your perspective on this important issue.

Managing inactive oil and gas wells is a challenge faced by energy-producing regions worldwide, and Alberta is committed to addressing it responsibly. Our government’s approach is guided by the polluter-pays principle, ensuring that companies—not taxpayers—are responsible for cleaning up their sites.

Since introducing the Liability Management Framework in 2020, Alberta has made progress. The number of inactive wells has decreased by nearly 20%, from 97,000 to 78,000 as of December 2024. Industry is also meeting and exceeding annual closure spending requirements, investing hundreds of millions of dollars into cleanup efforts. For example, in 2023, companies spent $769 million on closure work—10% above the required amount.

The Mature Asset Strategy builds on this progress. It was developed after consultations with municipalities, landowners, and industry to ensure a balanced approach. Key recommendations include:

* Preventing insolvent operators from continuing operations

* Ensuring municipal taxes and landowner leases are paid

* Accelerating the closure of non-commercial wellsites

* Supporting the polluter-pays principle without relying on public funds

Our goal is to protect taxpayers, uphold environmental standards, and maintain Alberta’s reputation as a responsible energy producer while supporting economic growth and good-paying jobs.

Thank you again for sharing your views. Your input is valued as we continue working to ensure Alberta’s energy sector remains strong and accountable.

Regards,

Demetrios Nicolaides

MLA, Calgary-Bow

How should I respond?

This episode of The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy features Mikayla, the founder of the Alberta Civic Integrity Project, who discusses her involvement in resisting fascist forces in Alberta. Mikayla shares her experiences on the picket lines and her efforts to hold the government accountable through rallies and recalls. The conversation highlights the challenges faced by Recall campaigns in Alberta, emphasizing the high thresholds required for success and the importance of civic engagement.

The podcast also addresses the separatist movement in Alberta, with Mikayla detailing her interactions with separatists and the misinformation surrounding the movement (example: treaty misinformation countered by Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation courtesy of Jody MacPherson. The discussion underscores the need for dialogue and the importance of standing united against divisive forces

A Fabulous Note on Recall Campaigns

Check out this fabulous post by Jon Auger on the Canadian Politics… Feed Back Facebook page:

RECALL SIGNATURES ARE VOTES WALKING AWAY

“Alberta, here is the reality hiding in plain sight. Recall petitions were built with thresholds so high they are almost impossible to win, but that was never the real story. The real story is what the signatures reveal. In Calgary-Bow alone, 6,519 people went out of their way to complete a formal, verifiable civic act saying they wanted their MLA gone. That petition “failed.” But those 6,519 names are not a failure. They are a record. They are neighbours who crossed the line from frustration into action, who put their identities on the record in a way far stronger than a poll answer or a social-media post. This is why recall matters for the next election. A recall signature is not a ballot, but it is something politically louder: documented evidence of a voter in that riding who is unlikely to support that MLA — or the party they represent — when the next vote comes. That is a behavioural signal campaigns and parties understand very well. Multiply that kind of civic action across dozens of ridings and you are no longer looking at paperwork. You are looking at a living map of political disengagement from incumbents that no one can spin away. And here is the part that turns this from observation into message. If you care, if you are already talking about this with friends and neighbours, then adding your name where a recall petition exists in your riding is the clearest way to be counted. Not because you expect it to “win,” but because every signature strengthens the record showing how many Albertans have already decided they expect something different. The higher those numbers climb, the louder that message carries into every campaign office, every doorstep conversation, and every ballot box in the next election.”

This weeks’ efforts

I am dedicating The Gravity Well podcast to the recall and other citizens’ led efforts to uphold democratic rights and institutions, creating a better story for Alberta than one of traitors and tyrants. I’ve hosted two livestreams so far: solo and with Mikayla Resists. Next week, I am hosting the former Chair of the Alberta Teachers’ Association’s bargaining committee, Peter MacKay: Wednesday, Feb 11 at 4:30 pm MT/ 6:30 pm ET.

This week, I am supporting the: Recall Sawhney, Recall Fir, Recall Red Deer, and Recall Mickey campaigns. I will share these activities for you on my social media. If you are a doorknocker and up for supporting the Recall Peter Singh campaign with me on Saturday, Feb 14 from 12-3 pm, please let me jenny@thegravitywell.net and recallpetersingh@outlook.com know. Thank you to Lindsay and Tobi for joining me there last weekend! Like Doras’ exploring! I had a great visit with Henry in Calgary-NorthWest and Chelsea in Calgary-Peigan this week. Healthy and spicy conversation both. They feel the revolution is upon us, too!

Next, I am SUPER proud to be a part of the Charlie Angus / The Resistance community. Charlie is hosting me on Meidas Canada as a regular contributor. If you haven’t watched them already, I was on in December, the episode is titled: THE BATTLE FOR ALBERTA - RECALL MOMENTUM GROWS !!! And released yesterday with its new name the first report titled: RECLAIM ALBERTA - THE FIGHT BACK AGAINST MAGA.

There's a better story to be told for Alberta and Canada. I am excited to share the people, places, and plans to Reclaim Alberta. Join your nearest OperationTotalRecall.ca team. Put up your Canada flags to stand with Treaty 6, 7, & 8 Chiefs and First Nations. Join the fun!

Your Action for this Week: Write your MLA

To the MLA for Calgary-Bow and Education Minister, Demetrios Nicolaides,

I, Jenny Yeremiy, a Canadian born citizen, and an Albertan, stand with First Nations.

They are protecting ALL proud Canadians in Alberta, and the safety and security of ALL Canadians.

I respect and will defend Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8, alongside First Nations Chiefs and people with millions of non-First Nations people who also respect these Treaties.

Reconciliation has undoubtedly taken hundreds of steps backwards as a result of the actions of the separatist movement, a movement enabled by you under Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party.

In addition to this, I am not at all comfortable paying Danielle Smith’s salary or the salaries of her separatist caucus members who are using their positions, at Canadian taxpayers’ expense, to divide our nation. And ask that Members of the Legislative Assembly and fellow premiers denounce her leadership by stepping aside or requesting an inquiry into foreign interference around separatism, respectively.

Issues can be resolved with dialogue.... but removing Alberta from Canada should have NEVER been on the table in the first place. Not on Alberta taxpayer’s time, or dime—and not at the detriment of First Nations (opposite of truth and reconciliation) and Canadian people.

This entire dilemma has grossly and negatively impacted not only First Nations people, but millions of Non-First Nations people living in Alberta, and our neighboring Provinces and Territories, citizens throughout the country.

The anxiety and distress caused to date is immeasurable.

Your immediate resignation from the United Conservative Party is urgently requested.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, Calgary-Bow resident, Albertan, Canadian, Treaty Rights Defender

Courtesy of Sarah Johnston (source: First Nation chief calls on Smith, UCP to resign).

Cc admin@treaty7.org, amanyheads@treaty7.org, mmaherali@treaty7.org, mike.oka@bloodtribe.org, ira.provost@piikaniconsultation.com, Cedrics@siksikanation.com, bills@stoney-nation.com, violet.meguinis@tsuutina.com, consultation@acfn.com, lorna.auger@bigstone.ca, jmccracken@doigriverfn.com>, lands.dir@duncansfirstnation.ca, reception@doigriverfn.com, lindeed@lrrcn.ab.ca, kennedy.tuccaro@mikisewcree.ca, vernon.alook@ptfn.net, Consultation.director@sturgeonlake.ca, reception@treatysix.org, exec.assist@treatysix.org, lmills@treatysix.org, policydirector@treatysix.org, consultation@enochnation.ca, carol@ermineskin.ca, vernon@kehewin.ca, info@clfns.com Prime Minister of Canada: pm@pm.gc.ca Alberta Premier: premier@gov.ab.ca British Columbia Premier: premier@gov.bc.ca Manitoba Premier: premier@leg.gov.mb.ca New Brunswick Premier: premier@gnb.ca Newfoundland and Labrador Premier: premier@gov.nl.ca Nova Scotia Premier: premier@novascotia.ca Ontario Premier: premier@ontario.ca (or use the online form at correspondence.premier.gov.on.ca) Prince Edward Island Premier: premier@gov.pe.ca Québec Premier: premierministre@quebec.ca Saskatchewan Premier: premier@gov.sk.ca Northwest Territories Premier: premier@gov.nt.ca Nunavut Premier: premier@gov.nu.ca Yukon Premier: premier@gov.yk.ca

In this the first episode of third season of The Gravity Well, Jenny provides updates on her activism in Alberta, including her work on recall campaigns and efforts to address provincial concerns. She shares her background as a geophysicist and liability expert, highlighting her transition from the oil and gas industry to focus on restoration efforts in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Jenny discusses her passion for environmental restoration and her wanting to be working within the fossil fuel industry to achieve these goals.

The podcast also covers various recall campaigns across Alberta, with Jenny expressing gratitude for the contributions of numerous volunteers and canvassers. She highlights the importance of community involvement and encourages participation in citizen assemblies to address public issues such as public school funding, coal mining, and public health.

Jenny addresses the challenges faced by teachers in Alberta, including the impact of the Back to School Act, which restricted teachers’ rights to strike, negotiate, and work in safe conditions. She emphasizes the need for public engagement and action to address these issues.

The podcast concludes with a call to action for listeners to get involved in recall campaigns through operationtotalrecall.ca to uphold democratic values. And to focus on water through the Eastern Slope Watershed Protection Assemblies to begin with to safeguard and reclaim public interests in Alberta and beyond.

Here’s that great action you can take, feel free to edit and send to any UCP Caucus & Alberta MLA you see fit!

Write to Assistant-Minister of Multiculturalism & MLA for Calgary-North, Hon. Muhammad Yaseen

via: Calgary.North@assembly.ab.ca

Dear Hon. Muhammad Yaseen–Assistant Minister of Multiculturalism and MLA for Calgary-North,

I am writing to you as an (add if applicable: Calgary-North constituent or) Albertan who is genuinely frightened.

I am watching what is happening in the United States, studying the steps that brought them to their current reality, and increasingly recognizing those same steps being taken here in Alberta. What we are witnessing south of the border is not sudden—it is the outcome of years of political decisions made when party loyalty was placed above the common good.

I wrote to you or your leader asking that you protect minority groups—specifically trans youth—who already face disproportionately high rates of suicide, discrimination, and violence. I asked you not to support legislation that would strip them of their rights. I asked, directly, who the next target of the Notwithstanding Clause would be if it was used so readily against a vulnerable minority.

You did not respond. Instead, you voted in favour of using the Notwithstanding Clause against teachers in Bill 2: the Back to School Act (Oct 27, 2025), which imposed terms on striking teachers: ordered them back to work into unsafe conditions without arbitration.

Then on December 10, 2025, you voted in favour of that legislation I wrote you about — the Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 9, on Dec 10, 2025) — which invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield multiple anti-trans laws from Charter challenge.

This is not an abstract concern. It is recognizing a pattern.

We are watching law enforcement in the United States become increasingly militarized and brutalized against civilians. Alberta itself has a troubling history of law enforcement struggling under strained services and a lack of preventative support. Yet you voted in support of creating an additional provincial police force rather than strengthening support and accountability within our existing systems — through legislation such as the Public Safety and Emergency Services Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 4, 2025) and prior clauses enabling an independent provincial police service.

We are witnessing the murder of protesters, the abduction of children, and the detention and deportation of legal citizens in the United States. And yet, when separatists in Alberta openly praised joining the United States as a “51st state” and called for legislative changes to allow an otherwise unconstitutional separatist petition to proceed, you voted in favour of Bill 14: Justice Statutes Amendment Act (2025), which amended the Citizen Initiative Act and the provincial referendum framework to remove the safeguards that had prevented such petitions from moving forward.

At each of these moments, through your privileged position of power, you have voted in ways that bring Alberta closer to the political conditions we are watching unfold in the United States—and further from the safety, freedom, and democratic stability we cherish in Canada.

You cannot undo the votes you have already cast.

But you can still show Albertans that you are unwilling to let the UCP lead this province further down that path. Demonstrate your lack of support for separation and the above by stepping aside from the UCP caucus and party. You can use your voice to state clearly that you support conservatism rooted in democratic restraint and respect for rights—not separatism, authoritarianism, or governance by override. Not the pollution of our drinking water, not an Alberta Police Force. Not the stripping of our Canadian Pension Plans. Reinstate the rights of municipalities and restore their funding. Redirect fossil fuel funding towards public schools and hospitals.

You can resign in honour, sending a message to your party that these are not the values you—or your Calgary-North constituents—stand for.

I am asking you, sincerely and urgently, to stand up for us so that Alberta does not become the 51st state, by name or by nature. Look to the state of Puerto Rico to know what this will look like for Alberta and Canada by extension.

Truly,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph and Calgary-Bow, Alberta, Canada resident and citizen.

Adapted from Julietta Sorensen Kass’s letter issued to you.

Cc Premier of Alberta | UCP Leader Smith Premier@gov.ab.ca Cc MLA for | NDP Leader Nenshi edmonton.strathcona@assembly.ab.ca & Nenshi@albertandp.ca Cc MLA for Airdrie-West | APTP Leader Guthrie airdrie.cochrane@assembly.ab.ca & info@albertaparty.ca Cc Your MLA for Calgary-Bow | Education Minister Nicolaides Calgary.Bow@assembly.ab.ca

In May of 2024, after watching the Dried Up documentary, I reached out to Harley Bastien of the Piikani First Nation. I asked Harley to tell me what I am missing in my thinking and he delivered. Reviewing this conversation today, I notice that I open with reference to Dixon Hammond and the Beaver Creek Watershed Crew, as well as giving power to landowners, not First Nations—yikes! A couple weeks ago at the Chiefs Steering Committee’s Think Tank on Water in Edmonton that the term “stakeholder” refers to taking a stake. Makes me wonder if it was not a coincident that I worked in the “Stakeholder Relations” department for the oil and gas industry rather than the Indigenous Relations department.

The conversation begins with me situating the dialogue in the context of watershed protection and headwaters stewardship in Southern Alberta, describing how a local council brought together Indigenous representatives, residents, experts, and council members to ensure landowners lead decisions about their river system. I explain that despite 20 years of local work to care for the river, the broader headwaters remain vulnerable, emphasizing that logging, coal mining, and road building damage water sources and calling for restoration of the eastern slopes as protected “taps” for regional water.

Harley introduces himself through his Blackfoot identity, explaining that he comes from the Ani people and sees himself as part of a lineage stretching back perhaps 10,000 generations, with a way of life “etched” into his being. He describes being taught that humans are not above other creation, that everything—including plants, animals, air, and even beings beyond Earth—has a spirit, and that Blackfoot teachings acknowledge “star people” or star beings who have visited Earth. Alongside this traditional upbringing, he recounts his “Canadian” education, brief work in oil and gas that he left because of its destructive impacts, and his subsequent decades in environmental consulting, where he deliberately avoided government employment and instead built private-sector initiatives like Harmony Walkers and Buffalo Rock Tipi Camp to blend Indigenous and Western science. He also serves on Alberta’s Indigenous Wisdom Advisory Panel but criticizes its focus on making oil sands appear acceptable, calling this misaligned with his values.

As the discussion deepens, Harley contrasts Indigenous land-based learning with Western education, arguing that many scientists and professionals learn about land from computers and brief field visits rather than living on the land, which he sees as “missing the whole boat.” He recounts a vision quest that led him to “save the land” as a way of saving his culture and all those generations, and he critiques how perspectives are shaped by greed, arrogance, and narrow upbringing. He is sharply critical of Western schooling and religion, calling education “one of the roots of all evil” when it transmits lies, such as teaching that Columbus “discovered” a land already inhabited, or presenting sanitized histories that erase Indigenous presence and contributions. He denounces churches as often functioning like financial institutions and “torture chambers,” rejects mythologized religious narratives, and insists that children are being failed when they are not taught the truth about history, land, and humanity’s dependence on the rest of creation.

Harley then links these critiques directly to environmental crisis and intergenerational responsibility, stressing that trees, animals, air, and water do not need humans, but humans absolutely need them. He condemns short-term, self-centered thinking focused on personal wealth, three-year returns, and material legacies while ignoring breathable air, clean water, and the broader web of life, arguing that most people are “me and ours” oriented and unwilling to look 100–200 years ahead. He describes “giving back” as a total life commitment—every day his “boots hit the floor” he is working for Mother Earth and all his relatives, not just human descendants, and he criticizes performative or minimal efforts, unpaid though his own work often is. Using stories from his childhood berry-picking in the mountains, he illustrates teachings about leaving enough for other beings, staying quiet to respect mountain spirits, and the warning that if those spirits leave, the mountains and all dependent life will suffer—contrasting this with today’s “three ring circus” of industrial activity and recreation in the headwaters that threatens to dry rivers and spark future “water wars.”

In closing, Harley asserts that Mother Earth will survive and reorganize without humans, as she has before, and warns that if humanity continues on its current path, nature will eventually “flush the toilet of man,” a force no wealth, science, or military can stop. He expresses that he personally has no hope under present conditions but invites others to prove him wrong by changing, emphasizing that the first step is truth—especially in education—through revising curricula to correct myths about figures like Columbus and Cortez and acknowledging that colonial powers had no legitimate right to claim Indigenous lands.

Follow and Support: Harley’s legacy lives on in his son, Trevor Bastien

The Surest Way to Block Open-Pit Coal Mining

Join our Piikani Partners in asserting their constitutional aboriginal right to healthfully consume fish from their traditional waters of the Crowsnest and Oldman Rivers.

This episode about the future, is the last of the 2025 mini-series on Water in Southern Alberta. It features experts J. Bruce Smedley, a 50-year engineer, and Kennedy Halverson, a conservation expert with the Alberta Wilderness Association. We discuss topics such as irrigation, resource extraction, and water security. The conversation highlights the over-allocation of water resources, the need for comprehensive water management, and the importance of biodiversity conservation. The podcast advocates for a dedicated water preservation agency to address these challenges and emphasizes the role of public pressure in driving much-needed change. A wonderful conversation!

Introduction of Kennedy Halvorson and a Re-Introduction of J. Bruce Smedley

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast with me Jenny Yeremiy. I host The Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land maintained balance with nature and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of The Gravity Well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see in here, remember to like and subscribe.

Good afternoon, Bob. Thank you so much for being here again with me. How are you doing today?

Bob:

I’m doing okay. Fine, have a cold.

Jenny:

Try to get around that. Yeah. Thank you so much, Bob. Good afternoon everyone. I’m rejoined here with Bob for what is potentially our last water in Southern Alberta podcast, potentially of the well likely of the year, and potentially there may be more in the new year. Let’s see. We’re hoping to potentially have a conversation with Bob Sanford, but we’re going to bring in some of his thoughts into this conversation from Cop 30. Stay tuned for any of those details. This is episode 12 in this mini series. On this episode is on the future of water in Southern Alberta. We’ll be chatting with Bruce Smedley, who participated last year in episodes 18 and 22, and Bob and I are thrilled to welcome Kennedy Halverson of the Alberta Wilderness Association as well. We’ll get to them in a moment. Reminding folks, we have covered irrigation, resource extraction, the Water Act and licence transfer system, water modelling watershed and lake stewardship, dry land irrigated and ranch farming insurance. And then after a summer break, we returned to meet with Dr. Brad Sta Fox to learn about land use limits. Dr. David Sauchyn on climate change, Dr. David Swan and Jason Unger on water security, and Dr. Judy Stewart and Cheryl Bradley about Aquatic and health. Sorry, aquatic and riparian health. It’s been quite a learning experience. I’m so appreciative of you, Bob, for your leadership through this. This wouldn’t have been possible without you, and I’m super grateful for all the work you’ve done and for everyone that you have brought forward. And for all I’ve learned, this has just been remarkable.

Bob:

Well, back at you, Jenny, for all your organizational skills. Speak to this is totally disorganized on most days.

Jenny:

Yes, you’re very humble. You have done so much work in this and you have kept us all on track to do this. Like I said, this has been an incredible experience and I’m just so grateful for it. Okay, let’s welcome first Bruce Smedley back to the studio. Thank you so much, Bruce for being here again with us.

J. Bruce:

Well welcome to be here. I do appreciate it and I appreciate the work you’ve done so far in the podcast to date and I urge people to watch them. There’s a lot of information there.

Jenny:

Thank you, Bruce. Bruce has a master’s in, excuse me, and bachelor’s in chemical engineering. He studied in both British Columbia and Alberta. He has over 50 years of industry, government and global bank experience, which is a trifecta. It’s quite incredible in both the public and private sectors. Bob and I know Bruce from the 4C group, so that’s our Calgary Citizens on Climate Change group. We meet Thursday mornings to help each other learn and attempt different strategies to help inform people about these critically important issues and how to move ideas forward together. He also last year during episode 22, which I do encourage you to watch as well in the context of this work, he brought forward the idea of an integrated water resource preservation and restoration agency. So I’m sure we’ll discuss that. Welcome back, Bruce. Thank you for being here. Okay, so Kennedy, thank you so much, Kennedy for joining us.

Kennedy Halverson is currently with the Alberta Wilderness Association. She has a BSc in chemistry. She did a stint of honeybee research that convinced her to be that work at climate controlled laboratory bench. It led her to work with the climate controlled laboratory bench. Fast forward through a graduate degree in environmental studies focused on native plants and pollinator conservation. Kennedy has worked in research and projects on food policy for Canada, finding flowers at York University. Before joining the Alberta Wilderness Association, she helped develop a bumblebee pathogen sampling protocol for environment and climate change. Canada, it’s just wonderful to have you here, Kennedy. I was saying before we went live that I get the opportunity to see you in such a different space. You spoke so well at the coal hearings in Southern Alberta and you’ve just been such a big voice for conservation in the province. It’s just such a pleasure to have you here. Thank you.

Kennedy:

Thanks for having me. Yeah, no, hearing the cast of people who’ve been on the episodes preceding me, they’re all people I really look up to in this field, it feels a little big shoes to fill to be here to talk. I don’t know if I’ll say anything new that they haven’t already set, but we’ll see.

Jenny:

Funny enough, you came up actually several times, Kennedy, with your expertise, I appreciate your humility, but you are very, very on equal footing in this conversation, so thank you. Why, before we dive in, we forgot to mention, I would love to just hear a little bit about how you came into this work. Kennedy, it sounds like you started having interest in bees and that’s what led you into the work that you do now. Is that right?

Kennedy:

Yeah, yeah. I definitely started at a biochemistry bench and realized I did not want to stay in a lab my whole life working on proteins. I needed to work on something a little bit bigger and then I was with honeybees and salmon and then I got an interest in our native species and that led me into conservation. And I wasn’t able to do a master’s in biology because the prof that I wanted to work with, she didn’t have any spaces left for that. But she said take a master’s of environmental studies. And I said, sure, I’ll do that. I’ll do it on native plants and pollinators. And it ended up being a really happy accident because I think it gave me the opportunity to work in a lot of different disciplines that now inform my conservation work today. And water is one of those things that pops up everywhere. When I was working in food policy, water is a really important input to agriculture. It’s an important for health anyways. It pops up everywhere. I just keep finding it. And then when I joined AWA as a conservation specialist, I was given the waterfowl to work on and have been immersed in water policy ever since.

Jenny:

Fantastic. Same for you, Bruce. What brought you into this climate work? Initially I

J. Bruce:

Fishing. I do a lot of fishing around the province and I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time. I’ve fallen out of a canoe several times and thought that I should maybe go to a row boat and float down the Bow river south of Calgary. And I just have a great appreciation for a lot of the water systems. I used to ski on the glaciers, I’ve watched their progress over the years. I have that history from a technical point of view. I started out in wastewater treatment systems for meat packing plants, actually in British Columbia. I worked on that for a while. I worked on the pulp and paper industry. I worked in the cattle industry. I worked on a lot of oil and gas projects over the years. And at some point in my life I got asked to go to Thailand and give a talk. And since then I’ve travelled the world on behalf of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to look specifically at the interface between people and the projects that they were funding and the consequences on the community and on the culture and that as they relate to these projects. I’ve had a lot of interesting projects to look at in and in a lot of industries as well.

Jenny:

Yeah, you bring such a broad perspective to this dialogue, Bruce. I’m much appreciated. Okay, Bob, I will let you lead off the questions, please. Thank you.

What is working in water management, use, and protection?

Bob (00:09:45):

Okay. I’ll start with a pretty basic question. In terms of the future, what are the strengths and weaknesses in our system of managing water, using water, protecting water here in southern Alberta? Just basically what are the good things that we’ve got that we want to make sure we strengthen, at least keep? And what are those things that we really want to improve upon? I’ll start with you, Kennedy.

Kennedy:

Yeah. I think some of the things that are strong with how we manage water right now is we do have some good legislation in place that if it was implemented fully, I think we could have really good water protection in the province. Things like the Alberta Land Stewardship Act is a really interesting act in that it enables us to essentially plan out on a regional scale how we’ll have industries work and what areas we’d like to protect, things we’d like to prioritize in the region. And I think if it was implemented fully and maybe through a more environmental lens, we could have really strong environmental policy that does protect our watersheds. But I think maybe a reoccurring theme, and what you’ve probably come up on in your other conversations is that a lot of the legislation we have meant to protect our watersheds and protect the ecosystem services they provide is not necessarily being implemented fully or there’s a lot of loopholes or ways around protecting water.

Bob:

It’s very important to have some sort of regulatory system that actually provides that umbrella to work under. Is that what you’re saying?

Kennedy:

Yeah, absolutely. I also would say too, in addition to having a good regulatory system, we want to have the data available to make those informed decisions. Recently, the Alberta government has been doing pretty extensive engagement on water availability in the province where they were asking folks how we can make more water available. And while that’s on its own, maybe a little bit of a, maybe not a correct, like we’re not going to make more water available, there is a closed amount of water in the system. It did show a lot of people’s opinions on waters and how we should manage it in the province. I recently submitted a FOIP request to get the feedback from that engagement because the government hasn’t yet released it publicly. And one of the things they noted, the environment and protected areas staff in their summaries within that FOIP request was that there’s a recognized need for stronger water use reporting and measuring in the province, but that’s not happening right now. Right now they have, it’s something like less than 10% of water users actually report their water use. When that’s the dataset you start with, it makes it really difficult to make informed water management decisions because we just don’t have the necessary data. Not only do you need a good regulatory system in place to ensure it, you need to have the information so we can make those informed decisions and we’re not just, we’re flying blind there.

Bob:

Yes. That’s one of the things that we noted when we looked at the licences that are out there, particularly older licences, licences don’t have that kind of reporting and measuring. And even the ones that do, it’s not even on a daily basis. It can be monthly, maybe even yearly. Bruce, in terms of the system we’ve got out there for managing water, using it, protecting it, where do you see the strengths and weaknesses?

J. Bruce:

Well, I think the strengths are in the people that are involved looking at the podcasts and the people involved in the papers. I read even the history of where we at. We’ve certainly put a lot of energy into water management in the province. We have one of the most, I would say, managed rivers anywhere in the world really in terms of the power dams and the rest of it. I think that’s certainly a strength. The problems I find is we don’t have the time and we don’t comprehend the situation we’re actually in. And we’re trading our demand for really our supply model. We should be looking at the river from the point of view of how much water is actually there that we can actually utilize over a very long time. And yet we manage it from the point of view of the water we want rather than the water we have. In a long-term sense, I’d like to see a much stronger organizational process that’s current and responsive in a very short time. And I equate that to things like how quickly our weather’s changing and how far out we are from the norms in terms of the possibilities of what the weather might be in the future, and we don’t have a system for alerting us to those kinds of effects.

Bob:

Yes. Go ahead, Jenny.

Jenny:

Oh, thanks. I just wanted to add, yeah, I love, thank you for bringing in the land stewardship laws right away, Kennedy. Yes. To me, it’s such a well constructed story and it includes all the components, it has all the stakeholders mentioned in it, but it’s not being applied and it’s not being looked at from the lens of an environmental integrity standpoint and being upheld to those standards. It’s just a concept and it keeps getting, I hear things like, oh, it’s too complicated. Well, we don’t really have much choice to not be looking at the complicated nature of the landscape and addressing it. Thank you, Bruce, for bringing in the fact that it’s the strength of the people. We have to look to the people who know this information, who are willing to actually get into these challenging conversations because quite frankly, that’s what it’s going to require.

The Pitfalls of Water Allocation

(00:16:22):

And to understand that management is not going to be a real solution and that we have to look at the problem from an actual ecosystem stability standpoint rather than a what can it deliver for us standpoint. Thank you guys for those wonderful introductions. If we can talk a little bit about, I think, Bob, this is where you wanted to go next, and you can stop me if I’m wrong, but to talk about allocation, can we get a little bit into how are we doing this wrong? A little bit about the allocation process and what are the pitfalls that we’re creating with it? Kennedy, can I start with you again?

Kennedy:

Yeah, yeah. I guess the situation in southern Alberta was recognized as really as 2007 that we had essentially over allocated our rivers, which means we’ve licensed out more volume than they can withstand. The whole basin was closed to any future water licences. The only way you can get water now in the basin is if you get a water licence transfer. The issue is that we don’t have anything in the water act to essentially restore balance and return flows to our rivers in a meaningful way. Oftentimes you’ll hear, especially from industry that, well, we’ve over allocated the basin, but we don’t necessarily use all of our allocation every year. But the allocations have been set based on the average natural flow of our rivers. That’s the flow we expect to come through our rivers every year, but that’s not necessarily the flow we get every year.

We’ll often get years much higher, years much lower. You can imagine if you’ve already over allocated a basin, it’s a year of low flows, industry’s going to use the regular amount they use, you suddenly get circumstances where you’re using 50% of the river flow for industry. And we know from really good research that you need to have a certain amount of flow in your rivers at all times to maintain their function and their structure, which is called the instream flow needs. When you have those years of really heavy use, which are often years of drought conditions of dry conditions, we can have times where we don’t have enough water in the rivers to meet the instream flow needs, which is something that threatens their long-term health and security. If we’re planning long-term in the future, we need to figure out a way to rewrite our rivers so that their needs are constantly being met and then we can balance use after that, which is, it’s like a wicked problem, I think is what, there’s a term called a wicked problem where it’s such an insurmountable problem that people don’t even want to begin dealing with it, but by not dealing with it, we’re making it worse essentially.

Yeah. I’ll stop there.

Jenny:

Yeah. I was listening to a podcast from the Climate Town podcast series from last year talking about water, and they were talking specifically about FITFIR and explaining how the water licence transfer process encourages full use because if you don’t use it, you lose it. To your point about exasperating a problem, we are not only discouraging overuse, we’re actually encouraging it in the face of limitations as we learned from Dr. Sauchyn. I’m sorry, Bob, you were going to add something there. Go ahead.

A Comprehension Problem

Bob (00:20:13):

Well, Kennedy, you hit on something that Stelfox said when we talked to him that when people are confronted with these unpalatable choices, they tend to ignore them. Let me start with Bruce on this question then. Is the problem really a technical, an engineering a biological problem, or is it really a political problem? Is that where things start to fall apart?

J. Bruce:

I think it’s a comprehension problem. I think that we’re focusing so much on our own needs that we’re not really focusing on the needs of the river. I would start there, then I would look at this whole issue of how do you manage this system given that we have to be able to predict what the weather’s going to do and the variation that we might get in a different year and have some kinds of indicators of whether we’re going to have enough water or not have enough water. And then the allocation applies after that. We’re putting the cart before the horse here in terms of allocating. Rather than having fixed allocations, we might even have consideration for not so much irrigation for instance, or we may actually want to change the crops we’re growing and the extent of which we’re actually growing crops. I think we have to look at a much more comprehensive idea of what’s really happening here.

Bob:

Kennedy, what are your thoughts on that?

Kennedy:

Yeah, I agree with Bruce on that. If you think about this area, it’s an area that has these really rich soils because they had thousands of years of native grass growth that enriched the soils. These soils look and appear as if they would be good to grow crops, but the limiting factor has always been precipitation, it’s always been water, irrigation was the solution to that. But we’re now using this massive input of water every year to sustain crops in this region. Even doing so, we’re growing crops that are water heavy, they consume a lot of water. We’re not growing drought tolerant crops. We’re growing things like sugar beets that we’re forcing crops to grow where they wouldn’t naturally grow at the expense of our rivers. Lots of the argument will be that irrigated agriculture is this massive part of our agricultural industry, but really only 5% or a little bit more than 5% of all agricultural land is irrigated, and yet they have 44% of the water licences in Alberta.

This is the last time I looked at the math, it was in 2022, 1 fifth of the water we used in Alberta went to 5% of these irrigated lands. And they don’t necessarily, the majority of our agricultural industry comes from, or the economy comes from our dry land crops. We’re just removing so much water onto these irrigated acres to grow food that we don’t even necessarily eat. And I guess it begs the question is, is where we’re irrigating now appropriate knowing we’re heading into this future where water scarcity and water security are going to become much more common. I think we do have to start managing our water like it is this commonly held public good, but it is really difficult in the current system we have, because right now water is primarily held by people, a small minority of licences that have held that water for a really long time. Trying to figure out how we move forward is, yeah, it’s very difficult.

Jenny:

And just to add that the geography of it is bizarre too, that the most senior licence holders are downstream of most of Alberta too. It’s just such a wild thing to think about in terms of that allocation. Sorry, Bob, go ahead. Lead into your next…

Water Over-Allocation

Bob (00:24:52):

Well, I was going to get back to this allocation, the over allocation problem back in the 1990s, the provincial government basically said, we’ve got to deal with it somehow. And they basically put a cap on irrigation acres in southern Alberta. They changed their mind in the early two thousands with the new water management plan that’s out there, and they basically put a cap on everybody as Kennedy mentioned by saying that you now can’t get any new licences, you have to rely on the transfer system. Those are similar approaches. They’re obviously trying to put some sort of a limit, but they are very different in terms of who gets affected because with the first approach, the irrigation industry would certainly be limited unless they could come up with more efficient use of water.

On the second approach, everybody gets affected, but the irrigation industry, particularly because they hold senior licences, get an advantage because now they can transfer water that maybe they weren’t using or they no longer need because of efficiencies. Which of those two approaches do you think is better? Because they are very different in terms of the impact on people. Certainly municipalities now are paying a lot of money, although we don’t know how much because it’s all confidential to get water from whoever has it available. Bruce, which of those approaches do you think is better? Or do you think there’s a third approach that might work better than either one of ‘em?

J. Bruce:

I don’t like either one. I think that they point to resource conflict. For me, it means that eventually we’re going to reach a point where we have to decide whether we want agriculture or cities and we should have an allocation process that’s maybe much more, if you will, weather centered and cost effective for where we live and how we want to live. Otherwise, we are going to end up with Phoenix, for instance. They’ve allowed housing to get out of control down there, and they’re debating whether they’re going to bypass the city entirely with water because they just haven’t got any more for the growth that they’ve allowed to have happen and Calgary’s facing the same entity. I also think that we don’t do urban planning at all in the context of the water. We have availability or the kind of weather we actually have here. I mean, when you get four insurance companies leaving the province, they’ve obviously indicating that there’s something wrong with their mismanagement of our insurance industry relative to what we’re building and the weather we’re getting. Those issues are the kinds of things I look into.

Jenny:

Yeah, I was really interested by Judy Stewart’s comments last week about how the municipalities have, they should have the authority to be making water decisions, and yet every level of government has the ability to overwrite the municipal decision making process. Yes, therefore it’s not happening for that reason. It’s just being avoided altogether. Really good point. Sorry, go ahead, Bob.

Bob:

Yeah, I’ll put it to Kennedy. Bruce doesn’t like either of those solutions. What are your views?

Kennedy:

I think they were not so much solutions as they were knee jerk reactions to a really bad situation where it was like, we have to stop something and this is how we do it. And I think what at least the 2006 or oh seven decision shows is recognizing that there are ecological constraints that we all live in. There’s only so much water in this river. There’s only so much water that can be taken out of this river for use. I think that maybe something better would be looking at how we can all work with the environment instead of against it to ensure that the water that is here and moves and flows in a way that is more conducive to our lives. One of those things, like Bruce has mentioned, we’re going to have changing weather patterns increasingly in the future.

In southern Alberta, one of the things we expect is we expect when the snow is going to melt, we expect when we’re going to get our highest flows in that June time, we’ll have our lowest flows in the summer. And that’s how water is currently managed all throughout the year. Those are the predicted time periods that we base our agriculture on. Knowing in the future that we are now going to be seeing a lot less snow falling and more of our water is going to be coming as precipitation throughout the year, we know that our snow is going to start melting earlier, we’re going to have higher peak flows earlier. Those are all things that we need to be planning for. But they also, those climate predictions show a really worrisome case for things like our agricultural industry.

It means that the water that they usually hope and expect for in June and July is going to be coming closer earlier June, earlier in May, and they’re not going to have it in those mid-summer months where it’s really hot and their crops need it the most. We need to be thinking about how can we store and slow water on the landscape that doesn’t, what’s the word, intensify the climate system even worse, which means not using these conventional sort of human infrastructure grey approaches, but using our natural ecosystem approaches. I think a solution to me would be investing in our ecosystems. We invest in infrastructure like dams and reservoirs, moving that money and looking towards our headwaters and how do we make our headwater forests more resilient? How do we retain wetlands on the landscape? How do we increase complexity to the streams and tributaries that feed our rivers? How do we restore beavers to the landscape? All these things are things that could be done very simply that would help also fulfil our commitments to supporting biodiversity while also making us a more water secure region.

Biodiversity and Water Supply Losses

Jenny (00:31:57):

That’s wonderful. Kennedy. I think if we can lead in then to some of the ways that we could do that biodiversity, it’s just so as Bruce was saying, this is such a complex problem, when we talk about water, it also brings in the thought of biodiversity loss. Those two things go hand in hand. If [there is] lost water, we’ve lost ecological or habitat, let’s say we’ve lost biodiversity, we’ve lost water. These are all the ways that you’re saying that we should reverse the bus and start investing in those things. Can you speak a little bit about the loss of biodiversity? Can you help people understand, I mean, I could use an example of the cold lake sub-regional planning I was involved in, and I know that we were 96% disturbed and needed to move back to, I can’t remember what the percent was we were looking for, but if you can just speak to some of those kind of the logic behind the land stewardship laws and how that is meant to move us back from that footprint. Thank you.

Kennedy:

Yeah. Yeah. I think when we think about biodiversity loss, you could think about it sort of both spatially and temporally. Spatially it’s important to have intact ecosystems and big areas of them, but it’s also important to have connected ecosystems. One of the things, a really great data source I always go to is the Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. They have really great layered data that you could visualize on a map that shows all of Alberta. I think right now it’s something like 30% of, I think Alberta is human footprint is impacted by human footprint, and that is largely concentrated in southern Alberta where agriculture and cropland dominates. But while I guess only 30% is human footprint, you can see on the map visually that human footprint extends to every point in the province, which means that we are fragmenting habitat.

That’s one of the ways we’ve lost biodiversity. And then on a timescale, you can also look to species and species populations. Some of the species we have that we think of as bio indicators, these are species that are really intimately tied to the ecosystem that they’re in, and their health reflects the health of an ecosystem we’re seeing declines in their populations. Bruce mentioned earlier that fishing was where he got his start in water, and I don’t remember these times, but maybe he can recall a time the bull trout in Alberta is Alberta’s trout, and it used to be one of the most populous fish species in our river systems. And now the bull trout is a threatened species. It’s increasingly on a decline, and one of its major threats is the fragmentation of its habitat, which means its streams and rivers are getting chopped off, and then it’s also the degradation of its habitat.

Our land use is too close to the streams it uses, and its habitat quality is decreasing in such a way that it can no longer thrive. When we look to this increasing habitat loss and fragmentation and the species decline, we know that we’ve lost biodiversity in these ways and it has really real implications. I think a lot of people will think, well, what does it matter if we lose one fish species? Well, the bull trout is one fish species, but it’s emblematic of a whole ecosystem. And if its health is declining, if it’s health in our headwater streams and in our southern tributaries, if it’s not there, it indicates that our southern tributaries are suffering. It shows that we really need to do something to repair it because inevitably as ecosystems work, it’ll cascade up that food chain and we’re there at the end. Right. Investing in species health is investing in our health.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Bruce, did you want to add to that?

J. Bruce:

Yeah, I think Yellowstone is probably a good example of that. They brought back, I think it is the wolf, to bring the whole habitat of Yellowstone back to its former self, and I think it shows that every species has its value in maybe having ended up in this part of the world after centuries of working with other animals and you end up with this kind of habitat. And I think that’s what we have to get back to. We have to get back to appreciating all of those various otherwise insignificant aspects of even just losing one bull trout. I mean, it’s important to keep those habitats as sound as we can. I think the other concept I like to look at is that we are not separate from the water. We are in fact water.

I weigh about 150 pounds and a hundred pounds of me is water. You’re almost 60% water as an individual. You’re not much different than a trout, really a different outlook on the outside, I guess. But for me, we have to appreciate this in a much more cohabitation kind of way with what is our ecosystem and what we have to do to preserve it. And it’s the little things that add up to the big things like too many roads, no planning for drainage and putting houses in the wrong place. There’s all kinds of issues that we could address to deal with that balance, if you will, or that cohabitation of this particular part of the world.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Bob, did you want to lead into the next?

Is reversing biodiversity loss possible?

Bob (00:38:12):

Yeah, Bruce, you mentioned the wolves in Yellowstone, and they’re basically the keystone species there, particularly in terms of managing, naturally managing wildlife. We’ve become in a sense, the keystone species in terms of managing things here in the Southern Alberta because it is such a managed system. Our governments and land managers actually capable of changing their behaviour to reverse the loss of biodiversity. And if so, how will that happen? Let me throw that out to Kennedy first.

Kennedy:

I think if it happens, it will only happen if it’s forced. Right now, I don’t see any amount of data or information speaking to our current government to change how things are done, and I think that it will take a lot of public pressure or a massive natural disaster event to really get people to commit to action. I think we can look to something like the floods in Calgary in 2013. That is something that really changed how people thought about water and plan for water. And I think, or even I guess, yeah, the wildfires in Jasper as well, when we see how quickly the systems we built up can be taken over by these natural events that have been made more severe because of climate change, I think it really shows that while we believe we’re managing the land, at the end of the day, nature bats last, which is something Lorne Fitch loves to say. I think things like that are what really forced change, unfortunately.

But it’s one of those things that we just don’t have another choice moving forward. We have to be building cities that are resilient to climate change because unfortunately, we have not taken action fast enough to stop climate change. In the context of water, that means making cities that are not these concrete jungles that do not allow water to actually infiltrate into the ground. It means not draining our wetlands endlessly and keeping them as these natural reservoirs on the landscape that do filter and store and slow flows. There are many things we could do, and we’re choosing not to do them because they do not pay us back immediately. But I think, yeah, something needs to happen to reframe our mind and recognize that we’re investing for our own futures. I don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe Bruce will have another answer.

Bob:

Well, I think before Bruce jumps in, Brad Stelfox mentioned the same kind of thing when we asked him a similar question, and it was basically, he used an example in India, I think it was, where basically a crisis happened in terms of their managing the land. They became much better than that. We had a crisis here with the flood, the big flood in Calgary and the one that came a couple years before that. Bruce, are we really faced with a situation from your understanding of human behaviour? Are we really faced with a situation where you have to have a crisis first before people will actually make significant change?

J. Bruce:

It would appear that’s the case. I don’t think it necessarily has to be the case. I don’t see anything happening in this province from a political point of view that suggests that we’re on track to have much of a future. I get a sense that we can do and manage and plan our futures much better. There’s certain areas of the world where it’s been very successful to do that. There’s a little island off the coast of southern Japan that had been there for thousands of years, and they have a maintained population and survive very well. It can certainly be done. I just think we have to find what our real objectives are, whether we want the capitalism, the way in which we apply it or whether we want to have a future for our children, it becomes a kind of a social culture, cultural entity rather than a political entity.

Bob:

Well, in a way, the people in the future, in terms of our support or benefit to them, it’s how much they’re in debt to us for what we did now, I don’t think it came out quite the way it was supposed to, but the crises are there in terms of global warming, in terms of our own use of water and land. We’re going to expect to see more frequent, more severe droughts, floods, and weather events. I think you both Bruce and Kennedy, you both have identified the kinds of things that we already have that can help us deal with those kinds of things. But can we actually move beyond that? And I know that Bob Sanford said, and I’ll just get the proper quote here so I don’t misquote him here if I can get my computer to move. He said that in terms of climate vulnerability and water security, Alberta is essentially ungoverned and therefore totally unprepared. Do you sense that, and if so, what can be done to improve the governance with all these wonderful people? We have all these wonderful laws, we have all these wonderful systems we have. Do you agree with him? And if you do agree with him, how can we make the political model, I guess, work better? Bruce, I’ll start with you.

J. Bruce:

Yeah, we can do it better. I get to see it feeling that we’re chasing resource extraction in this province, whether it’s coal, oil or anything like that for a short term economic gain and to maybe satisfy investors somewhere else in the world. But we’re not really looking at again, what this province is capable of sustaining the fact that we can be continuing to produce hydrocarbons at the rate at which we’re doing and in the way in which we’re doing it and not appreciate what we’re going to be left with. I mean, at one time I worked on the tar sands, on the reclamation part of the tar sands, and nobody was interested in actually following through with any of that. The government wasn’t interested. The Energy Resources Conservation Board wasn’t interested, the investors weren’t interested, the oil companies weren’t interested. We end up with probably the largest black spot on the globe in Northern Alberta. I mean, you can see it from space. The only other place I’ve seen it is actually in Indonesia. There’s a tailings coming from the gold mining there. It’s about the same as what’s happening in Alberta. I think that we either have to do it in a different way or we have to follow through on our commitments to actually appreciate the environment while we’re doing it.

Bob:

Okay. Kennedy, are we essentially ungoverned from a climate and a water security point of view?

Kennedy:

Yeah, it’s tough right now. I think I’ve seen a lot of, really a lot of our water legislation worsen at least, especially in the last year, which makes it seem, which will govern it worse. And then the reports we get coming out from people like the auditor general that says Alberta has little knowledge of how much water it uses, if it’s meeting its conservation objectives, those things all suggest that we are ungoverned. And I think that’s, that’s the same for climate. This is not a province that prioritizes addressing the climate crisis, unfortunately. But what I think is a good thing is that there’s a lot of people who are not the government who do know these things and are working very hard to try to address these things. We have had and have some very brilliant scientists that work here. We have water leaders like David Schindler who has passed, but people like that, we have people from I guess Saskatchewan that help a lot like John Pomeroy.

We have leaders here who are internationally recognized for their knowledge on water and watersheds and water systems. And then behind that, we have many different groups like the people we see here today and many different associations who are concerned about water. I think that the people power and the knowledge that we have outside of that are things that give me hope that we can change how we manage water in the province. But I do think it starts with really increasing maybe just general public knowledge of the situation we live in and we live, especially in southern Alberta, we’re in a dry arid landscape. We need to act like we are in a dry arid landscape. Even at the municipal level, places like Okotoks that recognize and have always planned for having limited water supplies, I think that’s something we need to see on a widespread scale for municipalities in southern Alberta. Yeah, maybe the change starts at a grassroots level.

Key Takeaways

Jenny (00:49:13):

Wonderful. Yeah, I think this is a great time to shift into some of the takeaway ideas that we each have. I’m going to offer some things that I do really appreciate. First of all, Bruce, and I’ll tip it to you next, the thought about having an actual entity that is dedicated to water preservation and restoration. To me, we talk a lot about management. We’ve heard the word management throughout this conversation, but we don’t have a specific group of people that are dedicated to that. Aside from what you described, Kennedy, these individuals and organizations that are working to help inform the public and essentially get that tipping point of people who are asking for this to be a priority by this government. Because fundamentally that’s what’s needed is we need the public to acknowledge that this is happening. Bruce spoke, or sorry, Bob mentioned the example that Brad Stel Fox used.

It was not only… it was a place in India that they had had shortages and they had gone in and drilled water wells and they had created irrigation and they had done all sorts of things and then it all collapsed. Like he said, it was down to rubble. That’s how bad it was that they were actually trying to regain soil in the area. That’s how bad it was. I don’t want us to go there. None of us want us to go there. This is a battle, quite frankly, of the people to establish what is actually needed. And I’m going to say something that I heard a toxicologist, Mandy Olsgard, say to a public audience in Nanton, which was, this is not going to happen unless we make it happen. This isn’t a priority. We’ve heard it through from Bob, we’ve heard it from Kennedy, I’ve seen it.

We’ve all seen it in terms of what’s happening with the water decision making in this process. It’s getting more lenient rather than more conservationist, and it will break. There is no question I’ve heard from specialists like Dr. Cathy Ryan at the U of C say, they are not clear on when the water table might break, meaning we could prevent trees from being able to catch root, and that means you would lose that soil like what just happened in India. These are real situations that we are facing if we don’t turn the ship around. I will tip it to you first. Bruce, can you expand on what that looks like for you? That group, for example, if we were to establish it, what does it look like? And Kennedy, you can think about how you might add to it too. You go ahead, Bruce.

J. Bruce:

Yeah, a couple of aspects to it. I’m talking about an institution that is separate from government in the sense that it is fully funded by government for some significant period of time, but it isn’t up to the government to decide what the future is. It’s time that all of these specialists get together and work on this problem and make recommendations to the government that we expect the government to actually fulfil. And I think it’s, it’s not the politics so much as it’s the understanding that this is a very complex system and we have to trade things for other things, and we have to balance our investments or our funding, our dollars. We have to make things practical, inexpensive, and function well. And the only way I can see you do that is to bring the various parties together in one place where they can work on these problems and come up with a specific answer that maybe then take to the government to actually make it happen. I’m quite concerned that the government is not telling us things that we should be knowing right now rather than telling us what they want us to hear. I think this province is in a different state than we are all imagining that it is right now.

Jenny:

Agreed. And you help me remember, I wanted to expand a little bit on what this action looks like. Kennedy, you mentioned we’re irrigating in a landscape which we know can’t tolerate that long-term. Therefore we need to be thinking about drought tolerant crops. We need to be thinking about water preservation and restoration rather than conservation in terms of those water management systems. And then also local food systems. If we were to reduce our expectation of growing on the landscape, in some cases we have the capacity to have greenhouses in Calgary, especially with the amount of natural gas we have. There’s a massive opportunity there to couple those things and provide some, alleviate the landscape, if you will, while we recover that landscape. And again, this isn’t coming from a place of wanting to take away from those who are managing the landscape. This is trying to help them prevent them from witnessing and suffering that collapse. Let’s be real. We’ve talked about it a couple of times in this conversation that there are farmers who are committing suicide because they are experiencing such severe changes on the landscape that they don’t know how to handle it, and this is therefore a way to provide them support. Sorry, I went off there, but I wanted to get that in the conversation. Go ahead, Kennedy. Please offer your thoughts in this space.

Kennedy:

Yeah, I guess maybe just even speaking to that a little bit, I think the recognition is, and I think farmers would know this firsthand, especially in the area that it is requiring more and more inputs to grow crops. And this ask for them to continually grow more and more is not possible. You hit your limits eventually. We can’t keep putting fertilizer and pesticides and water, and there’s only so much where you plateau, and it is not necessarily sustainable if this is what is required to grow crops in these regions. It’s not sustainable. I think, I don’t even know how you begin to do this, but you need to somehow figure out what is a just transition for these people as a way to recognize that there’s some areas in the province where we’ve decided to grow agriculture, where agriculture is not an appropriate land use because it requires such intensive inputs and the loss is so heavy in drought years. And how can you essentially help those people either continue their livelihood until they’re done and then you transition that land out of use for agriculture, return it to native grassland, which is something that would be a climate solution. Native grassland is drought resilient. It helps store water on the landscape as well.

It would return licensed water back to the rivers. I think a lot of the climate conversations is just figuring out what does that just transition look like for people who work? Things that just are not sustainable anymore in the reality we live in. And I don’t know, I think it just has to start. It has with some sort of legislation and political will and public power, but I don’t obviously have the solution for that. But I do really love the idea of a dedicated water preservation group or a climate core people that would go around the province and find areas that are biodiversity hotspots are ecosystem services like priorities for conservation. In Alberta, that would be places like our remaining native grasslands, our remaining wetland complexes, the Rockies and Foothills, which are our water towers. Focusing those areas for conservation would help us in a lot of ways. But yeah, I think it’s tough to say how that gets done with so many competing interests and without the political will there.

Jenny:

Yeah, I love the thought of looking, I think of it as like the 80-20 rule. If we just focus our efforts on the most bang for our buck, that’s where we can really see the change and then people will get behind this concept more broadly. I love that idea, Kennedy. Bob, did you want to make sure that we covered off all the questions that you had in mind or any comments that you wanted?

Bob:

We’ve covered the questions I wanted to ask. And Jenny, that was a great question at the end here because it’s touched on several of the things we’ve already talked about on the other podcasts, including what is the role of these watershed planning and advisory councils? Because Bruce’s agency that’s funded by the government, but independent looks a little bit like them. The WPACs don’t have all the regulatory responsibility that they should have. In fact, they have none. And in terms of the just transition Canada, you’ve hit upon the issue of do you move the water to the people or do you move the people to the water? And maybe there is a more significant cap that you have to put on Southern Alberta that encourages, as you said, Kennedy, with a just transition to locate where the water is, rather than try to make more out of the little bit of water that we have. Very interesting question at the end, Jenny, very good responses from you, Kennedy and Bruce. I’m very appreciative of all of you in terms of joining this podcast, joining this series, and helping us figure out what the future of water management might look like. Thank you.

Jenny:

Yeah, anything that we missed, please Bruce, if you have any final thoughts, I’d love to hear them from both of you as well. Please go

J. Bruce:

Ahead. Yeah. Part of this agency I’m talking about is to hold people accountable and to know who’s collecting the information and why we’re not getting the results we’re supposed to be getting. If we distribute the responsibility, then we end up with not understanding what’s happening and why it’s happening and why we’re not meeting our future water needs.

Jenny:

Yes, I think like you’re saying, you can’t solve a problem. You’re not including in your logic. I think to back up the bus and make sure we have a tendency of, like you said, Bruce, especially right now with this government to hide things or not leave the outliers out of the discussion. And rather, we need to have all of those outliers in the discussion.

That we can make sure that we’re incorporating all of those issues at once. And when I think we’ll realize, I think of Bruce was saying, or Bob was just saying, these watershed councils, they’re already in place. They’re already on the watershed. If we can just empower ourselves to support them in a meaningful way, I think there’s a big opportunity there for us to make use of a system that’s already in place. Kennedy, did you have any, oh, go ahead, Bruce. Was there any

J. Bruce:

We need to do it in a timely manner too.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. Kennedy, any final word before we wrap?

Kennedy:

No, I think that covered everything. Yeah, that I have to say today. I think a lot of good questions and discussion.

Jenny:

Yeah, Kennedy, you brought it. I have to say that was phenomenal. Thank you guys so much. And this is also from my friend, my client, who would like to say thank you folks as well for a brilliant chat. He’s not wrong. Okay. Thank you. This has been incredible, Bob. Again, I’m so appreciative of us having done this, and I am excited to see what comes next. We will take action with this. Thank you very much for your time, everybody. And remember, please to like and subscribe to the gravity wall. Sorry, Kennedy, that’s not cool. Get the word can get out about this and that we can get enough public pressure to make sure that this stuff gets done. Okay. Have a great rest of your day, everyone. Take care for now.

J. Bruce:

Thank you both.

This episode features Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford University, who has focused his career on understanding air pollution and climate problems and developing renewable energy solutions. Jacobson criticizes carbon capture technology, arguing it increases CO2 emissions and air pollution, and is primarily used to justify continued fossil fuel development. He advocates for a transition to 100% renewable energy, which could reduce world energy demand by 54% and eliminate a significant number of air pollution-related deaths.

Jacobson highlights the inefficiency and high costs of carbon capture compared to renewable energy solutions, which offer greater health, environmental, and economic benefits. He also addresses concerns about the mining required for renewable technologies, noting that it is significantly less than that for fossil fuels. The transition to renewables is feasible and beneficial, particularly in resource-rich countries like Canada. Jenny adds that ecological services need to be restored to genuinely reduce carbon emissions and address water and land contamination and degradation, with renewable and battery technology deployment. Want this, fellow Canadian, as the alternative is clearly a lie.

Introduction to Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson

Jenny (00:05):

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast with me, Jenny Yeremiy. I host The Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of The Gravity Well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Good afternoon, everyone. Today’s interview is very meaningful to me. I’ve mentioned on several occasions now that I worked as a geophysicist and liability expert in the oil and gas industry in Alberta for over 20 years. I worked in the office next to the individual who is credited with the birth of the Pathways Alliance. The Pathways Alliance is a project intended to offer mitigation for CO2 emissions to justify future fossil fuel development in Canada. It’s the biggest project of its kind in terms of concept and justifies things like LNG and Oil Sands development plans. On that note, I am thrilled to be having a discussion with Professor Mark Jacobson today of Stanford University. Welcome to the stage, Mark.

Mark (02:12):

Hi, Jenny. Thanks for having me on.

Jenny (02:14):

Yeah, thank you so much. As I was saying off stage, I have to go through an extensive introduction of Mark, bear with me, Mark as I do so. Mark Jacobson has been a professor at Stanford University since 1994. His research has crossed two fields, atmospheric science and energy. Mark’s career has focused on better understanding air pollution and climate problems, and developing large scale clean renewable energy solutions to them. He’s developed and applied three computer models: atmosphere, biosphere and ocean, and has used their simulations to understand air pollution, weather, climate, and renewable energy systems. He’s developed roadmap maps to transitions in countries, states, and cities towards a hundred percent clean renewable energy. Mark has also published 191 peer reviewed journals and articles. He’s given over 800 talks. He founded and has directed the Atmospheric Energy Program at Stanford. He’s published seven books. Four of those are related to atmospheric work, and the last three are related to his energy work. And based on all of this, Mark is ranked as number six in terms of publication since 1980. Wow. Thank you so much, Mark, for taking the time to be with me today.

Mark (03:32):

Yeah, thanks for having me on.

Jenny (03:34):

Yeah, if you don’t mind, actually, I didn’t mention off stage, but I’d love to hear a little bit of what brought you into this work. What’s been your journey to this? A lot of people will say it’s just a love of nature or whatever. What brought you into the climate field? Can you say?

Mark (03:50):

Well, when I was a kid, when I was playing tennis, I travelled to Los Angeles and San Diego, and especially in San Diego, the air pollution was so bad. I thought, why should people live like this? I wanted to solve that problem ever since then. And I focused my studies and my research on doing that. For the last 36 years as a scientist, I’ve been trying to understand and solve large scale air pollution and climate problems through clean renewable energy. Part of my work has been to understand the problems. That’s where computer model development came in. And then overlapping the last 25 years now, I’ve been trying to solve the problems. When you’re looking at solutions, I mean, I first look at carbon capture back in 2008, and nothing’s really changed since then except it’s been implemented. Trying the policies, trying to implement it have been expanded a bit, but no actual benefit because as I’ll talk about, carbon capture only increases carbon dioxide. It should be called carbon release, not carbon capture. No kidding.

Jenny (05:01):

Yeah. I was saying to you, I also have had exposure since that time about, actually, I worked two fields in Canada that doing what we called CO2 flooding at the time. That’s what we would call carbon capture utilization and storage, I suppose. But we would see breakthrough, what we would call breakthrough from one well to another instantly, almost within a week. To me, the idea of capturing this carbon and sequestering it long-term is not a practical solution. Rather, the site cleanup and storage or cleanup and closure of sites would do both things. Well, actually three things, as you were mentioning with the water system, the land system, and the air pollution all in one. Anyway, that’s how I came into this work as well, Mark. Let’s start with why are we talking about carbon capture and storage? If you can just remind people what was the intention of this technology to do in terms of justifying new fossil fuel development, let’s say?

The Justification for Carbon Capture and Storage (Hint: there isn’t one)

Mark (06:04):

Well, the justification was that, well, really it’s fossil fuel companies wanted to keep their fuels moving, being sold. And because of all the policies that were being put in place, they had to come up with a way to keep doing that and also pretend to keep selling fossil fuels, but then pretend as if they’re actually helping to solve the problem. They came up with this idea carbon capture, where you add equipment to, let’s say a coal plant to where the carbon dioxide emitted from the coal plant gets absorbed and then basically captured as a gas, and then that CO2 is compressed and put in a pipeline and then piped somewhere. In theory, they were saying most of it would be piped for storage and be put underground and stored forever. In reality, 82% of all their carbon captured worldwide to date has been used to just drill for more oil through what’s called enhanced oil recovery, where the carbon dioxide is piped to a nearby oil field. The CO2 is then mixed with the oil, it bonds with the oil, makes the oil less dense, more of it floats to the surface faster. And for every ton of carbon dioxide, you get a couple more barrels of oil.

Even if you’re just that process alone, by the way, 30 to 40% of the CO2 captured during this enhanced oil recovery process is released right back to the air during the enhanced oil recovery process. And then the additional barrels of oil you get, depending on whether they replace existing oil or their new oil, there’s 20 to 80% more of the CO2 gets released to the air by burning this oil. You end up with 50 to 130% of the CO2 captured just going back to the air just from enhanced oil recovery, which I, again, 82% of all the CO2, that’s what happens to it. Right there, you’re having no benefit. And that’s not even the worst part of it, which we’ll probably talk about later. I’m just saying right off the get go, it’s a useless technology that is only designed to keep the fossil fuel industry going. There’s no benefit whatsoever to humankind.

Jenny (08:33):

Right. Thank you so much. Yeah, we would call that tertiary production. That’s what we refer to it in the industry is when you’ve got, you can do just regular primary production and then you can do water flood production, which is what we’d call secondary enhanced and then enhanced, sorry, being the third that CO2 injection, whether you’re doing natural gas flooding or CO2 flooding or Yeah, that’s basically the two that I’ve been involved in. But yeah, and like I said, in all of those cases, you’re right, I’ve only been involved in where we’re using it to produce more production. We’re not actually using it to store it and be able to know that that’s being stored long-term. And the other thing, if we can, since we have a little time, I want to talk a bit about the impacts of CO2 and other, let’s call it contaminants in the natural gas system, which causes actual risks to pipelines, et cetera, from erosion. And there needs to be, or yeah, corrosion I should be saying in those pipelines based on these additives, if you will.

Mark (09:43):

Well, with the carbon capture, the things they add a whole set of new pipelines. And for example, there was a proposal to add carbon capture equipment to ethanol refineries in the upper Midwest in the US to a few dozen ethanol refineries. And then once they capture that CO2, what do they do with it? Well, they were going to build like 2,500 miles of pipelines, CO2 pipelines, just to carry the CO2 to some in North Dakota. And first of all, aside from the fact that you’ve got to build these pipelines, you’ve got to invade people’s land to put the pipelines in, and farmers don’t want pipelines in. It is like an invasive thing. They have to go through thousands or hundreds to thousands of individual homeowners and landowners to try to get them to agree to put a pipeline. And if they don’t want to agree, then they’re trying to get a forced court order to do this.

It’s really an invasive process too, and it’s just crisscrossing this pretty landscape with these pipelines, and then you need more energy. I mean, the main problem with carbon capture, aside from the fact that most of it’s used for enhanced oil recovery, which is just ridiculous in the first place, is that it increases CO2 and air pollution and fossil mining and fossil infrastructure and worsens people’s health and increases cost of energy for everybody. You might ask, well, how does capturing carbon increase carbon dioxide? Well, it’s really simple. You need energy to run capture equipment and to run the CO2 through pipelines and compress it. And it’s so much energy. It’s about 25% of the energy of a coal plant is needed to add carbon capture to a coal plant. So that means if you add carbon capture to a coal plant, you need 25% more coal.

And when you have 25% more coal, you’re burned 25% more coal, and you have 25% more air pollution. Right away you have more air pollution and you have more mining of coal, and the cost of this equipment is high and it’s going to be passed on to customers. For example, there was only one coal plant in the US where carbon capture was added, and that was in Thompson, Texas called the Petra Nova Project, and that cost 1 billion for the carbon capture equipment. And what did they do to provide the energy for the capture equipment for the coal plant? They built a gas plant to run the capture equipment for the coal plant. You have to imagine how ridiculous this is. They not only built a gas plant next door to the coal plant, then they have to build pipelines to pipe the gas.

They have to mine the gas. There’s leaks of methane. They’re burning gas while they’re to produce electricity for the running, the capture equipment. None of that CO2 is captured by the way, just gets released to the air. None of the methane that is captured, none of the coal mining emissions are captured, including leaked methane, including the combustion emissions. You have all this pollution continuing and you have more pollution now because you’re burning gas now and mining the gas, and you have the CO2 that’s being emitted, and plus the methane equivalent of CO2 that’s being emitted is right there virtually the same as the CO2 that’s captured. You’re really doing nothing. In fact, some people say, well, why not just use wind or solar to run the capture equivalent? Then you’re not emitting anything. Well fact you’re up or you are emitting because that’s the best case.

Let’s say you use wind or solar, that means that the wind or solar cannot replace the coal plant. If you have wind or solar to run carbon capture equipment, why wouldn’t you use that wind and solar just to replace the coal plants in the first place? It turns out that you can eliminate more CO2 by using the exact same amount of wind or solar that would run the capture equipment just to replace a portion of the coal plant, and you’ll reduce more CO2. By not using that wind or solar to replace the coal plant, you’re actually then increasing CO2 because you’re using it for a lower carbon purpose. And plus, if you use wind or solar to replace the coal plant, you eliminate the air pollution from the coal plant. Whereas if you use carbon capture equipment, you just keep that air pollution from the coal plant. If you use wind and solar to replace the coal plant, you eliminate the mining of coal. If you use carbon capture, you maintain the mining of the coal.

And then if you use wind and solar and eliminate the coal plant, wind and solar are now cheaper than coal. You reduce your cost. If you use carbon capture, you not only have to pay for the wind and solar on top of the coal plant, but you have to pay for the capture equipment. In this plant in Thompson, Texas, it costs 1 billion to add the gas plant and the carbon capture equipment to the coal plant. Who pays that $1 billion? Well, and by the way, this plant was shut after three years because there was so many. And all the CO2 that I was captured was sent for enhanced oil recovery, by the way. Who pays over three years that billion dollars? Well, it’s rate payers, and who pays the highest fraction of their income for electricity? It’s low income rate payers. It’s low income rate payers that are saddled with these huge bills for carbon capture equipment and the pipelines and the energy requirements for it. It’s just a complete ridiculous scam. I mean, it’s a scam that pretending as if they’re doing something

Jenny (15:38):

Right. Yeah. I heard it’s justifying demand because you’re expanding and therefore you need this demand. It’s increasing mining. It’s not actually getting all the emissions. The other thing, I don’t know if you like this analogy, but I’ve been saying, you’re having people increase smoking and you’re just capturing the secondhand smoke. I think that’s a fair analogy. Yes.

Mark (16:04):

Yeah, that’s one way to put it. Yeah.

Natural Gas is Worse than Coal

Jenny (16:07):

And then to justify. If you could expand a little bit on the gas piece, because like I said, I’m a geophysicist and I feel like sometimes it’s easy to lose the plot in the lies that are spread around. For example, I remember talking about this natural gas transition. One of the things that’s talked a lot about in Canada is LNG is a clean energy, not clean, sorry, green energy solution. To me, when I think back on it now, as you were just describing, we have all of this leakage between, well, first of all, you have to actually drill the wells, and then you have a bunch of emissions that are associated with that. Then you have leakage from the wells themselves. You have leakage from the pipelines, you have leakage from the transport systems. And the only place where you’re actually potentially capturing emissions is from the stack itself at those facilities, correct?

Mark (16:59):

Yeah. Well, when you have gas or coal or oil, you’re mining and especially gas, which has mostly methane, it’s like 90% methane, and methane is like the third leading cause of global warming. But per unit mass, it’s actually on a 20 year timescale. It’s like over 80 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide. The average methane. It’s not only leaks, it’s forced emissions. I mean, the word leaks is kind of a misnomer. I mean, there are leaks, but they’re also gas companies will release methane intentionally or gas intentionally into the air, either through flaring or just releases to relieve pressure on the pipelines anyway, the average leakage rate across all types of gas mining is around three and a half percent, and it’s up some places up to nine, 10%. Other places it might be 2%, but it’s like on average it’s around three point half percent.

(17:59):

And that’s a lot of methane that’s coming out and never going to be captured. And you need, if you’re using gas, for example, to run capture equipment through by creating electricity or something, then you’re going to be mining more gas, and you’re going to have more leaks, and you’re not capturing that. That just goes into the equation of why this is useless. It’s not actually helping anything. And the CO2 that is captured, first of all, the industry claims, oh, they get 95% capture rates of the CO2, and that just has never occurred anywhere. In reality, the real life, in theory, with perfect conditions, you could get 95%, but all real projects across all capture types is the range is 10 to 80%. The capture rate, it’s because sometimes they capture equipment is off, sometimes it’s down. Sometimes they can’t move the CO2, they turn it, they don’t actually capture anything for a while.

(18:57):

And a lot of them, half of them are less than 50%. You have really low capture rates. First of all, not high capture rates, lots of huge amounts of leaks upstream that are never accounted for, big energy penalty to run the capture equipment. But again, in the best case, you’re using renewables. You don’t even have these mining. In the best case of using renewables, you are preventing the renewables from replacing a coal or gas plant. And by doing that, you actually then increase CO2. You’re always increasing CO2. Carbon capture always increases CO2, no matter what they’re capturing from the stack, because they’re pretending as if the energy they’re using couldn’t be used better for something else.

(19:42):

And it’s like when you just draw your boundaries very narrowly, you get one result that you then try to advertise, but that’s not actually what’s happening. In reality, what’s happening is now you can’t use that wind or solar to replace fossil fuel source. It’s the same thing with direct air capture. When you’re using clean renewable energy to power, direct air capture, you’re just creating a new demand for energy that would otherwise not be there. Now you’re just making more demand on the grid, and then now you can’t use that electricity, that renewable electricity to replace a fossil source. You have to now need some more. If you don’t have, because there’s limited amount of renewables available, you just have to start burning more fossil fuels to replace the renewables that you’re using for your capture equipment.

The Primary Energy Fallacy: a 38% reduction in world energy demand.

Jenny (20:26):

Right? Yeah. Just quit smoking altogether. Right. I’m going to go back to you were talking about, it’s called the primary energy fallacy where people assume that we, it’s this, the amount of energy we’re using today is the equivalent of what we need in the future versus what if we switch to a renewable? Maybe if we can get into, let’s say we killed this. We think this should be abandoned technology, what should we be doing instead, Mark, what does the renewable transition look like? You’ve talked about a 38% decrease in world demand based on an renewable transition. I don’t know what that number means in the context of where we’re at in this conversation, but if you could just expand on how we would reduce energy demand if we were to move in another way, please.

Mark (21:16):

Yeah. Well, we developed plans for states and countries and provinces to transition to a hundred percent renewables across all energy sectors. The idea is simple. You electrify as much as you can and provide the electricity with wind, water, solar, which is really wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and the electrification process itself, you can eliminate about 38% of world energy demand because like an electric vehicle uses one fourth, the energy as a gasoline vehicle to go the same distance, but averaged overall energy sectors. That’s about a 20% reduction of demand. Electric heat pumps use 75% less energy than combustion heating and electric conduction cooktops use 60% less energy than gas to do the same thing. When you average across all energy sectors, that’s another 14% reduction of demand. If you electrify industry, that’s another 4% or so, you’re up to 38%. But then, well, actually it’s a little more than that then.

(22:21):

But then there’s another 11% of all energy worldwide is used just to mine transport and refined fossil fuels in uranium. And we don’t need to do that if we have wind and solar and geothermal hydro because those are renewable resources where the wind comes right to the turbine, solar comes right to the panel, water comes right to the reservoir, geothermal gets replenished by heat from deep in the earth. We can eliminate another 11% of energy worldwide, and then we can, on top of that, we can get end use energy efficiency improvements beyond business as usual for a few more percent. We can actually get a 54% or reduction of world power demand just by electrifying and providing the electricity with wind, water, and solar. That’s without people changing their habits.

(23:09):

The fuel under the fossil fuel paradigm where they use carbon capture, well, you don’t get any of that 54% reduction because you keep burning fuels, inefficient fuels. You keep using gasoline, you keep using gas heating for buildings, you still burn coal and oil for industry, and you still mine transport and refine fossil fuels and uranium. You barely get any change of your energy, but you then increase your energy needs because you need to run the capture equipment. You need 25% more energy than you did for electricity generation. Your energy demand in fact goes up. It doesn’t go down 54%, it actually goes up. Again, this is like the fossil fuel industry wants to trick you into thinking that they’re doing something useful when they’re just preventing you from doing something efficient, and this is really dangerous. And then you can really see the opportunity cost here, because then when you electrify provide the electricity with wind, water, and solar, you are eliminating the air pollution deaths from the fossil fuels.

(24:21):

And worldwide, they’re about seven and a half million premature deaths from air pollution, from fossil and bioenergy fuels. And we could eliminate like 90% of those deaths just by transitioning to clean renewable energy. And same thing with global warming agents. You can eliminate them just by electrifying providing the electricity with clean renewable energy, whereas you’re hardly reducing CO2 with carbon capture. When you compare those two scenarios, which we did in a paper recently, where you compare the scenarios of electrifying providing the electricity with wind, water, solar versus not electrifying, but just using carbon capture or direct air capture, what you find is the social cost is about nine to 12 times higher of going the carbon capture route than wind, water, and solar. A lot of that’s due to the air pollution, health cost. A lot of it’s due to the higher carbon emissions from carbon capture, direct air capture, and the rest is due to the higher energy costs from carbon capture, direct air capture. On the order of a factor of 10 higher costs, and that’s no matter how you slice it, you get factor of 10 higher costs. Yeah, if you want to keep paying higher social costs, dying more, having more damage to the climate, having more damage to your environment and paying higher bills, electricity, heat, everything, bills, yeah, go for that carbon capture, it’s just a scam. It’s a greenwashing scam that does nothing but raise costs for everybody.

Jenny (25:59):

Yes. Thank you. That was great. I heard, well, I mean, this is an increase of nine to 12 times magnitude of harm essentially to people versus something that would half the harm by more than half the harm that we’re experiencing in terms of our pocketbooks, but also in terms of the impact in air quality and land degradation and water stability, let’s say. The one thing I wanted you to expand on, if you don’t mind, is when people make the argument of, oh, well, but then you’re just mining a whole other industry to be able to justify this transition. That’s the argument in the industry is that there’s this whole mining aspect for renewables and for the electrical transport system, let’s say, which is just not attainable, et cetera. I’ve seen the numbers that this system uses 5% of the material usage that the fossil fuel system does. Can you elaborate on that point, please?

Addressing the disinformation around renewable (vs. fossil fuel) mining

Mark (27:01):

Yeah. Well, fossil fuels use orders of magnitude. I mean, you have to mine fossil fuels every day for eternity to keep using fossil fuels because in the case of wind, solar, et cetera, wind comes right to the turbine, solar comes right to the panel, you eliminate fuel binding altogether. Whereas the main mining from fossil fuels is fuel mining, which is done every single day, and it’s just orders of magnitude, larger mining for fuel. Now, when you have renewables, yeah, you have to do some mining one time at the beginning, like for lithium, for batteries, for example. But first of all, batteries, you put ‘em in a car once and that car is now they’re going 20, 25 years and then they get recycled. The lithium, you can recycle a hundred percent of the components up to a hundred percent, but say 97 to a hundred percent of the components in a lithium battery can be recycled, and they are being recycled now, and they will be more in the future.

(27:58):

That same lithium can be reused in 20 years, 25 years for another car or for stationary battery storage. And whereas meanwhile that if you’re going the fossil fuel route, you’d be mining gasoline every day for those 25 years plus the next 25 years plus the next 25 years. You have one time mining versus continuous mining. Basically over a hundred year period to drive, if you converted all the vehicles in the world to lithium-ion vehicles, this includes passenger vehicles and trucks and buses, you’re going to be mining 10,000 to a hundred thousand times less fueled over that a hundred year period versus for mining fossil fuels for fossil fuel vehicles. It’s, its like a speck that you couldn’t even see in a sea of dots of how small the mining is compared to the mining you need for fossil fuels. In the US we drill 50,000.

(29:05):

Well, actually in the Great plains of both the US and Canada, we drill 50,000 new oil and gas wells every year. In the US we have a million active oil and gas wells and 4 million abandoned ones. And the fossil fuel industry occupies about almost 1.2% of all US land. The ethanol industry for corn is another 1.24% of land. We’re close to 2.4% of US land is used just for energy with fossil fuels and ethanol. If you electrify everything, provide the electricity from clean renewable sources, we’d need on the order of 1% of us land. We’d reduce land use if we go to the wind water, solar route versus keeping with fossil fuels. And you have to keep growing that fossil fuel land every year because you need more fossil fuels. A lot of that’s land is not only for the mines, but for the pipelines.

(29:58):

There’s millions of miles of pipelines crossing the US for fossil fuels and hundreds of thousands of gas stations. You need to keep growing the land needed for fossil fuels, whereas with renewables, there’s a little bit of growth, but it’s much slower because it’s really one time mining and one time infrastructure, and then it slowly grows as population increases. It’s not a comparison. There’s just in terms of health benefits, in terms of climate benefits, in terms of cost benefits, in terms of reduced land use, and also in terms of jobs worldwide, we estimate over 25 million more full-time jobs produced versus lost when we go wind water, solar versus a fossil fuel economy.

Jenny (30:45):

That was fantastic, Mark. Yeah, thank you. It’s so fascinating. Again, these stories all seem to weave together in terms of it is a lie to say that we need this carbon capture and storage, let’s say, to justify additional production. And you think of all the reduction in all of these areas. Like you said, I’m picturing all of these ships going across the oceans daily to provide this constant source of fuel versus you do a delivery of solar panels and wind turbines, and your ongoing shipping system is, I’ve heard that the global supply chain system is changing rapidly right now because of this massive demand shift in material movement. Can you speak to that at all, or are you familiar with

Mark (31:47):

I can’t really say much about it. I haven’t looked into that issue too much.

What does renewable deployment look like?

Jenny (31:51):

Okay. If you wouldn’t mind just expanding a little bit on what does a renewable deployment look like? You mentioned you’ve been in countries and cities, and can you speak to, I’m in Calgary, Alberta where there is, I would say we’re, I don’t know what we are right now. I want to say we’re 80% fossil fuel dependent or something like that in our electrical system. I think maybe it’s not as bad as that anymore. I’m not sure. But what does a transition look like just in terms of renewable deployment? How do you go about doing that work for

Mark (32:27):

Jurisdiction? Well, in Canada it’s pretty easy because you have so much land and so much resource. In the south of Canada, there’s a bunch of solar, especially in the summer. In fact, there’s a community, Drake’s Landing that for a couple decades. There are homes where there’s solar collectors on the garages of homes that would take heat from the sun store it underground and soil for up to six months. You have long summer days and you can store that solar heat for up to six months and then use that heat to provide a hundred percent of home heating in the winter. That’s a district heating system. You can use sun, not only for heat, but also electricity generation as well. But there’s, there’s solar in the south, there’s wind pretty much everywhere, but the selected places, there’s hydro in a lot of places in Canada. There’s enhanced geothermal everywhere, which is a new commercial technology where you can just dig down into the earth. If you dig deep enough, you get high enough temperatures to heat the heat water that then provides electricity because you can use a turbine to generate electricity with high enough temperature, heat when you evaporate a fluid. And so now you can do that anywhere. You’ve got hydro, you’ve got geothermal, you’ve got wind, you’ve got solar, and it’s combine that with battery storage for electricity. You already have hydro storage and a lot of hydroelectric dams.

(33:59):

Then there’s heat storage and there’s cold storage, but you require electrification of buildings, electrification of transportation, electrification of industry. That’s what it looks like. Electrifying, going to electric vehicles, going to electric homes, going to electric industry, providing the electricity from clean renewable sources, which there’s plenty of in Canada, we’ve done a plan for Canada and actually several plans for Canada, and they all are, it’s one of the easiest countries to transition from a technical and economic point of view.

Key Takeaways: Reclamation and Renewable Deployment

Jenny (34:30):

Fascinating. Yeah, I was thinking about all of these oil and gas sites that are powered by a solar and battery system today, and thinking about how those could be redeployed, like you’re saying, those are generally mobile sites as well. Anyway, I’m sure there’s a whole bunch of very easy things that could happen. In fact, I’m almost convinced that we have all the solar and battery technology we need, if not more, where I live, if we just looked to it and deployed it properly. Thank you so much for that. I’d like to, if you don’t mind, just explore a little bit with you because of my experience and site cleanup enclosure, when you’re talking about landmass, for example, you talked about how if we just reduced, went away from both fossil fuel and ethanol types of energy use towards renewables, let’s say a third of the land would be used.

(35:25):

And I look at that as an opportunity to potentially use some of these contaminated lands as another potential deployment of solar and then be able to keep, because they would be tied into the electrical system already. I guess what I’m saying is I see an opportunity to be doing renewable deployment in marriage with site cleanup en closure, and I look at, as somebody, as an industry professional would love to see, instead of drilling a well, we are abandoning wells. Instead of putting in a new pipeline, we’re removing a pipeline. Instead of deploying new facilities, we’re removing them and et cetera, et cetera. Instead of mapping reservoirs, we’d be mapping contamination plumes. These are the types of activities I see in terms of jobs. When you talk about jobs and those opportunities and that, what if any work or thoughts do you have in that space, Mark, about trying to marry those two activities together in terms of reducing the footprint from fossil fuels while deploying renewables?

Mark (36:29):

Yeah, there’s a lot of places that we can put renewables that don’t take up new useful land. Aside from just putting solar on rooftops, but you don’t need new land or putting solar on agricultural fields where you can combine agriculture and solar in what’s called agrovoltaics, where you space the solar out. You can put wind and solar on degraded land. Contaminated land, and you can reduce even the land use of wind and solar by putting solar, combining it with wind at the same place. There’s wind. You don’t take any land on the ground with wind. They’re just a pole in the ground. But you do have what’s called spacing area, and people equate spacing area while you’re just occupying all that land where you’re not, you’re actually allowing farmers to grow their crops underneath, or you’re still open space or grazing land or ranch land, or if you’re offshore, there’s no land at all. But you could combine solar and wind and battery storage at the same location. And then when you do that, you provide more stable power because wind and solar are complimentary in nature. When the wind’s not blowing, the sun is off and shining during the day and vice versa.

(37:41):

And by combining the two, you actually get smoother overall output, especially if you add batteries, then you can smoothen the output even more. Yeah, there’s a lot of opportunities in taking these degraded fossil fuel lands and turning them into renewable energy fields. And you can even add geothermal in there too, because that doesn’t take that much land either, especially if they want to keep drilling, just drill for geothermal, and that’s a better drilling.

Jenny (38:10):

It is, yeah. But I’ve seen that industry a little bit. I think there’s some potential in the regulations that would help make that industry more attractive. I think if anything, there’s been some handcuffing happening between that deployment versus drilling for new fossil fuels and also for renewables. Our province did a whole, what’s interesting to be considered almost like a removal of landowners rights when it comes to renewable deployment versus where they’re forced to receive fossil fuel development on their lands. They can’t pursue a renewables. It’s pretty remarkable despite the handcuffs that this technology is finally making its way that technology, I mean, solar, wind, and batteries and renewable, other renewable sources. Thank you so much for all of this, mark. This has been tremendous. Is there anything in this conversation that you’d like to add? I’m just going to close with that. Thank you for reminding folks why carbon capture and storage is not a legitimate solution. It actually increases emissions. It doesn’t address the primary problem, which is methane emissions, and it is justifying a growing energy demand world in a situation where there is an opportunity to half it and also provide some social and environmental justice along the way. Anything else you’d like to add that I missed in this?

Mark (39:43):

No, I just suggest we keep our eye on the ball and focus on what works and not ignore these greenwashing planes about carbon capture, direct air capture, also blue hydrogen electro fuels. These are all constructs of the fossil fuel industry. We just want to focus on clean, renewable energy, electrification. That’s what works. We don’t have much time. Let’s just do that and we will get solved these problems together.

Jenny (40:09):

Yeah. Thank you so much. It’s because of people like you that I’m aware and working on this with you. Thank you for spending some time with me this afternoon, mark.

Mark (40:17):

Yeah, happy to.

Jenny (40:19):

Thank you. Take care for now.

Mark (40:20):

Thanks.

The Water in Southern Alberta podcast miniseries covers topics such as irrigation, resource extraction, water security, and climate change, featuring experts like Dr. Brad Stelfox and Dr. David Swann. The series seeks feedback to provide summaries and recommendations for legislative change.

This episode features Cheryl Bradley, Judy Stewart, and David Barrett who bring diverse expertise in environmental management, law, and aquatic health. Cheryl Bradley has been involved in water management planning in southern Alberta for decades, focusing on river conservation. Judy Stewart, a retired lawyer and poet, emphasizes the importance of water management in municipal planning. David Barrett, a researcher at the University of Calgary, studies aquatic ecosystems and advocates for water protection.

The podcast discusses complex water management issues, including the impact of irrigation on river health, the role of municipalities in land use planning, and the need for comprehensive data collection to monitor water quality and flow. Concerns are raised about recent amendments to the Water Act, which may increase director discretion and affect water conservation efforts.

Introductions to Cheryl Bradley and Dr. Judy Stewart, and a Re-introduction of David Barrett

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast with me, Jenny Yeremiy. I host the gravity well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples who are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of the gravity well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Good afternoon, Bob. How are you today?

Bob:

Pretty good. And you, Jenny?

Jenny:

I’m well, thank you. Yes, I’m excited. This just keeps getting better. We’ve been through the first half of this In May, we did seven episodes. We spoke about irrigation, the history of irrigation, resource extraction, the water act and licence transfer system, water modelling, watershed and lake stewardship, dry land, irrigated, ranch, land, farming and insurance. And then we returned just this month to talk with Dr. Brad Stel Fox. We spoke about land use limits, Dr. David Soin. We discussed coping with climate change. Yesterday we met with David Swan and Jason Unger to talk about water security. Encourage everyone to listen to each of those podcasts. We are looking for feedback and input for all that we want to do with this work. At the end of the day, we want to provide a summary, a written summary, and some recommendations to people that are focused in these areas and have the power to potentially make enact change in legislation. Was that a good summary of what we’re up to, Bob?

Bob:

That’s great, Jenny.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Okay. Just a reminder to everyone, please like and subscribe to The Gravity Well so that the time and effort that people put into this is worthwhile. It does matter you paying intention and engaging and sharing this with your community. Thank you for that. Alright, let’s get going here today. I am super excited to invite first off, Cheryl Bradley to the stage. Thank you so much for being with us, Cheryl.

Cheryl:

Thank you very much for having me. Jenny and Bob, this is a very important topic in southern Alberta.

Jenny:

Thank you. Cheryl has represented environmental interest in numerous water and watershed management planning processes in southern Alberta for four decades. She has also engaged in regulatory processes regarding water allocation decisions. She began her career as a professional biologist studying cottonwood forests along the rivers in southern Alberta, and has facilitated the development and strategy for their conservation. Cheryl lives in Lethbridge now, and I’m proud to say I had your husband on the show last year to speak about water and restoration in Alberta. It’s just such a pleasure to meet you both and to have the opportunity to speak with you. Thank you for being here.

Cheryl:

Thank you.

Jenny:

Can you offer a little bit more of your background? What brought you into this work before we bring the others through?

Cheryl:

It’s a love of rivers. I love to paddle rivers and I have paddled a lot of rivers in southern Alberta and I enjoy healthy wild places. I really spend a fair bit of time in the eastern slopes, which is the headwaters, which is where 80% of the flow in our rivers comes from. And I just love to think about the connections of rivers flows and the life that’s in them and along them because they’re intimately connected and I enjoy trying to understand that.

Jenny:

Wonderful, wonderful. Okay, I’m going to go ahead and bring on our next guest. We welcome Dr. Judy Stewart to the stage now. Thank you for being here, Judy. I’m just going to switch the settings here. We’ve got Whoops. No, I want to do this one. That’s what it was. Excellent. I’ll bring myself here. Okay. Thank you Judy for being here. Judy was a research fellow at the Canadian Institute of Resource Law and is now the chair of the Policy and Legislative Committee for the Bow River Basin Watershed Council. She’s a retired lawyer and is now a poet and lives in Cochrane. Welcome to the studio. Judy, would you please elaborate a little bit on what brought you into this work for us, please?

Judy:

I guess I spent most of my life as a child in water. I’ve been immersed in water my entire life. As you say, I live in Cochrane and the beautiful bow river flows by who could not want to be involved in water management activities. I’ve been very, very blessed my entire life with having connections to water and the watersheds that I live in. And I see this as an opportunity to give back something of the way I’ve lived my entire life to society and especially to my community. It’s something I live with every day and I enjoy. I am not a paddler, I’m not a swimmer, but I certainly spent a lot of time in water getting thrown in there and playing in it. We didn’t have lakes where I grew up. What we had was some rivers and creeks and ponds, dump ponds and woodlands and swamps. I grew up in Quebec where there’s lots of swamps, and it’s a different immersion than what Cheryl’s talking about. I guess that’s what you could say. I’ve had to defend water bodies my entire career as a lawyer. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to find mechanisms and legal platforms to protect the water bodies in my community and elsewhere. I think that’s a launching pad for everything else I have to say today.

Jenny:

Incredible. I’ve had the opportunity to see you, Judy, at work in the Bow River Basin Council meeting. You held a meeting, I believe it was in May of last year when we were very concerned about water shortages and it was very well run. It was probably one of the best meetings I’ve been to in that. Thank you for everybody who keeps in this work as you retire so vital for the knowledge to be ongoing, and I appreciate you learning as we go. Thank you so much. Okay, lastly, I’m happy to welcome David Barrett to the stage. Thank you so much for being here, David. David actually participated, this is a return of David to the stage here. He participated in the series I did with the Calgary Environmental Roundtable for the municipal election. Unfortunately, David did not get into a position, but obviously he’s doing very important work at the U of C, I’m really excited to talk about that.

David is a researcher who’s focused on the aquatic health. He manages the aquatic ecology lab where they undertake a wide range of research, including looking at the impacts of municipal wastewater on the Basil food web of the Beau River. And he has a number of different projects. He’s done a number of different projects, excuse me, in the Athabasca oil sands region and other cold lake aquatic research. I’m sure you and I need to go for lunch and talk about that. But instead, can you please elaborate a little more on what brought you into this work, David, and yeah, just anything else you’d like to add.

David:

Absolutely. Yeah, similar to Judy and Cheryl, I’ve long been immersed or around water. I’ve worked in rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands, the whole gamut. I’ve been really privileged that I’ve had the opportunity to work in the Arctic in southern Alberta, in BC, all around. And it’s just so important. Water is life and if we do not protect that, if we are not advocating for water, there’s so many just different knock on effects that happen after that. I’m really excited. I said to you, Jenny, I think my expertise is dwarfed by that of Judy and Cheryl. I am excited to also be taking in a lot. I’ve also been involved with the Bow River Basin Council on state of the watershed reporting and a few other things. I’m also deeply immersed in this world.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Yes, I love how humble everybody is in this work too. It’s impressive. Okay, I’m going to let Bob take over here. Bob, you can lead us off with our first questions, please.

What are the water conservation objectives?

Bob (00:10:01):

Okay. Let me get down to a basic acronym problem. Cheryl, can you tell me the difference between WCO’s, IF’s, all the other acronyms that are out there that people use to deal with the aquatic and riparian environment?

Cheryl:

Well, I’ll try. I wouldn’t get caught up on the acronyms, but we do use them in water management in Alberta. The first attempt we had to keep flows in the rivers to make sure we kept rivers flowing was to define what are called instream objectives. And they were a guideline for operators of dams and diversions in the 1950s, sixties, seventies when there was a lot of dam construction on rivers going on in Alberta. Those instream objectives, we call them iOS as an acronym, are minimum flows that need to be released through a dam to either allow for assimilation of wastewater past municipal communities. And in two instances, they were defined to be what we call the 80% fish rule curve that protects habitat for fish. It’s a minimal protection so that fish don’t die in rivers. And those instream objectives apply on the old man river below the old man dam and on the Bow River from above Bassano Reservoir where we have prime trout fisheries.

They are the minimum that you need to be able to assimilate waste and in some situations keep fish alive. Those are instream objectives. Instream flow needs were something that we started to evaluate and use in the early two thousands as we were developing as those Saskatchewan River Basin and water Management plan. And they’re an integrated aquatic ecosystem need. They consider that what you need to maintain the river channel, which is a variety of flows. You have need to have flood flows and then you don’t want to dry out the channel completely. They considered water quality. What aspects of the flows would address diluting pollution and keeping the river of a good quality? They look at it riparian vegetation. When I say riparian, that’s the plants that grow along the river in the green zone. They roots benefit from being able to get water that the river provides.

And they also looked at fish habitat. That’s the instream flow need. And what was determined by a group of very competent scientists who were experts in channel maintenance, fish habitat, water quality, and riparian vegetation, they determined that the rivers should have about 80 to 85% of their natural flow throughout the year. When there’s high flow, you get 80%. When it’s a low flow, you have 80%, but also we sometimes need to make the minimum flow or that low flow higher then the 80% because of the pollution that we’re putting into the river. These are the ideal flows that we would be managing to keep in the river. The water conservation objective is defined in the water act, which was revised in the 2000 and it’s a compromise. The water conservation objectives are developed through multi-stakeholder consultation as part of a river basin water management planning process.

And they’re a combination of what ecologically science-based instream flow needs are and what society demands for our uses of water. For example, in the Saskatchewan River Basin water management plan, water conservation objectives were defined as 45% of natural flow. They’re better than instream objectives, but they’re well below instream flow needs. But it was determined that that was what we could reasonably try to achieve given how much water we had extracted from the river. There’s no guarantee that the river will stay healthy with the water conservation objective, but it would be a great improvement over managing our rivers as instream objectives. The Saskatchewan River Basin and Water Management Plan sets water conservation objectives as something we should aspire to achieve in the future. Does that answer your question, Bob?

Bob:

That’s an excellent description of some fairly complicated acronyms and a complicated process that’s very helpful. Now, I don’t know if I should give this one to Cheryl or Judy because it’s a legal question, but it’s also an environmental question. The WCO have something to do with the transfer system that’s out there where people can buy water rights. How does that work with the water conservation objectives?

Jenny:

Are you able to speak to that, Judy?

Judy:

I can tell you water conservation objectives are considered when the government does a water transfer approval. Certainly they look at the applications with a fine tooth cone, make sure that the water conservation objectives is one of the matters and factors that have to be considered. I’m not sure if the water conservation objective is always a adhere to or followed, and I’m not sure if the monitoring and reporting on water conservation objectives, whether they’ve been able to achieve them once the licence has been issued. I’m not sure how that falls through. But often the water conservation objective becomes a condition that is in the transfer agreement and it’s also a condition that you see in every single licence, granted under the director everywhere across the province. Whatever that water conservation objective is becomes a condition of approval. But I’ll let Cheryl correct me on anything I’ve said here that’s out of line.

Cheryl:

Well, I think you’ve represented it accurately. Judy Water, the only tool that we were given in the South Saskatchewan River basin and water management plan to restore flows to rivers was what we called conservation holdbacks

On when licences were transferred. Every time there’s a transfer, the director can take 10% of the volume transferred and put it under a water conservation objective licence that should stay in the river. Now that’s the only tool that we have. And that tool has not been effective. It’s way less than 1% of mean annual flow has been restored to the rivers based on taking holdbacks on transfers to meet a water conservation objective. And I should say that water conservation objectives were not a condition on licences that were held before. The water management plan was approved in 2006, and when the plan was approved, the basin was closed to any new licences. Essentially all the licences in the South Saskatchewan River Basin do not have to meet the water conservation objective.

Bob:

In terms of that 10%, it seems like they haven’t been doing a very good job of even taking that 10%. I know that in the old man on average, it’s about 5% that they’ve taken out of those transfers. Despite the fact, if I’m correct, Judy, the current act says that you take the 10% unless there’s some compelling need for not taking it, that basically the 10% is the default setting. And it seems like they’re finding lots of exceptions to that.

Judy:

You’re right about that, Bob. The government hasn’t always taken into the 10% and there is no requirement to take it. It’s something that’s negotiated these days. And what Cheryl was explaining is very, very important because the licences that were issued years and years ago, for example, to the irrigation districts, didn’t have this wonderful WCO that we negotiated during our consultations over the closure of the basin and the creation South Saskatchewan Management Fund. But what is important to bring out is that when water is transferred, the transferee then has a WCO imposed on the transfer. The transfer might have conditions that are quite a little bit different than what the original recent show. It’s very complex. The director has to go through all of these negotiations and through the public process dealing with the transfer upstream or downstream and the use of the water that’s going to be made. And I think quite frankly, Bob, the transfer system and all the permutations and the contribution holdbacks and whether they’re effective or not, that is subject matter for a completely different discussion because it is complex and you almost need a director to help us understand how these approvals are given. And one of the things I did,

Bob:

Judy, Judy, Judy, we had a previous podcast on the transfer system with a person who deals with transfers as well as Arlene Kwasniak. I was trying to get at this issue of the compelling need for not taking the 10%. And David, I gather that you’ve been working to a certain extent on these water amendments and they aren’t going to change that criteria, aren’t they?

David:

I was just going to flag that actually in April of this year, they removed the requirement on most of the water licences for that holdback. It’s now unclear what decisions are leading to any back being imposed the amendments, the Water Act amendments, and I would defer to Judy and legal experts, but from what I understand are giving a lot more ability for the director’s discretion, essentially amendments as opposed to saying you shall or environmental protected areas shall do this. A lot more of that discretion is being moved to the administration side of government for better or for worse. But I did just want to flag to that 10% holdback on most transfers is actually being removed as of April. And there is, as Judy was saying, general mentioned too, the efficiency or effectiveness I should say, of those holdbacks as a whole different kettle of fish. If you’re holding back 10% on a tiny water licence, can you even measure that? Volume is a big question, but again, that’s perhaps a different discussion. Okay.

Bob:

Jenny, I think this leads to a question about the rights of Rivers.

What are the data gaps in water quality and quantity monitoring and objectives

Jenny (00:24:26):

Wonderful. Yes, let’s get into that. Actually, I wonder, I’m going to let David potentially lead off this question and then I’ll get to Judy, but my thoughts are around, can we talk about data gaps or some of the gaps that we know about with respect to the legal system so that we can then talk about what are some ways that we can apply some new types of legislation?

David:

Sure. Again, this is a broad thing that I’ll try to touch on in a number of factors. First and foremost, I do want to emphasize that predominantly our water management system is very western science based. It’s very much this value, this water quality parameter needs to not cross this threshold. There are, I should say, development of both aboriginal flow needs that are actually part of the legislation up in the Peace— Athabasca area or the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan, I believe has aboriginal base flow or extreme flow requirements. It’s entering into the conversation, but again, most of our discussions about what data we need to collect are really, really heavily based in western science methods. That’s a gap. I think initially we do need to be working with partners, communities, indigenous communities that have different forms of data that can be used in this decision making process in the South Saskatchewan. There’s some areas that are really strong. I am based here in Mohkinstsis, in the City of Calgary. The City of Calgary does have a very extensive watershed monitoring team, and I actually, I always sing their praises. They’re doing work well beyond the City of Calgary as far as again, western data science collection. They do some excellent work on that front. Still isolated though, right? It’s still very concentrated in and predominantly upstream of Calgary.

We haven’t done a lot, the province, I should say, hasn’t done a lot on say that riparian area, and Cheryl can talk way more about that than I could. But as far as say macrophytes, the plants growing at the edge of the river, mapping, understanding how those are shifting over the years, how they’re impacted by flow, that kind of thing has been done very sporadically, I guess is the best way to put it. It’s often relying on outside partners to conduct it, right? Whether that be academics, whether that be community organizations, water stewardship groups, Alberta somewhat uniquely, really heavily relies on a lot of these watershed stewardship groups to complete some other, to fill in the gaps I guess on a lot of this, which provides some really interesting opportunities for that community input, but also can lead to some challenges with consistency. I’ll stop there, Jenny, unless you have specific other points and I’ll let the others jump in and add more.

Jenny:

Yeah, I was wondering about the data quality issue and Cheryl, I can potentially flip this to you, but again, I’m peripherally a part of the Bow River Basin Watershed Council, one of the committees, which is the coordinating committee. I get to hear what everybody’s doing in the southern part of Alberta. And one of the comments was around we don’t really have good well monitoring data for quality extensively. In fact, there are several gaps. I wonder, Cheryl, can you speak about, I hope you said water quality was one of the things you did want to talk about. If I’ve mistaken it, let me know.

Cheryl:

Yeah, water quality isn’t my forte, but I do know the opposite. I do know that you need sufficient flow in a river to keep it alive.

My focus over much of my involvement in water management planning has been understanding that and helping with others understand that we cannot separate the water from the living system, but we do it all the time. We look at water as a resource that we can pull out of a river or withdraw from a lake and use it and put it to our use without understanding how that’s impacting the river. One of the fundamental measures of health of the aquatic ecosystem, including the riparian ecosystem is the flow. We do do constant flow monitoring from a couple of dozen flow monitoring stations in the South Saskatchewan River Basin. We do keep that data. The problem is that when are shrinking the rivers and we’re measuring their demise, we know that we’ve down in medicine hat which is below the confluence of the bow and the old man, the summer flow, the mean summer flow is now 30% less than it was when we started keeping flow records in the early 19 hundreds. And in Lethbridge along the Old Man River, we’re closer to 40%, 50% less flow during the primary irrigation season than would’ve happened naturally. And I guess that’s another point I want to make is that we record flows, which are the actual flows in the rivers, and from that information we calculate what the natural flow would be if we didn’t have all these dams and diversions. That’s a very important distinction for us to understand too. And like our apportionment agreements with Saskatchewan require, we pass 50% of natural flow,

We have to calculate what the natural flow would be in order to understand if we are meeting our apportionment agreements. I am probably deviating a bit from your question, but with respect to water quality monitoring, I have talked to individuals, and David probably knows this better. In our rivers there are long-term water quality monitoring stations, but they just grab a value maybe once or twice a month.

And some you can by just once or twice a month, you’re going to miss big events or something that’s released into the rivers that shouldn’t be released. I’ve been puzzled that we don’t have of water quality, at least total dissolved, solid monitoring on a continual basis as we do monitor the flows. I mean we could set those up together and the amount of sediment you have in a river tells you a lot about the water quality. There are a lot of gaps, Jenny. It’s very hard for us to get a handle on trends in water quality in the rivers of the South Saskatchewan reasons.

Legalizing Rights of Nature

Jenny (00:33:07):

Yeah, this is a prevalent issue that happens in all areas it seems where we are doing monitoring. I hear the word monitoring and I think monitoring is not mitigating. I keep hearing that in my head. We’re doing this monitoring, we’re doing this measuring, we’ve got gaps in the data and then there’s no objectives that are actually getting us back on track. Like this 10% number. You guys didn’t even actually say what it means. What does it translate to in terms of restoring that and considering we’re seeing a loss in these river volumes over time, it’s not enough. We’re not doing enough to keep the instream flow objectives needs, excuse me, in place. Okay. Judy, with all of that background, can you speak to some of the legal ways that places have added rights of nature into law so that there is an opportunity to make sure that we are actually meeting objectives in this way and some of the ways that the approaches that people are using? Thank you.

Judy:

Okay. This is very complex. As you know, land use is primarily done through land use. Planning and management is done through the municipal governments unless it’s public land or federal land. Municipalities are tasked with managing the land but not having very much of a say on how water is meshed. The water runs through and is part of the landscape in every single municipality in Alberta. And yet very little is actually done by municipalities to make sure that the watershed and the water features water bodies are protected during land use planning. But municipalities can actually do a lot. If you go back to the framework for water management planning that was put out in 2000, there is a strategy for protecting the aquatic environment that was written right into that document. And it’s available saying what kind of data that needs to be collected and updated and kept current and reported upon.

That includes quantity quality, it includes looking at the fish and the health of the fish. It’s the vegetation, all of the structure of the river, how it’s being affected by erosion, sedimentation, all of those things are part of aquatic health management. And yet municipalities are not charged with having to look at any of that. And most municipalities, except for City of Calgary or city of Lethbridge that have a lot of money, can’t afford to have an environmental manager on staff. They have to hire consultants who cost so much money. Often they just rely on reports that come in from the consultants who are part of the development industry. There’s so much data that’s missing for every single parcel of land that’s developed in this province if it’s on private land. There’s all this complicated discussion about how we manage the land, but it doesn’t include maybe more than four sentences about how we manage the impact of land use on our water.

We look at this system and say, what’s missing? What’s missing is the understanding of the connections and how critical it is for people to understand that everything we do on the land impacts the water, everything, everything we do, including walking trails, including how we flatten the landscapes, you’re stripping and grading and compact the land and then allow all this water to flow off these impervious surfaces into our water bodies unimpeded in many cases without any other infrastructure to sustain it. What can we do? That’s your question. But what we can do is we can look at our planning documents, and I have the perfect one here and I’m going to bring it up because it was so critical. I don’t know if you can see it, but it’s Alberta Land Use Framework and it was probably the most important public consultation that was ever done in this province.

And it was done extremely well. And out of the land use framework came our regional land use plans that asked us as citizens and as communities to consider that we should start doing land use from a regional perspective. And they gave us the watersheds as the location for us to focus our ideas. And everything has been working quite well until you look at how municipalities are required to implement aspects of the plant, the regional plans. And quite frankly, they’re not. They’re required, not required. They’re expected to do certain things, but even if they don’t do it, no one cares. There’s no penalty, there’s no accountability, there’s no monitoring or reporting required at the municipal scale. And yet that’s where all of our human activities are affecting the aquatic environment and drastically, I know in my own community, there is a drastic impact on the Bow River. Thank goodness it’s such a short stretch of the river because we have a very negative impact on our aquatic ecosystem here in my town.

And I think what we can do for the positive thing is we can work with our municipal councils and teach them that they have the most important tool available of all. They have the land use bylaw and they have these statutory plans. The land use bylaw gives us an opportunity to create these overlays of policy on how we want the land to be used close to our water bodies, and that includes our wetlands, our streams and creeks. And if those overlay of policy are put in place, just that one little rule, we would see a major change in how our aquatic ecosystem is sustained or can be more resilient over time. I’ve taken up way too much time. I tend to wax eloquent, I’ll be quiet now.

The Untapped Power of Municipalities

Bob (00:39:35):

Judy, Judy, you raised some very important issues that we’re trying to grapple with because in addition to the federal legislation, the Fisheries Act, the Navajo Waters Protection Act, the provincial legislation like the Water Act and the Environmental Enhancement Act, those things are all designed to help protect the river. But you’re making a very good point that land use is one of those key factors that also needs to be considered. Just a real quick question with a quick answer. I think in this case, the Water Act contains some provision for municipalities to manage the rivers within their jurisdiction. Am I reading that right? And does that actually have any significance?

Judy:

I wrote a paper on that exact topic. Section 60 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) says very, very clearly that municipalities have direction, control and management of all the water bodies, which includes all the wetland streams, creeks, everything, drainage courses within the municipal boundaries. But the big writer here is that the beginning of that section 60 says subject to every other enactment. And an enactment is a federal or a provincial law or regulation. Look at all the federal provincial laws and regulations dealing with water, what’s left for municipalities to have direction, control and management of? Even things like boating, they don’t have regulation, regulatory authority to deal with. I encourage you to get my paper. It’s still relevant. I wrote it, it was published by the Alberta Law Society on that exact section 60 of the MGA and what it means, what I did in that paper, and this is probably too complex, but what I did in that paper was show that yes, municipalities could do something.

They could look at all the tools that they have available to them to protect the water bodies through land use management. I did articulate very clearly in that paper how Section 60 could be translated and married to the planning provisions in part 17 of the MGA. That’s a short answer, but it’s not a simple question, Bob. None of these questions are simple. What we have to do is start looking at ecosystem management, start seeing ourselves on the landscape instead of looking, and I would say this, maybe this will be the last thing I’ll say on this program today, but if we see ourselves as an embodiment of the water that we’re born with water a certain amount, we’re all finitely, married to a finite water system, no more is being made, this is it. If we start seeing ourselves it’s integral, integrated right into the water management system and how absolutely critical it is that every drop counts, then we may start to get on the right path to managing how we use the land and how that impacts our water and how our cumulative population economic growth is having tremendous negative impacts on the very, very system that sustains our ability to survive as a species.

That’s maybe more than you wanted, but this is where we have to land. We have to land as seen ourselves there and connected to all of this.

The Challenges with Irrigation Expansion

Bob (00:43:18):

That’s very helpful. But speaking about land use, Cheryl, one of the major factors in water management, certainly in terms of water supply in the province and the southern part of the province is irrigation. And I gather there are moves afoot to actually expand irrigation even more than it currently is. How are they going to be doing that and what can we expect in terms of its impact on the river?

Cheryl:

Well, that’s a big question and I don’t have all the answers, Bob. I do know that irrigation agriculture has been a major economic generator in southern Alberta ever since the early 19 hundreds. And we have over that a hundred years allocated about 75% of, I guess it’s closer to 70% for the whole basin of water, average water, annual mean water to irrigation. That’s like almost three quarters of the water flowing in our rivers is irrigation. Districts are able to secure that water. Well, no, I’m confusing it a bit, sorry about that. But it’s like 70% of the water is allocated and of that 70%, 75% is allocated to irrigation districts. It’s closer to 90% in the old man river basin. In dry years, the districts are needing to take most of that allocation, which means that very little is left for the river. In wet years, irrigation districts don’t need as much, and so the river gets to flow more fully. The critical times are those dry years in terms of ensuring we have sufficient flow in our rivers to keep them alive.

Now, as I said, irrigation agriculture has the majority of allocation and now they are doing these conservation efficiency and productivity measures to use less water for acre of crop cultivated. And I have argued in several processes, government is helping to fund for those improvements in efficiency. We should be taking some of the water that’s saved and assign it to the river to make sure the river stays alive. Well, I’ve been a voice in the wilderness, so to speak in these planning discussions. And because the way our legal structure is set up for water licences, irrigation districts can use whatever they save to intensify their use. They are intensifying use with their existing allocations. They’re growing more crop land, more crop with less water, but that doesn’t seem to be enough. Now they are proposing to build, there’s nine irrigation dams that are undergoing various levels of review in the province now in the South Saskatchewan River basement.

And four, those are onstream dams like on the Red Deer, the Bow and the Belly River. There’s two proposed on the Bow River and five of them are off stream reservoirs so that the districts can store more of the water so they can use their full allocation. The implications of all of those projects proceeding is in terms of the health of our rivers is really mind boggling to me. And yet we are not taking what we would call a cumulative effects approach to understanding what all of that intensification of use and additional withdrawals will mean for not only river health, but for our economy in the future. Because we’ve got a growing population, we have different industries coming into our region, and if we’re stuck in this ratio of 75% allocation goes to irrigation districts and only 15% to municipalities, maybe 5% to industry, it’s far worse in the old man basin where 90% goes to irrigation districts and only 2% goes to municipal, uses 5% for industry. We get stuck. Our choices for our future are very limited based on how our current government is managing.

Bob:

The upshot of all this is that if there is going to be irrigation efficiency improvements, then basically the extra water that is saved is going to be going to irrigation. You’ve been trying to get them to put some some water in the river or put some more back in the river. You talked about withdrawals. What’s the prospect for the change in return flows because there are return flows coming back into the river from these irrigation districts. How will this irrigation expansion potentially affect return flows?

Cheryl:

Well, of course it’ll reduce them. And as far as I can understand, there’s no, most licences don’t have a designated return flow. And besides we don’t measure return flow very well at all. There’s no monitoring if a licence does have a return flow condition, whether it’s actually being met. I think the prevailing view is that the more water you can use from your licence to grow crop, the better it is for Albertans generally without any thought of the river, what it’s doing to the river. But yes, it’s going to harm our rivers. It’s a good question, Bob, if we are intensifying use of the current allocations, and I guess one point I want to make is that irrigation uses 80% of what it’s allocated, of what it withdraws because that’s taken up by crop or evaporated from soil and reservoirs or canals. They only return on average 20% of what they take out of the river municipalities return 80% of what we take out because it passes through us and through our wastewater system and goes back to the river. There’s much higher level of use with irrigation agriculture and which we need to be mindful of that when we’re trying to figure out what uses we can accommodate in the future.

Bob:

And David, this gets back to the whole thing that I think Cheryl raised, if I recall correctly, and my memory sometimes doesn’t last very long in terms of if you keep taking the water out of the river, if dilution is the solution to pollution, how are you going to be able to manage the water quality, particularly because you are getting contaminants coming in from irrigation districts, but you’re also getting contaminants coming from storm water, from municipalities in particular, from wastewater treatment plants. How are we going to manage that kind of thing in the future?

David:

And just before I answer that too, I just want to add one layer on what Cheryl was saying that the other aspect here is that irrigation districts are often senior licence holders, right? If we’re talking about the allocation is under ideal flows or whatever, but without going into the first in time, first in right discussion because done that, and I think there’s plenty of other discussions that have been had on that. The irrigation districts are quite senior in that as well. And I would also draw attention to the letter, the direction letter for the associate minister of water, which was put out in the fall here. And it is very specifically focused on dam structures, increased irrigation, increased economic return with an area mentioned of environment or flow needs being considered in there. I just wanted to add that on. Cheryl, you eloquently put everything there.

I just wanted to add that extra piece of context there. And then Bob, with regards to your question, this is a challenge, right? And Judy, you were mentioning that the larger municipalities having the capacity, whether it’s funds, whether it’s staff to do appropriate monitoring, similarly, the larger municipalities are the ones that are going to have the capacity for wastewater treatment essentially, right? And high quality wastewater treatment. In the City of Calgary here, we have very high, we have tertiary, it’s very well-treated water. That’s not to say that there’s not contaminants being released with it, nutrients and pharmaceuticals and everything else. And Bob, to your point, if that water is getting withdrawn, we have less to dilute it, right? Those considerations are not aligned. As Judy was saying, there’s municipal responsibilities for certain pieces but not others. And the effluent, the output from those wastewater plants is measured at the end of pipe, right?

It’s measured right before it goes into the Bow River without, broadly I’ll say the regulatory requirement does not consider necessarily the flow. It’s based on average flows, it’s based on other calculations, it’s end of pipe. You’re right, if we’re, no matter how well we’re treating the water, if we’re just adding more wastewater that we need to release and we are drawing down flows, there’s definitely going to be negative water quality impacts associated with that regardless of how you treat it. And that’s even just considering a city or municipality that has the ability and the capacity finances to do a really high quality treatment, not just the bare minimum. If you start looking at other municipalities and regional districts that might have, or counties that have less capacity to do it again, that effect could be amplified. Unfortunately, there’s a disconnect between those different regulations and requirements. Again, I think echoing what Judy and Cheryl have already said.

Key Takeaways and Comments on Changes to the Water Act

Jenny (00:56:25):

Wonderful. Wow. You guys have shared so much with us today. I think what I’m going to do is offer some of my takeaways from this conversation and perhaps we can in each of our opportunities to do the same, think about the changes, the amendments to the water act that are being proposed right now and offer your thoughts about what we should be doing instead. I’m just going to mention, like I said, I heard multi-stakeholder engagement having not more essential focus on indigenous science. That is quite simply ecological science. Let’s be clear. Both Judy said that, you said that David Cheryl said that having more of that focus of ecological stability being the central focus of each of these conversations, I love this thought about the municipalities being this major gap. This is clearly the problem. I’m going to use gravel as for instance, they are approved in principle by the municipalities and then approved by the government without any of that review of the cumulative impacts and those things that would otherwise prevent those projects from proceeding. I think closing that gap is massive. I am curious, David, can you just remind us who the associate minister of water is? Just quickly please.

David:

Yeah, that’s Grant Hunter, I believe, isn’t it? Yes.

Jenny:

Okay. Okay. Yeah. That’s fascinating that there is, as you were saying, more authority being granted, discretion being granted to the directors across the province. And as we heard from our conversation with Davin Macintosh, there is already a very big difference between various directors as to how they allocate licences and how they approve them and transfers, et cetera. Yeah, those are some of the main things I wanted to hit home. And then also just that we could have quality testing along with flow flow testing so that we have this marriage and this understanding of what’s happening together rather than the separation of each of these aspects, I’ll say. Those are my takeaways. David, you’re at the top of my screen, I’m going to flip you back in and let you offer some closing thoughts. First please. And then we’ll move down the row. Thank you.

David:

Yeah, absolutely. And Judy, I really liked what you were saying about seeing ourselves as part of the ecosystem. I think that’s critical. How we need to continue this conversation is with that as a central tenant, not us in the middle, but us as part of that ecosystem and impacting it. I’ll say one thing on the monitoring, Jenny, just because you just mentioned it, we have the ability to do, Cheryl, you stood on my soapbox for me about point sampling, which is fantastic because you capture one point in time if you take a grab sample, if you dip your water bottle in and take your sample at that point, you’re not seeing what happened 10 minutes ago a week ago. We can use, there’s continuous monitoring, but there’s also biological monitoring that we can use to see, right? If the biology is responding in a certain way that’s telling us, or if there’s certain body loading, if there’s contaminants accumulating in, piling up in the bugs in the fish that can tell us how things are being exposed or what they’ve been exposed to over a longer period of time, they integrate over time.

That’s, again, this comes back to that cumulative effects that was also mentioned. And I guess my other soapbox is how we grow, and this was already mentioned, but how we grow in Southern Alberta is going to be critical to our water availability, security, quantity, quality, all of that we’ve seen historically because we’re not constrained by space. We’ve seen sprawl, we’ve seen encroachment into those riparian areas. Even just recently, the city of Calgary approved development right along close to the River bank, into a ecologically sensitive area that had heron rooks and all sorts of stuff. How we grow is a huge part of that. That’s again, one of the reasons I read in the municipal election was because that is often not, look how we grow impacts both the water, the return, the impact on the environment, on the river, but also our own consumption, right?

As we add more and more distribution network, we’ve got more loss just because we’ve got pipes, right, that we’re piping it around on Bill seven, the Water Act amendments, I think it is quite concerning some of the wording changes, and again, Judy’s much more of an expert on the legal side than I am, but the folks that I’ve been talking to, there’s wording changes in there that a give a lot of discretion to directors without, it removes the discussion. Interbasin transfers for an example, used to have to go to the legislature to be discussed. Now it’s being removed into the ministerial office to be discussed, and there’s no requirement at that point in this water act for certain assessments or scientific rigour to be applied to those decisions. That’s a little bit concerning. I am interested, I was a little bit hopeful, I guess that there would’ve been more on the water reuse side so that we could more effectively use the water that we’ve already used, right? Whether that’s from water funds, whether that’s wastewater treated, wastewater use, that kind of thing. But unfortunately, there wasn’t. There’s a whole other kettle of fish that needs to be addressed with the Water Act amendments that I would encourage anybody involved in water to be looking at this and seeing, because this is going to chart the path for water management in the province for the foreseeable future. We have an opportunity right now.

Jenny:

Yeah, agreed. It’s definitely something to look at. Before I flip it to you, Judy, I did want to add too, there are a lot of places in the world that are removing dams, to hear that Alberta is looking to add dams to this, this is one of the things that’s really concerning to me. We’re still talking about managing rather than thinking about restoring and actually increasing water capacity. With that, Judy, may I ask you the same question? Some thoughts about the Water Act amendments and your concerns, and I know you’ve done a tremendous job in providing a bunch of people some recommendations as alternative language. In two minutes, just kidding, give us your lowdown of what the key things are that people need to look for and advocate against or for Oh, I’m sorry, I muted you. The dogs were barking. Sorry about that. Go ahead.

Judy:

My puppies might cooperate, so maybe we can keep my mic on. Anyway, the changes to the water act are very, very stressful to me, and I have nightmares because all of this water that we’re saying is now a new source or an alternate source of water is basically taking it out of the system. It’s not new water, it’s the same water. And if we don’t appreciate that the rain and the storm drainage and the return flows are already part of a water management system, they’re not new or alternate sources, then we’re in big trouble. The aquatic environment already is struggling even though the return flows are going back and we’re not taking the storm drainage and using it for something else. And we are minimizing how we use our rainwater. What’s going to happen to the aquatic environment if all of a sudden these water supplies our commercialized, let’s say that they’re commercialized to allow for further growth in communities and further economic growth, what’s going to happen to our aquatic ecosystem?

And that’s the big question that we’ve asked government from so many different people and we don’t get any answers. The last thing I want to say on amendments to the Water Act, we haven’t heard about it publicly, but I’ve been hearing about privately and professionally, is this new trend to allow farmers to destroy seasonal wetlands without having to adhere to the Alberta wetland policy. This is just coming out that there’s been an interim directive telling directors that they don’t have to use the Alberta wetland policy so far, it’s just among some of the experts legal community that we’re struggling with this because if we allow this and we don’t ensure that the Alberta wetland policy is adhere to by everyone, we’re creating a double system. And we’re not respecting the fact that these wetlands are absolutely critical to sustaining the ecosystem and the aquatic environment that we’re used to having at our disposal for all of our different needs, whether it’s industry or just to live, whether it’s crop production, whatever it is, the wetlands are critical.

We understand that in this province, and so much has been written about it, but yet with the stroke of a pen, perhaps that’s all going to change. We have to be very mindful, and I appreciate the opportunity to say this today, and I appreciate all of you for being as concerned as I am about the CU of effects of the regulatory change and how our lives are going to change as a result. Not just the water and not just the animals, and not just the riparian habitat, but also our lives, the very what makes us able to survive in this southern Alberta where water is scarce. That’s all going to change. I’m glad that we’re having these discussions, but I’d like us to just for one second, stop and think about the aquatic environment where you are right now, wherever you live and how you’re connected to it. And if each of us did that every day, paid homage to that, I think we would treat it a little bit better and help to protect it a little bit better as well.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Judy, thank you so much, Cheryl. Your turn please. Some closing thoughts.

Cheryl:

Well, when I came to Alberta in 1971, we viewed water as abundance. And in one generation we’ve gone from abundant water perceptions to shortage. And that’s alarming to me how quickly we have come to that. And I think like Judy and David, the health of our water in our wetlands or our rivers or groundwater reflects how well we’re living on the land. And I think right now we’re getting a failing grade based on the bits of information we, we don’t have the full picture because we don’t do enough monitoring and collection of data. And what keeps me awake at night is thinking about, as I mentioned before, our shrinking rivers and how early in my career I participated in water management planning with a great deal of optimism and belief that the system, we could all work together and make improvements. And over the last several years, I’ve become quite disheartened that we appear to have seeded water management planning to irrigation industry, which holds the lion’s share of the water allocation. And instead of proceeding with intents that we had put forward in the South Saskatchewan River basin and water management plan, including trying to achieve water conservation objective, we’ve given up on it and the changes to the water act affirm that for me, that were making it easier to intensify use. There’s nothing in there for the rivers. I just think as a population, southern Albertans need to be very mindful of the current direction our water allocation system is taking and who’s in charge. And I think I’ll just leave it at that.

Jenny:

Yeah, this came up in our conversation yesterday with David and Jason, is that the less engagement with the public is happening and more decision making is happening in the hands of the senior licence holders, as David alluded to earlier. And more and more where we should be now is the time to be spending time adding back into the system. And we’re still drawing, if not more, well, not if more than we should be. Okay. Letting Bob wrap up the final world for us, please.

Bob:

Okay. Well, first of all, thank you very much for giving us your valuable time. We really appreciate that. And I think Jenny has done a great job summarizing the issues that came out of that. And then I think you three have then expanded it considerably beyond what we actually talked about today. Certainly in terms of the community working together and not excluding certain points of view, the role of the government. And those are the kinds of things we’re actually going to be dealing with in our next podcast. Next week, I think, is it Friday.

Bob:

We’re going to be talking about the future of water? You’ve given us even more stuff to try to include in that hour and make some sense of it. The thing that has struck me the most from our conversation is the data gaps, or let’s just call them gaps because they aren’t just scientific gaps, they are legal gaps. They are decision-making gaps. And we hope that through these podcasts and the information we’ve gained, we may be able to provide some good advice thanks to your help in terms of how to close at least some of those gaps, whether they’re scientific, political, legal, whatever. Thank you very much and thank you to Jenny and I don’t do this enough because she’s the prime organizer behind this. I think up lots of questions, but we wouldn’t ever get to those questions unless Jenny had organized us. She’s a good mother to us.

Jenny:

Thank you. Thank you, Bob, so appreciative of you. These conversations wouldn’t have happened without him. Thank you so much, everyone, for being here, and yeah, it’s been a real honour. Thank you so much, ladies and David, thank you so much for coming back, especially last minute to join us here. Big pleasure. Okay. Yes, our next conversation is happening on Friday next week with Kennedy and Bruce, who’s also been a guest on this show. And we’re also looking to hopefully sit down with Bob Sanford at some point too. Really excited to have that conversation as well. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a great rest of your day. Take care for now.

Cheryl:

Thank you. Thank you. Bye bye.

This is episode 10 of a miniseries on Water in Southern Alberta with co-host Bob Morrison, discussing topics such as water security, irrigation history, resource extraction impacts, and climate change. Guests include Dr. David Swann, a retired medical doctor and former politician and founder of the Fish Creek Watershed Association (FCWA), who emphasizes the importance of water quality and quantity, and Jason Unger, executive director of the Environmental Law Centre, who discusses legal frameworks and environmental accountability. The conversation highlights challenges in water management, including the need for better monitoring, compliance, and public engagement to ensure sustainable water use and protect aquatic ecosystems. This conversation underscores the urgency of addressing water issues in the face of climate change and the importance of community involvement in water policy decisions.

Reintroductions to Dr. David Swann and Jason Unger

Jenny (00:00:05):

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast with me Jenny Yeremiy. I host The Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts and openness to different perspectives. And this is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of The Gravity Well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Hello Bob, how are you doing today?

Bob:

Pretty good. How are you, Jenny?

Jenny:

Good, thank you. We were always trying to get through so much. I forgot to just slow down and say hello. Yes, thank you so much. This has been a great start to the second half of the water, sorry, water in Southern Alberta’s miniseries. How do you think it’s going? Bob, are you pleased so far?

Bob:

We’ve learned even more than we didn’t know, and we’re starting to get down to the tough questions about water security. What about the aquatic environment and what does the future hold? I’m looking forward to this

Jenny:

Very much so. Yes, and we have some incredible people who’ve already participated and I’m super excited about hearing from the people we have today and ongoing super good turnout and great dialogue so far. We went through the history of irrigation, the impacts of resource extraction on water, the water act and licence transfer system, the water cycle and modelling watershed and lake stewardship, dry land, irrigated and ranch, land farming and the impacts of climate change on water with respect to insurance. That was the first half of the program. We then met with Brad Stelfox to speak about land use limits and Dr. Dave Sauchyn to discuss how we cope with Climate Change in Southern Alberta. I encourage everyone to listen to each of those and this one of course. I’m going to start with Dr. David Swann to welcome Dr. David Swann back to the studio. Hi David, how are you today?

David:

All good, thanks Jenny. Great to be with you.

Jenny:

Great. Firstly, Dr. David Swann is a friend and collaborator of, and Bob and me. David is a retired medical doctor who focused on preventative medicine and he became a politician. He was the leader of the Alberta Liberal Party and the leader of the opposition in Alberta legislature from December, 2008 until September, 2011. He returned as an interim leader of the Alberta Liberal Party on February 1st, 2015. That’s very specific and resigned, sorry, led the party through the 2015 provincial election and actually David is the last liberal elected official in the Alberta legislature, that’s something to think of. It’s very interesting. And he was also a guest on the show with Brad Stel Fox and Dr. Norm Campbell to discuss the harms of coal mining as well. Well, thank you so much for being here, David. Any other things you’d like to add in terms of your introduction today, please?

David:

Well, as a public health officer, I was certainly very concerned about water quality, water quantity in the context of this podcast, and part of our responsibility, of course was to monitor water quality as far as potable water was concerned and enforce regulations when we found any risks to the water supply that people were drinking. As a politician, I was involved in a number of issues as the environment critic in association with both air quality and water quality concerns around oil and gas activity and inter basin transfers for example, which I hope to say a few words about. And in the last five years, I kicked off a watershed stewardship group called the Fish Creek Watershed Association, in which we have really endeavored to get a clear handle on one of the tributaries of the Bow River outside of Calgary up to the Kananaskis Park, how significant they are in the terms of the question of water security. And I guess I want to ask at the outset, security for whom, because this government seems to prefer and prioritize water security for irrigation and commercial interests over the instream flow needs, and that’s a serious concern for those of us who recognize that the environment has only the advocates as citizens that decide to step up. The fish don’t speak, the biodiversity doesn’t speak, we have to recognize limits if we’re going to protect the instream flow needs and healthy biodiversity related to that.

Jenny:

Wonderfully said. David, thank you so much for being here. I’m really excited to get into this conversation with you, but before we do that, let’s make sure we re-welcome Jason Unger back to the stage. Thank you so much for joining us, Jason. Jason was also on the podcast in this miniseries. I poked him in September when I saw him in person and said, we’re going to be flagging you again, and here he is. I’m really pleased that you’re back with us Jason. Just a reminder that Jason is the executive director and general counsel of the Environmental Law Centre and Alberta based charity focused on legal education and environmental natural resource law reform. The ELC’s mission is to educate and champion for strong environmental law so that all Albertans can enjoy clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment. Jason worked in the private practice before this in both Edmonton and Calgary and he’s worked for Alberta’s Court of Queen Bench as well. Jason also sits on the Alberta Water Council, which is a multi-stakeholder organization that provides advice and input on provincial water policy. Very pleased to know that we didn’t quite catch that the first time we interviewed you, this is wonderful to have you. Jason, thank you so much for participating again.

Jason:

Thanks very much for having me. It’s a great and very timely, I guess water’s always timely but extra timely as there’s changes to the water laws and policy as ongoing issues that we see on the landscape and the water.

Jenny:

Yes, in so many ways it’s becoming more urgent. Both the discussion and the changes and the proposed ways of managing those changes are very urgent. They require urgent attention. Thank you so much for acknowledging that. And before we get into it, Jason, do you mind just giving a little bit of background like we offer David, just how you came into this work and a little bit about what you’re doing in these roles? Thank you.

Jason:

Sure. Yeah, I’ve been a lawyer for quite a while back to the early two thousands and since the beginning I’ve always had a very keen interest in environmental law and how we manage our natural resources and for the protection of the environment. It’s why I went into law school in the first place, and I’ve really focused on the long-term, looking at things around water loss specifically. It’s always been an interest of mine, everything from federal fisheries, law impact assessment, species at risk, all of which touch Alberta’s waterways as well as how we manage the natural resources on the landscape itself because they have direct implications for aquatic health, whether we’re talking about diversions in water quantity or the water quality. What we’re putting in the water from our wastewater streams, both industrial and municipal and otherwise, both from point sources and non-point sources.

I’ve had a long history. I have been on part of the Water Council, which is a consensus-based decision-making organization that was struck as a result of the Water for Life strategy, which dates back a couple of decades now, which has the typical three pillars around social, economic and environmental outcomes. Although they’re phrased in a bit different manner, but I’ve been a long [time] advocate for accountability for environmental outcomes and that goes for water law as well as water policy, whether it’s around our wetlands or our rivers or our lakes. There’s a whole host of law and policy that applied to them and I’ve been active in that area for a long time, advocating for water laws that ensure accountability on the environmental outputs or outcomes that we all want to see.

Jenny:

Incredible. Thank you so much, Jason. This is great. This has just been a wonderful experience, I have to say, to meet all the people working in this space. Okay, we’re going to let Bob lead off the questions today. I’ll just offer some comments as we go. Thank you so much. Bob, take it away.

What are we doing well and what are the areas of concern in terms of water security in Southern Alberta?

Bob (00:10:15):

In terms of water security, making sure that we actually do have and how much water and good quality water for everyone, not just in particular special interests. Where are we doing well in Southern Alberta and where are we facing some serious problems that we need to deal with? Jason, why don’t I start with you?

Jason:

It’s a great question and a huge question. I think it’s where are we doing well? I think the challenge is as we’ve evolved as a society, as we’ve evolved in terms of our infrastructure around irrigation and use, I think there’s a lot of different things that come into play there. The history is a big piece of it because as you may have talked about previously, we have a legal system where the rights of historic users of water have those embedded rights to divert that water. And as the climate changes, as water supplies change, the question becomes, well, how do we manage this system when there’s ongoing growth in the population of Alberta? There’s ongoing expectations of growth for the economy and how do we ensure that we’re not undermining the instream flow needs of our rivers and all the ecosystems that rely on them, whether that’s floodplains or fisheries or other things.

How do we make sure that is considered in a system that’s really modelled around licensing diversions? The issue of security is really high. Obviously the licence holders want the security of the water supply to know that they can use that water, but at the same time when there’s a shortage of supply, the legal system is not really well set up for dealing with that. We have a long history of water law that drives us towards a situation of when there is shortages of supply, we have to look to government to really focus on protecting the environmental flows and what measures of accountability we have to reflect that security, the instream security I guess I’ll call it, or the security for those flows in water quality I think is one of the key issues and one of the key challenges we have now and into the future for sure. You asked what do I think we’re doing? Well, I think we’re getting there in terms of starting to look at how much we’re diverting, how much is returning, how much we’re actually using. I think we have a long way to go still there, but I think we have a huge way to go in terms of understanding what it means for the aquatic environment, what type of security, what does security look like for the fish and other organisms living in their aquatic ecosystems and on the landscape itself that’s fed by the water of course.

Bob:

Water supply has caught people’s attention, obviously, which is a good thing. But you mentioned the legal system, it’s based upon that principle of prior allocation or first in time, first in the older licence gets first grabs at the water, but when it comes down to a real shortage in Southern Alberta, at least generally they don’t use the first in time, first in they use some sort of a cooperative agreement. Is that really the way we’re headed? Is first in time first in just simply not workable or untenable?

Jason:

Well, I think that’s a good question. I think the challenge with first in time, first in in the time of shortage as we’ve seen illustrated is then you have to turn to non-legal or less certain avenues, right? Voluntary agreements between licence holders to share the water. I think the outstanding question in my mind is how long will fit for last or the first in time, first right allocation system last in that structure? I think you could still have a system whereby priorities to water can still be granted based on a historic allocation, but then I think we need to start looking at systems where we formalise a system where, okay, there’s not enough water for everyone. How are we going to share it? Obviously picking winners and losers in water is not an acceptable solution because obviously that can’t be an outcome. I think as time goes by and the pressures go by on our water system, the first and time first and right system is kind of being maintained, but at the same time when we’re always having to resort to voluntary agreements on the side, then really fit for isn’t really being maintained because no one’s going to be calling priority, or if they do, then the system’s going to be really under restrained.

Under our legal system, there’s the ability for a licence holder to call priority, which means they get all their licence allocation before the next lower priority licence holder. In that type of system, if that priority call happens, then I think the real strain and kind of emergency happens and there’s legislation, our legislation does allow for the minister to essentially declare an emergency and say the priority system is not being applied, and that was kind of contemplated in 2024, but didn’t have to occur. I think that the whole FITFIR system and the allocation system and security has to be a part of a broader dialogue that we have as a society and who has the voice for instream flows or fish and that type of thing is one of the key concerns that the Environmental Law Center has as we talk about healthy aquatic ecosystems as a core foundation of a healthy and vibrant society with a high quality of life.

Jenny:

Right? Yeah. Can’t really have a life without high quality water. Just so you guys know, David is on my phone, we can tap him with the question in the background here.

Bob:

I’m ready for my follow-up question with him because we’ve talked about water supply that David’s experience has been mainly in the water quality area in terms of being a medical doctor and he mentioned the whole issue with potable water. David, how secure are we in terms of water quality from what you’ve experienced, both in terms of your medical background and what you’ve seen on Fish Creek?

David:

Well, I think it’s an important question that relates very much to how much we’re willing to pay Bob. You’re increasingly degrading upstream activities in our water sources and having to pay increasingly expensive water treatment both before drinking and after wastewater goes through the treatment plants. We are tremendously wasteful of water still in this province, and we are allowing activities upstream that very much increase the cost of creating potable water.

Jenny:

Right. Go ahead. I’ll just add, would you say ranching in the headwaters for one or oil and gas activities or roads or logging, all of those things are impacting water quality, would you say?

David:

All of the above. Indeed. Anything that creates more sediment, more organic material, more chemicals including pesticides and fertilizers, all of these add to the challenges I guess, of making sure we have safe drinking water.

Jenny:

Did you have a follow up?

How are we monitoring water quantity and quality?

Bob (00:18:39):

Yeah, and this gets into the whole question of monitoring what’s going on out there, and they do measure a number of water quality issues, but there are a lot that simply are not measured very often if they’re measured at all. Things like pharmaceuticals, the, you just mentioned that and I forgot what the other one was.

Jenny:

Fertilizers.

Bob:

Fertilizers, exactly. That sort of thing. Do we really have the monitoring system, David, to be able to keep track of what’s happening in the rivers and dealing with the quality in the streams themselves?

David:

Well, I take your point, Bob, especially with respect to pharmaceuticals and point source pesticides and herbicides, which we may not pick up entirely because they’re so expensive, these tests that it, it’s intermittent testing that goes on. But in general, I think we do have very high quality water because of the very expensive treatment programs that we have for our water supplies. I would just add that the water flows have declined 40% in the South Saskatchewan River Basin according to John Pomeroy over the last a hundred years. And when water quantity declines and it has 40%, as I said, that means it’s much more concentrating the pollutants and it takes as I’ve said a much more expensive treatment protocol.

Jenny:

Of course.

Bob:

How can you dilute the pollution if you keep taking the water out?

Jenny:

That’s right. Yeah.

Bob:

Jenny, you’re up next, I think.

Jenny:

Oh, sure. Okay. Can we talk a bit about water monitoring and reporting, Jason, because you and I just were discussing, we attended, we attended a meeting together in September in Fort Chippewan First Nation about water security and all I heard that week was about monitoring and it just made my stomach sink because monitoring isn’t mitigating, and as you were alluding to in your opening here, you’re seeing a lot of gaps in the ways that we’re measuring and monitoring, and then also do we understand the impacts of how we’re using water on the aquatic habitat and system function. I know that’s a big question, but can you speak to a little bit around just this, what’s happening in terms of reporting and monitoring and any gaps that you see that are meaningful for us to think about going forward to close?

Jason:

That is right. Yeah. Well, it is a big issue and I think, monitoring is one part of a broader system that you have to have in place compliance with monitoring and reporting is a challenge I think for the government in terms of licences, in terms of the stream flows themselves and water quality being a key indicator that you’re going to have a variety of things that you have to monitor there, including emerging issues like PFASs and other chemicals that are continuing to show direct impacts on the aquatic environment, specifically salmon species for instance. And I think the challenge, the government actually in the Bill seven, they are amending some areas where they’re trying to expand the monitoring and reporting requirements, and I think the challenge there is to really have the capacity to ensure the water use reporting and that type thing is accurate and actually enforced and every reason’s complying with it in terms of the industrial licensed users.

But I think that’s different from, for instance, the water quality challenges around water monitoring, because oftentimes we’re very reactive in terms of our approaches. Our view at the Environmental Law Centre is dilution isn’t the solution to pollution. Pollution prevention is the first order of business. I think one of the key aspects is we need systems and accountability around how we can monitor, but also how we’re going to respond to those shifts in water quality and even reporting on enforcement issues. Certainly up north, a major issue happened when a leak from tailings wasn’t reported by the regulator to the community downstream, and that raised a lot of alarm bells for people. I guess the regulator thought it was of minimal risk or whatever, but there was some decision making there and accountability around how we monitor water quality and how we report to the public, and then on the backend, how we manage the landscape for a variety of very challenging, admittedly challenging areas of water quality and diminishing water quality, whether it’s nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen or other more targeted pollutants coming from the landscape or points or submissions or wastewater streams.

How prepared is Alberta for an oil sand’s tailing breach?

Jenny (00:24:00):

Right. You’ve made me think about with, let’s be specific with the oil sand, if there was a major breach, do we have a plan in place for those types of things? Is that something that you

Jason:

Yeah, well, I think there’s probably a variety of emergency plans that are sitting there, whether they’re fully operational, if an incident actually happened, for sure there’s been very large dam breaches in the recent past both in BC and Alberta in the Obed mine for instance. I think an ongoing challenge for sure is there’s a high risk and we try to mitigate those risks in terms of having regulatory standards in place, but we’ve seen witness to those bigger issues failing and resulting in these big incidents. The long-term planning and monitoring and compliance issues are key there in terms of ensuring the safety of downstream communities for sure.

Jenny:

Yeah, the compliance, you’re right, I heard a lot about monitoring and not a lot about compliance that weekend, that or a couple of days that we spent together. Same question for you, David. Can you outline as well what you think are some of the ways that we’re missing in terms of reporting and monitoring with respect to conservation objectives?

David:

Well, yes I can. In fact, the whole schedule of notifying organizations across the province when there’s a low flow advisory, for example, was really inadequate when we first started up the Fish Creek Watershed Association, and only through we start to get actual reporting when we should be reducing our demands on that Fish Creek watershed system. I know that the other environments and protected areas is underfunded. It’s been underfunded for the last 15 years since I was in politics, and they struggle to not only capture the data but have someone have the time to go through it. They operate in general on a complaint basis. If someone is doing something that appears to be damaging to the watershed, they’ll investigate it. But in terms of reporting the consumption of licences and the return flows that, for example, the irrigators are supposed to be returning to the watershed, it’s very hit miss and everything I hear is that, well, when I’ve asked, they suggested I go online and look at the numbers myself because they simply don’t nothing to properly monitor both consumption and return flows to the rivers.

Jenny:

Right. I’m just going to get you to expand on that concept for folks that aren’t as familiar. When I hear that, David, I hear that you have this licence allocation, but we don’t necessarily know when that water was used and if any of it was actually passed through and the cases where it is a licence that they own the volume outright where it isn’t expected to flow through. I don’t know if I’m saying that. Well, Jason, but do you understand my question, David? Can you outline that a little bit more for people?

David:

I think what you’re asking is whether or not we know how much people are taking, if they have a licence for so much volume, whether they’re actually taking that amount or whether they may be taking more. In many cases they’re taking less in southern Alberta, but that’s partly because we’ve closed the Saskatchewan River Basin since 2007, and we realized at some point there that we had over allocated the river basins south of Red Deer River. We do need to have more handle on the reporting that is supposed to be in the large users monthly, but how much do we audit the reporting and how accurate is it? And in terms of the return flows to the rivers, I don’t think we’re monitoring that at all. And there’s some suggestion now that the irrigators are using what’s supposed to go back into the river for expanding the irrigation in Southern Alberta. Those kinds of monitoring and oil and gas use of water, for example, isn’t being monitored. We really seriously need to look at this critical resource called water and treat it as the vital resource that it is for all of us or we’re going to be in serious trouble, I believe, in the next decade, if not now.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. Okay, your turn, Bob.

Bob:

Okay, David, you’ve mentioned over allocation, which is a big problem in the South Saskatchewan system in the 1990s, early 1990s, the province took the approach of we’ve got a problem in terms of allocation, let’s cap the irrigation districts in terms of how much acreage they can actually irrigate and give them the opportunity to improve how many acres they can irrigate by taking efficiency measures. The government changed its mind later on when the South Saskatchewan Water Management plan was put together and decided they were going to cap everybody that is no new licences and go to a trading system where you buy and sell water rights as opposed to the water, and then you have to pay for that. Those seem like two very different approaches, and it gets into the thing that David raised about who are we managing the water for. Jason, do you have any experience or understanding of those two different ways of managing the overall allocation problem?

Jason:

Well, sure. Yeah. The water transfer system, the water allocation transfer system came into place primarily. I mean it did exist to a degree previously, but in the Water Act itself in 1999. The ability to transfer a portion of your allocation to another water user, water user, it has evolved since then. And certainly I think the intention is to use the allocation that was granted and intensify the use of that water. That could happen through, for instance, expansion of irrigation or otherwise, or through a system where you’re selling water, maybe you’re not using your whole allocation and you’re able to sell part of your water to another party. And I think that’s one of the areas where there has been a lot of transparency around those transactions and a lot of questions arise because no one pays for water in Alberta other than the cost of moving that water or potentially treating the water as well.

Obviously that’s a significant cost for potable water, but there’s no raw water cost in Alberta, the fact that people are now able to sell those things is an interesting notion that there was of reset button in an auction around water or anything like that. I think there’s a variety of things at play there in terms of we have limited allocation in the South, we closed applications, we want to grow still, and we’re going to intensify uses within those allocations, and the question becomes, well, when does that have an impact on the environment itself and the long-term sustainability of that system? It brings in things about water waste, water conservation, water efficiency, all these things as well, and how we can get water back into the river because we know that overall in low flow years that we’re not meeting the instream flow needs as they would be scientifically derived. We’re just doing the best we can in a system that’s highly allocated and we’re trying to intensify more water use within that allocation. I think that’s one of the key challenges is how do we move more water back into the stream at the essential times, recognizing that the pressures on the system are really significant and they’re only going to grow as we move forward.

A Price on Water

Bob (00:32:58):

You mentioned not charging for water for the actual taking the water out of a stream, and it seems like if you’re creating a water market, which was their intent, I gather at the province, you have to have some price on the actual water that you’re using. We have a price on oil, we have a price on gas, we have a price on forestry may not be perfect, but at least somebody is saying, okay, it’s going to cost you something that reflects presumably some market demand and also might reflect the cost of the environment. Is pricing actually viable for water?

Jason:

Right. Well, I would distinguish between the market price between two licence holders that are having their private agreement because we don’t know what those prices are. I think that’s one of the issues that the government actually has seen and is trying to address is that, well, there needs to be transparency so people know how much water is going to cost, aside from the fact that the water in Alberta has historically been owned by the province of Alberta. The notion of charging for that water has been raised in the past. The government has not gone down that route. In BC for instance, they have a price, a volumetric price for industrial water uses and certainly Alberta could do that if they wanted to and that would drive, and I think everyone would see that that would drive conservation because the more you’re using, the more cost it is and look for alternatives as well in terms of alternatives to potable water or high quality water.

I think there’s a variety of things that pricing can do. It’s also very contentious because people sometimes think that, for instance, using it in their home will cost more or that type of thing or using it from a water well or that type of thing. I think the overall trend though is you could price the more industrial uses and recover water and that could grow your capacity to deal with some of the monitoring and compliance issues that we’ve been talking about as well. I think one of the key things is that to truly manage and plan around water, you need a lot of resources in terms of capacity within government to actually deal with those things, and I think that’s one of the outstanding challenges, how you pay for that. It has to be a priority for the government moving forward in my view.

Interbasin Transfers Create Many Risks

Bob (00:35:40):

Right. Jason, you mentioned the whole thing about getting more water and David, I think you mentioned inter basin transfers. That certainly is in some people’s view, the way that you solve water supply problems. I gather that the bill seven that’s going before the legislature at some point is going to be making it easier to deal with inter basin transfers. Am I correct on that and what impact are you expecting?

David:

Well, Jason may also have some important comments to make about basin transfers, but when I was in the legislature, it was a very serious matter to consider transferring water from one basin to another in terms of the biology, some of the species that are there and some of the contaminants that might be transferred. Invasive species in particular, a concern in fish species, bill seven, as some of many of the changes are said to improve water security, but they benefit a few large industries over some of the issues that Jason has raised, which is instream flow needs and maintaining some kind of flow that will protect species within the river. I would have to say that without a very good science and very rigorous debate, we should not be transferring water from one basin to another, and Bill seven is going to make it easier for both the legislature to pass such a motion if they were even going to address the issue because they wouldn’t have to address the issue if this new bill goes through.

It would be ministerial discretion. The other side of this though is my concern about the massive expansion of irrigation in Southern Alberta when we are already not meeting basic water conservation objectives in the South Saskatchewan basin. It’s appalling that the irrigation industry has managed to, without any major consultation with Albertans extracted significant funds up to almost $800 million from federal and provincial bodies to expand by up to 500,000 acres in Southern Alberta. The irrigation potential and no public debate, no public input, and in some cases no environmental impact assessments. They’re planning 10 new reservoirs or expansions of reservoirs and as I say, based on their calculations of saving water through canalization as opposed to open dikes, they feel they can meet the objectives of massive expansion of irrigation just through those savings and there’s very little evidence that we’ve seen that that’s going to be successful. Allowing that expansion and then transferring from the north to the south, not only is it extremely costly, but many more risks are involved than I think we’ve been led to believe.

Jenny:

Yes. Can I just get you to expand again on the, that you said we’re not meeting instream flow objectives. Can you just remind people what that means to me? It means we’re not making sure that the species at risk and aquatic habitat are sufficiently sustainable. Is that accurate?

David:

That’s correct. Water conservation objectives relate to 45% of natural flow, and that’s one indicator which we have not been meeting again in the South Saskatchewan River and Instream objectives are even more minimal flows in the creek creeks and rivers that we in many cases are not measuring and not enforcing. Once again, we need to properly fund upward environment to enable it to do adequate monitoring and put in place some accountability when these flows are not being supporting life in the rivers and the creeks.

Jenny:

Right. Compliance again, did you have something to add there, Bob?

Bob:

Yeah, I was going because David said Jason might have something to offer and I go on inter basin transfers and Bill seven and the whole question around how we manage water legally.

Jason:

Yes, yes. The water act is being amended through Bill 7 and it’s currently before the legislature. Currently under a current law, you require a special act of the legislature to transfer water between basins. Importantly for people in the north, the bill seeks to amalgamate fully the piece and the Athabasca Basin, in which case there would just be normal licences between basins, those river basins because it wouldn’t be considered an inter basin transfer. I think that’s a huge change and I’m not sure, I think it should be not going forward and really addressed in a more nuanced and direct way in terms of interacting with communities and getting their input in terms of that. The bill also enables what their framing lower risk transfers, and there’s some volumetric limits to those lower risk transfers, although there’s a lot of uncertainty about what those might be because they’re going to deal with a variety of the issues with the regulations.

But I think the challenge within any interbasin transfer, our starting point is, okay, the first thing is should be maintaining watershed integrity, meaning you should maintain the waters within your watershed because as soon as you start moving water between watersheds, you can move invasive species, you can move chemicals, you can move biological contaminants in a variety of other things, as well as it’s saying, well, we don’t have to worry about water because we’ll just shift it around and really not take ownership of our water use. And I think that’s to the same notion of being preventative and making sure we’re conserving water. I think we should be looking at our watersheds and the water available to us in a way that is more constrained and really dealing with the things that we need while maintaining a healthy aquatic ecosystem at the same time.

I think there are basin transfers for sure, but I think there’s a variety of ways where a higher level of assessment, a higher level of scrutiny has to be maintained. The current proposal does provide for the minister to hold public reviews of those lower risk transfers, but what a public review, for instance, should entail, it needs to be detailed because even with water allocation transfers, which are different, the language in the legislation currently provides for public review and what we’ve seen is that doesn’t really occur. We get notice of an application for a transfer, but then beyond that we don’t have much information about what it actually is transferred. That’s one of the challenges is a lot of the water act amendments are enabling with regulations and policy to come, but I think the risk is that you’re taking the guardrails off as soon as you enable those things, and really that’s one of the things that I think is a lot of risk to it, where the current system of special active legislature admittedly, is probably not the most efficient because you have to wait for the legislature to be in session and all these other things.

But I think there’s a need to ensure that decisions, because there are long-term impacts with these decisions are taken with the most full understanding and community input as you can have. That’s where I think these amendments are perhaps need to be amended further to reflect that.

Bob:

The devil’s in the detail.

Jason:

Yes.

Managing Source Point and Non-Point Contamination

Jenny (00:44:14):

When we interviewed Tim Romanow, he was talking about how that the water in, oh geez, I can’t remember the basin now I should remember this, but the water that comes from Montana that’s rerouted into the St. Mary, that that’s one of the original water base and transfers and it’s still going. Speaking of long term, that’s why I brought it up, is this is 115 year timeframe. This is how significant these decisions are and how this cannot be taken lightly. I also like that you’re bringing in the maintaining watershed integrity piece because there’s a lot of risks happening in these basins without any water transfers to put the watershed integrity at risk already. To layer on some allocations that you don’t know where they’re going, you don’t have the transparency, and then you’re going from basin to basin potentially spreading contamination. Let’s go into that a little bit, if that’s okay, is to talk about how we’re maintaining water quality. David already alluded to we have this unfortunate collision that seems to be happening where we have contaminants that are increasing and then water volume is decreasing, those potential concentrations are increasing with time the way we’re headed. Especially in a legal framework.

Can you speak Jason to what are the ways that we can mitigate harm to people based on what is coming based on the information we’ve just been discussing? Thanks.

Jason:

Well, I think that there’s two distinct areas where water quality are a challenge for regulatory systems. The one side is less of a challenge. They deal with point sources, those areas where, for instance, a wastewater stream from a municipality or wastewater stream from a specific industrial facility can be conditioned and monitored and reported on specifically in that area. The other bigger, more challenging area is what is often referred to as non-point source pollution, where it might just be things like nutrients or fertilizer on a landscape, which is then runs off during spring fresh or during a rain event or other contaminants that are getting in through aerial deposition or other things like that. The non-point source pollution area is really a challenging area to regulate, and a lot of different jurisdictions have tried to do that. I think Alberta does need to start dealing with non-point source pollution, more substantively around the impacts on surface water bodies, whether that’s lakes or rivers, because those often related to nutrients in the water, they can have adverse effects on water quality and actually can, they’re what drive algal blooms and blue green algae and toxins that result from those blooms.

I think there’s a lot of challenges around water quality. The government does have a system around in certain basins around surface water quality management frameworks they call ‘em, which is attempting to do with deal with the notion of cumulative effects on water quality. They do our, for instance in the south, they have various rivers where they’re monitoring water quality and they’re trying to have that ability to track changes and to respond to them. I think the challenge there again is it’s better to be preventative because trying to identify the impacts or the causes of specific water quality indicators and then actually mounting a management response to that is a huge legal challenge in terms of how to identify who’s responsible, who’s doing these things and that type of thing. I think we need to move to more proactive management of landscapes, more proactive and more higher quality wastewater stream systems. Obviously, over the decades we’ve done pretty well in major urban centers. Obviously we have the amount of tax base to pay for some of these wastewater treatment systems where we need to see that expanded to other areas of point source and non-point source pollution into the landscape, into the water bodies that we’re talking about.

Jenny:

Yeah. Did you want to expand on that, David, do you have anything to add?

David:

Yeah, I would thanks Jason for outlining that very well, and I guess the implication is not only increasing the revenues coming into government that they can fund the necessary experts in upward environment to do the monitoring and enforcement, it’s clear that this has not been a priority for governments in the last 15 or 20 years, and it has to be if we’re going to have real quality and sustained quantity of water for basic human uses as well as for commercial and agricultural use.

Jenny:

Okay, I see we are almost at the hour. I can’t believe how quickly this conversation went. Bob, I’ll let you lead off maybe into some takeaways and then a final question for these guides. Does that work for you?

Bob:

Sure. This has certainly raised a lot of issues, ones that are very troubling and very complex, particularly as Jason was mentioning on the water quality side. And I will follow up with one maybe a technical question, and Jason, I think you’re probably the person who might be able to answer it, but I gather that the City of Calgary in terms of managing water quality has some umbrella approval from the province now that includes both its wastewater treated water going into the rivers, and it also combines the non-point stormwater type of pollution that’s coming from the city. Is that a good idea or should we keep those two kinds of pollution separate? Because if you combine them, that tends to put the burden back onto these very expensive wastewater treatment systems that David had mentioned earlier on and takes the kind of relieves us as individual land managers, homeowners or businesses takes the pressure off on us in terms of being good stakeholders. Am I missing something here or is that really an issue?

Jason:

I think management of wastewater versus stormwater are both very important water quality issues that need to be dealt with. I think the challenge is that our historic treatment of stormwater in separate streams from wastewater resulted in the stormwater typically just going into the rivers and having consequences there, whether it’s salt from road salting to other things like other spills and other things on the landscape or sediment. I think the combining of those systems is important to capture as much pollution as we can. I think there are probably some other alternatives as well, but I know that certainly different municipalities have challenges on different aspects in terms of having the infrastructure to actually deal with both those issues. I know that some stormwater systems also can be managed somewhat by more of the outlets. You could put in more compact treatment systems or even systems of stormwater management where you’re trying to keep the stormwater from flowing into the river at least so quickly where you have natural infrastructure that can be used to treat those things.

I think again, it’s water management is an area where it’s complex and there’s so many, everything we do from an urban landscape perspective has a direct impact on our water quality downstream. Whether it’s moving our waste away from us or otherwise. I think those are the challenges that we face in terms of we still have relatively high water quality in terms of Alberta. We’re very lucky to be close to headwaters and not a lot of communities upstream, but I think it’s incumbent on us to take as much as we can in terms of minimizing our water footprint on the landscape or in the rivers.

David:

Okay.

Jenny:

Did you want to ask David one last final question, Bob, or not to put you on the spot?

Bob:

Well, I had one and I’m not sure how much time do we have left there.

Jenny:

Well, I realized we started late, maybe we’ve got a few more minutes. Sorry, I just didn’t want to cut short.

Bob:

Yeah, I’m looking at the timer. We’ve got about seven minutes left.

Jenny:

Yeah, let’s [go] with one more.

Bob:

In terms of Fish Creek, which has been very lucky, at least in the downstream reaches to have a park surrounding it, but people are living upstream. What are the challenges you see on a small tributary like that in terms of managing the land in particular the way we use the land that then affects the river or the stream?

David:

Well, Bob, the Fish Creek starts up in McLean Creek, Kananaskis country, and there’s clear cut logging going on up there. There is seasonal grazing of animals. There is off-road vehicles running through the creek often without being regulated. They’re supposed to follow certain trails and use bridges. That’s not being well monitored unfortunately. But indeed, further downstream, we have 2200 people now outside the city in acreages depending on the groundwater and the surface water between Calgary and Kananaskis, agricultural operations, a 36 hole golf course. All of these have obvious impacts and potential risks and affecting both quantity of water, which has significantly diminished over the last four years, particularly with the climate impact. It appears and it’s a real concern that with diminishing quantity and diminishing fish wellbeing there, we’ve done our fish survey in the last two months that is still to be recorded, but it’s very evident that the numbers and the species have declined significantly, especially the native species and all of this to say that like most places on the planet, if you’re not careful and you allow unfettered development and extraction and activities on the landscape, you can predict a decline in quality, quantity and species, which we’re trying to educate both the public and the government on at the present time.

Bob:

Right. Well, and we have really a really good idea of what’s happening to the main stem rivers, but the tributaries where people actually see the impacts first and the impacts more directly. We don’t know as much about those tributaries and Fish Creek is one of those examples where thanks to you folks, you were at least trying to get some decent information there.

David:

That’s right. Yeah. We’re learning a lot as citizen scientists and I monitor some of the chemistry in the water every two weeks with a kit that’s created by a group called Creek Watch or River Watch in Alberta. There are many lay people across the province that are testing the water every couple of weeks and identifying if there are changes, significant changes in the common parameters like oxygen level, pH temperature, which are critical for fish habitat.

Key Takeaways

Jenny (00:57:04):

Right. Thank you. Okay, I’m going to offer some of my key takeaways and let us all offer some final thoughts on anything that we wanted to add or that we feel is important. The first thing is we’ve got monitoring in place. We’re doing reporting. We have some conservation objectives. They’re not being met, compliance is not in place and there isn’t a cost to potentially continuing going in the wrong direction here. Those are the key things that I took away. We’re not looking at the maintenance of watershed integrity, we’re not being proactive enough and that we’re not looking at these non-point source issues closely enough as well, that there’s a lot of things we’re not seeing on, as David just said, and Bob, that those tributaries, for example, are the ones that potentially are seeing those higher concentrations of issues that are not necessarily being seen, and then they also experience climate change more severely and urgently, we’re not fully seeing that picture as well. Those were my key takeaways. Maybe I’ll go to you, Jason next to see if you have any things that you wanted to add or anything you wanted to say that we didn’t touch on, please.

Jason:

Well, I think one of the key challenges we have is we have a pretty substantive regulatory system, but I think we’ve had this discussion around water availability and water supply, and yet we still don’t really engage communities and a broader discussion with Albertans around what their expectations are around their rivers and lakes and streams, because I think that’s the only way we’ll prioritize these things is we have a true understanding and a true engagement with communities. I think inherently we all probably tend towards saying, yes, of course we want healthy rivers, healthy lakes, and yet it’s not prioritized. It’s easy to look at the engineered responses to these things of supply and vulnerability, and really what we need to be having the dialogue is how are we going to prioritize these things as a society and move these things forward? Because I think that’s the only way we can actually get past some of these challenges, which are complex and have trade-offs and all these things, but I think that’s the dialogue that we need to start now because the more, the worse it’s going to get or the harder it’s going to get.

Jenny:

Yeah, good to bring that up. Thank you. The overarching problem is that we’re not properly engaging people in this work, in this knowledge, and then it would become a priority like you’re saying, and people would be very concerned about interbasin transfers, for example. Okay. Bob, how about you? Did you want to offer some thoughts quickly and then we’ll let David wrap us up?

Bob:

Why don’t we go straight to David summarizing?

Jenny:

Okay, thank you. David, did you want to offer some final takeaways?

David:

Well, what an excellent discussion we’ve had. I appreciate what you’re doing, Jenny and Bob and Jason. I really appreciate your comments. I guess from a more political point of view, I recognize that public education is absolutely essential to get political change and policy change that would result in better monitoring and analysis and enforcement. If people understand more about what we’ve talked about today, which thanks to your podcast, some will, they will be more intentional about connecting with their member of the legislature in this case because this is primarily a provincial issue and that’s incumbent upon both those of us who are involved in NGOs and those involved in the scientific community university, for example, to pay more attention to educating the public on the quality and quantity issues and the impacts coming of climate change and the need to be ever more careful about land use and protecting and conserving water because absolutely, there are examples in the states, for example, and around the world where the failure to plan ahead and protect these vital sources has resulted in tremendous conflicts and even wars. And it’s, as I’ve said in some of the literature, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, and we have to take some of that historic wisdom to heart.

Jenny:

Thank you, David. That’s brilliant. I am going to be very specific for you and your example about speaking to your MLA. I am doing one step further right now and actually trying to hold my MLA accountable for these massive decisions that are misleading us, specifically in my case, the misinformation around fossil fuel pollution and how that impacts water and everything else is one of the main reasons why I’m doing a recall campaign in my constituency to hold my MLA accountable. This is the real life concerns that we are facing and the ways the tools that we have available to us to address ‘em. Like you said, I’m hoping these conversations will help people also understand why somebody like me would be doing this. You talked to David about scientists in taking these samples, and I picture the people that are going through with ATVs and probably not even understanding what’s going on there and the importance and the value of staying on those paths, for example, and not going off course. Okay, that’s a lot. Thank you so much everyone for your participation. Please remember to and subscribe to The Gravity Well help this message get out, help make Jason and David’s time and Bob’s for that matter worthwhile. I really appreciate you guys being here. Take care for now.

Bob:

Thank you. Thanks all. Thank you. Great discussion.

Episode 9 of a podcast mini-series focused on Water and Southern Alberta, co-host Bob Morrison joins Jenny to discuss topics such as irrigation history, resource extraction impacts, water legislation, and climate change effects on insurance. The series features experts like Dr. David Sauchyn, who studies climate and hydrology in Canada’s Western interior, contributing to future climate and water supply scenarios. Dr. Sauchyn has served as an expert witness on climate change in Canadian legislative bodies.

This conversation highlights the incremental nature of global climate change, emphasizing regional climate phenomena over global statistics. Southern Alberta faces unique challenges, with drought identified as a significant risk due to its creeping nature and potential for long-term impacts. The discussion underscores the importance of local adaptation within regulatory frameworks, with provincial governments playing a key role in water allocation.

This episode also addresses the need for transformational adaptation strategies, focusing on reducing water demand and enhancing soil and land water retention. The conversation concludes with reflections on the emotional response to climate issues and the challenge of reducing consumption to mitigate climate impacts.

Introduction to Dr. David Sauchyn and his Climate Work

Jenny (00:00:06):

Welcome to the Gravity Well Podcast with me, Jenny Ami. I host the gravity well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty seven and Metis districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of the gravity well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The gravity well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Good afternoon, Bob. Thank you so much for joining me again. Just a reminder for everyone. This is Bob Morrison. He’s my co-host through the Water and Southern Alberta mini series that we’ve been working on. Bob has been hard at work over the last few months, regrouping us for the second half of this series. We started this series off learning about The History of Irrigation from Professor Shannon Stunden Bower and Jordan Christianson. We talked about The Impacts of Resource Extraction on water from David Mayhood, Dr. Younis Alila, and David Unger. We talked about The Water Act and Licence Transfer System with Professor Arlene Kwasniak and Davin Macintosh. We discussed The Water Cycle and Modelling with Dr. Tricia Stadnyk of the U of C. We discussed Watershed and Lake Stewardship with Mike Murray, Susan Ellis and Tim Romanow. And then we discussed Dryland, Irrigated, and Ranchland Farming with Dwight Popowich, Julian Vandenberg and John Smith, and Markham Hislop met with me and Derek Connick to talk about The Impacts of Climate Change on Insurance.

Then on Monday we met with Brad Stelfox to talk about The Impacts of Land Use on Water. And today we are thrilled to welcome Dr. David Sauchyn to the studio. David is a professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Regina. His research focuses on climate and hydrology of the past millennia in Canada’s Western interior and how this knowledge can inform future climate and water supply scenarios. He’s been involved in various roles at the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative over the past 25 years, including a director since 2017. Dr. Soin has been invited as an expert witness on climate change in the Canadian Senate and House of Commons, and at forums hosted by provincial premiers and environmental ministers. Welcome to the studio, David. It’s a pleasure to have you here.

David:

Thanks for having me. Hi, Jenny. Hi, Bob.

Jenny:

Yes. We’d love for you to just start and offer your background. How did you come into this work and how your focus came to be, what it is today, please. Thank you.

David:

How I came into studying climate and climate change? Well, I grew up east in Edmonton and I actually don’t remember a whole lot about living at Edmonton because when I wasn’t in school, my father took us hunting and fishing in the foothills and in the summertime we spent a lot of it on our grandparents’ farm near Hardesty, Alberta. I guess growing up I spent a lot of time and I had to walk to school, I spent a lot of time outside and just developed an interest in the natural world. Went to the University of Alberta as an engineering student, decided I didn’t want to be an engineer. And I looked at the course calendar and discovered, wow, you can actually take courses in rivers, glaciers, weather, climate. I didn’t know that because in the Alberta public school system at the time, they didn’t teach those things in high school. I switched from engineering to science, just loved it. And I went to graduate school in Colorado so I could ski. And I lived in a log cabin up in the mountains for two years and one month, no plumbing, no heat. It was fantastic.

And then for a PhD, I went to the University of Waterloo because there was a professor who was from Calgary and did his research in Kananaskis. I spent three years living with my wife in a tent in summertime in Canon ascus before it was developed and did research. My graduate research was on natural hazards, so snow avalanches, rock slides, mud flows, and the kind of weather that triggered these things. There you go.

Jenny:

That’s incredible. It’s it’s been in you from such a long time to just, yeah, and it’s funny, I actually did a similar exercise at the U of A myself. I started as a chem student and then decided to go into geophysics. Same thing, looked at what programs were offered and that’s how I selected it. That’s really interesting. Wow, that’s so cool that you’ve lived on the landscape like that as well. Very neat, David. Okay, Bob, you can go ahead and lead us off with the first question, please.

What does the future hold for Southern Alberta?

Bob (00:06:12):

Well, we hear a lot about what the future is going to hold in terms of climate and how it’s going to affect water. We’re talking about bigger floods, more drought, hailstorms that are going to be more severe, various things like that. From what you’ve found, what does the future hold for us, particularly in Southern Alberta, but maybe globally?

David:

Well, globally, I think everybody knows, I mean, if you’re ever online or if you read any kind of media, you’re aware of the fact that the temperature of the entire world has been changing incrementally, a few factions of a degree warmer every year. And that’s the result of a change in the global energy balance where there is less energy escaping back into space because it’s being trapped near the surface of the earth. We’ve changed the chemistry of the atmosphere. We’ve released certain gases. The concentration of certain gases has been increasing, trapping more heat. Globally it’s well documented that the average temperature of the whole world has been going up. Unfortunately, people translate that into heat waves and extreme heat, but the climate isn’t changing all the time and everywhere it’s changing more rapidly at certain places than others, in particular the Arctic. But also that concept of global warm is kind of misleading because the temperature of the whole world doesn’t exist.

It’s a statistic, it’s a statistical concept. You can’t find it on the weather app on your phone. We have to think in terms of how the human modification of the atmosphere, how this change in the amount of heat is affecting the climate where you live. Because after all, climate is a regional phenomenon. There is no climate of the whole world. There’s only climate in certain places. At our research center, we focus on the climate of the prairies and how that’s changing and it’s actually changing quite a bit differently than other parts of the world. That’s the danger in extrapolating from the concept of global warming and applying it to a place like the Canadian prairies. You have to know the prairies and study the prairies to realize that the trajectory of climate change is somewhat or quite a bit different than the rest of the world.

Bob:

How is it going to be different in the future for us, whether it’s compared to somebody else or compared to our past?

David:

Well, to begin with, like I said, we seem to be fixated on this idea that there is extreme heat. And certainly in certain parts of the world there have been record high temperatures. Parts of Europe, for example, Mediterranean, they have had record high temperatures, but not here. The highest temperatures ever recorded on the Canadian prairies were in the 1930s and that we’re not exceeding 40 degrees as often as we did in the 1940s, the 1980s. And the warmest summers we’ve had have been the driest years. 1961, 1988, 2001, when the soil is so dry that not much of the energy goes towards evaporation, a lot of the energy goes towards hitting the air. As you probably know, water has a cooling effect. And therefore in the driest summers are the warmest, our driest summer on record, 1937. Despite what people think and people tell me, boy, it’s getting so hot. Well, that’s not what the weather records show.

Jenny:

I’m curious, when you bring in water, as you already did here into the conversation, does that change the discussion? I’ll say, the thing that I’ve heard is that there’s a global water shortage in our future. Can you translate that to a local perspective for us, David?

David:

Yeah, that’s a good point, Jenny. Because we are so fixated on this temperature statistic that we don’t recognize that most of the impact of climate change in our part of the world is not a change in temperature. It’s a change in the availability of the water.

Jenny:

Water.

David:

I don’t understand that concept of a decline in the global water supply because the global water supply is pretty much fixed. We don’t lose much water to space, and we don’t create too much more water on new water. There’s some, but the water balance, again, is a regional concept. It’s most meaningful to think in terms of watersheds or other types of regions, although the watershed is the most physically reasonable way to think in terms of the water supply.

Jenny:

I guess the ways that I think that water might be removed from the system, if you will, and I understand what you’re saying, the system must be in balance, but the things I’ve heard are things like with reduced vegetation and with reduced forests, that water that would normally be kept in the system is free to move to the oceans ultimately. So that fresh water is actually being net added to the oceans rather than that balance that we want where it stays locally and in the local system. And I guess the other thing I’d add is from a industrial water use perspective, we are in fact moving some water out of the system through disposal as well.

David:

Yeah, quite a bit of water. The major consumptive water uses in the southern prairies are irrigation and pot ash mining solution pot ash mining. In Saskatchewan, by far the largest consumptive use of water is for ash mining. And in Alberta, of course, it’s irrigation. And as a result, the water level record at Medicine hat the flow of the South Saskatchewan River at medicine hat has been declining quite a bit, but most of that is extraction of water for irrigation. Some of it is the wastage of the glaciers. Now, the major loss of water under natural conditions is evaporation. We have a large amount of evaporated water loss, there is the potential for an increase in the evaporative water loss. If our summers get longer, they don’t necessarily have to get hotter, but as they get longer, there’s more days of net evaporation. We expect in the future that we’ll have evaporation, for example, in May and September, even April and October, whereas historically it’s been the temperature has not supported much evaporation.

Jenny:

That makes so much sense. We’re having, just the other day, we had massive chinook winds, and I just kept thinking, there’s so much water that must be leaving our system. Whereas normally we would be receiving snow and we’d be actually being net gaining water. That’s the alarming piece from an observation perspective. Like he said, we often, I dunno, you’re saying that that one is potentially real, that we could be experiencing loss of water right now rather than a net gain. Interesting.

David:

Yeah. The loss of water during chinooks is most obvious. When there’s snow on the ground, they call it a snow eater. Right. The snow just sublimates it.

Jenny:

Fair enough. Yeah, I know exactly what you’re talking about.

David:

But you just made a good point. I mean, I started by saying that it’s not getting hotter on the prairies. I’m not denying climate change. It’s just that that’s not the type of climate change we’re observing in terms of extreme temperatures. But we are observing longer frost-free seasons. And especially, it’s not so much getting hotter, it’s getting much less cold. Our winters are much less cold than they used to be.

Provincial Governments are Responsible for Water Security

Jenny (00:15:04):

Oh, great. Yeah, I remember Christmas being very snowy, and the last five years it’s been in Calgary pretty much no snow until New Year’s, which is a big, big change. Yeah. I could go down a rabbit hole there, but let’s move forward for us. One of the things we were wondering about is around who’s responsible. Where do water decisions get made with respect to in particular rivers, ensuring that they’re monitored, they’re assessed, and that there is sufficient water security. Can you help us understand where are the roles and responsibilities around that this big topic, if you will?

David:

Well, ultimately it’s a responsibility of the provincial government. It’s the province. It’s the province that allocates water and makes those decisions. The federal government is involved if it’s a trans-boundary water supply. But otherwise, it’s the province. Although there are a lot of stakeholders, I mean, everybody’s a stakeholder. We all need water, and we all use water. Major stakeholders include the irrigation districts, the municipalities, the industrial water users are all involved in that conversation, although it’s the province that ultimately makes those decisions. For example, following the severe drought of 2001, 2002, there was a fairly radical change in water policy in Alberta, might be aware of that, where they actually closed the southern tributaries of the South Saskatchewan River. Ever since the mid 2000 lots that the bow and the old man river basins have been closed, with the exception of certain stakeholders who were able to apply for water licences.

Jenny:

Right. Is that when we would describe that the basin is considered to be fully allocated and that there’s no more licences available? Is that what you mean by that, David?

David:

Yeah, and actually those two basins, the Old Man and the Bow are the only two river basins in Canada that are considered fully allocated.

Jenny:

Wow.

David:

The two major basins, there’re probably some small basins in BC or somewhere, but in terms of larger river basins, those two are the only two. Wow, okay. You want to,

Bob:

And that’s been a significant change in terms of policy, but in terms of dealing with the climate impacts on water, is it again a provincial issue or are we talking about a federal issue, or are we basically talking about an international issue?

David:

All of the above, but very different responsibilities. And ultimately, water use and adaptation to climate change occur locally because adaptation to climate changes is adjustments to policy infrastructure, industrial water use, residential water use, everything we do pretty much we can adjust or adapt to lower the demand and possibly increase the supply. It’s all local in nature, but it’s within a certain regulatory framework. And those regulatory frameworks are established by provincial and national governments and municipal governments. I mean, there’s certain things you can do in your own backyard, although it has to be within the bylaws established by your municipality, but ultimately, it comes down to what individuals decide to do in terms of how they use water. And we’re all consumers and we can make decisions about the stuff we consume and whether it requires more or less water. And I mean, the ultimate, I’ve always thought that the ultimate solution to, not the ultimate solution, but a major solution to climate change is just don’t drive,

Jenny:

Which

David:

Seems ridiculous.

Jenny:

Right? Yeah.

David:

There are places, there are cities where people don’t drive, believe it or not.

Jenny:

A hundred percent. In Europe, there’s a couple of them, right. I know Spain just changed one, and there’s one in, is it one of the northern countries?

David:

Finland, Helsinki. I’ve been to Helsinki. I was blown away because the sidewalks are wider than the streets.

Jenny:

Amazing. The other thing I’ve been noticing, you see these videos of these massive flooding events, and I see these cars wash away, and I think, I wonder which ones of those are EVs? This is, to me, the scale of the issue that we’re not really realizing. Would you agree that I understand electric vehicles will use less materials and things like that, but I just think that that’s underestimating the scale of the challenge we’re facing when we’re thinking that just changing a vehicle and not changing our entire way of consuming less, which we sort of got into with Brad this earlier this week.

David:

Good. Yeah. I mean, electric vehicle is still a vehicle, like you said, has to be manufactured, and it still impacts the road. It requires a road network. The better solution is park your vehicle.

Jenny:

Right, altogether. Yeah, I hear that. That’s so fascinating. One of, go ahead. Yeah,

Are government’s incorporating limits to growth?

Bob (00:21:03):

We have met the enemy, and they are us, the old pogo saying. But there are lots of things that are happening, particularly at a municipal level and provincially in terms of managing the land. And our conversation with Brad Stelfox very much got into where are the limits to how much we expand onto the landscape, whether it’s urban sprawl, living in floodplains, developing the systems of roads and other kinds of linear disturbances. Do you see the different levels of government, municipal or provincial actually moving in the direction to limit growth to go back to the Club of Rome phrase? Or are they just simply so committed to more of one thing or the other that they’re incapable of dealing with those kinds of issues?

David:

Yeah, I like listening to Brad when he talks about that. I find it inspiring. And in my experience, I just can’t imagine governments limiting growth. I can’t imagine a government being elected on a platform of limiting growth, but they can certainly determine where that growth occurs. Climate hazards, climate change, climate variability, extreme events, they’re a problem only if people are exposed to them. In fact, the entire concept of risk, risk is at the intersection of the hazard exposure and vulnerability. Climate hazards can exist, but only if you’re exposed and vulnerable to them will you suffer. And there are ways that we can limit our exposure and vulnerability. That’s the whole purpose of adaptation, is to limit the exposure to climate hazards is to reduce the risk or avoid the risk altogether. And probably the best example is floods work, just get out of the floodplain. You’re not exposed to that hazard unless you’re below a certain flood level.

Bob:

A strategic retreat from the floodplain, as Blair Feltmate said, from The Intact Center,

David:

Right? Yeah. Blair says it well, and certainly that’s a chronic problem in other parts of Canada, not so much in the prairies, even though there is this concern about flooding, and certainly it was heightened by the 2013 June, 2013 floods. Ultimately, the bigger hazard on the prairies is drought,

Jenny:

Right? Yeah. We could have instant, would you say it would be more like instantaneous flooding concerns, but long-term drought is more.

David:

The impacts of flooding are immediate. They’re damaging, they’re insurable. They get a lot of media attention. We call drought a creeping hazard. And a lot of the cost of drought is not insured. With the exception of crop insurance, but there’s a lot of loss in the ag sector that’s not insured. There’s a lot of, and I remember being at a meeting in Ottawa, and we were discussing natural hazards in climate change, and drought wasn’t on the list. And I said, what’s going on? They said, well, drought doesn’t kill people. I had just been to the family farm in eastern Alberta. My uncle told me that during the drought of 2001, they found his neighbour hanging in his barn by his neck.

Are we helping people prepare for disaster?

Jenny (00:25:04):

Yeah, I was just thinking that. I went to a watershed council meeting last year, and they were talking about the increased risk, and we talked about it with those three farmers. We met with the increased risk of suicide. And it was awful to hear, this is real, this is growing. Here’s a number you could call. And that was it. So this is when I think one of the questions that Bob was alluding to here is, are we equipped to make these changes, these decisions for, let’s use farmers as an example on the prairies. As you said, irrigation is such a big part of our business, especially in Alberta. Are we helping mitigate the chance of what extreme drought will do to irrigators? Should the supply not be there? Are we, is there, I dunno, I’ll stop there. I know you’re a climate expert. This is not necessarily your specific focus, but can you speak from your perspective what you know in that space?

David:

Yeah, I could speak to what terms of what producers have told me, because I hang out with them a lot. For some reason, they ask me to come into their meetings, and I think we are well equipped in a certain way. We’re well equipped technically and institutionally, and we have a lot of capacity to deal with these things because we’re a fairly wealthy country, not everybody, but we have good institutions and we have technical capacity, we have good education system, intellectual capacity, and we have the tools. I guess where we’re lacking is, and this is almost human nature, we have tremendous difficulty preparing for impacts that will occur in coming decades.

And when you think about it, and I’ve done a bunch of reading and social psychology and social history, is that for most of human history, we’ve been preoccupied with finding our next meal or avoiding the predator when we go down to the water hole, and we still instinctively have this recency bias, we have this distance bias where something has to be near to us in time and location for us to deal with it. That’s why natural disasters get a lot of attention is because we’re great at dealing with them after the fact, right after a flood or a storm or a hurricane. There’s all these stories about how people rallied together. Communities got bonded. We’re great at that. We chip in because it’s an immediate concern, immediate problem, but tell people, if we don’t prepare that there’s going to be a drought 20 years from now that’s going to just devastate our economy. We’re just not equipped intellectually to deal with that somehow.

Bob:

Well, and you mentioned time and location, and that flooding is the one hazard that we actually can predict in terms of both timing, frequency and in terms of where it’s going to occur. It’s certainly not one of those dispersed hazards that could happen anywhere.

David:

That’s a good point, Bob. Within a certain timeframe, we can actually fairly accurately predict, but then you need a warning system. You saw what happened in Texas when those poor kids had no idea what was coming.

Bob:

Right. Well, that’s also personal responsibility because the warnings did get through to some people, and they may have been able to stop it, stop the deaths if they had acted quickly enough. But in terms of the adapting to the hazards, where are the successes that you have seen in terms of adapting to those kinds of hazards, being able to get out of the floodplain, build better buildings, stop sprawling further and further out into the countryside? Where have you seen the successes?

David:

High River Calgary, mostly the result of the 2013 flood. Not necessarily as a result of climate change, but if you’re better prepared for flooding, then that represents an adaptation to climate change, even though that wasn’t the motivation for it. And there’s a lot of actually success stories in southern Alberta. A fair number of municipalities have climate adaptation plans, Lethbridge Medicine hat Okotoks.

Jenny:

Ok. Yeah.

David:

Venture Creek, the MD of Bighorn. I know about some of these because our Climate Change research center was contracted to provide the climate science for some of these plans. There’s a relatively fair number of small to media, municipalities, indigenous communities, sorry, the blood tribe that have developed resilience to climate change. And partly it’s because, and you mentioned before, what’s the role of provincial and federal governments? Well, to a large extent is because they had made funding available. The province had a municipal climate action fund money well spent. A lot of, especially compared to provinces like Saskatchewan in particular, but also Manitoba, there has been more effort made to prepare for climate change, at least developing strategies and plans. They haven’t necessarily been implemented, but at least they have a plan.

Bob:

Well, and I hear, oh, go ahead.

Jenny:

Okay. I was just going to ask, because Okotoks is something that we’re quite familiar with, obviously, because in our basin, and I look at Okotoks is getting some of their water from Calgary still. I wonder about, is there a gap between what is truly climate resiliency versus adaptation through human infrastructure that might not be available to us? And I’m just curious, is that a risk, is that something that we need to take seriously when we’re thinking about climate resiliency in a watershed?

David:

Well, nearly all the adaptation has been to historical natural climate variability.

Jenny:

Not thinking of those future shortages that might be.

David:

Yeah, exactly. We wouldn’t be here. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if there hadn’t been a whole lot of adaptation. Because when you think about it, there’s very few places on earth where there is an advanced economy in such a harsh climate, find someplace else on earth where they practice commercial agriculture at the latitude of Peace River, maybe on a coastline somewhere in Scandinavia. But there was a whole lot of adaptation throughout the 20th century that resulted in a viable commercial agricultural industry on the prairies and enabled cities to get established and succeed. And probably the city that has done the most in Canada, other than Vancouver, which they can, they don’t have Irish climate, but Calgary, I mean, Calgary has a pretty advanced climate adaptation strategy and devoted a fair bit of, in fact, this coming week, city of Calgary is hosting a week long climate change symposium.

Jenny:

I did not know that. Yep. Are you attending David?

David:

I’m speaking on Thursday. I think I speak on Thursday. Yeah. Okay. Most of it’s virtual.

Jenny:

Yeah. Wonderful.

David:

Though our climate change research center has a big project with ENMAX, and ENMAX, of course is the electricity supplier for Southern Alberta. Yeah.

What are our prospects of major drought?

Bob (00:34:09):

Well, there’s certainly, certainly lots of talking going on. And I know that Bob Sanford is monitoring COP30, and when we have him on for the podcast on the future of water in Southern Alberta, he’ll be updating us on what he’s seen coming out of the latest cop exercise. But you talked about basically a good crisis is a way for people to adapt, and Brad Tel Fox talked about that, about a place in India where they had a lot of overpopulation and mismanagement of the land, and then they had a terrible drought and a collapse of their economy, and they adapted to it successfully, apparently, but they only did it because they had such a disaster. You mentioned drought as creeping, a creeping disaster. What’s our prospects in terms of drought from a climate point of view that you’ve been able to see from the modelling or from your research you’ve been doing?

David:

Okay, now I’m feeling comfortable in my space here. That’s mostly what we’ve studied for the past 30, 40 years. And Brad made a very good point. People ask me, what’s it going to take for us to do something about climate change? And I said, probably a disaster, a catastrophe. It’s just human nature. And we hear the terminology all the time. We’re in the climate crisis, climate catastrophe, well, perhaps globally, but locally, not really. Although when we get a multi-year drought, that’s when we’ll have a climate crisis, because unfortunately, that’s the worst case scenario for the prairies, is a drought that lasts year after year after year.

And it happens. I mean, it hasn’t happened in our lifetimes unless you’re a hundred years old. But when I said, you’re in my space, in the 1980s, my students and I began collecting wood in the Cypress Hills because trees need water. The amount of tree growth each year is a function of water. And we were able to determine that in these trees. A couple hundred years old, there was a drought that lasted about 20 years in the mid 19th century, A is actually well documented when Captain John Palliser came through with his crew and said, I wouldn’t farm here. He said, A large area will be forever comparatively useless. Well, he came through during a 20 year drought now since, because that worked pretty well every summer since the late 1980s, I’ve hauled students out to all over Alberta, Saskatchewan, NWT, Montana, North Dakota, up and down the eastern slopes of the Rockies collecting. And now we have thousands and thousands of samples, and we have about 4.8 million measurements of tree growth. And each of those measurements is actually a measurement of soil moisture, because that’s what determines tree growth in our dry climate. We have a thousand year millennial record of drought on the prairies, and there have been droughts that were decades in duration, and they will reoccur. But when they do, it’ll be in a warmer climate

Jenny:

Well, and in a bigger drawing system. The thing I struggle, I attend these watershed council meetings to understand, and I see these as you’re talking about these 20 year drought cycles and that we’re in these shorter drought cycles more frequently in the last 80 years. But then what I layer on is well, but we also had glaciers as a water backup supply, and we also had, we weren’t using, as Brad says, the biggest amount of water per person. Well, he didn’t say water, but resources in general, natural capital as we are today. I see those two things coming together in such a, you talked about Canada’s being a wealthy nation, and I look at that as being something that could change on a dime if the way that we’re having these two things potentially come together, the growth of the irrigation districts, let’s be specific. And this long period drought coming into play, is that what you foresee as a potential catastrophe that might surface in the prairies?

David:

I like the way that you used your hands to show that it’s a threshold. Like Bob said, it’s a threshold. We pass a certain threshold or water demand exceeds supply, which happened historically in the old man and basin. But throughout the prairies, if we have a drought that lasts more than a few years, there won’t be enough water to go around.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah.

Bob:

Now you mentioned, oh, sorry, go ahead.

David:

No, and people say, yeah, okay, well, multi-year drought, and they talk about it, but I don’t think we really prepared for it. Yeah,

Bob:

Because recently the droughts we’ve seen, if you wanted to call them natural or manmade, were basically two year at the most. You weren’t seeing these decade long kinds of droughts recently, at least in terms of the, sorry, I’m losing my train of thought here. Oh, sorry. In terms of the climate and these multi-year droughts that you’ve been talking about historically, is there that connection between greater warmth and the drought? Or is it the rainfall in the drought? What are the connections there that you’ve seen historically?

David:

Well, periodically you’ll see a headline that say that climate change caused a flood or drought. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s ridiculous. It’s just that these are perfectly natural events. They’re occurring in a warming climate.

To some extent, the impacts, the impacts of these events could be exacerbated because they’re occurring in a warming climate, but also in a population that is exposing itself to these events. We’ve increased our exposure to flooding a drought because there’s a lot more of us, and we’re not necessarily functioning in a way that prevents the impact.

Multi-Year Drought Future Modelling

Bob (00:41:33):

I was thinking of your thousand year record, going back in terms of how the climate has changed or the weather, I guess in this case might be the best term, as opposed to climate. What were the factors that were driving these multi-year droughts that you could see from the data you’ve collected?

David:

Great question, Bob. And that’s an area of research where a number of scientists, especially in the Western North America, have been focusing their attention because, and the simple answer is it’s mostly related to the circulation of the Pacific Ocean, because most of our weather on most of our water comes from the Pacific. And there is the slow, and it’s huge. The Pacific Ocean is 16 times larger than Canada. One third of the earth is a Pacific Ocean, and they’re at this slow circulation. There’s an annual cycle called El Nino | La Nina, which is sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific. But then there’s a slower cycle circulation of the ocean water where the North Pacific Ocean, off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, it cycles in terms of the sea surface temperature, which can have a profound effect on our climate because the ocean temperature and the temperature of the water that is above it will determine the circulation of the atmosphere. We can’t get into these longer cycles where the storms, the air masses that bring us water go someplace else. They take a different trajectory, they follow a path. It’s that through California, for example, or through Oregon, California, the Southwest us. The water has to go somewhere, and there are years and the fact there are decades where it tends to go elsewhere and not here, and it’s related to the circulation of the Pacific Ocean.

Bob:

Okay. Is human caused climate change having those kinds of effects now on that larger system of circulation within the Pacific?

David:

It is, because most estimates are about 90% of the extra heat that we’re trapping next to the Earth. It’s being stored in the oceans. Most of the world is ocean, and water has a very large heat capacity to store water. The oceans are warming. And even though these are natural phenomenon, the circulation of the ocean and the fluctuation or oscillation in sea, sea surface temperature is natural. They’re occurring in a warming ocean, just like droughts and floods on land are occurring in a warming atmosphere. These oscillations of sea surface temperature are occurring in a warming ocean.

Jenny:

I just want to repeat what I, you’re saying we have these natural occurrences, but then we have this warming that’s happening underneath that which is altering these natural occurrences. You’re talking about the specific circulation, but I’ve heard comments around the Atlantic, like the AMOC, so the Atlantic…

David:

Meridional Overturning Circulation. It’s a jargon.

Jenny:

Yes. Thank you. Can you expand on, because I’ve understood, and I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that ocean, forgive me if you need to translate it to what you’re talking about here, but that it’s slowing, and that’s due to this, like you said, the heating and it’s actually causing the Atlantic circulation to slow in a much faster way than modellers had been predicting. Is that true in the pacific?

David:

In the Atlantic, it’s a different system because the Greenland ice sheet is in the North Atlantic. The Greenland ice sheet is melting, and all that cold, fresh water is causing is running off into the North Atlantic, affecting the temperature gradient. You have all this fresh cold water being input. It is affecting the circulation of the Atlantic Ocean and the climate of places that are in close proximity to the Atlantic. But out here in the west, Western North America we’re affected more so by the circulation of the Pacific Ocean. And the equivalent would be, there’s all kinds of jargon. I mentioned Enso, there’s the Pacific Dec oscillation, there’s the Pacific North. I dunno, there’s a bunch of acronyms. It’s not important. But they all refer to these oscillations of sea surface temperature at different tempo or scale, annual decal, multi decal.

Jenny:

Okay. And are we seeing a rapid change in those oceans right now relative to human impacts, or,

David:

I’m not aware of any rapid change. It’s more incremental. In fact, most of the global climate change is steady and incremental in nature, which doesn’t make for great headlines. The media focuses on these extreme weather events that may or may not be related to climate change. But most of the global climate change, like I said, is incremental in nature. But at some point, it passes a threshold beyond which we get some damage. We can only withstand so much heating, although it may not occur until several decades from now, which again, is not conducive to people doing something about it right now.

Bob:

Okay. Is the science, as you understand it, in terms of the Pacific and Southern Alberta, is it telling us that the multi decade, multi-year multi, maybe multi-decade droughts are going to be a reality? Do they have the ability to say that? At this point,

David:

Yes, but we can’t say when.

Bob:

No, I know. I understand that.

David:

Yeah, yeah. I mean, just the probability, our thousand year record, there was a multi-year prolonged drought in every century. The 20th century was the 19th thirties, the 19th century was 1850s and sixties. Every century has had its prolonged drought. It’s yet to occur in the 21st century. Just the probability.

Bob:

Okay. Are they, oh, sorry, go ahead.

David:

Yeah, but also that’s just in terms of the empirical evidence, the statistical probability. But there’s also the geophysics where we get these, these drivers, these determinants of drought, and there’s a bunch of them, and they’re all occurring at different wavelengths. If you know anything about spectral analysis or wavelengths, at some point they all line up and bang, you get this ideal ocean for a long drought.

Jenny:

Gotcha. There a convergence, I would call that, well, in this case, destructive interference. Are you seeing a convergence of those things in the modelling? Again, I know you can’t put a time on it, but are you at least seeing indications of those converging?

David:

And you mentioned modelling because the only information we have on the future is models.

Jenny:

Of course.

David:

We have no weather data for the future. We have no tree rings for the future. And even though models have their limitations, even though, and this is kind of a cliche, but all models are wrong, some are useful, and we know they’re wrong because we can’t possibly know what the future climate is going to be, but we can simulate the climate and we don’t even say predict. We can project what the future climate might be like.

The problem is that because every model is likely wrong, we use a whole bunch of models. That’s the safe bet. That’s the most rigorous scientific approach. At our research center, we use output from a whole bunch of models. We even run our own model for Southern Alberta thanks to ENMAX. We look for consensus amongst the models, and nearly all the models will produce a multi-year drought in the future, but at different times, they all occur at different times. We can’t really say when it’s going to occur. It’s just that there is a high likelihood of a multi-year drought because nearly all the models will produce one.

Jenny:

If I were to do any forward modelling, remember I was a signal processor, the work that we would use, I can’t remember the term. It is an envelope like what you’d expect to be in the realm of possibility to narrow, like you said, these simulated annealing processes, let’s say. I guess my question is, are you finding that envelope is changing? Is there some indication that No. Okay.

David:

It’s not getting smaller. Ideally, would you would think the more research we did and the more models we have, the envelope would shrink, but it’s not. And the best explanation is most of the uncertainty is natural climate variability. We have a pretty good handle on how humans are affecting the climate, and we have a pretty good handle. We’re able to model the response to changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere. What’s difficult is modelling the natural climate variability and how these different drivers interact over time to produce more or less water or drought or higher and lower temperatures. Because even if you look and you can go online, there’s a bunch of websites that have the average temperature of the world every year, every month back to 1880. And you can see this big upward trend, but look more closely and it fluctuates from year to year. There is natural variability even at the global scale. And the more you scale down to smaller and smaller areas, there’s increasing natural variability. Of course, until at a regional scale, it’s pretty hard to detect climate change because there’s so much natural variability. And people complain when I’m giving talks in Vancouver, Toronto people, those prairie people, those farmers, they don’t believe in climate change. And I say, wait a minute, they don’t experience climate change. They experience year to year variability.

Bob:

They experience weather,

David:

They experience weather. We’re exposed to weather. Weather is real. Climate is abstract

Bob:

Now. What I’m hearing in terms of drought, to get back to that, we know that the natural occurrence of these decade long or more or longer droughts is basically one a century to put a gross generalization on it.

David:

Exactly.

What are the solutions and what are not? Key takeaways

Bob (00:54:10):

But we don’t quite know whether that once in a century, one in 100 years might turn into one of every 75 years or one in every 50 years. Is that a fair assessment of where we stand at this point in terms of getting down to this regional level?

David:

Sure. I wouldn’t say we don’t know because we do classify droughts according to their severity and duration, and we extract from the model the probability of a drought of a certain length in severity. We do that kind of analysis. But the fundamental problem is not so much the hazard is that we are adapted on, the prairie used to deal with a two year drought. Nearly everything we do equips us to deal with a two year drought and beyond two years. Oh, the reservoir is empty. Wow. Reservoirs are built the whole store, two years of water. If there’s no rain for two years, you’ve got this reservoir. But look at the old man reservoir in 2023, it was virtually empty. We’ve done a whole lot of historical adaptation to climate variability, but it equips us to deal with drought of about two, maybe three years in duration and beyond that we have to go to government for relief.

Bob:

Well, and the belief that the Alberta government wants to do is to basically build more storage, build more reservoirs to extend that period from maybe two years to a third year or maybe a fourth year, possibly

David:

In dry climates. The default approach is irrigation and reservoirs. And this worked well for millennia, but I think that’s kind of old thinking. We need some more transformational adaptation to climate change. We have to in terms of lowering the demand as opposed…

Bob:

Well, that’s what happens is you build the storage and then you have more irrigation, which puts more stress on that storage, which means you want more storage, which then leads to more irrigation or municipal use or whatever it happens to be.

David:

Yeah, I mean, irrigation districts in Alberta are very efficient. They’ve really ramped up the efficiency of the application of water. But I think we need to pay more attention of means of retaining that water, not just in reservoirs, but in the soil on the land.

Bob:

Well, and the efficiency, as I understand it at this point, they’ve pretty much used up all the good efficiency measures in terms of using water more efficiently for irrigation in particular. There’s not much more they can then do than maybe a little bit more of what they’ve already done.

David:

Yeah, I’m sure you noticed in the irrigation podcast. I’m sure you heard about that. Yeah.

Jenny:

Well, I want to make sure that we honour your time here. I would love to, I’m sure Bob will too, want to offer some takeaways and then maybe leave you with some comments to offer. The key takeaways I had for this is that one of the main concerns or the ways we are going to experience climate change in the prairie provinces is through drought. That drought is our biggest risk in terms of our long-term access to water security and water quality. Our biggest draw is irrigation in Alberta. We have had some tributaries being closed off. We are having evidence of those, of that water insecurity coming into light that we don’t have. The local climate can be very specific, that it has a lot of variability. And those are the issues with nailing down the timing of these severe events that might cause us issues. And then I love that you spoke about climate risks is at the, well, maybe I’m not saying it right. Climate hazards is at the intersection of risks, vulnerability, risk and vulnerability. Is that right?

David:

And exposure.

Jenny:

And exposure. That was the word I missed. I think that’s one of the things that I would like to ask you as we’re potentially closing is you mentioned that you don’t see a growth model going away in our economy, but you said we can certainly grow in certain areas. From my perspective, as somebody who’s looking at the amount of land use that we have, adaptation you’ve said that we’ve done, I would love to see our governments invest in water regeneration to have some thoughts about how do we reforest, how do we just flipping the switch in that regard, it’s certainly growth, but growth in the sense of climate resiliency and climate stability, if you will. So I’m just curious from your perspective, if you could say, this is the area where I’d like to see growth. What does that look like for you?

David:

I mean, that makes perfect sense that we would want to invest in these climate resilient technologies and uses of water. And we haven’t talked about mitigation at all. That’s not my area, but I know that the more we slow climate change, the less adaptation we have to do. Although we don’t seem to be, well, like I said, that’s a different topic. Ideally, we would undertake actions, technologies, land uses that are both mitigative and adaptive. Wonderful. For example, there are farming practices whereby you can store carbon and you can store water. Right? Well, that’s mitigative and adaptive at the same time. That’s kind of a win-win,

Jenny:

Right?

David:

Yeah. Although it has to be economically viable,

Jenny:

Right? The potentially incentives for that type of, like you’re saying, both adaptation and mitigation strategies, right? Yeah.

Okay. Bob, your turn. Let’s let you ask him some hit your last question home before we let him back to his family.

Bob:

I don’t think I’ll ask another question because we’re almost over time here. But you’ve done a good job, Jenny, summarizing what I got out of the conversation. And it’s been an excellent conversation, Dave. It’s been terrific. You’ve really expanded my understanding of where we are and where we’re probably going to end up if we don’t adapt, if we don’t mitigate the kinds of problems that we have with water and climate. Very much appreciative of you taking the time to chat with us, and hopefully you’ll be able to continue all the good work you have been doing because you certainly are adding a lot of valuable knowledge and expertise to the issues we face.

David:

Thanks, Bob. I can’t believe it’s been an hour. I was having so much fun that hour. Just,

Jenny:

Yeah. Is there anything we missed that you would’ve liked to touch on before we let you run, David?

David:

I don’t think so. I gave a TEDx talk. TEDx, yeah. Talk last spring and said it has to be motivational. I avoided the science because people don’t respond to facts. People respond emotionally.

Jenny:

Right?

David:

That’s why, like I said, the solution is a disaster because then people have an emotional response. And that’s why I tossed out the idea that the problem is consumption. We’re just consuming individually way too much. And I talked about the very small proportion of people who actually are attempting to under consume, and I expressed my admiration for them because I drive a 2012 gas guzzling Chevy Silverado, and I just love my fossil fuel lifestyle. We know the solutions and we know the adaptations. It’s just extremely difficult to get there.

Jenny:

Yeah, I’m sure we could have another conversation entirely because I’m left with a whole bunch of other questions in this, but I think the main thing for me is I think there’s other pressures that are going to come into this too. We talk about this fossil fuel lifestyle, and there are limits to that availability as well. That’s certainly going to be a limit from a availability perspective for it to continue. Yeah, exactly. Anyway, thank you so much. I’m taking you over time here. I hope you have a good rest of your afternoon. Thank you Bob Morrison for organizing this for us.

Bob:

Okay, thank you, Jenny. Thank you, Dave.

Jenny:

Thank you.

Bob Morrison is welcomed back to discuss the second half of the series on Water in Southern Alberta. The series began with discussions on irrigation history, resource extraction impacts, and water management, featuring experts like Professor Shannon Stunden Bower, David Mayhood, and Dr. Trisha Stadnik. This episode features Dr. Brad Stelfox, a scientist and thought leader, who groundbreaking work has influenced land management across Alberta and beyond, ensuring a balance between development and ecological integrity. Brad was also a guest on The Gravity Well podcast, Season 2, Episode 2 where we discussed The Harms of Coal Mining in Southern, Alberta.

Brad highlights the challenges of linking social, economic, and environmental models, emphasizing the need to understand trade-offs and prioritize sustainable land use. He discussed the degradation of natural capital in Alberta, particularly in the eastern lowlands and the foothills, due to excessive land use and the failure to account for environmental liabilities. The conversation also touched on the importance of the Eastern Slopes for water quality and quantity, advocating for careful land use management to preserve these critical areas.

The podcast concluded with a call for a shift in economic models to prioritize natural capital to ensure a sustainable future for Alberta’s landscapes.

Re-Introductions to Dr. Brad Stelfox and the Water in Southern Alberta Podcast

Jenny (00:00:05):

Welcome to the Gravity Well Podcast with me, Jenny Ami. I host the gravity well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty seven and Metis districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of the gravity well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Good morning folks. I am very pleased to be welcoming back Bob Morrison to the studio. Bob has been working hard over the last few months to generate the second half of our series water in Southern Alberta. Much gratitude to you, Bob. Without you, this second half would not be happening. First of all, thank you for that.

Bob:

You’re welcome.

Jenny:

Yeah, I’m just going to quickly, we’ll run through where we’re at. We started this series in May of this year. We started with Professor Shannon Stunden Bower and special areas expert Jordan Christiansen. They discussed the history of irrigation with us. Then we discussed the impacts of resource extraction on water with limnologist, David Mayhood, Dr. Younes Alila, who’s a forestry expert and engineer and environmental law expert, expert Dave Unger. We learned about the Water Act and the water licence transfer system from Professor Arlene Kwasniak, a law professor, and Davin McIntosh, who’s a water transfer expert. We discussed the water cycle and modelling with Dr. Trisha Stadnik of the University of Calgary. We engaged with Watershed and Lake Stewardship current and former leaders, Mike Murray, Susan Ellis and Tim Romanow. We listened to Dryland, Irrigated, and Ranch land farmers, Dwight Popowich, Julian Vandenberg, and John Smith about the changes they’re seeing on the farming landscape.

And then finally, I was joined by Markham Hislop to have a conversation with Derek Connick about the impacts of climate change or water on insurance. We have come a long way, and now we’re in the second half where we’re helping to help unwind all of what we learned and take it forward. I’m very pleased to, and I recommend you please have a look at those seven episodes as we dive into these next ones. Now I’m pleased to invite to the stage Dr. Brad Stelfox, who I’ll lead with. Brad has for more than 35 years, Brad has been a driving force in reshaping how Albertans and the world understand cumulative effects of land use. A scientist, educator, and thought leader, Dr. Stelfox, has dedicated his career to helping policy makers, industry leaders, and communities make informed decisions about environmental sustainability. His groundbreaking work has influenced land management across Alberta and beyond ensuring a balance between development and ecological integrity. Brad was also a guest on The Gravity Well podcast for episode two this year where we discussed the harms of coal mining in Southern Alberta. Welcome back, Brad.

Brad:

Thank you very much, and thanks for the invitation. Good to talk to both of you, Bob and Jenny.

Jenny:

Great, it’s greatly appreciated, Brad, your episode has been very popular. People really resonated with the thought about being somebody who’s been working in water and land use for decades and suffering the consequences of the average person not paying attention to these vital things that we do. Thank you very much. I’m really pleased to hear more from you today. And with that, I’m going to let Bob lead us off with some questions for you. Thank you.

Bob:

Great. Thanks, Jenny. No, we were hoping to hear from Brad first in terms of his experiences.

Jenny:

Oh, yeah, go ahead. Bob would like you to lead us off with some of your experiences, please.

Brad:

Okay. Well, I’m Albertan, born in Edmonton, but grew up west of Edmonton on a small ranch northwest of Stony Plain. Yeah, my university background is primarily as a zoologist at U of A. And I had an opportunity after my undergrad to go to East Africa and look at land use, particularly livestock and wildlife in Kenya where I lived for several years, and also set up a university campus and taught there and then came back to Canada and where my wife and I raised a family, had an opportunity to go down to Jackson Hole and work at the Teton Science School in Grand Teton National Park, looking at environmental relationships dynamics, primarily environmental education where I taught from basically six year old’s to 96 year old’s. That was thoroughly enjoyable. We moved back to Canada and that’s where I started working with the provincial government for a few years, heading up the Wildlife Ecology Program, then what was called the Alberta Environmental Centre, and then branched out on my own, starting to build some of the early cumulative effects models which tried to look at how a collection of overlapping land uses were reshaping the landscape of Alberta and other provinces.

And that of course, led to some opportunities with my colleagues who really helped build some wonderful software to look at these relationships in countries like United States and Australia, parts of Europe, southeast Asia. That’s kept me busy over most of my career. Bob is looking at the interface between humans and their landscapes primarily through all the land uses that makes humans human, I guess.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s wonderful. I’ll just offer that I saw you speak in Bragg Creek where you were showing just that how you would put road use and agriculture use and oil and gas and et cetera, et cetera, into these models to help us see how they add together and how they can cause what I would call deconstructive interference on the landscape.

Brad:

Right? Yeah, that’s a good way of describing it. Yeah, there’s a lot going on and Albert’s a very busy place

Jenny:

For sure. Okay, go for it, Bob.

What are the gaps between different types of models generated?

Bob (00:07:24):

Okay, well let’s start off with modelling because you’ve done quite extensive mound of that. And there are economic models, there are water management models out there, there’s some, I gather environmental models in terms of what’s the impact of one thing or the other. We’re not doing well in some cases on political models in terms of how decisions should be made. Where are the gaps in terms of making all those models work together that you see?

Brad:

That’s a good question. I mean, I just say there’s just so many models out there and I think we as society, struggle with scale and how we relate these models together. There’s thousands of models that just deal with how water moves for the landscape or how wildlife walk through habitat or how people select the homes they live in or how our climate may change, whether it’s the next forecast or the next 12 hours or two weeks or next 18 decades. There’s an abundance of models out there. I think one of the historical problems that we as modellers have had is in linking effectively social, economic and environmental models together. And our particular focus with the work that I’ve done and with the colleagues that I’ve worked with is trying to help people understand at a strategic scale that humans and their land uses all create benefits. They create social benefits. It could be, okay if we have a commercial logging operation area, what does this mean to royalties and rents in that area that might help fund all sorts of infrastructure that’s critical to the community or just build a community of people that are making adequate money so that they can live together and have community. Those are examples very roughly of social benefits. Other people for any given area want to know how land uses create economic benefits. Again, the jobs, the royalties, the rents, how does this contribute to GDP?

And those things are critically important. And I think most probably of listeners have heard of tryout approaches that are trying to help people understand the social, the economic and environmental effects. What we’ve tried to do is a good strategic job of quantifying social dynamics, economic dynamics, but mainly try to focus on how do land uses affect natural capital or environmental variables. The landscape habitat, carbon in the soil, the wildlife themselves or populations, biodiversity water, both quality and quantity, and help people understand that all land uses, I guess without exception, create benefits, social and economic benefits. I don’t know of any exception to that. They also create liabilities. Where we think a lot of historic models may be struggle a little bit is that they don’t do a good job of highlighting the trade-offs, the liabilities. My personal belief is too many models that are used by industry and government are looking for win-win win scenarios.

We’re going to have all the force we sector logging and energy and mining and agriculture, whether it be livestock or crops and recreation settlements. And if we’re wise about it, we are not going to compromise water quality or water quantity or biodiversity or carbon. And I don’t know of any examples on earth historically where that’s the case. It’s all about trade offs and many governments, and I think the current administration in Alberta is basically spun a narrative that smart people with smart models can figure out how we can have it all and we can’t. Our modelling approach has been to help people understand that there are trade-offs and that Alberta or any other jurisdiction needs to figure out what their priorities are and to make hard decisions about where are we going to get our jobs from, where are we going to produce our food?

Where are we going to get our wood fiber from? How important is water? And if so, where are we going to get it from? Same with biodiversity. And instead what I’m seeing is a hyper exponential growth in almost all land uses and a narrative message from much of industry and certainly government that if we’re just careful about this, we can do it all and have it all, or in fact, we can’t. Any objective examination of the quality and quantity of water in Alberta today compared to when this place became a province in 1905 or biodiversity or soil carbon shows an absolutely profound loss of natural capital. Clearly we traded off a lot, and I think the rate at which we’re trading off what remains, what little remains is alarmingly fast. Yeah, just a few thoughts on modelling. Anyway, well

Jenny:

Now…

Bob:

Go ahead, Jenny.

Jenny:

Oh, I was just going to reflect back a little bit of what I heard. From what I’m seeing, and you and I have talked about, I’m a liability expert as well, and the first rule I’ve learned is we don’t talk about liability as much as possible. This is part of the problem is we’re not accounting for those genuine risks to a continued freshwater source if we continue to take more than the system can allow. That’s what I think you’re describing. Is that correct, Brad, that we are taking more from the system in Alberta that will allow for the water and biodiversity to recover? Is that a good summary?

Brad:

Yeah, land use, I have no problem with logging and mining and oil and gas and people and residential patterns and recreation. As long as we have people we’re going to have land use. The problem is the number of people that we have has grown quickly and the average significantly normal human, they’re per capita resource use. Just looking at the three of us compared to our parents or our grandparents or our great grandparents, the water, the carbon, the land, the electricity, our footprint is large compared to previous generations. The basic equation is number of people times per capita resource equals true effects. And as Jenny indicated clearly is with so much of the historical work we have, I think intentionally externalized natural capital, there is this trade off and we do not factor it in. And if we’re going to have people, we’re going to have land use, we will be using carbon, we will be using water where there will be losses of biodiversity, and those systems can support a certain amount, we could call out the interest, but we’re not taking water away at any sort of natural interest rate.

We are profoundly cutting into the capital. We’re literally choosing what this province has been around 120 years. I guess this year we have a profound loss in the capital of biodiversity. I think many Albertans would be amazed to know that pre-European times, if you just looked at mammals, they probably native mammals. That would be all mammals except for humans or pets and livestock that yeah, they’d probably, yeah, we’re not doing as well as we were say three, 400 years ago because three or 400 years ago, they were like 99.2% of all biomass or numbers. In Alberta, there were people, first nations and they had dogs.

Most people would say, yeah, we’re down, but we’re not down to 90% of, or 80 or 70 or 60 or 50 or 40 or 30 or 20. And a lot of people in Alberta would say, if you’ve got friends in Argentina or Germany, come over to Alberta. It’s this beautiful natural place. And maybe biodiversity or wildlife would be part of the attraction to bring them over. But we’re not down. It’s not like we have 90% of what we had and we’re not down at 30%. We’re not down at 20% of, we’re not even down at 10% today we’re maybe 4% of what we had pre-European. And the severely normal Albertan doesn’t get it. Part of it is shifting baselines because this stuff, we’ve been losing it at maybe one and a half percent per annum. Very few people effectively see these one and a half percent changes per annum.

And of course we have some biodiversity, maybe white-tailed deer or coyotes that are doing really well. But on mass, we just wiped out our native biodiversity and replaced it with humans and livestock and pets, and we’ve largely lost our natural capital and water, both quality and quantity. I mean, the water we have today is just unbelievably different. Qualitatively, many parents that want to throw their kids into creeks today, they get quite sick, especially in the southern half of the province and most of our creeks and the prairies, they’re just gone. I mean, they’ve been ploughed over and put into canals for irrigation. This goes back to what Jenny said is all land uses require the use of natural capital. We externalize it. We don’t factor it into long-term equations because for the most part, Albertans and their governments are, they’re me here now type of people. I’m an Albertan and most of my friends are Albertans. I love Albertans. But our actions tell us that we’re not really concerned about our kids or our grandkids. We’re concerned about ourselves, and we’re not concerned about regional landscapes, we’re concerned about where we live, and it’s a me here now type of mentality, which is fundamentally externalized natural capital. We have grown economically, unbelievably, we have very affluent people, but in a province that has been mined of most of its natural capital and all evidence is that we’re going to accelerate that rate.

Where are we in the most trouble with respect to land use?

Bob (00:18:34):

Well, most of us see natural capital and biodiversity and all those things. When we go to a park, we go out to the mountains, we go out to Banff, we go to our local park and walk around and say, oh, isn’t this wonderful? Where are in the southern part of the province? Where are we most in trouble? If you compare, say the mountains to the foothills, to the parkland areas we have to the prairies, where are we having the greatest problems from what you can see?

Brad:

Well, that’s a good question. I would suggest, I would think about it in terms of, let’s say if you’ve got a bank account full of natural capital, whether it be water quality or water quantity or biodiversity or soil carbon. In southern Alberta, there is a very noticeable gradient from west high elevation to east low elevation hard. I guess the good news is we’re not losing a lot in the eastern lowland parts because it’s already empty. There’s nothing to lose. Okay? If you have a bank account, you got a hundred pennies in it, and two weeks ago you ain’t gotten any more money in that bank account. I don’t think you’re worried about losing anything because nothing to lose. The biodiversity of the water quality, the water quantity in the lower eastern portions of Alberta is gone. I’m not too worried about losing a lot there.

The only way we could move is to talk about how we could reclaim it, and then people will point to an individual species of a bird or a mammal or reptile that’s doing reasonably well. And yeah, that’s true. But if you look across the board, the full communities, whether it be insects or birds, mammals, amphibians in these landscapes that have been heavily transformed by agriculture, water quality, water quantity, and biodiversity is basically gone. The ones that are at greatest risk right now, I would argue are the foothills and the mountains where we seem to have this attitude that we want to love them to death, we want to recreate in them. We’ve got this human population that’s growing at 2% and quite affluent, and they want to recreate in motorized and non-motorized ways. We have a protected areas network still quite small in many ways, larger than other people’s landscapes and others going from Waterton, Kananaskis, Banff, and Jasper, there’s places to go.

Those places are full of land use, but they’re primarily recreational. Although there’s a lot of residential too. If you think of places like Banff, Kananaskis has got a lot of residential. We have a bow wave of rural, residential and acreage owners like what I used to do or I used to live. These landscapes in many ways are critical. It comes back to us soon. One of the key topics of this interview, which is water. I dunno, what I think this province gets must be seven, 800 billion cubic meters of water fall on it every year, and about three quarters of that evaporates. It’s not available for land use, it’s back in the atmosphere. And we probably have 130 to 150 billion cubic meters that will flow in streams and rivers or slowly in our aquifers, and then we use some of that. But that water, which in all lands require water, we have a part of Alberta in the southwest part where it’s high in elevation and it’s colder, and a good chunk of that precipitation falls in the form of snow and it accumulates through these winter months.

It gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And then in the spring it warms up and we have this fertile discharge of water, and that is critical to our fish, our wildlife, and also our land use. And southern Alberta, we’ve got logging and we’ve got agriculture, both crops and livestock and mining and oil and gas and transportation and residential. We’ve got it all and they all need water. And those east slopes are absolutely critical. And it seems like somehow Albertans have forgot their original conversation with the federal government when those resources transferred to us as a province, which everyone back then knew in the absence of all the amazing science we have today from the Pomeroy’s and Sauchyn’s and others of just how important these slopes are to water. Yeah, they’re there. It’s an important land use, just let ‘em be, let them do their dynamics, let them accumulate that water, leave the organics in the soil so that some of that water can be absorbed and replenish aquifers and allow them to deliver profound quantities of high quality water for downstream land uses. And now we are incrementally eroding that with every time we put more acreages or more roads or more people hiking that pee and poop in that landscape and more cattle.

But in architectural sense, we have all of this logging that is profoundly changing the hydrology of that area and its infiltration rates. We’re just treating these slopes as some sort of bank account we want to draw down in one generation, and we are drawing it down, it is being destroyed at a stunning rate at the same time, probably no more than maybe one point a half percent per year. Then if you’ve got a hundred pennies in your bank account and someone takes out one point a half, next year you’ve got 98.5, the average severely normal, Albertan doesn’t detect that, and on it goes, but over a few generations it’s all gone. And we’re mining it down so quickly right now, in my view anyway.

How can ranching be viable in a water limited Southern Alberta?

Bob:

And I know in terms of ranching, and you came from a ranch originally, that there are many ranchers who would say, yeah, we agree, but tell us what to do and make sure that we can still survive as ranchers. How do you somehow accomplish that with a land use that’s already established? How do you make sure that those folks can still be viable unless you’re going to kick them off the land and still be able to protect the environment in the way that they would like to protect it?

Brad:

Well, I think first you admit if you believe in an empirical world in science, that it’s not protected now. It’s not a matter of we need to protect it for something that’s coming. We’re already dealing with something that is being profoundly transformed. Your questions still bang on Bob. I think you need to recognize that that landscape can receive some land use. The first thing is, what should the east slopes before? I mean, maybe their destiny is we just log the heck out of them because we as Albertans can just accept completely damaged water quality. Okay, that’s a decision I guess, in a society if they want to make that decision. And others would say, well, no, it’s priority land use as oil and gas or cattle or recreation or coal. But right now the answer is we think it can sustain all of it and it can’t.

A blunt conversation like the Alberta Land Stewardship Act was designed to do, which is recognizing that we need landscape legislation that says you can’t do everything everywhere all the time, the time. You need to figure out what the priorities of the landscapes are. And of course, in the East slopes, and even Elsa said, that’s a great example, it’s for watershed protection. And then you could ask the question of what land uses can occur. If you did that, then I think the answer would be what land uses could be compatible with water quality and water quantity because there’s no part of Alberta that gives us more water quality and quantity than southwest Alberta. And then you could look at cattle and crops and logging and mining and rural residential in that context. If we’re losing it already, I think the first thing we need to do is stand back and say, we’re already in trouble. We have to start looking at reclaiming these landscapes, and we have to instead of growing, because all these land uses are growing, like logging is a land use that even though I think it’s over allocated, it’s growing. We’re finding ways…

Jenny:

At an accelerated, right? It’s accelerated growth, not just growing. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. Keep going.

Brad:

It is, yeah. And we already have a bow wave of rural residents that are living up and down the east slopes, and that’s growing. And we have an oil and gas sector, and many people would like to see it grow. Coal mining would be an example. We could conceivably mine commercially valuable deposits of coal right up the east slopes. That’s an area that has been seriously entertained. As everyone in Alberta knows, in recreation, we could say, well, we need another 15 or 20 Canmore that be wonderful, and we could increase the number of livestock on it. If it were me, I would say what land uses would be compatible with water quality and quantity? Then those are different things. Some land uses agriculture is massive on the water use side. And I would say I’m quite impressed by many, not all, but many of the local ranchers who do a pretty good job of putting cattle on these foothill landscapes and keeping ‘em out of streams and keeping their densities low.

And they’re there and encouraging native grasses and the soil dynamics that let water infiltrate, but not all of ‘em. Many do. But those cattle, like the others in Alberta, I think we’ve got about four or 5 million head of cattle. They all go to feedlot systems. And those feedlots need, well, every cow needs to eat two and a half percent of its body weight per day. And they’re not getting that from feeding on any field. They’re in feedlots. They get that from literally tens of millions of hectares of cropland that are grown, much of it even on the irrigation side, which needs water. I’m a pretty big advocate of sustainable cattle ranching. I’m not a big advocate of feedlot systems, but our livestock system in Alberta is, I’d say entirely based on feedlots, at least in terms of number of animals that are processed well over 98% and tremendous water.

We have the cattle ranchers going, we need feedlots, we need good quality water, let’s not damage it upstream. I get that. But they’re by far the biggest users. And then of course, irrigated crops for humans too. That’s a lot of humans. I would be looking at what land uses can exist and more importantly, how to conduct them. And I think quickly you’d start looking at logging and forestry and say, well, first of all, I think we’d back up the eastern slopes in their forest. These are disturbance ecosystems. There’s nothing wrong with disturbance. Ever since glacial ice sheets retreated, what, 14,000 years ago, these systems have been kicked in the midsection regularly by fire, by insects, by floods, by droughts. There’s nothing wrong with disturbances, and we still have them. And because of climate change, we’re actually radically changing the intensity and the frequency of natural disturbances.

It’s now an anthropogenic system. That’s a problem in and of itself. But in addition to that, we have all these land uses, which are disturbances. The disturbances are additive. It’s not like we’ve removed natural disturbances and just put human made ones on. We are logging at a very high intensity. We need roads to get up there. It’s causing immense amount of sediment, which is going into our streams. Bigger streams, bigger streams, yet rivers and downstream, we are removing so much carbon, the amount of carbon that’s being able to decompose and maintain organics and soils is going down. We’re doing a poor job of holding and absorbing and replenishing that water into aquifers. Logging, there’s just too much of it. And we’re not conducting best management practices, even though the fourth sector and the government would say we are, I think there’s often a fairly good agreement as to what best management practices should be in terms of, for example, how many residual green trees should be left in cut blocks, how big cut blocks should be?

What is the rotation age? How far back from large creeks and rivers should we go before we log anything? Our practices in reality are different than the best management practices on paper. And then best management practices, I would say are essentially useless if industry doesn’t actually implement them. And if there isn’t an enforcement to monitor, then you don’t have a good system. We have a lot of logging, but when I look at it, it is not configured in a way that fundamentally respects the value of water. And I mean just the number of roads, the number of crossings, the number of hung culverts, the amount of sediment getting into it, the shift in reduction in our age class structure, and the changes in biodiversity. That’s just be an example of one land use that could be conducted in slopes, but I would say at far lower rates and with fundamentally different practices.

And the same with mining if you want mining, but why would you put mines at the headwaters, these water towers that everyone realizes nothing’s more important than water. Why would we want any land you said is going to interfere with the quality of water in these headwaters? And why would we let off highway vehicles up there? Why would we allow in municipal lands, acreage owners to build right on parent habitat? First of all, it’s a liability for them and floods. And secondly, those landscapes are critical to flood dynamics, and they need to be allowed to do their own thing. What I would suggest, Bob, is a bottom up by a physical strategy that recognizes these ecological processes and say, okay, how much disturbance can they take? What land uses could we fit in? And how much of them, and in the east slopes, I just can’t imagine where we’d be more careful with those discussions than there I would think.

Bob:

Well, wasn’t that the purpose of the Eastern Slopes policy back in the 1970s?

Brad:

Yeah,

What is the land’s carrying capacity and in what direction do we need to go?

Bob (00:34:33):

Okay, what’s our carrying capacity and where should things go?

Brad:

There were a bunch of thought leaders. I called ‘em the Lorne Fitch’s and Cheryl Bradley’s of the world who back then, of course, those two were part of those conversations and people could very clearly see the degradation in natural capital. It was occurring on e slopes. There was some very progressive encouraging discussion about the role of e slopes and that what we could do or couldn’t do. But at the same time, Alberta is a, for the most part, pretty right-leaning, economic driven. This is a province where we need to see our economy grow rapidly. Land uses need to expand so we can attract risk capital and we can get high profit margins. And I mean, just look at the land uses we have today in Alberta, whether it be forestry, energy, agriculture, transportation, residential recreation, or I don’t know, whatever.

Today they’re all, if you read their business plans of either industry or government, they’re all unacceptable today to their own sectors and why they’re all unacceptably too small. They all have to grow, and they’ve all experienced exponential growth, but they’re unacceptable. You look at their five or 10 or 20 year pounds, they all, no one says, we’re going to hold our own. We’re all going to grow. It was against that backdrop that those early discussions on the East Slope said, okay, we just can’t allow that to happen. But we’ve had a series of governments that said, we’re smarter than the rest of humans on earth. We can make it all. We can have our cake and eat it too. We can have win-win, win win, win win scenarios. Just because we’re so smart, we can put another 300,000 residential homes and right here habitat, and as long as we do it well, there won’t be a problem.

We can put another 15 coal mines into the headwaters of the East slope. And as long as they all adopt best managed practice, there’s no problem. We can put more cattle, we can mine these landscapes for gravel. We can have rural residential urban sprawl. It’s just, nothing’s going to be adversely affected because we’re just so damn smart. And the evidence suggests that there’s no truth to that at all. But it’s a great mantra, civilian norm, Albertan goes, yeah, that’s what being an Albertan is. We’re just smarter than everyone. And how else could I buy my fourth pickup unless this whole system continues to grow. The whole system is based on this insufferable, grow, grow, grow, grow, grow and solve at the expense of natural capital. If we can do that elsewhere, we can certainly do it for the East Slopes sickness.

Land Stewardship Laws (aka the Laws of Nature)

Jenny (00:37:26):

I’m wondering, Brad, if you can unpack a little bit, you touched on something that is obviously very close to my heart, which is the land use management programs. I would describe that work. I had a view of it when I was in the industry and we were looking at, I’ll say, I’ll be specific. We were looking at caribou habitats and we were looking at restoring those habitats by 2060. And part of the issue with those conversations I saw is that it’s very, what does that mean for humans? We hear this concept of species at risk, and I understand it to be that’s an indication of ecological health. And if those species are intact, then your ecological system is intact. That’s a very, I would say for the average Albertan, that’s not really something that is resonates with them. I’m going to share a short story. I was at the water and land conference for the Athabasca Fort Chippewan First Nation in September, and they were talking about indigenous land rights, like access to traditional ways of living. But the challenge I see when you talk about biodiversity losses, we’ve also had indigenous community losses as well. I look at, and I’m curious how you would describe this, Brad, because I look at all of us living in a basin should really think about having those traditional land access to those traditional land rights. Meaning if we don’t have caribou, then there isn’t a sustainable land, or sorry, a sustainable food system, let’s say, in our watershed.

And I would say the same thing for trout species. That’s another example of species at risk where, that to me is the purpose of those. And I think that’s often lost on people that when we talk about species at risk, we’re ultimately talking about the human species being at risk. And you already talked about how we are overstretched right now. We’re not in a position where we have this option to say, well, let’s just keep going. We are keeping going, but it’s going to lead to catastrophe, meaning we will have a breakdown in our water system. I’m thinking of, I’ll be specific around Lethbridge, we just heard Chris Spearman explain that we’ve got piped water a hundred meters around Lethbridge, the same thing in Edmonton since the spill that was experienced in Wabamun Lake and Two Hills all the way out to those areas.

That’s 150 kilometer radius around Edmonton that is sustained by Edmonton’s water system. These are the ways that we have taken more from the bank account than we can sustain, which will lead to catastrophe ultimately if we do not make restoration the center of our economy. Is that a fair summary of what you’re arguing? We need to look at these land uses and say, which are the things that need to cease and which are the things that we can sustain in a way that will serve us both locally? And I don’t even know if globally will be an option if we do let it break. I don’t know if you can sort of clarify what I said here in terms of how do we help people understand what it means to be restoring and what that looks like in terms of those difficult conversations.

Brad:

The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, and I can’t even remember when it came out, I want to say 15, 20 years ago, it seems like yesterday it was on the bus piece of legislation that was supposed to ride over top of all other types of legislation and crystallize precipitate the conversation, Jenny, you just talked about. And it started it. But I think once, and I saw a fair bit of appetite for it at the community level or for the severely normal Albertan. But I think once industry and government understood that that conversation would lead to, Hey, we have to stop growing the total amount of water. We take out the total number of cubic meters of wood. We harvest the total amount of cubic meters of natural gas or conventional or shale gas or whatever that we extract that there needs to be a limit maybe on our livestock population.

People started, some people said, well, you know what, this could mean that we need a limit on number of people. And everyone got, oh my God, who said that? It became a very awkward conversation and the initial efforts within the land use framework to do this work well and show the trade-offs were just politically, they’re just non palatable. And I also saw, and unfortunately I think I detected that people could have that conversation theoretically, but in their own watershed, and of course it’s another person, people Albertan say, when I’m in the watershed, there’s never been an Albertan’s ever got out of the watershed. We’re always in the watershed, should remind ourselves. But anyway, when you start talking about people’s individual watersheds, it could be the upper bow or it could be Red Deer or Athabasca, that there needs to be trade-offs in terms of growth opportunities, in terms of the primary resource sectors.

People became very quiet and would ask, well, what does this mean to the funds coming into my municipality or my job, or maybe even the performance of their investments in the stock market? It just reminded me in a very sobering way that this is a fundamentally difficult, maybe impossible conversation for humans. Only a very small fraction of them seem to be able to be willing to actually change their behaviour today to not only stop the growth of these land uses, but as Jenny was saying, how do we put money and effort and time into reclaiming them so that we might have streams in the future, which are the ones that our grandparents talked about putting their kids in or drinking water that is not treated chemically or physically or being able to see the suite of wildlife.

I’ll just say we’ve lost 96% of our native wildlife, native mammals and birds are very similar insects. We really don’t know. We’re sitting at with a grade of F minus right now. Maybe we want to reclaim it back to a C. Well, that would take tens of billions of dollars. And most people, they might think it’s a good idea in theory, but the effort and the money, they’re going, no, my primary concerns are the flame’s going to win tonight, and what kind of pizza am I going to order? More important things like that. People struggle with this conversation, immense that

How do we address the most damaged lands?

Bob (00:44:54):

Well, you’ve hit upon two things there that are very much interconnected. First of all, can people actually manage their land the way they probably should, at least in terms of their own self-interest and also in terms of the overall societal good? And the whole question of in floodplain management, they talk about a strategic retreat from floodplains that is, we’re already developed these floodplains. How do we somehow get the worst potential damaged areas out in terms of the land use? And I know that after the Calgary flood, the provincial government actually did go in and buy out some of the most threatened properties just so that we could at least reduce some of the impact. And you’ve hit upon this whole question of how do you get people to understand that and then be able to willingly talk about those non palatable at this point?

Brad:

Yeah.

Bob:

Well, that is what, are you enough of a sociologist as opposed to a zoologist to be able to answer that question?

Brad:

Well, I was one of those guys that had my house severely damaged by that flood living in Sunnyside in Calgary at the time. Isn’t it interesting, and I’ve heard estimates that that was the single most expensive catastrophe in the history of Alberta in terms of the total cost. Some people said it was 4 billion, I think it was 9 billion. Anyway, it was a major one, just inconvenienced a lot of people and destroyed a lot of floodplain infrastructure. And yeah, there’s some of it, maybe 2% that’s been removed since then. But isn’t it interesting after that event, I would bet anyone that for every house or piece of infrastructure that’s been removed from floodplains, and we’re not talking about Alberta, but just southern Alberta, I would say it’s a 10 to one ratio. We’re building 10 for every one we’ve reclaimed. That event has had no effect.

All you have to do is hop in a car and start driving up and down not only the main stem rivers, but the smaller trips on the elbow and Bragg Creek and Sheep Creek, and just look at all the new driveways and new well pads or cut block access roads that are going up and down riparian. I have seen no evidence of a reduction in the amount of infrastructure in the province of Alberta going into floodplains despite this teeny meanie, teeny little 8 billion flood that happened in Calgary once upon a time. Now that was, I’m trying to use hyperbole here, hopefully effectively, but that was an event some people should have heard about or experienced. Maybe they saw it in the news, but it was just way too small an event to get anyone interested in doing anything than try to mitigate it by saying the solution isn’t getting out of the floodplain. The solution is paying TransAlta to manage water volume so that they don’t release water or to build a big or dam face on the Glenmore or to have off river storage like SR one outside of Bragg Creek. The answer is to tame mother nature not to get our infrastructure out of the flood plane.

What will collapse look like?

Jenny (00:48:42):

Right? We’re still solving the infrastructure or over land use problem with more land use solutions.

One of the questions I have then, because like you said, we’re refusing to have this conversation, let’s put it that way. We’ve decided that we’re going to keep burning the flame at both ends and keep going with this. From your experience, from your knowledge, Brad, where do you think the areas will show up first? I’ll be specific. I look at any natural gas, oil sands, coal mining, gravel mine sites and know that they are at the worst quality for the highest damage to the ecology going forward. The cost to extract them is getting so expensive for the reward that it is just not valuable, add that the rest of the world is now rapidly moving into renewables, that demand is also falling as well. To me, those are some of the ways that I think that this conversation will be forced upon Albertans. Let’s say from your understanding of, as you were talking about from example feedlots, is that a place where you anticipate will be where we will see a breakdown? Can you say from, you talked about scale from a scale perspective, can you highlight the areas where you think Alberta might feel the pinch and be forced to move in a more restorative manner, if you will?

Brad:

I remain stunned that Albertans don’t respond to the signals they see, and we can pick on any land use, but Jenny, you just talked about feedlots. Let’s look at those. And it goes up and down year to year, decade to decade. But often we have around 4 million ahead of cattle, and we generally have, we’ve recently grown into Ford of approaching 5 million head of humans in this province too. But they outweigh us, I think probably six to one, and all our cattle with very rare exception go through feedlots. And on the provincial herd, about 25, 20 5%, about one out of every four cows or beef. Are you going to go into a feedlot in any given year? Okay, we’re processing one and a half million head per year in feedlots. That’s more cattle biomass than we have the whole weight of all humans in this province.

And those animals need good water. The ranching community and rightfully so, says, I’m really concerned about what’s going on upstream. It might be like, I don’t want coal mining happening because of selenium, and those are very legitimate concerns. But if anyone wants to just go out and look at the quality of water coming into feedlots and the quality of water leaving feedlots, you’d be stunned. It’s already, we’ve lost it. And that is especially in feedlot alley. And of course we’ve literally got tens of thousands of lots in Alberta, depending on their scale. Of course, we’ve got the big ones that can hold 20, 30,000 animals, but we’ve got so many smaller ones too. But the water quality that exits to the east moving downstream out of feedlots is just, in my view, horrible. And the watershed report cards tell us that, but they \say, you know what?

It’s holding its own or it hasn’t deteriorated. But I mean, if you’ve got a D minus, there’s not much lower. You can go in a report card, right? And the severely normal Albertan just accepts that. If I was from Saskatchewan, I might wonder why the water is not very good, and they should, and I think they do. But we already have this massive degradation of water quality, whether it be sediment or organics or pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers, growth hormones. The whole cornucopia is there. Myself, I’d go, I’m pro livestock, I think we should have a livestock sector. I think we should have a lot of ranch gate or farm gate sale of cattle. I think we should significantly reduce the population. I don’t think it’s Alberta’s job to feed every human, but when you talk to the Alberta Cattle Commissions or Alberta beef producers are going to go, yeah, there’s 9 billion people on earth and the population’s growing.

We have a responsibility. And you walk out of that door and you go into the next door and there’s all the oil and gas people and say, well, they’ve got 8 billion people and we’re cooking nine and their per capita demand for hydrocarbons growing. We have a responsibility, an ethical, maybe even a religious responsibility to energize these people. And the same with coal, and the same with everything. And there’s 9 billion people, and I represent the tourism boards. I want them all visiting the headwaters of the bow every day because my goodness, our province is beautiful. Wouldn’t that be nice? It’d become wealthy, and of course it would be no adverse effect. And it goes on and on and on. The problem isn’t the land uses per se, it’s just the intensity and the amount and the province of Alberta hasn’t changed by a square centimeter in area. It’s the same province it was in 1905, but the land use has gone up by multiple orders of magnitude. It goes back that base equation, total number of people times per capita resource use. Whether it be water or distance travelled or carbon or food or oil and gas, it’s just we’re using, whether looking at Bob or Jenny or Brad, if we were average Albertans, we’re using probably seven or eight times as much resource per capita as our grandparents.

And the province hasn’t changed at all in size. Oh.

Bob:

Brad,

Brad:

I couldn’t hear you, Jenny.

Bob:

Brad, in terms of the extensive experience you’ve had, where have you seen successes and in terms of people being willing to first of all talk about these non palatable and be able to actually do something about it?

Brad:

Well, I don’t think I have a very encouraging response to that important question where in my own experience where I’ve seen communities with tremendous commitment actually doing something would probably be the ole region of India, where I worked for a bit in an area that allowed all their land uses to grow, and particularly fueled by more water because they over the previous decades had discovered the ability to drill their aquifers. It was an area that was basically low intensity agriculture, sustainable been going on for probably thousands of years. And then foreign aid from Canada and Europe and the United States came in and said, you know what? If you guys could just start using borehole, you’d be much better off. Tens of thousands of bore holes go in, food production goes up, population explodes. Yeah, family size goes down, but youth survivorship explodes up. Populations are growing now at four and 5%.

Aquifers get drained, crops fail, people starve, but you can’t, when you’re starving, you’ll eat whatever’s around. They ate everything they could. Vegetation was gone, no vegetation. The soils got eroded and it went back to rock. And then it was in the aftermath of that, and others were invited into Look at that. And I saw people committed to doing something, and I thought, wow, I couldn’t imagine a more blunt signal. Basically everyone that anyone knew was dead, and my goodness, these people were committed. Now at this point, they’re dealing with rock. They wanted rock to turn into soil, and they wanted soil to turn into vegetation, and they thought vegetation could be eaten by humans, and then they are working. They have people out on the ground working with particles of soil just to try and move this particle here so that maybe a water droplet might stay there for six seconds, not two. I saw immense commitment. Now, I don’t think there’s any hyperbole in that narrative, but the point I’m trying to make is I’m stunned at how bad s**t has to be before anyone seems to go beyond rhetoric and want to do something about it. But those people were actually serious.

Jenny:

Right. It’s fascinating. Like you said, how low do we have to go before we finally change? And yeah, it seems like we aren’t there yet, at least in Southern Alberta. We’re still going to play this game. But I do think that those pressures are coming, Brad, I don’t know how they’re accumulating, if you will. It is different pressures from different areas that will potentially lead to one of these catastrophes. Like you said, when we had our conversation about water transfers with Davin Macintosh, the one example he used where the fit for allocation system broke was in a feedlot. That was the precise example he used that there was not enough water to provide for them who were lower licence or lower ranking in the fit for model, and therefore the ranchers had to make those trade-offs to make sure that those feedlots were able to sustain themselves. I definitely think those types of situations are the things that we should be looking for as those big signals that something is needed rapidly. If you were

Brad:

Those scenarios, Jenny, I’d be curious how well are those scenarios embracing the full suite of what if scenarios on climate change and looking at the probability of intensity and duration of droughts? Because the ones that I’ve looked at are looking at some variances, but not the kind of variances that I think are reasonable relative to the work of Bill Donahue and David Schindler and Dave Shan. Tell us about the magnitude and intensity of droughts that we’re likely to experience. We’ve been unbelievably secure in our water for many decades, and that’s in a non climate change scenario. We have every good reason to expect that we’re going to be dealing with a whole lot less water in the future just because of natural dynamics. It should reappear plus all the climate change scenarios, and we’re building a demand complex in Southern Alberta that is highly unlikely to be met by the future water availability we’re going to encounter, I think.

Jenny:

Right.

Bob:

Go ahead.

Jenny:

I was just going to… Go ahead, Bob.

Bob:

We’ll be talking to Dave Sauchyn in a future podcast. Good. I think it’s next week, or maybe it’s this week. I don’t remember

Key Takeaways

Jenny (01:01:03):

Any closing comments that you wanted to offer, Bob, and then maybe a last question for Brad before we set him free. Thank you so much for joining us. Go ahead, Bob.

Brad:

Your welcome, thanks for the questions.

Bob:

Thank you, Brad. It’s been very, very informative. Very great discussion. Do you have any hope that we can get around this problem where we need to maybe even get into Degrowth rather than growth exponentially?

Brad:

I think I’d answer this question differently today than maybe 10 years, but I think unless Albertans and more broadly Canadians want to have a heart to heart about not only the benefits but the liabilities of growth economies, I don’t know how we rationalize the fact that economies need to grow and deal with environmental issues. I think we have to rethink our economic models if we want to see a pragmatically helpful discussion on how to manage natural capital because a continuous growth economy, I don’t see examples where it’s effectively internalizing natural capital, maybe in words, but not in practice,

Jenny:

Right? Yeah, I mean, we decided that growth and that the oil standard was our economic backbone, and we can decide that water is, and that could be our focus. It’s certainly something that I think we need to come to grips with as a country, and specifically as you said, as Albertans in Southern Alberta, we have to cherish those eastern slopes and start fighting for their restoration. To me, that is the 80 20 rule. If we can get after that and make sure that we are preserving that sacred area, then we have a hope of restoring the rest of it too. Is that true?

Brad:

I wouldn’t disagree. I think that would be a good per step, and I don’t think that’s it’s anti economy. It’s just like let’s define an economic model that actually makes sense and perhaps does a good job of allowing our great, great grandchildren to have a healthy lifestyle in a landscape that has some reasonable natural capital. Because right now, the prospects I think are indeed poor.

Jenny:

Yeah. Well, I am committed to making sure people understand this and moving us forward. Thank you so much for joining us today, Bob. Thank you, Bob. Sorry, Brad. Thank you, Bob, for getting this going for us. I’m really pleased to be back in conversations around water and I look forward to hearing the rest of them. Just lastly, please remember to and subscribe to The Gravity Well, make sure that these important conversations do have a broader reach for the precious time that Brad offered us today. Thank you so much, Brad, and have a good rest of your day everyone.

Brad:

You guys too. And thank you so much. Take care. Thanks.

The Gravity Well Podcast, hosted by Jenny Yeremiy, delves into the implications of legislative changes in Alberta, specifically Bill 40, which affects professional governance. The episode features a discussion with Zac Trolley, a professional engineer and member of The Professional Association of Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), about how the bill shifts authority from professional bodies to political entities, impacting engineers, geoscientists, and 21 other professions. Key concerns include the potential for political discretion, specifically the Minister of Advanced Education, and MLA for Calgary-Fish Creek, Myles McDougall (formerly Rajan Sawhney after Demetrios Nicolaides) to override professional standards, the inability of associations to act as bargaining agents (aka the teachers & staff), and the threat to public safety and professional integrity. The conversation highlights the importance of solidarity among professional organizations and the need for collective action to protect constitutional rights and maintain professional standards. The episode calls for awareness and action against these legislative changes, emphasizing the broader implications for all working-class individuals in Alberta.

Jenny

Welcome to the Gravity Well Podcast with me, Jenny Yeremiy. I host The Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty seven and Metis districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature, and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me. Positions taken by participants either individually or collectively do not necessarily represent those of the gravity well. This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe.

Jenny:

Good morning, Zac. Sorry, a little bit fumbly there. It’s been a while since. How are you doing today?

Zac:

I’m doing pretty good. All things considered.

Jenny:

Awesome. Thank you so much for being with me. Welcome back to The Gravity. Well everyone, I’m done with the Calgary Environmental Roundtable (CERT) efforts that I did over the municipal election, and glad to be just slipping in one podcast in between the Water podcast series that’s going to come up here. But we needed to talk about something that is very relevant in the news right now and very much related to something you have been helping me understand over the last few months here around APEGA and what’s been happening to our delegated authority. I’m really glad to be walking through that with you today, Zac. Let me just give a little bit of background on Zac. Zac is a professional engineer. He’s a father and a space enthusiast. He has a diploma from SAIT and dual degrees in engineering and professional ethics from Lakehead University. He’s worked across industries and has worked on the shop floor in coal mines, oil, sand sites, and even more on movie sets. What a tremendous range you have in your background, Zac.

Zac:

I’ve been, I like to say I’ve taken a long way around in my experience. I’ve done a lot of things, worn a lot of hats.

Jenny:

Yeah, I think you and I are very similar this way. I think this is why we work together so well. Thank you for that. Okay, today Zac and I are going to unpack the legislative changes that were made with Bill 40 beginning in March of this year with respect to professional governance in Alberta. His analysis is that it’s apparent that these changes transfer authority from professionals to politicians. Zac will be outlining the impacts of these changes to our professional body. Both Zac and I are members of the Association of Professionals for Engineers and Geoscientists for Alberta, APEGA for short. We want to compare this to what’s happening right now with teachers and the notwithstanding clause. There are two main concerns we want to cover. Firstly, Bill 40 allows for political discretion to override professional obligations, and secondly, it bans our association from acting on our behalf as a bargaining agent. This ultimately impacts our ability to uphold and defend public safety standards as APEGA members. And in the case of teachers, it means their ability to defend quality public education.

Lastly, we’re going to touch on the importance of being in solidarity with other professional organizations when their professions are in direct threat. Is that a good outline of what we’re going to cover today, Zac?

Zac:

Yeah, let’s hit all those points and see where we end up. There’s a lot going on at the moment.

What did “self-governance” look like before Bill 40?

Jenny (04:01):

Yeah, thank you so much. Okay, let’s start from the beginning. Can you back up and explain for people what did self-governance look like for APEGA members before Bill 40 was put in place? Thank you.

Zac:

Absolutely. The idea of self-governance is that the technical authorities are in charge of the rules and ruling for those professions. For APEGA, engineers are looking at engineering rules. Geoscientists know their own craft and they propose the rules to operate for the rest of their profession. Think of it like it’s like an apprenticeship, right? You learn how to become an electrician from other electricians and APEGA worked the same way. Across Canada, all the universities need to be accredited, meaning whether you go to school in Victoria, Calgary, Toronto, you’re all getting basically the same course material and then once you graduate, you’re able to become an EIT engineer in training. Then it’s another four years of work under an engineer in order to become your full professional engineering status and APEGA managed all that. Oh, well, engineers Canada was above it. APEGA is obviously the Albertan branch, but what that means is for engineers, when you stamp something, when you sign something, that stamp and signature is backed by the association that has accredited you, that reviews you, that makes sure you’re up to date on the standards. And what Bill 40 does is shift that from APEGA to the Minister of Advanced Education, which is a huge change in how this used to work.

Who Holds the Power to Use Bill 40?

Jenny (05:42):

Yeah, that’s wild. Sorry. The Minister of Advanced Education?

Zac:

That’s the minister that’s overseeing this, and the startling thing is it’s not just APEGA. There are 21 other associations in this bill. You have engineers, geoscientists, accountants, veterinarians, land surveyors, a wide, wide array of technical fields that all falls under a single minister.

Jenny:

That’s wild. This is why I hear people talking about the notwithstanding clause and thinking that this is just an issue in education. No, this bill impacts all of us, and this is just the first public view of how we can be stripped from our ability to both defend the public in the case of engineers and geoscientists, but also be able to defend our professional obligations from any organization.

Zac:

Absolutely. Back in March when this bill had its first reading, it was brought out as a way to modernize the professions because a lot of these professions had their own act and their own laws. We did as well. It was E 11 that was our own law that we were lawfully allowed to operate as engineers and it brought them all under one. There was a bit of red tape reduction in that manner. It did do that. However, there were lots of sections that were added in that were not in the engineering regulations and I can’t find them anywhere else. These are things that were put in a 200 page document that was rushed through the legislation in two months. I don’t think anybody ever really sat down and read through it and digested what it really means.

Jenny:

Just to back up, for people who aren’t APEGA members, our main objective as APEGA members under Act 11, which was the original governing documents for us is public safety. Public safety and health for the environment are of primary obligation. And that means it was over and above our obligation to our companies. Correct?

Zac:

Correct. It was in law that our code of ethics were to be followed, meaning that if we had an employer and they were deciding between two options, A and B, and A was expensive and safe, and B was cheap and very risky, we as engineers had a legal obligation to point them towards option A to say, this is safer and although B saves you money, it goes below the bar of public safety that we’re allowed to stamp and verify. And then that project needed to bring himself back up to those safety standards before he can get built. We had the authority to say this is unsafe and we cannot build it.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah. Okay. First step was, I understand there were three stages of this bill. This has happened over several months where it was rolled out in March of this year, and there have been changes made to it all the way through to June of this year, I believe. It started with stage one, which I understand to be minister, can you speak a little, you’ve just sort of explained this, you had the ability to uphold these safety standards. What can the minister do?

Zac:

There are three stages of power that the minister has increasing in severity. And again, we’re talking about APEGA here, but this applies to all the associations. What they can do is APEGA’s code of conduct and rules and standards obviously say that we need to protect the public, but the minister can reach to these associations and just strike a rule and saying this rule, you no longer need to follow. And they don’t need to have a technical reason. They don’t need to have a debate. It’s not like it’s brought to a vote. They just say, do not follow this rule. And with a little bit of imagination, you can see how that can be abused very quickly.

Jenny:

We think about these changes that are happening to potentially to expedite federal projects. For example, if there was a safety standard on a pipeline that as you were highlighting the minister has the Minister of Education, not the minister of Environment or the Minister of Energy has the right to strike down those recommendations. That’s stage one. Then there is a mandatory rewrite option that’s section 202 of subsection one. Can you outline that a bit for us please?

Zac:

Yeah. And this is where the idea of public interest comes about. The minister can argue that it’s in the public interest to follow a certain path and to reflect on what just happened yesterday with the teachers, you can imagine the UCP argument being it’s in the public’s best interest for kids to be in school. Therefore, we are not going to update the teacher’s working conditions. We’re pushing everybody back to school. In the same vein, we can imagine, like you said, there’s all these federal projects coming up. They want to be fast tracked. They could say it’s in the public interest for these things to be built as fast as possible. And under section 202, not only in section 201, they’re allowed to strike a rule in section 202, they’re allowed to rewrite a rule. They could go into this and they can rewrite your standards of practice, your competency requirements, who can become an engineer, who can become an accountant and your code of ethics. They can say, we need a thousand more engineers, we are going to lower the competency requirements to become an engineer and we’re going to hire a thousand more engineers and they will just rewrite that rule. And that is the new rule that we have to follow.

Jenny:

And I want to highlight how that directly impacts Act 11, our original, yes, Act 11. In that our governing body, it was required that we had at least 17 professional members in a 20 person body. That limited those public seats from being a minority, that professionals were governing professionals. What this does is it allows them not only to have more people at the table that aren’t necessarily even accredited professionals and geoscientists professional engineers and geoscientists, but it also allows those people to make decisions that are potentially not, again, upholding public safety, for example.

Zac:

Absolutely. The APEGA Council always had public members on them and they were brought from the public and with the government’s involvement in there to make sure that we had some public voices on there, that little bit of a balance. But in Bill 40, under section 373, the Minister can appoint any number of public members to that body or committee. Imagine if there’s a disciplinary committee for a member, they built a bridge that fell down, the minister can go in and appoint 10 20 public members of their choosing to that committee and then vote in favor or not of disciplinary measures. And again, that’s up to their decision. There’s no mechanism. It just happens.

Jenny:

And I understand too that they can also appoint professional governance officer. Can you outline that a bit for us?

Zac:

And this is when things start to get really dicey. There’s always a give and take with any engineering project, any project really your balancing cost and safety, we can never make anything a hundred percent safe. It’s just not possible. There’s always a balance. And if APEGA starts pushing back and says, let’s take it a ridiculous example, we’re going to make a pipeline out of cardboard, and they say this, this is the greatest new cardboard technology, here we go. And APEGA says, we cannot do that, that’s unsafe under section 197. They can just take over the association. If the minister believes the association is not acting in the public’s interest, however they define that they can just install their own administrators. The elected board and council that is currently sitting there, they’ll disappoint a single administrator and fire the whole board. And then that administrator takes over the association and we lose control of the association that’s directly in Bill for you.

Jenny:

I’m just going to back up and repeat all of this for everyone. We have minister has the ability to disallow safety standards that we as professionals know can put the public at risk. Then they have the ability to rewrite what we would put down as our code of conduct or anything that we are trying to use to uphold those safety standards. They can also make changes to the board. They can put different people on the board that aren’t professionals, and lastly, they can also just overwrite the board altogether. Is that a good summary, Zac?

Zac:

That’s it. I mean it sounds very extreme and I was really surprised when I dug into the details myself and I stress anybody listening to open up Bill 40 and read these sections for yourself, it’s pretty amazing.

Jenny:

And also what’s interesting is we look at what’s happening with the teachers right now. Could engineers and geoscientists strike based on Bill 40?

Can Engineers or Geoscientists Strike with Bill 40?

Zac (15:59):

That’s the other part of this. Let’s use it a little bit more of a realistic scenario. Let’s say due to tariffs and everything else that’s going around in the world, we can’t find the same quality of steel that we would normally use inside a building. Let’s just say that. Bill 40 again touches more than just engineers. It’s supply chain, it’s accounting, and they can go in and tweak these rules. They say, here’s some lower grade steel, let’s use this. I’ve allowed it all through the supply chain. It’s allowed. And if the engineers say, no, we will not build this, we refuse and do what the teachers did and say, we’re going on strike until this is fixed, we’re not going to work. We actually legally can’t do that. Section 23, paragraph one prohibits us.

Jenny:

Okay, welcome back. Thank you so much, Zac, for getting yourself back in the studio. Really appreciate

Zac:

Yeah, sorry about that. I’m now on my phone. My internet kicked off and I think it’s serendipitous it happened at that point just to show how important these systems are. We all rely on a massive communication network, let alone the sanitation network, our roads. There’s a lot of stuff that needs maintaining and there’s a lot of people involved in this maintaining all this infrastructure.

Jenny:

That’s right. What you were saying when you got cut off is I was asking you, can we strike, can you back up there and just outline for people what section 23 subsection one has done?

Zac:

Yeah. We’re outlining a scenario where there might be due to international trade and tariffs, et cetera, et cetera. We had to source lower quality steel in the building. And APEGA may say, no, we don’t want to do that. If the government feels that again, this is the most public interest to move forward, they can just appoint a administrator and if we decide to strike and say, no, we will not work. We have no legal protection, we are not covered. Section 231 removes our protection from the labour relations code. Meaning if you say this is unsafe and I don’t want to work on it, which is in all my experience working at site, working in the field, working anywhere, if you say this is unsafe, I don’t want to do it. It’s a stop work, right? Let’s make this safe and let’s figure it out. If you say this is unsafe and I don’t want to design it, they can say Thank you very much. You’re no longer an engineer. We will find someone who will. You have no protection.

Jenny:

This is basically taking us from a self-governing body to an individual governance. Correct?

Zac:

Correct. And I think the point to understand here is they don’t even have to use these sections for them to be effective. If I’m looking over some drawings and I see, hey, I see something that I don’t think is correct, but if I speak up, I could lose my licence, which previously of course that was you were supposed to speak up, you were supposed to bring it forward. It is common practice that we are checking each other’s work drawings have several review cycles. The client sees them, we see it, the vendor sees it, everyone looks it over, everyone marks it up, everyone’s checking for mistakes and issues.

That culture is basically circumvented by fear that if we put our hand up, that goes against the government policy that they’re pushing for our jobs can be taken away. And I can’t just go move to another engineering firm if they remove my licence to practice. I cannot be an engineer, I cannot hold employment and I don’t have a salary anymore. I mean you have engineers deciding, do I do what the government wants me to do and keep my job I can feed my family, or do I put my hand up and maybe face repercussions like the teachers are waking up and facing today, they’re now forced to go back to work. Do they say, do I go back to work to feed my family or do I fight this? That’s the question that’s happening right now in one profession. And this bill covers 22 professions,

Jenny:

Right? Yes. And this is the key is to understand this isn’t every worker, every professional strike. This is a strike down of our rights as these are constitutional rights, no different than what’s happening with the teachers. And the notwithstanding clause, this is stripping us of our ability to make sure that the work we are doing is both safe and effective. And it also makes me wonder about reporting standards as well because it certainly seems like the expectation is that the reporting standards will be made up by a political entity and not by a governing body. Yes.

Zac:

For anybody that’s ever put their stamp or their initial on something, right? There are check sheets. You are not, I’m an electrical engineer. I’m not allowed to touch anything civil or mechanical. That’s not my area of expertise.

That’s all now in the wind because they can change the rules to bring in someone else to just stamp this rubber, literally rubber stamp it and move it forward. The real terrifying thing, especially as we accelerate, because this is just sitting there, it doesn’t have to be enacted today. It could be five years, 10 years down the road with the push towards AI data centers, if an AI engineering company shows up and says, we will build you a road, a bridge, a building, a power plant, and we’ll engineer it for a 10th the cost using ai, the government can just reach it and say, AI is a valid engineering body and move forward. And I think anybody that’s used AI has run it to an instance where it failed spectacularly. We lose control over that. We have to be forward thinking here, not today. This law sits there until we change it and we need to change it.

Implications of APEGA Membership with Bill 40

Jenny (22:32):

Yes, thank you. And the other thing it makes me wonder is what does it mean for being an APEGA member? To me, this is basically saying this body no longer has the ability to protect me. This body no longer has the ability to defend me. Why am I a part of this body? That’s ultimately what the risk is to these professional organizations as well. I do want to talk a little bit, I started mentioning it, but I’ll let you expand on it, the mention of the Alberta Federation of Labour being in solidarity with the teachers. There is one opportunity that both you and I see you’ve helped me see it, I should say, is that there is an opportunity potentially to be in solidarity with other professional organizations. Can you elaborate on that for a sec?

Zac

Absolutely. I mean, we’ve seen that and it is been popping up in conversations this week. If they can do this to teachers, if they’re willing to suspend their constitutional rights and say, if you don’t work, it’s against the law for you not to work. They will do this to anybody. And they’ve already put the framework in place for these 22 associations. They’ve said they’ve been completely showing they’re willing to use it. I don’t want to wait until they use it on APEGA or the chartered accountants or the forestry management. We don’t want to wait until that happens. We see it happening to one profession. We see it happening to one, and it can happen to all. We should stand together with all because this is a thread hanging over every single person. I mean, I think there’s 55,000 teachers in Alberta, and I think there’s about 70,000 engineers, and that doesn’t include all the other professions. Many hundreds of thousands of people. We’re talking a large chunk of the population this covers, and they could do this one by one or we can stand together and say, you are now looking at all of us because we know you’re threatening all of us.

Jenny:

There is talk about a general strike, and this is precisely what we need to think about when this is being said by a FL. It should not be just taken that it’s just AFL that’s in the position. Sorry, the Alberta Federations of Labour. It’s not just in their purview to do this is everyone of those 22 organizations, including APEGA, including the teachers that are impacted by this, and we believe we should be in solidarity with them and that we should consider going on a general strike with AFL. That’s fundamentally what.

Zac:

Absolutely. I was watching a clip with Gil when he was mentioning meeting with all the union heads, right? The associations should be getting together and talking amongst themselves and figuring out how are they going to act as one voice? How are we going to act together and stand in solidarity for everybody? This is important. What our kids get taught and how they’re brought up is important. How and where we build is important. Our agriculture is touched. What we grow and how we handle our livestock is important. This is vital to the province. This is our core. And the UCP government has shown that they are moving into control each and every one of these individual aspects, right?

Jenny:

Yeah. This is, thank you very much. This is from what I’ve taken from all the work you’ve done here, Zac, is that this is a threat to all working class people in the province that we need to look at increasing our solidarity to push back together rather than having one entity, for example, the teachers, let’s be specific, there’s a threat of them facing $500 daily fines and the organization facing a $500,000 daily fines if they were to go against this notwithstanding clause order of them back to work.

Zac:

And let’s just flip that view a little bit and shift it about how ridiculously absurd that is to say a teacher says, I can’t teach in my classroom. I need more resources. I’m a professional teacher. I’ve been doing this for 20 years. I know what I’m doing. And the government says, if you don’t go to work, we’re going to fine you every day you’re not at work. Imagine a wastewater engineer going to work and saying, this water is unsafe to drink. We need to change something. We need to update our machinery to make sure that it’s safe to drink. And the government says, if you don’t operate as is, we will find you $500 a day. How absurd is this? It is absolute nonsense.

Jenny:

Absolute nonsense. And like you said, this is the future of our kids. This is the future of our province. This is public safety and environmental integrity. These are fundamental for all of us. And that’s what this means. This is the same for the teachers as it is for engineers and geoscientists as it is for any other professional body. Thank you so much, Zac. This has been fantastic. Is there anything that I missed in this that you want to highlight before we wrap?

Key Takeaways

Zac (27:41):

I think all of us have been watching the news and seeing around the world what’s happening. And I know myself, I’ve thought in the back of my head, well, why didn’t anybody stop them? How did it get this far? And this is our moment right here. This is the line that we cannot cross. If we cross this line, then we lose our power to fight again. If we don’t hold here, we lose. And this is it. This is our line.

Jenny:

Thank you. Yes. We’re basically saying we’re choosing not to fight for ourselves, fight for our futures, fight for our kids in just trying to uphold what we know to be true and to be safe and proper for the economy and the ecology and everything in between. Yeah. I’m going to get this message out, and I think we also need to alert some others to this, Zac, in our circle so that this becomes more of an understanding that this isn’t just about teachers, and this isn’t just about education.

Zac:

This is about everybody. And if for any professionals listening to this, I urge you, look at Bill 40 yourself. Read the text and then contact your association and ask them, what are we doing to fix this? What are we doing to put the line back where it was before, where we have a say in what goes on in this province?

Jenny:

Wonderful. Okay. And I know you and I will be working on that together. I know you’ve already reached out to our professional organization, and I’m going to put out some information for other APEGA members to do the same. Thank you for your leadership here. Zac. Thank you for taking the time to dive into this massive change that we’ve all just missed. That’s happened as we were fighting other fights in this province with this government. Okay. Thank you everyone for being here. I just want to remind you to please like and subscribe to the Gravity well, to get this message out for other people. Thank you very much, Zac. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

In episode 7 of the podcast mini-series on "Water in Southern Alberta", Jenny is joined by Markham Hislop, an energy journalist, and Derek Connick, a commercial insurance broker, to discuss the impacts of climate change on insurance. The conversation highlights the increasing frequency and severity of climate events, which are challenging traditional insurance models and affecting premiums. The discussion covers various types of insurance, including homeowner and commercial insurance, and the difficulties in obtaining coverage for flood and hail damage. The podcast also explores the role of government in backstopping insurance when private companies limit coverage due to high risks. The episode emphasizes the need for proactive measures in insurance and the importance of treating water as a valuable resource amidst growing environmental challenges. The Gravity Well Podcast is available on YouTube and streaming platforms, inviting listeners to engage with the content and provide feedback.

Markham Hislop and Derek Connick Introductions

Jenny (00:00:05):

The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast. I am your host, Jenny Yeremiy. Here you break down heavy ideas with me to understand their complexities and connections. Our mission is to work through dilemmas together in conversation and process. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territory of Treaty seven and Metis districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land maintained balance with nature by giving back and uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity well conversation. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The gravity well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. Join us@thegravitywell.net. Good afternoon everyone. I am thrilled to have Markham Hislop and Derek Knick here with me Today. We are doing episode 15 of the graph season two in the Gravity. Well, we’re speaking about the impacts of climate change on insurance and we have Derek, who is a commercial insurance broker that will help us understand this. I’m thrilled to have Markham with me today. Markham and I met during the run up to the election. I was introduced to him on Twitter from my friend Amy, and I think you are my second official interview Markham. Thank you so much. And we spoke through, it was your series that you did the three-part series on oil and gas liabilities.

We spoke about that at length and we’ve been working together ever since. Both Markham and I had an inkling in early 2024 that we needed to do a lot of collaborating work with those people that really want to generate genuine outcomes in the province and in the country. Markham started the energy circle and I started this podcast and we’ve been working together closely ever since. I’m thrilled with the work you’re doing. Markham, thank you so much for your dedication to this subject to talk about the things that people don’t want to talk about. And this is one of those, this conversation is one of those. So just to back up a moment, go ahead.

Markham:

Right back at you, Jenny. I mean, you’re doing yeoman’s work and you’ve turned this idea for a podcast into something that’s really positive and so [clap] for you.

Jenny:

Thank you. Thank you Markham. Definitely. It’s funny to think about doing this work and feel like you’re just another podcast and then as you get feedback, it does really feel like there is value here and there definitely is. Thank you for appreciating that. We’re still working in this Water in Southern Alberta series. This is I think our seventh conversation in it. We went through with the history of irrigation, we walked through some of the impacts of activity on water: resource extraction, the water laws and licencing, and modelling practices. We walked through stewardship. We spoke with the watershed councils and some farmers, which was incredible. And actually it’s really interesting that insurance fell in stewardship because quite frankly, I can’t think of something better to steward to than insurance actuaries, let’s say. And so then in September, we’re going to reconvene with all of this knowledge and we’re aiming to start in mid-September, finished with the future.

In that we’ve already identified that we have a gap in covering the laws of nature and rights of rivers. And that’s something actually that’s come up in your room. Markham with Scott Jensen has brought up the rights of rivers. That’s an area to explore. On the backs of that, please become a subscriber of the Gravity. Well engage with this work. Give us feedback, comments, follow me on social media: Substack, YouTube, Bluesky, TikTok, and LinkedIn. That’s enough for me. Let me let you guys properly introduce yourselves. Markham, please would you lead us off with a background introduction and what you’re working on currently for anybody who isn’t following you yet and then how you are tied into this conversation. Thank you.

Markham:

Well thank you Jenny. Thank you for having me on here today. I’m an energy journalist and energy media is kind of in its second iteration, but my wife Joanne and I was also a journalist. We began this 17 years ago, literally in our basement of our home in Southeast Calgary in Mackenzie Town. And we’re now, I’m very proud to announce that we’re hitting about 3 million views per month across all our platforms and makes us one of the largest independent media in Canada. We’re of the overnight success, 17 years in the making. But what we do is we look report on the global energy transition and then we say, okay, how does that apply to Canada? How does that apply to Alberta? And climate change is obviously a very big part of the push towards the electrification of the global economy. Climate policies play a big role in that.

We bring both a global perspective and also a local perspective. We do a lot of work as you mentioned, oil and gas liabilities, that sort of thing. I’m very curious to know what Derek thinks about risk and climate change because risk is a word that is entering into our conversations more and more frequently. And most importantly for your viewers and listeners is our refusal to grapple with risk, to acknowledge and accept the fact that risk is increasing and we, we don’t want to be forced out of our comfort zone. I’m looking forward to the conversation here.

Jenny:

Great. Well said. Markham. I forgot to mention Derek and I also met on Twitter. We both have left that space, but we also had a brief overlap on the Alberta party board, I’m really glad to be working with you again, Derek. Yeah, please introduce yourself properly. Thank you.

Derek:

Well, I’m Derek Knick and I’ve been in the property and casualty insurance business here in Alberta and across different parts of Western Canada for the last 37 years, almost 38 now. It will be in September. I’ve accumulated a lot of knowledge, some of which I might’ve forgotten, but definitely seen exposure to a lot of risk and certainly have seen particularly with respect to water, the increasing risk it’s presenting to people in property and well, particularly in Alberta.

Jenny:

Right. I’ve heard, I can’t remember where I heard this, but somebody, it was a quote saying that climate is water. Just those words are practically, they can be swapped out. I’m curious how through this conversation maybe that’ll reveal itself. But Markham, let me let you lead off. This is your expertise. Please lead us off with our first question for Derek.

Insurance Question and Answer with Derek

Markham (00:07:49):

Well, Derek, and this is a very general question that it came up today just serendipitously, I was reading a Bloomberg story about a gathering an annual convention of insurance brokers in Texas, and they were talking about risk and how the climate change was transforming their perception of risk. And one thing really stuck out for me, and the Bloomberg story said that the insurance industry has 250 years of data. It has been collecting data for a very long time, then of course it does the actuarial work and that’s how it comes up with premiums and so on. And the point was that the recent events, the extreme weather and the caused by climate change has blown it to smithereens that this is not consistent with the historical data. We’re seeing once in a thousand year events that happen year after year after year, and the insurance industry is grappling with it. They haven’t figured it out yet, but they’re kind of addressing the issue. How are we going, what does this mean for our customers? What does it mean? How are we going to pay this? All of those issues. In your practice, is that fair to say that the perception of risk is changing and the extreme weather that we’re seeing in Western Canada is changing how you handle risk?

Derek:

Absolutely. Traditionally, insurers would make their decisions based on a couple of different things. Number one, the loss ratio, which is the ratio of claims paid out to the premiums taken in, they combine that or well literally combine that, add an expense ratio to that for their obviously salaries, commissions to brokers and agents. They call that the combined ratio, when that combined ratio is over a hundred percent, they’re losing money certain years with lots of catastrophes. They’ve lost money in some recent years they’ve made it. What happens though, like you said, that’s based on historical data going back in some cases 300 years for fires and floods and other storms, is this climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of the events. They were used to rating things on low frequency, high severity or low severity, high frequency, and this is just blown that out of the water. And they’re having to relook at models now and make some hard decisions on whether to continue offering some types of insurance or how to limit it, still offer it, but limit it. And that’s where they’re at right now and that’s what they’re trying to muddle through.

Jenny:

I put out the video of Sheldon White House speaking about this in Congress or in the Senate I should say, about the reinsurance values going up by hundreds of percent in some cases. To address this, I’m hearing Bob Morrison in my head here, and I just want to back up and ask some of the basic questions. Can you just help people understand what types of insurance are out there? There’s obviously homeowner insurance, there’s commercial insurance which you focus in, and what types of insurance that different organizations need to acquire maybe when we’re talking about water. Some examples like farmers or resource developing

Derek:

Companies. Well, farmers is a good one to start with. They obviously need protection for their farm property, the farmhouse, they’ll need coverage for sewer backup. Whether they’ll need groundwater coverage or not is questionable. They certainly need coverage for their crops crop hail insurance, and that is something that, and some crop hail insurance in fact covers wildfire damage as well. Those are two things that would be very important to a farmer, particularly in Alberta.

Markham:

Derek, I’m kind of curious the extent to which your practice has changed over the last 10 to 20 years, but particularly the last five years with respect to extreme weather. Whether it be flooding, whether it be hail, whether it be cold or whatever it is, but have you seen a marked change? And are people within your customers, basically, are they noticing that there is a change and are they tying it to climate change?

Derek:

The change in the practice is that certainly brokers have become much more proactive in reviewing their policies to make sure their clients have the proper coverage. You want, for instance, a homeowner’s client you want to make absolutely sure they have the best coverage they can possibly get, which includes sewer backup. And if they can’t have full flood coverage, whether that’s because of where they live or they just can’t afford the full limits, you want to have them have something to at least begin the rebuilding process. Commercially speaking, again, the same sort of thing. I’ve seen it commercial clients, certainly if they own the property they’re in, are a little more attuned to severe weather and flooding and hail damage. Whether they’re making that connection to climate change, I’m not so sure. I think some are. Some are, but I wouldn’t say that that’s definitive right now that they’re making that connection.

Jenny:

Right. I wonder when you provide a quote, Derek, I’m thinking of you mentioned and what came to mind to me, if you can get flood insurance. I’m thinking of in the just off elbow river in Calgary when we had the flood, it’s my understanding that there are some homes that could not obtain flood insurance after that because of where they exist. They’re in a floodplain and we can see that, like you said, these frequency of supposed a hundred year floods are shrinking and we’re getting those more rapidly so that therefore they can’t have flood insurance. That’s one way it plays out. What about hail damage? You mentioned it when we were preparing before going live here, the hail damage that happened last year in Calgary. I’ve heard of, maybe you can elaborate on the cost of that, but how does that then translate into reinsurance risk?

Derek:

Oh sure, absolutely. Actually the hail damaging Calgary last year I believe was, oh, how many? I had the figure here about 800 million in insured damage, if not more. Sorry, I lost my place there with the statistic. It’s extremely, basically, what reinsurance is, is that reinsurance is the insurance company’s insurance. It’s usually offered by global insurers or global reinsurers that operate worldwide. They are very, very attuned to climate change and climate risk and what brings that on. They are putting pressure on domestic insurers to what limit coverage. They see the losses increasing in certain areas and they can in fact put pressure on domestic insurers to limit coverage in certain geographical areas. So the insurers, insurers basically take it from both sides. Unfortunately, they’re having, they’re paying out losses and having to increase rates just to break even or make a small profit margin for their ownership and reinsurers, they’re putting pressure on them to limit losses that they have to pay out because the global reinsurers also have to make money in the end. They’re businesses and they have to make a profit. So that’s where the reinsurance really comes in. And that’s both in personal lines, homeowners insurance as well as commercial insurance.

Markham:

Derek, I’m kind of curious if we’re heading to an inflexion point here because I see at the global level there’s a lot more discussion of risk and climate change.

We’re starting to see it at the national level, but we haven’t really seen it in Alberta. We haven’t seen it or seen it in a little more in British Columbia. There’s been some flooding and so on, but it really hasn’t sunk into the voters, the citizens. And I am wondering if, I’ll give you my personal opinion. I think until it bites them in the wallet, they’re not going to pay attention. I wonder if we’re at the point now where the potential costs of insurance or being denied insurance is ready to bite the consumer hard enough that they’ll make the connection between climate change and risk that they haven’t up to now.

Derek:

I think that’s starting how long the process is going to be is anyone’s guess. When someone, anecdotally, I saw an old associate of mine who worked in the insurance industry in Calgary, had hail damage to his home, of course, took some proactive steps and his premiums still increased by 50%. When people see their average premium double or go up by 20 30% in a year, they start to take notice and they can shop around as much as they want, but they’re going to get the same or worse answers wherever they go to. Then they really, you’re right, it hits them in the pocketbook. They have to take notice. They have to start to think, what can I do to prevent things from happening? What can I do to pressure insurance companies to help people build back better? And I think the process is starting, it’s just a question of how long it’s going to take.

Jenny:

Yeah, I think about a similar analogy is like oil prices. If you’re above that threshold of $65 a barrel, everybody’s doing okay, we’re fine. And then as soon as you approach that, that’s when really things can fall apart. That’s what I think Markham is describing that potential breaking point where like you were saying, Derek, some years they lose money, but now it’s becoming more years where they’re losing money and less years where they’re making money because of that overall risk. Again, back to how it amounts when you’re doing an analysis. Let’s maybe go back to a home just because that’s something everybody can relate to. Is the process literally, this is in a flood zone, this is potentially in a hill zone. How do you go through and decide what the premiums are to begin with, I guess, and then if it’s changing how those are measured?

Derek:

Well, we have, okay, taking a homeowner for example, we have a, each broker or each insurance company has a software program where they, as objectively as possible assess the reconstruction of the home. That first and foremost is what drives the premium. Secondly, it’s the location, is it in a densely populated area like Edmonton, red Deer, Calgary, Lethbridge medicine hat, and then they look at while fire protection is one, then they look at the historical incidences of hail. Oddly enough, medicine hat and around Red Deer have suffered quite severely. There are some insurance companies that, and I’m not sure if this is still the case, but there was some time ago that really didn’t want to write insurance in the medicine hat area because of the hail and flooding risk that was there at the time.

They take that, they look at, they do each, I’m sure each insurance company has their own flood maps. They all have access to the provincial national flood and national flood maps, and they will look at those and assess potential flood loss. And that’s where we get into limiting coverage. If it’s a high-end or high probability of flood loss, like along the elbow river in Calgary, you’re going to find them with a very minimal overland water or flood coverage sub limit offered and they won’t be able to buy it up. If you’re in Lethbridge on top of the coulee, you’ll be able to buy that coverage up. If you’re in Medicine hat, as long as you’re not in the flats, you’re probably going to be able to buy the coverage up.

Jenny:

It’s available for you.

Markham:

Yes, Jenny, I’ve got a question for you actually, because you were a geoscientist in the oil and gas industry. I find actually that first of all, oil and gas is very risk averse and they will continue, in my experience, they will continue with practices that could be improved with better technology or better equipment. But as long as they’re making good money, they don’t want to take a risk on something new that maybe it doesn’t pan out, then it’s on them. Right? And if you’re an engineer or a geoscientist, if you were the one making the recommendation, you wear the loss even if it’s just in terms of reputation. But it’s astonishing to me how we have these conversations about things like pipelines or new LNG plants or whatever it is, and we don’t talk about risk and we don’t just pretend that it doesn’t exist. If we’re talking about the pipeline to Prince Rupert, we’ve identified all sorts of risks.

We think that the oil demand in China is going to go on forever. In fact, according to some Chinese sources, it’s already peaked and we’ll be going down in the next few years. Petrochemical demand is not necessarily, it’s going up. It may not be for oil, it may be for natural gas liquids instead, not heavy AC crude, on and on and on and on. There are all these risk factors and we keep arguing that whether or not you do the pipeline is you should accommodate, you should incorporate these risk factors into your conversation. And what I hear from Derek is the insurance industry is very good at doing those calculations. I don’t see that in the oil industry, but these are sometimes tens of billions of dollars that are being invested. Now what’s your take on that?

Jenny:

Well, I think it goes back to the conversation you held for us late last year, Markham. And when we were talking about the engineer’s dilemma with Zach and Scott, and the key thing for me is where the decisions being made that a pipeline needs to be developed. That’s not happening from a development standpoint. There is not a group of geoscientists and engineers and professionals and oil field workers that are saying, we need a pipeline to China. These decisions are coming out of a corporate headquarter office and being pushed through stakeholder relations teams, which don’t necessarily have a safety first, a risk first mentality. It’s rather a relations and business development mentality. To me, that’s the first hurdle that we are struggling as a industry is that we are not starting these decisions from a place of what are the opportunities and what are the risks to those opportunities, and should we be even exploring that or should we be just simply closing sites and cleaning up our mess and helping expand the renewable rollout. To me, that’s why. And Derek, I’m curious from your perspective, I did touch on briefly here from an energy company, have you been involved in providing insurance for an energy company or can you speak at all to how they are even provided insurance? I’m thinking of TMX for example.

Derek:

Well, they can get insurance. Obviously they would need it to obtain any sort of financing, even if it was from a government, although I’m not familiar with terribly with it. You would think that they would need, I think environment, they would definitely need some sort of environmental impairment policy. That’s one of the toughest policies in my experience to write. You need a lot of engineering and I guess topographical info where things are going. And it’s a very difficult to place. There are companies, global companies that still offer that coverage. I know there has been some high profile global companies pull out of the energy business or anything that goes below ground or related to pipelines, but it is still available, although recently I have read where pressure is still being brought to bear, particularly in the London, England market, which is the world center of insurance where environmental groups and groups from the UN are bringing pressure to bear on the remaining companies that are offering that coverage and saying either phase it out or get out and put these companies on the spot.

Jenny:

Interesting. Markham, and you’re up.

Markham:

Well, I am kind of curious, Derek, who pays, because at the end of the day, it seems to me that we’re headed for a situation where private insurance companies will not want to pay. They’ll refuse to write the business or they’ll limit the coverage provided in the policy. And when we get to that stage, people still need to have insurance on their homes and their businesses, but oil and gas companies have to have them or utility companies, whatever it is, you’ve got to have some kind of insurance. Does government step in? Does the insurance industry evolve? What’s your take on that?

Derek:

Well, I think you look at what happened with the floods in 2013, and basically there was the provincial government stepped in to backstop. A lot of that am not sure how much they contributed or how much was paid out. Figures not at my fingertips, but eventually government slash taxpayers usually step in. Now, what I’m worried about happening in the interim is much like housing, it’s going to be an affordability crisis. People are not going to be able to afford insurance on their home are they? Can’t risk going without insurance, especially if they have a mortgage, they won’t be allowed to do it. That brings a whole affordability issue. And does government get involved in property insurance much like they’ve gotten involved in auto insurance in Alberta? Well, that just makes the situation worse.

Markham:

Maybe Jenny, I just want a follow up question if I can, because that’s one of the things that bothers me the most here. It’s one thing when government decides that it’s going to take an industrial policy, as we’ve discussed in the energy circle where the government says, okay, as a country we have a strategy to build a particular industry, could be battery plants, whatever. It’s we’re going to put public money into that because it’ll generate tax revenue, create jobs, attract investment. But when you’re coming at it from the other end when the government is basically backfilling because private sector won’t provide it anymore, then it becomes like a subsidy. We’re basically paying for a sun setting industry in the case of oil and gas. And I think my takeaway from Derek is that there’s some point, some inflexion point where the risk is too great for the private sector. We’re all too committed to the industry or to whatever to back out entirely. And then government and our pocketbooks step in to fill in the gap and then it becomes risk when we’re bearing a whole other kind of risk in case that it goes belly up?

Either one of you have a crack at that one.

Derek:

Well, we’ve seen an attempt by the insurance industry along with the federal government to build a national flood insurance program similar to what they have in the United States, although that’s probably, it’s not perfect, but it’s not the worst program. Something like that. And those discussions have been going on for years. And in fact, now that the spectra of wildfires has entered the picture, they seem to have put, and cyber insurance, they’ve seemed to put the national flood insurance program on the back burner. I certainly don’t read about it as much as I used to, but that is something that could be looked at where then again, at least people are able to buy affordable flood insurance in addition to their home insurance.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah, it makes me think about these automatic renewals with things and potentially not the terms and conditions potentially changing without people appreciating it

That when a crisis comes suddenly you realize that this whole neighbourhood is not no longer covered for flood insurance, for example. I feel like a lot of this is just being pushed off and not really made people necessarily made aware of it. I have a couple of questions. I’m going to start with this one. Can you talk a little bit about mitigation for insurance? What I mean is cloud seating is an example of something that is an attempt to both. So if I understand it right, it does two things. You can potentially help get rain for crops, so it’s trying to draw in moisture, but then of course that can backfire and you’ve got too much moisture or maybe it happens naturally and now you’re doing the opposite where you’re trying to put in, I can’t remember what the particles are, you probably remember for me into the air to try and dissipate hail damage.

Now we all know in Calgary, was it last year when that big hailstorm came through, there were planes going all around that area forever, trying to cloud seed to mitigate the damage. And actually a friend of ours, Mike Klein, did offer the actual number for you. The Insurance Bureau of Canada noted it was 3.25 billion total damages for that storm in Calgary. To me that was a failure if I know nothing about cloud seating. Excuse me. Can you talk a little bit about these potential mitigation efforts like cloud seating and their success rate or not.

Derek:

Cloud seeding? It’s where silver iodide is, the particle that’s sprayed into storm clouds to basically well soften or dissipate the hail so it actually melts before it hits the ground. I think what it does is it makes the water particle heavier so it’s not caught in the updraft and freezes as much, and so it’s heavier, it falls to the ground faster. It’s smaller sized hail or just water. It is basically how that works. And it’s primarily seeded in what they call hail alley, which in Alberta is mainly between Calgary and Red Deer, which is seen the most severe hailstorms, unfortunately don’t, they can’t see as far south as Lethbridge simply because they have to fly into US airspace, which causes its own set of problems. But definitely I believe it’s helped. I’m not sure how many planes they have. The Alberta catastrophic kale reduction plan has to reduce how many planes they have to fly out in storms. But it was obviously something that, and maybe this is a consequence of climate change. It came on too hard and too fast to be able to respond to it.

Jenny:

They’re just not able to get the scale. The scalability of it is not working. Yeah?

Derek:

Yeah.

Jenny:

That makes sense. Sorry, Markham your turn if you’re ready as it going.

Markham:

Well, Jenny, this is an issue that you’ve talked about many times at our energy circle meetings, and that is the oil water consumption by the oil and gas industry. And there’s the conventional side and then there’s the oil sand side, and both of them use fair amounts of water. And at what point, if climate change is changing our climate, we’re having more severe and longer droughts, at what point does it become a conflict between other types of businesses like farmers and ranchers and citizens over the use of that water, the headwaters of both the rivers to service Calgary, for example, 1.2, 1.5 million people in Calgary and suddenly they on water restrictions. That kind of gets the government’s attention, but are we headed in that direction? I

Derek:

Think possibly we are. What scares me too is the potential that selenium poisoning from new coal mines will damage the old man and permanently damage and poison the old man river system much as it did in BC. I don’t care what the mining company says, but the multi-billion dollar minor tech corporation has not found an issue to the selenium poisoning and contrary to industry cheerleaders, if you will, it’s not just salt. There’s visible, obvious evidence of fish being deformed and dying off because of the poisoning. Now, who’s going to pay for that? You know what? The insurance industry, the insurance company of that coal company will not pay for that damage. That’s pollution. And in most cases, pollution is excluded unless it’s sudden and accidental, ongoing selenium poisoning is not sudden and accidental.

Jenny:

Oh, interesting. Pollution is not included.

Derek:

In most commercial policies. There is what they call an absolute pollution exclusion, and where it’s where any sort of release of material, especially if it’s ongoing, is completely any damage from it is completely excluded. There is, you can buy limited, and this is, keep in mind, this is limited coverage. Many cases it’s limited to $250,000, which could be a drop in the bucket depending on how bad it is for sudden and accidental and sudden and accidental means it happened and it’s reported to the insurance company within 24 or 72 hours of it being discovered. Beyond that, it’s not sudden and accidental anymore.

Markham:

Jenny, what are there insurance requirements for conventional oil and gas wells?

Jenny:

I am not familiar with it, to be honest with you. I know that, like Derek was saying, you do get your limited insurance, at least for corporate insurance of some kind. Can you speak more to that, Derek,

Derek:

For wellhead insurance? Is that what we’re talking? Well, usually, I’m not overly familiar with the down hole coverage, but we certainly cover, I’ve certainly covered a lot of well independent contractors or consultants on oil well sites with the pro vio that there’s no extent to cover damage below six feet underground.

Jenny:

Oh, wow.

Markham:

I guess what I’m going with this is Jenny, you and I have had many conversations about this very, very serious unfunded liabilities for the conventional oil, the gas industry. Let’s say there are, right now there are about 80,000 inactive wells and some of those walls are leaking. We know that. And the question and talk to people like Mark Doran and Dwight Popovich, it’s a very large percentage of them are leaking. And who then pays for that if the oil companies don’t pay? Is there an insurance company backstopping it? Probably not. Absolutely not. Absolutely

Jenny:

Not. That’s where I think the Polluter pay principle is supposed to come into play and our regulator is supposed to be making them address it. Contamination is supposed to be on a timeline where mediation is law in Alberta, it’s supposed to be being addressed. Unfortunately, our province has reduced to the number of inspectors to the point that we don’t know these things until we go to a wellhead to find out what’s going on to either act on it. I did want to touch on what you mentioned earlier, Markham. I just want to hit this on because this has been more, we talk or about doubling Alberta’s oil and gas, or sorry, oil production. We currently use over [4] million barrels a day of fresh water. So yes, we use recycled water as well, but that is, we are actively polluting over 4 million barrels a day.

Every time we’re bragging about exporting over 4 million a day, we are simultaneously polluting 4 million a day. The thought of doubling that, where is that water coming from when we are experiencing severe drought shortages? And as you said Derek, we’re seeing contamination from historical fossil fuel development that is accumulating and has accumulated over the years. Bill Donahue just put out an article to counter Joseph ER’s comments around these lab results that can contain selenium. It’s not possible in the real world. Thank you for bringing that into the conversation. I really appreciate it. Sorry, I think I cut off a question there, or do you want me to roll into one?

Markham:

No, I was engrossed in your answer. I forgot my other question.

Jenny:

That’s okay. I did want to ask about, you said no insurance, where that’s coming from. There’s some areas where there’s not going to be a ways to write insurance. Again, and I agree with Markham, we are headed towards a water shortage. That’s the evidence, that’s the science overall, especially when we are removing water from the system by disposing it down hole. And by the way, this can all be reversed by investing in restoration, investing in nature and restoring water capacity. But the way we are headed is to catastrophe where we are going to reduce the groundwater to a point where we aren’t going to have access to freshwater in some areas. Derek, a big question for you, hopefully you can give a little bit of colour on it, is relocation, community relocation efforts. For example, if I just saw in India there was a community that was right near a river, a massive flood event came through and wiped out, I want to say about, call it 50 to a hundred homes. Are you rebuilding there? And if so, how is that justified? Or how do communities start making decisions like that? Should we be rebuilding here or should we be letting nature come back? How are those decisions made from an insurance perspective, if you can?

Derek:

Well, then we have the question of affordability. Again, housing affordability comes up is can these people in concert with what little insurance money they get for the flood rebuild somewhere else? Or can they pick up and live somewhere else? And quite often the answer to that is no. Some of the homes that are susceptible to flooding are generally, while with the exception of around the elbow river in Calgary, of course, are generally not high value homes. They’re lower to mid value homes. And some of those people have lived there for 70 years, can’t afford to go anywhere else.

Municipalities would, I think, are making some credit, are making some inroads with infrastructure to mitigate those damages. I think of the town of Coaldale just east of Lethbridge as a Malloy basin project, which basically helps the water from extreme rainfall events drain properly or drain away from the town to the outskirts of town to catch basins where it’s properly dealt with, that sort of thing. I see the efforts the city of Calgary has made at trying to mitigate potential flood risk, and I think that’s where the drive is coming is from your major urban centers. I look at in Lethbridge, nothing, nothing’s been developed in the river bottom residentially wise for I think 50 years at least. I mean, there is one development on the west side that does get close to the river. They did have some flood damage in 2013, but it was fortunately it was minimal.

Markham:

I Jenny, I wanted to just jump in with an observation. We were talking about timelines a minute ago for reclamation of abandoned, inactive wells. One of the great revelations for me when I was doing my unethical oil series in 2023, which what I interviewed you for is that there is not and never has been a timeline that’s enforceable by law for reclaiming an oil well. Yes, they’re required by law to do it, but there’s no timeline on when they have to do it. You can leave a well in the inactive list forever in theory, without having to reclaim it.

Jenny:

Yes, I will add that there is precedent setting law that was passed by the UCP government under Jason Kenny in 2022 that does put sites on timelines in Cold Lake of all places, the hotbed of oil sands development. It’s also there because Cold Lake has a severe loss of caribou population. That’s the main driver of that. But to me, those land stewardship laws are the laws of the land. This is where, as I was saying earlier, in these conversations on water, we have to get back to a place of reality. What can we actually sustain and do? Back to your point about risk Markham, do we even have the reserves to and the capacity to increase our production by two times, that doesn’t seem realistic when we go after the best stuff and the basin first, and there’s more waste product for reservoir extraction today than there was 20 years ago. Definitely a lot of things Go ahead.

Markham:

Well, what I was going to say is that the idea of doubling Alberto oil production is a fantasy. It’s a fever dream. There’s no basis for it. No.

Well, let’s back up a little bit. The premier, the oil industry and the business community in Alberta firmly believe in OPEC view of the oil’s future in that there will be a big increase from 103 million barrels a day today to 120 my mid-century. That is improbable at best. And I mean IE International Energy Agency says it’s going to peak in 2029 and then decline in the early 2030s. The premier, premier Danielle Smith is basically relying on shoddy modelling. That is, nobody believes it. But then you get into the physical problems. For example, today after all the capital is paid off, you might be able to produce a barrel minimum for $27. But if you’re going to fill up a new pipeline and you have to build greenfield new, that your costs are now 60 to $80 a barrel. And there’s no way that you can compete with the Saudis and the Iraqis in the Chinese or Indian markets. This is one of the things that keeps bothering me over and over again is just show your math. If you believe in a pipeline, if you believe in expansion of the oil sands, show your math, and let’s talk about that math and subjected to some scrutiny. And instead we were obsessed with narrative, narrative, narrative, narrative. And I see on the risk side, around water, much of the same thing is in the public, in the decisions made by the government. It’s all about narrative. It’s not about data and evidence.

Jenny:

Yeah, agreed. And this is going to be the breaking point if we don’t intervene in some way. And some of the things that we’re seeing, and maybe this is our last question and then into some takeaways, Derek, but when we were talking with farmers about water shortages, and also we were talking about with Arlene and Davin about the water licence system and where it broke down. For example, there was a moment where there was water shortages in Southern Alberta, and they realized that the lowest owner of water, the lowest rank in terms of licence fit for first in time, first in right, was the meat processing company. If you’re a rancher, you need to be able to sell your product. You can’t say, sorry, you can’t have that water because now you’re not selling your product. So there is this overlap that’s coming. I wonder, Derek, is there any, for you, what sort of breaking point do you see? Is there any particular area that you think is a place to watch in terms of insurance that might be a hot point for people to take note?

Derek:

That’s a difficult question to answer. Yeah.

Jenny:

It’s areas where you might see things sort of cascading together where it’s like somebody can’t get flood insurance or can’t get hail.

Derek:

I dunno. Yeah, I mean, we’re at a point now where I think the level water levels on the old man river and the Waterton River have been very low for a few years running and it’s causing some farmers problems. Granted, many of them here have irrigated fields. They have had difficulty growing some bumper crops, some of their regular crops. And whether I think because they do seem to have the ear of the current governing party in Alberta, whether I don’t like to say the name, whether that might be the tipping point where the farmers and the ranchers rise up, similar to what we’re seeing in the crow’s nest pass with respect to the coal mining rising up and saying, enough is enough, you’re killing me.

Key Takeaways

Jenny (00:54:46):

Mark Dorn would heavily agree with you in terms of the landowners are the ones that have not only the power to change things too. Right. That’s where there is a big opportunity there. Thank you for flagging that. I just want to offer a couple things I heard before we wrap here and then I’ll let you guys do the same. Yeah, I’m hearing the frequency and severity of events, climate events are impacting both the rates and the ability to ensure people more. Brokers are becoming more proactive in your analysis, trying to make sure that people have a sense of what’s coming at them and be prepared for that. Relocation is still a question. How are people going to decide? And I hear what you’re saying, Derek, I’m sure there is a big piece that people can’t move. That’s not realistic, that’s not something that’s going to happen. So what are we going to do about that as a society? I will say that Mike Klein, our friend in the chat here was talking about potentially state owned mortgages or corporations that would help mitigate those costs for the population. And the last thing is big is that pollution is excluded from insurance coverage. Yeah. So that’s a big one. Thank you. That’s everything I’ve got from it. I don’t know who wants to go first. Maybe you first Markham and then Derek, you can finish. Give us the last word.

Markham:

Sure. I’ve got a couple of key takeaways from my point of view. One of them is the extent to which the insurance industry is a global industry, and changes that are taking place, it’s not all about Alberta, and this is something that Alberta, we politely call Alberta exceptionalism, right? It’s not about us. I’m sorry, Jenny. I live long enough in Alberta and I’ve been long and I get it, but there are changes that are taking place at the global level in the reinsurance industry and then in the larger industry as a whole that are going to play a role, what insurance costs and when it’ll be available, and to what degree that has nothing to do with Alberta and be prepared for that. The other thing that, I don’t know if it’s a takeaway, but it raised an issue. Again, if we’re going heading to some sort of collapse or some, the issue becomes big enough that the private sector can’t or won’t handle it, then the government will have to step in. And now the taxpayer’s on the hook again, and we see this, I’ve seen this over and over again, and I think that it’s one of the criteria for any kind of development in round oil and gases.

Will the public have to, will the taxpayer have to step in and subsidize it? And to what extent? And we should just say, no, we’re not doing that anymore unless it’s things like the 2013 flood. It’s an extraordinary event and that’s different. Those would be my two takeaways, the global issues and the fact that the government may have to step in again with public money.

Derek:

No, I think why can’t the government mandate each oil company to post a bond for each well site to a minimum level to cover cleanup costs. If you don’t clean up by a certain time, we’re going to exercise the bond to clean up. It’s going to cost the insurance company money. That’s probably why we haven’t seen anything like that. Or sorry, not the insurance company, the oil company money. I think you’d probably find some insurers who would be willing to take that on for a right price. I also think, and this is stepping out of my insurance hat a bit, it’s time to treat water like the valuable resource it is. And I think we’re getting to a point now, and I remember saying this to my wife, gosh, it must be 20 years ago or more, now that fresh water is going to become the new oil

Jenny:

A hundred percent.

Markham:

Assuming we have enough of it. Yeah.

Jenny:

Yes. Well, and again, that’s why we’re working towards trying to wake people up to this massive issue so that we can start moving in the right direction. Thank you, Derek. Thank you, Markham. This has been awesome, awesome conversation. Thrilled. And yes, I think we got to do this again, Markham, and it’d be great to circle back with you on a regular basis. Derek, if you think of anything else that you want us to talk about in the space of water that comes to mind, would love to hear more from you as well.

Derek:

I will send you what I get. I am a profuse and almost addicted reader, I will send you anything I come upon.

Jenny:

Yeah, I have to say, I appreciate you. There’s very few people that are aware in this space and willing to talk, and I’ve appreciated your support virtually and now it’s nice to actually put a face to that and hopefully we’ll have a chance to meet in person sometime soon. I’ll let you know when I’m down your way. Okay, thank you so much guys. Have a great rest of your day. Take care for now. Thank

Derek:

You. Thanks, Jenny. Have a nice day. Bye now.

In episode 6 of Water in Southern Alberta, Jenny and Bob Morrison are joined by three guests: Dwight Popowich, Julian Vandenberg, and John Smith, who represent different farming sectors—dryland, irrigated, and rangeland farming. The discussion highlights the challenges faced by farmers, including water shortages, drought conditions, and the impact of climate change on water resources. The guests share their experiences with water management, the economic pressures of farming, and the mental health challenges within the agricultural community. They emphasize the importance of community support, policy advocacy, and technological advancements in sustaining farming operations. The conversation underscores the interconnectedness of water, agriculture, and community well-being, advocating for greater awareness and support for rural farmers.

Introductions to Dwight Popowich, Julian Vandenberg, and John Smith

Jenny (00:04):

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast. I am your host, Jenny Ami. Here you break down heavy ideas with me to understand their complexities and connections. Our mission is to work through dilemmas together in conversation and process. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territory of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature by giving back and uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversation. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The gravity well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. Join us at thegravitywell.net. Welcome, I’m really excited to have Bob join me with three other guests today, which I’ll get into in a second. This is still in the first half of season two if you’re a subscriber. This is episode 14 of season two, and it’s also episode six of Bob Morrison and I’s Water and Southern Alberta Podcast miniseries. This episode is going to cover dryland, irrigated and rangeland farming. We have three guests today. Dwight Popowich is a dryland farmer in two hills in the Red Deer Basin and is the chair of the Polluter Pay Federation, of which I am a part. Dwight has been on the show before talking about liabilities last year. Julian is an irrigation farmer in the Enchant region in Bow Basin and is a city firefighter.

That’s how…my husband actually introduced Julian to me, a few or actually 2023. And he said, you need to learn about rural Alberta and you need to learn about farming. And I was saying to Julian, that’s what I’ve been doing ever since, basically. Yeah, he was right. And then lastly, John is a rancher. John Smith, excuse me, is a rancher in the MD of Ranch Lands and Willow Creek. He straddles both and is the fellow defender of clean water. John and I have met at many protests against the coal mining proposals in Eastern slopes. I’m really pleased to have all of you guys here. Why are we doing this? Just quickly for your background, we want to first of all give the general population some knowledge. I’m very ignorant in farming and farming practices. I am very excited to learn here, help people that work in water.

There’s a lot of conversations that happen in silos. We’re trying to break those silos down. And then lastly, concerned citizens. Like myself, who’s concerned about it, we were talking earlier about water shortages that we saw last year, for example. We know there’s more drought happening in southern Alberta. The Milk River Irrigation District is shut down for the year, for example. There’s a lot of things happening in water that are impacting your work, and we’re excited to hear about it. That’s in the area of stewardship. We also had some conversations around irrigation history and then also the environment. A few conversations in there, and then in the fall we’re going to reconvene and talk about the future. Where are we headed in Alberta with water and how can we help people do more to get involved? Okay, I’m going to stop there and do some introductions again. Bob, please go ahead and introduce yourself to this group and then we’ll go around with everyone. Thanks.

Bob:

Okay. My name is Bob Morrison. I’m a retired planner. Most of my career was in water management and transportation, and since retirement I’ve been involved in municipal issues here in Calgary, and I’m really looking forward to this podcast because we’ve been talking about policies and law and how people manage water on a basin scale, but I’m far more interested in learning what does water really mean at a local level right in the field when somebody is trying to make a living farming. I’m very fascinated by the conversation we’re going to have and really interested in seeing what you have to see. Thanks.

Dwight:

Dwight Pop, which I live in the two hills area, which is just east central, I guess Alberta is what we call ourselves here, the gateway to Lakeland. I live on 75 acres of land just south of two hills here, and when we have 50 acres of alfalfa on it, we never bought this property to farm it, so to speak. We bought it for recreation purposes and it happened to have 50 cultivated acres, which I continued to use. Rented it out for a couple of years and then started farming it ourselves actually is what we did. And now we’ve turned it all into alfalfa because I’m retired and actually I’ve joined with my neighbours who’ve done the same thing because they’re all retired and we’ve made one huge field out of it, out of our three fields joint because they’re all touching together and we farm it altogether.

Now we have one of my neighbor’s sons who has stayed on the farm and actually wanted to farm, which these days is kind of unusual, losing a lot of our youth to the cities. It’s worked out great. The farming that I do these days is kind of lazy man’s farming, but I’d rather enjoy it and it does give us an income. Water is also in my background. I had worked for the town at two hills for 10 years and I held the licence for their water systems. I was the guy that was in charge of all of it. That’s water and wastewater. I do understand it very much, and it’s very, very important that we have drinking water. We only have 3% of the water in the world is potable. The rest of it can’t be used, it’s rather important that we have water done properly.

Jenny:

Thank you, Dwight. Yes. I forgot about all your knowledge in water infrastructure as well. Julian, you’re next, please.

Julian:

I’m Julian Vandenberg. We farm in the Enchant region, which is in the MD of Tabor. For anyone who doesn’t really know where that specifically is, it’s right center between Lethbridge and Brooks. We’re an irrigated farm. We farm depending on the year, but about 3000 acres are irrigated. Our primary crop is potatoes as far as water, we’re fed off the Bull River. We are heavily reliant on it. The Bull River for us has been the most solid irrigation system, I think, in southern Alberta. Even with the water restrictions last year that was south of us in the old man and St. Mary’s, we didn’t see any restrictions on our part other than water farms temporarily for the year moved into our region to grow their high water input crops because of the water shortages south of us. That’s kind of my story. Kind of back over to you.

Jenny:

Yeah, thanks Julian. I’m sorry if you said it. And what generation are you on your land? Is that…

Julian:

Sorry. Yeah, I should have mentioned that my dad started the farm and I farmed together with him, he would’ve started it in 1989.

Jenny:

Okay, cool. Right on. Okay, John, you’re next please.

John:

Yeah, my name’s John Smith. We own and operate Plateau Cattle co with my wife Laura Lang. I’m the third generation. My maternal grandfather started it in I think 1959 is when he got started. We’re mostly a cow calf operation. We have, I don’t know, there are four or 500 acres of cultivation. It’s not necessarily our main focus. I usually have that hired out. I have custom work for that. A lot of our experience is kind of on the Highway 22 corridor and over the first range of mountains in the Livingston kind of area, Mount Livingston area. I guess in a previous life I was a weed sprayer for the md, a ranch lands and forestry and stuff. I spent a lot of time back west and have seen some pretty significant changes regarding the water and our management of the landscape back there. I think I started back there 25 years ago probably. I guess I got a quarter of a century of experience and seeing how it’s changed and how we’re treating the landscape. Yeah, excited to be here and thanks for the opportunity.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you John. I’m excited to hear more. Bob, do you want to leave this off?

What issues are you seeing related to water in your area?

Bob (08:42):

Beyond what you’ve already talked about, start with you, maybe John, what are the issues that you see in your area related to water, whether it’s a water supply issue, whether how does the land affect the water? Is it a water quality issue? What kinds of things are you seeing in your area?

John:

Well, specifically at our home place right now, we’re able to control the quality pretty well. We do have our creeks and dug oats fenced off and we’re investing money and continuing to invest money in offsite waters. That’s been really good. I mean, there’s a lot of programs there to help farmers out and most of the people I know are taking advantage of those programs. It would be the quantity that is our issue. There’s a little creek that runs through our place. It doesn’t even have a name and maybe if it had run more often, I’d name it. But the point of it is when I was a kid, we talked about the one time the creek didn’t run and now we talk about when it does run. We just received five inches of water whenever that was like four days ago and the creek came up pretty good, it wasn’t running.

It came up pretty good and now you can go and almost check it twice a day and you can see that the flow is starting to slow down and I expect in a week it’s probably going to quit again. Our aquifers, our groundwater flow or supplied by springs and that’s killing us, is our springs are just not flowing the way they used to be, and that’s how low our groundwater is. And that five inches of rain, I mean it’s soaked in, there was no water laying in the fields, anything. We were so dry and it could give us another five inches again right away and that would be fine.

Bob:

Yeah, that creek sounded like a spring Fed Creek the way you were describing it, and that’s certainly one of the issues we’re trying to get a handle on is this relationship between groundwater and surface water in the basin, particularly for those smaller streams. Now you talked about fencing off the creek. Have you been involved with things like cows and fish, those kinds of programs?

John:

Not specifically on cows and fish. On this one, we just did this. We wanted to, but our offsite watering things, we participated in the Western grant and had a couple winter things subsidised. I guess actually the next one we’re doing, we’re doing through cap, Canadian agricultural Partnerships has a program where they’ll cover 50% of an offsite watering system up to 10 grand. That’s good. We’re going to do that next. I know there’s other ones like off cap RR, I’m probably forgetting some, but there’s lots of funding streams out there if you go looking.

Bob:

You’ve been using dugouts, if I can use that term. Is that what you’re looking at in terms of wall stream?

John:

Yeah, our little creek flows through and then my grandfather, he dug three dugouts kind of spread out through the place. The place is kind of a couple miles long, he kind of spaced these dugouts where he thought best and the creek had run into him and then ran out and carried on into the neighbours. We’ve fenced it all off, fenced the dugout off, and then wherever appropriate and where it works for our management, we’ll spot a tank and do a solar powered pump. And I can see the cattle far better. They’re going to do better when they have clean fresh water.

Bob:

Julie, in your area, what are the water issues, whether they’re water quality, water supply, management of the land and how it affects the water?

Julian:

For us, I believe that we are in a very fortunate part of the irrigation districts being in the bow. We haven’t had any water restrictions in my lifetime, south of us in the St. Mary’s and the LNID. There has been, but for us it’s been really good, honestly. But I would say the number one issue probably would be the quantity of water, not necessarily for us, but the irrigation district south of us. As far as positives in the irrigation industry, I guess in our area, a big thing in the last 15 or 20 years has been the progression of water pipelines. As a kid we always got our water through irrigation ditches, which had lots of problems in and of themselves, lots of leakage, stuff like that. And now with everything through pipelines, I feel it’s become very efficient that way and very convenient for us. I mean, it’s like opening the tap and we have water. Sorry, John, it sounds like it’s not the case for you, but that is how it is here.

Bob:

Yeah, pipelines have been a big improvement.

Julian:

They sure have. Yep.

Bob:

Now has that been something you’ve had to pay for or is it something the district has to pay for? How have those things been financed?

Julian:

I believe it’s through the district and public funding. As far as I know, we have not paid directly for the pipelines. I do believe our water rights costs have gone up, but I believe it’s mostly publicly funded, I guess indirectly through tax dollars. But other than that, no.

Bob:

Kind of a partnership between say the provincial government and the district then.

Julian:

Correct. Yeah. I do believe it is one of the best uses of public funds that we’ve seen in our area.

Bob:

Well, and the thing that we found in our first podcast is that irrigation may not be economic on its own, but it certainly provides a lot of economic development opportunities in terms of maintaining a secure water supply for people.

Julian:

Correct. As well as parts and recreation. It’s also a huge driver for parts and recreation in an area.

Bob:

Well, certainly on the reservoirs it’s very, very popular, isn’t it?

Julian:

Yeah.

Bob:

Okay. Dwight, you’ve touched a little bit on this, but what are your concerns in your area in terms of water land management as it affects water?

Dwight:

Well, what we’re seeing of course, is drought, light conditions that have been going on for a number of years, dugout slews are the lowest I’ve ever seen them in decades. They just don’t seem that we depend so much on runoff and we don’t get the snow, whether we even get in the wintertime to get that spring runoff to fill these things. And we’ve been very dependent. Then on the rains, which used to be quite regular, we’d get that sunshine in the daytime and then get the evening showers coming through. But we’ve seen that kind of been disrupted for some reason or other. It hasn’t always been the best. Last year I only got one third of the alfalfa. I normally get off of my field because we just didn’t get the rains in a timely fashion. But yet this year they did come here. They were a little late coming, but it was still, we got a significant amount, a couple inches.

Dwight:

That’s going to add to it alfalfa’s deeper roots. It goes down quite a ways, but what we’re seeing is the water table is lower and the area that we’re in, we sit on one of the largest salt beds in the world right under us, and if you get down any lower than say 200 feet into the ground for a well, you’ve hit the salt beds. We can’t go lower. When the water table starts going down, you start to see the upward issues of the quality of the water. The sodium is just too high. Matter of fact, the town at two Hills used to run well water. They had five wells that they ran to supply the town. They had to shut it down because of salt. Yeah, the good supply. But the salt was off the table. Doctors would recommend anybody with high blood pressure not to drink the water locally.

We treated it, but just couldn’t take enough salt out of it. Now they get City of Edmonton water, which brings up another issue in my mind is we have the city EPCOR supplying all these towns going out for hundreds of miles now. We saw what happens in Calgary when part of the main water suppliers go down. It’s always an issue out here too. We worry that farming wise, like you say, we’re very dependent on the rains. If we need spray or water, we will be going to the towns and we use that clean water there. And I think frackers are starting to use some of our water too, is what I’m starting to see, because there’s no dugouts, there’s nothing to really suck it out of no slue, they have to get it somewhere. Yeah, it’s going to become a challenge as the demand gets higher and if we don’t start getting some of these drought conditions change, which I just can’t see changing with what we’re seeing going on, it’s going to be a struggle as we go forward.

And here we don’t have any other options. We don’t have pipelines bringing water in, I don’t know what they’re going to do there. You said the only irrigation I’ve ever, ever seen in my life in this area was we had a guy who was a sod farmer and for his sod, he would irrigate some of that, but that was it. That’s the only irrigation, and now he sold that out and there’s nothing there anymore anyway, guys just don’t do it here. I think it’s the cost of course, and getting rights these days, it becomes an issue getting water rights. Yeah, that’s where we’re at here now.

Bob:

You’ve got to have a body of water that you can tap into that, as you said about the groundwater, that’s going to be reliable and not come with some extra benefits like salt.

Dwight:

Wow. Exactly. And if you’re running cattle up in this area, you need, well, you got to have wells or dugouts, the wells have to supplement those dugouts. You’re not getting fueled up from rain or runoff from the springs. It becomes a concern when you start seeing the drop in the water table itself. We know it’s much lower than it usually is.

Bob:

Are you on a well or on town water?

Dwight:

I’m on a well.

Bob:

On a well.

Dwight:

Yeah.

Jenny:

Okay. But your town is on city water?

Dwight:

It’s now on city water and matter of fact, when I think of just about every community within our county is now on city water.

Jenny:

Yeah. You and I were talking about this in a prior conversation and one of the conversations was around WBE and Lake, for example, when that contamination happened from the train derailment. Now those communities are also piped into Edmonton. To your point about pipelines, I’ve been in Edmonton and Calgary my whole life, aside from our cottage, I am used to piping, not even thinking about water coming to me. And I think this is the blindness we have with water, which has come up in some of our other conversations. If we really don’t understand if something fails, where are we getting our second source from? Is what you’re describing Dwight, right?

Dwight:

Well, exactly. And the other thing is when they put the pipeline in, yes, you’re supplying the towns and that, but you’re not supplying the agricultural community, which is a big user. There’s no way that EPCOR would be able to do both. There’s just absolutely no way. The plant’s not big enough. They couldn’t produce that much. Yeah, we got a pipeline coming to these communities, but is it going to help agriculture because if we start lining up with our trucks to fill ’em up for our agricultural needs, it’s going to put a big, big demand.

Bob:

There’s a big difference in the size of pipes for irrigation versus supplying a municipality.

How is water used for your farming operations?

Jenny:

Well, and I think if we could start talking about what water use looks like for you, just what does it look like for each of you, Dwight? I’m imagining as somebody who lives in the city and doesn’t really do this work that you have to look at the weather forecast and predict when you’re planting and all sorts of things around this

Dwight:

A little bit. I mean, you plant in the spring, you hope that you get the rains when you get the rains. I mean that’s basically, that’s the plan and it’s always been the plan for years and years and years when you don’t have irrigation, nothing to back it up, mother nature is what you have to depend on and you hope that you get the reins in a timely fashion. Like I said, last year, my neighbours were getting it. They did. Well, actually, but I didn’t because I didn’t get the reins, and that’s just the luck of the draw for that one year. But normally we get enough rain to make it work and it’s okay, but like I’m saying, we’re seeing when you need the backup. We see these stretches where we’re getting these heat waves now that go on for a few weeks. That’s the time when we don’t get the rain and the time when you may need to back up for water and cattle and all that sort of stuff. Now that starts putting a big, big draw on a system that’s already under stress and we know we’re not getting, we see it in the winter, we don’t get the snow out here, what we used to get, and we’re imagining you’re not getting it in the mountains either because they’re not getting it. We’re not getting it. That’s the way it works. The weather patterns move from west to east, and we’re dependent on what’s happening in those mountain ranges very much.

Jenny:

Yeah. Can you speak a little bit about your planning, John? I understand you’re at the mercy of Mother Nature, but are there any changes or anything you’re seeing in terms of planning, timing or otherwise that matters with respect to water?

John:

I’d say here on the farming side of things, you see guys trying to seed way earlier now than what would’ve been the normal. We got guys we’re on the foothills and guys just on the outside of the foothills are trying to seed the end of March, the first day April, which would’ve been, nobody would’ve ever done that before because you’d worry about getting frosted out. These guys are trying to seed earlier that they can use a bit of moisture when it’s there and they’re rolling the dice to see if that crop will get past the frost, the frost hazards. But for us, if we water a lot of cattle off of wells, for instance this spring and we have really good water, the wells have never gone dry, and we had a well bugger up and it’s always the pressure switch. And after I changed the pressure switch and that didn’t fix it, I started thinking that the well was dry, and that was the first thought that came to my head.

It turns out that wasn’t it. It was another issue. And then that makes me think about the irrigation, the Vandenberg’s, there’s a Vandenberg hay farm. I’m not sure if they’re related or not, but us cow calf guys, I can see when it’s dry like this and we’re not getting production, I put the cows in on my own hay fields. They’re only rated at a thousand pounds an acre, and it’s not worth cutting. We grazed it, and that’s where irrigation’s going to provide a good service for the cow calf guy. We need somebody to grow a bit of forage for us and some hay, we might as well let the guys with the best technology do it, I think.

Bob:

Well, it’s my understanding that irrigation in particular has become quite integrated with the cow calves operations that you’ve got, particularly when you’ve got a drought.

John:

Yeah, absolutely. I know one strategy we’ve employed with our own cows in the winter feeding. We graze on the Waldron grazing co-op till about January 15th, 20th, something like that. And then now what we’ve been doing the last three, four years is bringing our cows home and giving ’em somebody that’s growing silage. Some do it with irrigation, some don’t mostly nod around here. But yeah, it’s actually really changing the ranching paradigm a little bit is how to winter these cows because that’s the most expensive expense that you have as a cow guy is your winter feed costs. Typically it would’ve been a rancher who would’ve spent all winter rolling out hay bales and we’re just not seeing as much of that anymore and definitely not in our place. Got to think outside the box and do some different things to try and stay in the business.

Dwight:

That’s some of the reason why I went into alfalfa was exactly what John is talking about. When we see lower, say rain isn’t coming and we’re not getting the yields, we usually see the price of that alfalfa that feed go up. It kind of balances itself out. Not for guys like John who’ve suddenly now got a higher cost, but guys like me who are growing alfalfa. That’s kind of the balance why and why I went into alfalfa being retired, very little lot less work to it. And there’s that kind of balance that sometimes happens with it. Not all the time, but sometimes.

Jenny:

Yeah. Julian, can you offer us a different perspective? What does it look like for you? Is it mostly just making sure everything’s consistent throughout the year or what does it look like?

Julian:

Yeah, for us, well, like I said earlier, we turn on the tap and we can get water. Now, the caveat to that is our water doesn’t get turned on generally until April 25th, and this year was actually a little bit later. I think we were a couple days into May before our water got turned on. But for us, our planting, I mean, we grow crops that take pretty much the full growing season, we can’t necessarily wait for rains or the water to get turned on to plant those crops because we run on our growing days. For us, our potatoes rule of thumb is April 20th, the planter started rolling into the fields, and that’s kind of the way it’s been for many years. We are, like I said, we are heavily reliant on irrigation, and so far we’ve had a pretty bulletproof system, at least in our district.

Bob:

Julian, I think you’re being a little modest. You said you just turn on the tap. I gather there’s a little bit more work involved than just turning a tap on. Can you give us an idea of what it’s like to irrigate?

Julian:

We irrigate primarily with pivot irrigation, and for those you’re not familiar with the pivot, essentially, it’s funny, I work with people in the city that say, “oh, look at all the crop circles where you are.” Well, that’s a pivot. Mostly you’ll see a pivot in a circle. That part of it is generally automated. There is a lot of maintenance involved in pivot irrigation. We have, I believe, 24 pivots that we operate. And some of them are ours, some of them aren’t, and we have a guy that’s busy full-time keeping those things running. There’s that side of it. As far as turning on the water, I mean, we still need pumps and things like that to get the right pressures. We are pressurized by a pipeline, but generally the pressure isn’t high enough to actually supply our irrigation systems. In the past three years, or not this year, but the last three years we’ve been doing sweet potatoes, which were under drip irrigation, and that was another whole plethora of things that we had to set up for it. Drip irrigation is nice once you get it set up, but setting it up takes a lot of labour. And then there’s actually one of our biggest problems was we had gophers and they would eat the drip tape and you would’ve holes everywhere. That was a concern with that, but we’re no longer doing sweet potatoes. That wasn’t, we thought it would be a high value crop and it was, but just on the input side, not on what we were getting out of it. Yeah, I hope that answered…

Jenny:

Well, it taps into something that was mentioned in our conversation about irrigation with Shannon Stunden Bower when she was talking about, as Dwight was saying, some farmers in Saskatchewan have opted out of irrigation because of all of the inputs to get you to those cash crops can potentially outweigh the benefit of not trying in some cases, again, depending on the area, but when you’ve had something readily available, it’s probably a very different conversation.

Julian:

For us, we grow potatoes as our main crop, and then we seed canola, a little bit of parsnips and some grain to fill the rotation. But the reason I list the crops is generally, except for the grain, those are generally pretty high value crops, which you’d need high value crops on irrigated farms, especially these days. I mean, I don’t know if you guys track what land values are doing our way, but they have gone up extremely high in the last few years to the point that no one starting a farm could buy land. That is why we grow higher value crops. Of course, our inputs are a lot higher too, and our storage concerns as well for the potatoes. We have to of course store all the crops that we get off and we’re actually shipping out today we’re shipping to one of our processing plants, but that’s another thing that comes with high value crops is high value storage. Right.

Jenny:

Yeah. You were describing this to me when I met with you that time, how you have to store and be prepared to move your product through in a way that you get the right prices, but you’re also, the quality stays high, all of those components as well. Right.

Julian:

And we wash and pack, as well. All the potatoes you see in the store in bags are washed, we wash a good chunk of those that you would see. But yeah, that also requires water, which we feed off of. We have a pond on site that we fill, and then we treat the water as it comes out. We have many, many pretty stringent food safety regulations that we have to follow for doing that.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah, I can only imagine the inputs to that. Okay. Can we talk a little bit about the changes you tapped into something both Dwight and Julian about potentially the number of farmers like Julian, you were just describing land prices going up. What we learned in our first episode was that there is, at least in the special areas, that crops like crop sizes have increased by 30 fold since the 1980s, meaning what I understood as 30 times less farmers on the landscape, if you will, in that area. They’ve actually seen a drop in people living in that district. I’m curious, can you guys talk a little bit about those changes? Dwight, you touched on it first already, maybe if you wouldn’t mind starting us off there.

Community Population and Activity Changes

Dwight (30:40):

Yeah, we’re seeing something similar out here, Jenny. We’re seeing less people farming. The younger generation seems to be heading to the city for the big jobs, the big money type of thing, and many of them don’t want to take over the farming. We’re also seeing that as the cost of inputs are going up, you’re needing to do more and more acres in order to make a go of it. We used to have small mom and pop farms where you’d have one quarter of land and you can raise a family. You can’t do that. It’s almost impossible. The small guy really doesn’t exist anymore, and they’re getting bought up by the few guys that want to actually farm and realize that they need many, many more acres. That’s what we’re seeing is guys are becoming quite large for farming, for me to have 75 acres is highly unusual.

I’m very highly unusual, but like I say, I didn’t buy it for farming. I bought it to live on and recreation, and I worked in the grain industry for years. I was the head of the Grain Services Union, that’s why I live out here. I’m very familiar with farming. I grew up on a farm, that sort of thing. I’m connected to it. I love it. I love it out here, but I cannot see how it’s sustainable for these young people to ever start up farming. Unless you have a parent who is retiring and turning some stuff over to you, you’re not going to make a go of it. You can’t afford it. Our prices of land, it’s going up too. Of course, it depends on the soil itself, what grade it’s at, but we’re seeing $1,500 for an acre for some of the farmland, which is crazy. I bought my place 25 years ago. We paid 104,000 for the 75 acres with a house and all these buildings on it and whatnot, and now it’s half a million bucks is what it’s worth just from the property. Gotcha.

Jenny:

Thank you. Dwight. Yeah. John, can you offer some thoughts with respect to that? I know in the songs we heard in Fort McLeod there were some comments around succession planning in the music. I’m just curious, can you offer some comments around what you’re seeing.

John:

To go off Dwight’s point, it is the same thing here. It would be extremely difficult for a young person or a couple to begin ranching. Our land prices, I’m actually jealous of Dwight’s land prices. Ours are quite probably double that or a little bit more, probably closer to 4,000 an acre. And there’s just, even if they wanted to, I don’t know how they would ever get a loan from the bank. You would have to have a down payment so big that they just, why would you do it? You’d have to be a masochist. Really. It’s the same thing out here, the little guys. Some of it’s our young people aren’t coming back because for a long time in farming and ranching, there wasn’t a lot of money in it. Farming has enjoyed a little bit of a boom previous to the one that ranching’s having right now.

That helped maybe bring some young people back there. We’ll let Julian speak to that. But the ranches, you got to be born into it really, or maybe have a relationship with an old guy that’s retiring. I forget the median age of farmers in Alberta, but I think it’s over 65. It’s the same with ranching. There’s a ton of the older generation kind of hanging on, and it’s one of those that’s kind odd because you’ll be sitting there sitting on probably millions of dollars worth of wealth, but because you’ve struggled your whole life, you didn’t have the opportunity to save all the money that you wanted to save to retire.

My mom and dad enjoyed a reasonable retirement, but there were no lavish villas in Spain or anything like that. They just barely made it and they sacrificed to make sure that Laura and I could have a shot at it, and then still a little bit younger, but we’re going to have the same decision to make as try and figure out how we can get enough money squirrelled away to retire and hopefully roll this thing one more time. And then that goes to government policy. If you get the government screwing around with taxes and estate planning, that’s a really big deal for us in agriculture, like huge.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah, I’ve heard that conversation come up before. Yeah. Okay. Julian? Yes, a younger perspective for us, please.

Julian:

Yeah, if I were today to go on my own and buy a farm, it would be 100% impossible Land prices here, and keep in mind this is irrigated, but I think I just did a rough estimate on a quarter that I heard sold the other day and we’re, I think $22,000 an acre. It’s impossible to buy one quarter of land and you can’t even make a go of it on one quarter of land. You could if you had very high value crops, but with that comes very high value equipment that you need to purchase as well and storages and the whole thing. I’m fortunate that my father is involved with it. It’s not getting handed to me by any means, but it is giving me an opportunity that I would be able to start up on my own. I would say for young farmers or for young people in general, I’m in a very fortunate category that I have a dad that has a successful farming operation or that we have a successful farming operation and that we have worked out a plan that can get me involved in it.

For the average young person, that is not possible. It’s just the amount of money to buy a quarter of land. I mean that’s three and a half million dollars per quarter of land where you’re going to get the down payment even by one quarter, never mind a couple to make it worth it, and then all the equipment costs on top of that plus your operating costs. It’s just, yeah, it’s a lot of money. I’m in a fortunate position, but I can see the industry. Actually, I’ve thought about this for a while. I think the industry is going to go, you see it in a lot of Midwestern United States where there’s a lot of now corporate farming. I think that’s going to happen here as well. We see it. Everyone here has mentioned how farms have gone bigger and bigger. Part of that reason is we’ve got a lot of foreign investment into farming in our area and we’re seeing more and more corporate farming. We farm on 3000 acres and we’re considered to be a pretty small to medium farm. Yeah, I guess that’s my perspective on it.

Jenny:

Yeah. Julian, I’m just curious because you grew up out there, can you speak to your neighbours, are your friends what’s described? And I’ve certainly seen them go into the city to work for industries or other things rather than try to pick up where their parents have left off?

Julian:

Yeah, I guess it depends on the friends. Some of them weren’t motivated to work on a farm, a lot of ’em, and I think that had to do, and I think maybe Dwight or John had mentioned it earlier, farming had a real bad rap, especially in the nineties. It was really tough to make a go of it. A lot of people were born, probably a couple of years older than me, but we’re coached not to farm and to go to the city and get jobs there. Now, farming, I would say in the last 20 years, has turned around and especially irrigated farming has done quite well. I guess farming requires a lot of effort and a lot of work and a lot of people like the Monday to Friday, eight to five jobs, which I guess I can see the appeal to, but it’s not for everyone anymore.

And there’s just a lot of options out there. But as far as my friends go, I would say they are not necessarily farming on their parents’ operation, but a lot of them have started businesses related to farming. In our area, agriculture is a primary economic driver and with that comes, I’ve got a couple buddies that have machine shops and welding shops and mechanic shops and stuff like that. Everything to do with irrigation is high inputs, which means lots of equipment, which means lots of work for those guys. There’s lots of business opportunities around farming. Being directly involved in a farm is a different story, I would say.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. That’s fantastic. Okay, Bob, I’ve hogged the conversation

Making Farming Work for Its Communities

Bob (38:49):

In terms of making this work from a community point of view where you, it’d be nice to have the corporate guys come in and be part of the community, but Dwight, you’ve been involved in banking in your previous life. What kind of solutions do we have out there that would potentially make this better from a community point of view in terms of keeping people on the land as opposed to going to these major corporations?

Dwight:

That’s a darn good question. What I’m seeing out here is this is something that we really haven’t talked about the stress of farming, it’s a big issue. We’re losing farmers who are taking their own lives because of the stress in my area. I’ve lost two friends in the last couple years and it’s just, I see it and I look at these guys because they’re having to go to this more and more acres to make ends meet, snow is flying and they’re still combining for crying out loud. We never used to have to do that kind of stuff. I’d rented it for a couple years, we thought we’d just try renting it out. We rented to one of the bigger guys in the area. He went under, he never finished off because he couldn’t get his crops off to one, he had too many acres.

The stresses are everywhere, and that is something that we haven’t really talked about, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems of why people are not going into farming a ranching, financially speaking, you’re gambling and then you get all the stress on top of that with weather, with input costs, with whether you’re going to get your crops off, whether you’re going to get proper pricing for it, you don’t know what, there’s too many things being thrown at you, too many things, too many stresses that need to be managed. It’s not everybody’s cut out to be a farmer. It’s special people that will be in this, and that’s why I see it kind of going to corporations because of all the stress and all the management that is needed to farm all these huge acres to make ends meet. I don’t think you’re ever going to see the single family farm type of thing ever coming back, ever. Not at these costs.

Bob:

John and Julian, have you seen the same kind of issues in your area?

John:

I would say yeah, the mental health thing is actually, that’s a big one that doesn’t get talked about and most people in the industry don’t really want to talk about that either, but it is something that should be addressed and yeah, stress is huge, right? And lots of times it’s about things that you can’t do anything about. You can participate in whatever business risk management, your crop insurance, there’s moisture deficiency insurance. There’s all these different things, and I mean they do help, but at the end of the day when it hasn’t rained in a month or two or very little and you’re running out of options, and in my case, you’re looking at a cow herd that has generations of working to it, and it’s like now you got to decide what cows to get to go to town. And we had to do that three years ago and I didn’t like it. I didn’t like doing that. Yeah, it’s hard, right? It’s hard, but you just, I don’t know. Mind you that being said, if I ever go to Vegas and I play blackjack, that feels easy. It’s the same thing as my regular life.

Dwight:

That’s easy. The guy who won the lottery went farming till it was all gone. Yeah.

Bob:

I asked an economic question, Julian and I got a mental health answer. How are things in your area? The question I had was, how can you make bankers make the system work better for the local community? But I got an answer that was related to stress and mental health issues. What do you…

John:

Sorry, Bob, I lost focus.

Dwight:

That was my fault. Sorry.

Bob:

Well, no, I’ve been known to ask the wrong question, but get the right answer surprisingly sometimes. But in terms of your area, Julian, you’ve got all the cost inputs in particular to make a go of it. In terms of irrigation, are there better financial models or are there better mental health models for farming?

Julian:

That’s a tough question. I don’t really have the answer to that to be quite honest. I don’t know what the solution is to get family farming back. I don’t think it’s actually possible. I don’t really have an answer to that. As far as mental health, that’s a big one for sure. I mean, like John said, you’re playing blackjack with millions of dollars at a time. I mean, a lot of times when I talk to people, they’re shocked by the amount of money that we move. Well, the amounts of money come in, but they also leave in the same amounts. It’s just bigger dollar values that you’re gambling with and there is a lot of risk with it. We can’t say for sure. We spent a lot of money getting the crops in the ground where one hill storm away from it not being there. Crop insurance has helped with that. But as far as your question goes, sorry, I don’t really have a solution for that.

Bob:

That leads me to my next question, which is in terms of getting people to work the land for you or help you in terms of labour supply, particularly if people are going to these big corporate farms, how well are we set in terms of being able to have people that would provide that labour supply along with all the other things we need? For us,

Julian:

It works. We have a big population of Mennonite in our area, and they’re really great workers. They’re very handy people. And generally our lower, I should say, yeah, lower paid labour. For example, today we have five people that are grading out the bad potatoes off our line, that’d be our lower paying jobs. We do sometimes have an issue getting enough people for that in the future. I do see that being replaced by technology for us. There’s already, I do my own programming on the farm and our own electrical and design. The more we can automate and get rid of some of those positions, the easier it is as far as, I would say skilled labour as far as operating the plant retractors or trucking and stuff like that. We haven’t had a problem getting people as of yet, but we also, we’re in southern Alberta Mennonite community, we only work six days a week, and that’s because of our faith as well. But if we push ’em to work seven days a week, you’re not going to be able to get that. And I do believe we were talking about mental health earlier. Like I said, we only operate six days a week and I see our neighbours running seven days a week for four or five weeks straight. That’s not healthy either. There has to be a break in between there.

Bob (45:44):

Okay. John, what have you seen in terms of labour supply?

John (45:48):

In our instance, we’re a smaller cow calf thing, we’ll sometimes get some seasonal help. That’s never been an issue getting that, but I do think Julian’s right on technology is really going to change things going forward. We’re already talking about swarms of sprayer drones. I can see where most of the planning equipment will probably go autonomous. And the same with the cow calf thing we’re working on, or the technologies just becoming available now for these virtual fence callers and remote monitoring of your cattle. I don’t think labour’s going to be a problem going forward. You’re going to need maybe 20% of the labour that you did need, and it’s going to need to be skilled to be able to run the systems to run four combines at a time or analyze the health of 500 head of cows. That’s the way I see that going.

I just want to go back to your economic question. I did get sidetracked there quick too, and I think if there was a little bit of a directive, at least this was my experience with banks, there was two or three different branches in our hometown, and it would seem like one bank would be a little bit agriculture, you’d see most of your farmers and ranchers there, and maybe another one kind of wasn’t, and they’d kind of roll around and take turns. And there were times that you could work with a bank and not work with it. And now I don’t know what it’s like for you guys, but honestly the bank in town’s useless as we know. You go in, you give your paperwork, whatever, and it’s always got to go to Toronto or wherever. I think if there was a little bit more on the lending side, some help and direction with the banking industry, it would help slow down the bleeding anyways would be my thought.

Julian:

Yeah, John, on that, we experienced a similar thing about 15 years ago or so, and we have turned away from charter banks because of that. Long story short, they called in our loans and gave us 60 days and we were really close to going under because of that. We no longer deal with charter banks because of exactly that reason. Everything has to get approved through Toronto, whereas we’re with a credit union now and a TD that way is really good as well, but it’s a lot more local. When you need something, you go to the bank and you talk to someone who’s actually in charge of it.

Dwight:

Yeah, I was just going to mention that ATB, and that’s why it exists, is to be helping farmers in Alberta and unfortunately what they’ve done is they’ve kind of slid towards the oil and gas sector more than they do the agricultural sector. To me, that saddens me because that is why ATB exists to help us guys out in rural Alberta because the big banks, if they weren’t ignoring our communities in the first place, they were ignoring agriculture even if they were out here. It’s a little disappointing to see the mandate for a TB to kind of go more to oil and gas. I know that they still have programs for agriculture. I work quite closely with my local banker because I’m an ex banker and worked for a TB. She’s always wanting to chat with me about stuff. And also because of my position in the Polluter Pay Federation, she’s always talking about what’s going on with banks and mortgages for land. And this is something we’re seeing where mortgages are being affected now because their reclamation certificates aren’t being trusted. The banks aren’t trusting the AER. It’s those kinds of issues. The banks are well aware of what’s going on, but they need to work with us a little closer instead of costing us money. And then we need the government to step in here and start taking us seriously. Agriculture is a big part of Alberta, a huge part of our economy, and yet,

Key Takeaways

Jenny (49:48):

Well, not just for Alberta, but for Canada. This is a massive role that’s played for the country here that we talk about very casually. Thank you so much. I think it’s been fascinating to hear the similarities. I went to a watershed council meeting just outside of Red Deer and they had somebody speak to mental health issues at that event. And the recommendation I was listening for, what are the recommendations, right? Because they were talking about precisely what you guys described, more suicides and stress for performers, and the comment was, call this health number. To me. One of the things when I think about the future, and maybe I’ll pass this off as closing comments, is there still a community of farmers that are able to drive policy in a meaningful way? I would mean how would, because to me, it’s all about the communities and the local people benefiting long-term rather than you’re describing corporations.

I don’t see how that’s going to help communities come together. Anyway, those are my closing thoughts, and I’m just curious from your perspective how we might, again, thinking about community growth and about how you guys can build that security and safety and what you’re doing in your farms, I guess I’m thinking trying to figure out how to stitch that back together or if that is already there and I’m ignorant to it. Those are lots of words. The question in there was what sort of community building are you doing together with other farmers to make sure that you’re helping drive decision-making? I’ll leave it there.

Dwight:

Well, Jenny, you know what I’ve been going through for the last eight years with the Polluter Pay Federation and trying to get landowners to come on board a little bit more with oil and gas and hosting it. And we are notoriously independent landowners. That’s what we are. We really love our independence. That is why we’re out here. This gives us this sense of freedom. It’s pretty hard. It’s like herding chickens when it comes to landowners trying to get ’em together to do the same voice sometimes, but you are absolutely right. Hopefully I’m still going to be starting some town hall meetings.

Jenny:

That’s wonderful.

Dwight:

It’s going to be around the mature asset strategy. We’re going to start there, but I think we need to be hearing more and more of that on some of the other things that are going on in agriculture and start getting everybody together to be that one voice.

Because we’re starting to see in the Polluter Pay Federation, that one voice is actually starting to have some effect on the government. They’re actually starting to listen and maybe, I don’t know if it’s really willing to change policy yet, but they are listening to us. They are hearing us. We are making enough noise for them to at least start listening before it. They’re always ignoring us. So I think we need to do the same thing here with some of the other issues we have in agriculture, water, one of them, the stress end of it, financing all of that. These are all important because agriculture, if you don’t have agriculture, what have you got folks? What have you got? Nothing.

Jenny:

No kidding. Thanks, Dwight. That was awesome.

John:

Yeah, I was just thinking about our experiences where one of the families that’s been involved with taking the government to task over the coal mining and the Eastern Slopes, I do feel like Dwight’s, right? It’s hard to get a bunch of farmers and ranchers organized to push in one direction because it is just everybody’s busy. Look at today, I was looking forward to doing this podcast, and then my morning got away from me and thank gosh, Jenny phoned me to tell me I needed to do something. That’s a real thing. And that happens every day, a lot of us out here. But I do think that when we’re reunited and we’re somewhat organized, that we can have an effect. And we saw that we were able to turn the government around whenever that was, 21, we had Sonya Savage on tv, recognized that they made a mistake and reversed a decision. Now why we’re revisiting it again is unclear to me. But anyways, we’re organized again, and I think as we had the town hall in Fort McLeod, and I understand there’s another one on the second in Okotoks.

Jenny:

Be there.

John:

Yeah. I unfortunately got to take our cows to the mountains that day. I had the trucks booked even before I organised that, and I got to get these freaking cows out of my hair. Anyways, but yeah, and I really hope that that will be well attended because that’s the only thing the government fears is bad press and not getting elected. That’s honestly all they care about. And for us, we’ve always said, it’s nonpartisan. It’s not left right, it’s right, wrong. This is the beast that you got to work with. I’m really hoping that we get a great turnout and I really hope that all the people in the agricultural areas that have supported us continue to support us and actually continue to educate their neighbours. We’re still amazed that we find that people don’t actually understand what the crux of the issue is.

Education is still important, and that’s something every farmer can do. I am sure Julian and Dwight, they have that happen. When I run into somebody that is from the city and finds out that we ranch, there’s nobody jumping down my throat saying, what are your cows doing near the water? Are they belching methane? They’re enamoured and excited to learn what we do and how we do it, I think because they feel like we’re connected to the land maybe more than what they are. And I think that chance for education’s there and people just want to know and feel good about what’s going on, right? I think that’s something we should all provide.

Jenny:

Beautiful. Okay, Julian?

Julian:

Yeah, I think I’ll piggyback off John A. Little bit there. I think as far as getting together as farmers, it’s going to be pretty tough until you have an issue that everyone can unite behind. I think Dwight mentioned earlier as well, but a lot of times we’re in our own little world here. We got neighbours all around us on every side, and I can’t think of one that I actually talked to other than pulling up on the road and both of us rolling down our windows and having a chat. I would say the onus for mental health on farmers is to reach out to each other and talk to each other. I think all of us have been around long enough in the farming community to know that you look at your neighbour’s farm and you see things going on, and you can know either if they’re doing well or not doing so well. I think that’s pretty obvious on the road. I think it’s more just us reaching out to them as far as having town halls, like I said, I think there is an opportunity for that. I know we have been involved in politics on this farm quite a bit. I think the government does listen if you have enough people with a good understanding of how things should operate approaching them. Yeah, that’s my take on it.

Jenny:

Yeah, I think that’s very true. Brilliant. I think you guys have a very strong voice, which is another reason why I am appreciative of working with rural Alberta because you guys do have a strong voice. I don’t think as much as I do in the city, for example. Yes, thank you for exercising your political will. If you’ll, Bob, do you want to offer some closing thoughts or comments?

Bob:

Okay. But first you have to recognise that Julian is part of a community. It’s by necessity because he’s part of the Bow River Irrigation District, which is really one of those, what would you call it, little democracies. They get to decide in one way or another how the district is going to operate. There is a community. It just isn’t necessarily your neighbour down the road. It’s a much larger community than that. But in terms of closing comments, this has been a great conversation. Very helpful. We’ve slid away from water, but for good reason because water is connected to a whole bunch of other issues. The finances, as we’ve talked about, the mental health, the whole thing about community. Water isn’t just about water, it’s about a lot of other things. Thank you very much. I’ve really appreciated the privilege to be able to talk to the three of you today.

Jenny:

Thank you. Well said. Anything we missed, guys, before we wrap, any other comments or thoughts?

Dwight:

I just want to remind urban folks that oil and gas and your food comes from rural Alberta. Just remind them of that because it seems sometimes that they forget that.

Jenny:

I believe you completely. Yes. The water blind world, and as Bob said, water’s connected to all of us. It all feeds into how we ignore, where everything just comes to us so easily through pipes as Julian described. Okay. Thank you very much guys. This has been amazing. Like we said, we’re doing some more conversations in the fall, we may call upon you again, or if you have anything that occurs to you that you would like to suggest, we’re all ears. Thank you so much. Have a great rest of your day. Take care for now.

Dwight:

Thank you.

John:

Thank you for the opportunity.

In this episode, Jenny and Bob are joined by Mike Murray, Susan Ellis, and Tim Romanow, who are experts in watershed stewardship. The discussion centers on the importance of public investment in water decision-making and the challenges faced in managing, protecting, and restoring water resources. The guests share insights from their respective organizations, highlighting the need for collaboration, education, and data-driven approaches to address water concerns. They emphasize the significance of building trust among stakeholders and the role of watershed management plans in guiding sustainable practices. The conversation also touches on the unique challenges of transboundary water management and the importance of building relationships with indigenous communities. The episode underscores the critical need for informed and inclusive dialogue to ensure the health of water systems for future generations.

Introductions to Mike Murray, Susan Ellis, and Tim Romanow

Jenny:

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast. I am your host, Jenny Ami. Here you break down heavy ideas with me to understand their complexities and connections. Our mission is to work through dilemmas together in conversation and process. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territory of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature by giving back and uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversation. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The gravity well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. Join us at thegravitywell.net.

Okay, thank you. I’m very excited to have some very familiar faces here today. I’ll get into introductions in a second, but we are in the first half of season two if you’re a subscriber. This is season 2, episode 13. It’s also episode 5 of a “Water in Southern Alberta” course that Bob Morrison and myself have been leading. Today we have three guests with us. We have Mike Murray, who is the executive director of the Bow River Basin Council. Susan Ellis, who is a social scientist. She’s in a group that we call the Concerned Calgarians on Climate Change with Bob Morrison and myself. We get to work with Susan regularly, which is wonderful. And then Tim Romano, who is also the executive director at the Milk River Watershed Council, thank you all very much for being here.

Why are we talking about Water and Southern Alberta? This series is dedicated to the general public. We want people involved in water such as yourselves to be able to feel empowered by the public in these water concerns. As I am a concerned citizen, that’s the third concerned citizen who feels empowered to get involved and get engaged in water decision making. We’ve talked about the history of irrigation. We then went into some conversations around the environment, had some conversations around the impacts of resource extraction around water laws and licensing and around the water cycle. That was our last conversation with Tricia Stadnyk and now we’re doing stewardships. Today we’re meeting with the three of you to talk about your work in both Lake and watershed stewardship. I’m going to stop there. I’m going to let everybody do a little bit of introductions and then we’ll get into some questions specifically for this group. And I will mention we’re going to do some future conversations in the fall. If you guys like this experience, we’d welcome you back and perhaps maybe Shannon Frank might be able to join us. Then we hope to have Shannon Frank in this conversation from the Old Man Watershed Council as well. Okay, that’s enough for me. Mike, you’re next on my screen. If you would start by introducing yourself, please.

Mike:

Well, hello, Mike Murray. I’m the executive director for the Bow River Basin Council. I had a background in ecology and did some work in that area, and then 22 years ago I thought I’d just take a look at this Bow River Basin Council and see what it’s like and work there for a little while. And 22 years later, I’m still there because just of the people that work there, the energy, the fact that we learn something new every day and just the culture of helping each other be right and to work on these challenges together has kept me here all this time.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Yes, and I have the opportunity to meet with Mike regularly as I’m on the Stewardship Coordinating Council with them. I’m still learning my way and really grateful to Mike’s expertise, it’s great. Susan, you’re next, please. Hi everyone.

Susan:

Pleasure to be here. I’m here because mostly because of my background with the Pigeon Lake Watershed Association and the extensive engagement that we conducted around the lake, it was helpful to have my human resources and behavioral science background around change because of the work that we were trying to bring about into the watershed. And I’ve just been reviewing that. I’ve been out of it for a few years, but we covered a lot of ground and I look forward to sharing with both of you. I do appreciate that lakes are very different from watershed communities. The councils have to deal with a lot more people than I did at the same time. It was very engaging. I look forward to this conversation with you all.

Jenny:

Yeah, I’m really excited to hear more. We’ve had lots of little clips from Susan about the work done. I’m looking forward to hearing it fully. Tim, you’re next, please.

Tim:

Yeah, I’m Tim Romanow. I’m the executive director for the Milk River Watershed Council Canada. Yeah, I got a bit of background in Fish and Wildlife Management. I spent a number of years working in sustainable agriculture and extension. I guess a little bit about started getting involved with the WPACs volunteering actually with the Old Man Watershed Council and their rural team probably, geez, about 2005, 2006 through the municipality that I was based in with the old AA program. I started doing some work with the Milk River Council when they got established and took on the role of executive director back in 2011. It’s been a little while.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Yes. I’m excited to hear your experience as well, Tim. Okay. Bob and reintroduction for everyone here, please, in the context of this would be great and you can lead us off into our first question. Thank you.

Bob:

I’m Bob Morrison. I’m a retired planner. I work primarily in water management and transportation. And since retirement, I’ve been involved in municipal issues here in Calgary, and I’m very interested in this conversation because the watershed stewardship groups like what Susan was involved in and the water basin councils are very valuable ways of getting people together to work on common problems. And I’m really looking forward to hearing about the experiences of everyone involved. In terms of the watershed planning and advisory councils, what are the primary issues they deal with and are there differences between your two basins?

Primary Issues to Deal with within a Watershed

Mike (00:06:49):

We have four main categories that we work in, which is convener and collaborator education, state of the watershed reporting and watershed management planning. I’d say for the Board River Basin Council, our major strength is the convener and collaborator portion. Our ability to bring people together from all of the sectors, all the different users of the watershed and engage in that dialogue that brings forth some of the challenges, some of the solutions, but also just helps everybody build a trust within that community to tackle some of these challenges. Talking a little bit about some of the differences, there can be major differences. All MW PACS have different situations that they’ve got to deal with. In the BO specifically, we are what we would call an urban central basin. We have 1.6 million in the City of Calgary. We have irrigation at the bottom end of the system, and we have parks and protected areas as well as national parks up on our headwaters.

Our situation might be a little different. We also have 15 dams and weirs on the bow. Natural flow is controlled in a way that will be different from what some of the other W packs are dealing with. They might be more rural centric or have different types of industry or agricultural presence in their watershed as well as maybe even different precipitation patterns and other considerations. One of the important things that as a Board of Basin Council we look at is that we have very few but larger licence holders. It’s a much smaller group than maybe some other basins would have controlling the water, but the bow basin is the largest contributor to the SSRB, the South Saskatchewan Regional Basin River basin. We understand that the challenge of watershed management in our area also affects many other people downstream. That is always something that we are thinking about, not just upstream, but also the downstream users that get what they’re given after we have finished using that water. It’s a responsibility, but something everybody takes pretty seriously. Yeah,

Jenny:

Yeah. Well said, Mike. The cascading effects of the decisions we make in our basin as I’m in, Bob and I are in the same basin as you and Susan for that matter versus what Tim sees. Yeah, Tim, you actually have some pretty recent examples of decisions issues coming in on the landscape in your area. Can you offer some different ways to or what your primary role is in some of those things? Thank you.

Tim:

Sure. Yeah, and to echo Mike a little bit, there’s a common weave of those four main core roles and responsibilities that all 11 of the watershed councils roll into their programming. We’re a little different in the milk. We’re a trans boundary watershed, I like to say we’re connected at the head and the hip with Montana. We share water between the Milk River and the St. Mary’s river system through extremely large diversion down in Montana, which has its own complications as it’s not really recognized as an inner basin transfer for the Government of Canada and regards to even some of our infrastructure opportunities and grants that our municipalities face. There’s different unique challenges there. But the other, even though we’re one of the smallest of the major basins in the province, we’ve got a complicated set of things that we work with. Over 80% of my watershed is native grasslands. And I like to say our work watershed management is more than just water management. And in our area, we do a lot in terms of speed at risk, supporting stewardship, doing education and outreach, hands dirty and feet wet, maybe a little bit more than some, but we really do our best to try to reflect the values and interests of the community through those activities.

Jenny:

Amazing. Yeah. Wow. There’s a lot going on there. That’s really cool to hear that you have 80% native grassland, though we always hear about the low amounts in other areas. That’s phenomenal, Tim.

Tim:

It also relates to a lot of the species at risk issues. We’ve got probably 85% of the species at risk that are found in the province down here just because of a unique landscape and at the northern end of the range for some of the grasslands and a lot of the species ranges as well. So

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s really interesting. I would like to hear more from a federal perspective, some thoughts you have later, Tim. Okay. Susan, can you offer the same from you? What were some of the issues that you dealt with as a Pigeon Lake council member? Thank you.

Susan:

Pigeon Lake is the biggest lake in central Alberta, and it was developed before a lot of the lakes were more developed than most of the central Albert Lakes. We saw ourselves, or at least I saw ourselves, even though lakes are very different as leading in terms of where a lot of the other lakes would be going if they didn’t do more in terms of people living around the lake, a lot of people didn’t understand that the condition of the lake had much more to do with how we live around the lake. A lot of our issues was how to take the lake community, which included the 10 summer villages, two counties and four native bands, and help them come together in terms of seeing the lake as something that we can all contribute to the health of the lake and it can contribute to the health of the businesses.

Susan:

There’s all sorts of people that only live at the lake. It’s a place for them to bring their families, and it’s a recreation lake. Some people saw it as a backyard bathtub or a backyard swimming pool. I was there because I thought, here’s a great opportunity for people to see in front of them the consequences of how we live on the land for people to learn to live with nature, which to my mind is part of fighting climate change, is also making sure we live with nature and let nature do its thing for the climate as well. Our rules were to educate, advocate, protect, and preserve what we could around the lake. When I came on, and personally, my role was, even though I was chair of the board most of the time and grew the organization to the point where I could be executive director and finally handed off, my biggest role was as a conduit. Learning from the experts what the conditions of the lake were, what the issues were, and then finding experts that could help us find the money to bring the experts in and bring people along with educating us as we learned, bring them along and connect and engage and get their input, give them opportunities to be involved. I often said I could have six full-time people doing the work that we were doing. It was a lot of fun. It was amazing, boring day,

Jenny:

And it’s just such a great example, Mike. I could see you nodding in there as well, because it’s a big part of trying to understand that this is not something that we know. We don’t have the luxury of seeing these results on the landscape. We have to learn as we go and educate and bring people along. It’s really important to highlight that, Susan. Thank you. Okay, let’s talk more about managing issues. How do you choose between stakeholders or is that a thing, and what does it look like in terms of making sure that people have a seat at the table, that the representation of those stakeholders are there in your decision making? Maybe Tim, if I’ll let you leave this one off.

Ensuring All Stakeholders are Present in Decision-Making

Tim (00:15:05):

Sure. Yeah. Our diversity is our strength. We have a big diverse board representing all kinds of sectors. We try to make sure everybody’s included. There’s sometimes challenges where there are biases or certain things that some people are wanting to bring to the table, and we try to make sure that everybody, when they sit at the table, they’re representing the watershed council and they park their personal biases at the door if they can. We do work really hard to make sure that everybody is informed, like Mike mentioned earlier, educating ourselves and our community members is really important in terms of understanding what these issues are and understanding different facets of a concern or opportunity. We do spend a lot of work on that. I’m in a unique position, maybe in a lot of ways. I don’t think I would’ve been with this watershed council if I didn’t have such great volunteers and community interest in the work that we do.

And it’s really empowering, just same as Susan said, she could have six employees doing the work that they’re doing, and volunteers are absolutely critical to our work and making sure that everybody has an opportunity to be involved, whether they’re technical experts in a certain area or they just want to spend a few days putting some manpower in to working on a project with us. We try to make sure that they’re included. And we do have an annual election for different seats that come up, and if there is occasionally more volunteers that then we have seats on the board, then we make sure that we’ve got other opportunities, including our project teams, our research and monitoring, our community awareness involvement team, water supply and management is another one on our end, and we try to get them involved that way, and it helps even in the long-term, I think it’s actually going to help us better as an organization. It helps foster that next group of volunteers that are going to step into those other roles and keep us moving forward.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s true. And for me, the coordinating committee is such a great spot for me to be in because I get to see what everybody else is working on, and that’s something that’s really of interest to me. I do feel really empowered in these spaces too. You guys do, if anybody listening to this is not involved and wants to get involved in water, this is the place to go. And you learn a lot and you feel like you’re in with really good people trying to do really smart things on the land. Yeah, encourage everybody to get involved as much as possible. Okay. Susan, can you offer some thoughts as well as to how you managed the balance, making sure that everybody had a seat at the table? You spoke about stakeholders already.

Susan:

Well, it’s interesting. The human dynamics is really fascinating. A lot of people get it in their minds. In our case, people would Google and find something that would work on a stormwater pond and have no concept of the scalability of some of these solutions. And there was a group who were influential movers and shakers business guys that wanted to fix the lake by putting something to bind the nutrients into the lake. And there was a group of teachers who thought we needed to educate people on becoming great lake stewards. And there was another group who said, it’s the land development and we got to work with the counties and summer villages on their area structure plans and bylaws and regulations. When I first started, I ended up volunteering with the communication committee, but I saw this and because I’d done a bunch of governance and strategic plans, I thought these guys need a plan that pulls them together.

Initially we did just a small one that was a hybrid between an operation and a strategic plan, and the board headed up committees to reach out to people in the different sectors and areas around the lake. And we moved from that. I tried to help people understand we all needed to be there. We were the voices of different groups around the lake and they all needed to feel they had representation at the table and that we were all moving up the same mountain, but from different perspectives or different sides of the mountain. Really brought most of those guys together. And I went to the alliance of the Pigeon Lake municipalities and the chair at that time. He and I were in complete agreement in terms of we had to work together, we were almost seeing each other more than we saw our own spouses at that point.

We tried to compliment and work together, forming partnerships with everybody that I could was a major thing, and go to community events, go to where people were at to get them to voice the issues, to find out what their thoughts were we could speak into their thoughts, we could educate into their concerns and get them starting to engage and think about and just have that awareness initially. And one of the issues was most of the summer councils felt it was the wastewater system around the lake that needed to be upgraded and that would fix the lake. And the PLWA board was very smart in thinking, we need to stay out of that even though we had a couple of experts on our board who didn’t necessarily agree with what summer villages wanted to do, but there’s high risk and it’s up to the municipalities, not us.

We said, okay, let them do that and recognize their roles, their responsibilities, and do what we can together. We outlined who led what PLWA communicated to the whole lake. We did a lot of communications on every front of work that was being done for the lake. We led on a lot of the education and stewardship things. The runoff on the nutrient budget that we got was the only thing that really made a huge difference for that lake. There was already internal loading of nutrients that if there wasn’t something that we could put in the lake, which looked pretty far in terms of a solution, there was a lot of pushback from governments and the cost was horrendous. We needed to do whatever we could and we adopted, we needed to turn over every single stone we could. And there were lots and lots of issues that people disagreed on. It just went on and on.

Jenny:

Thank you. That was a great summary of what you have to go through in a given process. Mike, your turn.

Mike:

I think when I first started with the BRBC, I didn’t realize this kind of thing could exist, but the power of the organization, and I think that goes for the other two organizations as well and others that I’ve worked with is the membership, the people that put their time and effort and passion and expertise into these things. The council now has over 500 members and over around 900 active participants that come from those 500 memberships. And it really is a membership driven organization. If the members want something to happen, they can make it happen. The board of directors works and is elected by their membership, and then staff does what membership the board tells them. We also have over time built different committees that engage certain sectors or interests. We have a science committee, a watershed stewardship committee, an education and communications committee, and that’s how we get our members to maybe dip their toes into getting involved and getting things done is to start working on those committees.

Mike (00:23:24):

And some of those folks then migrate up to the board or other positions. All of our work, I think, was especially benefited by what we call “watershed champions”, those that really lead the charge, and we’ve had quite a few at the BRBC that we have been very blessed to have, and most of them are still with us. And the idea of how to get things done is we try to get everybody that’s involved in that issue to get together and talk about those issues. I think what’s really appreciated is as a forum or a space where you can be open and honest about what your perspective is and you’re not going to be getting any negative feedback from that, that’s an acceptable way to approach the issue. And then everybody else gets their chances to get their perspectives out and then hopefully through a dialogue that’s built on trust and working together, the ethic of working together is you’ll finally come to a conclusion that is maybe not satisfactory perfectly for each sector but meets in the middle somewhere.

And it’s that kind of compromise and that willingness to try and find that solution, maybe it’s a hard one or not, is how we work on it. All the things that the W PACS and others do, or at least what we’re trying to do at the BR BBC is based on things like data-driven bias, neutral inclusive activities that allow for everybody. That’s one of the biggest roles about the state of the watershed that we just finished in December was it brings a level of information up to the folks who want to talk about these things. We’re not spending a lot of time getting everybody up to speed. Hopefully we can aid in that and then have these apples to apples conversations. It’s through this culture or way that we’ve done things that we generally find that there are solutions to many of the challenges that we face, and we’ve given everybody a chance to be heard about it.

I think that’s the effectiveness we have. And one example that we didn’t do, but I think is a great example of what can be done is when I first started in 2003, there was a water engagement session where all the users of the SSRB would come in and talk about water management in terms of quantity. And we did that process for two or three years and then those recommendations went to cabinet and that’s what led to the closure of South Saskatchewan to new water licences. But that wasn’t done in a fast fashion. That was done very slowly, very pragmatically, data-driven, all perspectives were heard. And that kind of activity is, I think, what builds this network of folks who manage watersheds and builds that trust between those different communities so that we can make these decisions as a system instead of siloed. I think that it all builds into that. How do you create that? I think it all is built around trust. And how do you build that with those that are at stable

Bob:

Now, Tim, you have a much different situation down there in the milk in terms of building trust and finding those solutions someplace in the middle because you’re dealing with an international stream. How is your job different in terms of building those kinds of consensus-based decisions?

Tim:

It’s still very similar to Mike in terms of relying on those champions in the community and those area leads that help. I find our role is a bit more, especially being trans-boundary. We rely on our partners in Montana and especially with the IJC, the International Joint Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation. We have a couple sister organizations in Montana, the Milk River Joint Board of Control, and I talk to those folks probably once a week at least via email if not on the phone. And that’s an interesting thing too. Our watershed council is now coming into the 20th year of operation and 20 years ago, there wasn’t that communication. Everybody was working in a silo. And I remember some of the stories from some of my producers that I worked with out west that said it’d be the end of March or beginning of April and middle of the night, it would sound like a freight train coming down the river because they turned water in from the St.

Tim:

Mary’s diversion to the North Fork the day before. And that had hit there. No one got any notification back then. No one knew that that was coming. The producers that were managing the land and living next to that bridge that could potentially have a major ice jam didn’t get any awareness. The municipalities weren’t being informed when there was going to be water management changes or whatever. And I remember when I first started, I’m thinking, this is baloney. We should really do a better job. That was one of our very first things we did to try to improve communications. And then we’ve built on that. We’ve built a trusting relationship with our partners in Montana. They’ll phone us asking about conditions or what’s going on. We’ve got into more difficult issues now in terms of some of the issues regarding irrigation demand and water use, reporting, other things that are happening up here that if it wasn’t for a relationship with our other partners, especially transboundary, we’d be in a different spot right now. But it is getting better and it’s really because of the work that’s been laid down to build relationships.

Bob:

Yes, you’ve laid a very good groundwork and maybe someday you’ll make Montana the 11th province. Who knows?

Tim:

Probably not Montana. But yeah, we’ll keep our ears open.

Assessing Data Needs for Watershed Health

Bob (00:28:45):

In terms of watershed’s assessments that you folks have been doing. I’ll start with you, Tim, again. What are the topics that you feel you have the best handle on in terms of watershed assessments and where are the areas where we need better data, better science, better information, better education?

Tim:

Again, 20 years ago there was basically no water quality data whatsoever on our system. Down here. Again, we’re maybe a little farther from some of the major urban centers and there hasn’t been as many eyes, I guess in terms and some of the research and monitoring down here. We had to start, we did some data mining early on. Our first state of the watershed report actually came out in 2008. It was a great opportunity to kindly pull together any of the historical information, but we found major data gaps. Like I said, virtually no water quality data outside of a couple small projects were collected in the previous hundred years. We said, okay, let’s try to check off some of the boxes on these data gaps and collect the information ourselves. We can make more informed decisions in terms of management and understanding the impacts of, for instance, the St. Mary’s diversion and what things look like.

We started in our own bubble and started collecting data like water quality on our own to build that information, that dataset. There was some relatively good GIS work that had been done for some of the land use planning and land management and traditional edge effects and trails and roads and things like that. We had a bit of a starting point at that point. In 2008, within about two or three years, we realized, you know what? We can’t do this in a bubble anymore. The Alberta portion of the Milk River watershed is only about a third of the entire watershed. We have transboundary partners both in Saskatchewan and Montana that are important for us. In 2012, we initiated our second state of the watershed report and we said, let’s work with our trans boundary partners.

The core team that we had established in Alberta that had put together 2008 one, we basically found out who their counterparts were in Montana and Saskatchewan and teamed them up and said, okay, Alberta’s going to take the lead here, but we want to help fill in those data gaps from other areas. We opened the Pandora’s box a little bit in a lot of ways by doing that project in 2013 because we found even more data gaps and recognizing whether it’s a species at risk issue or aquatic species at risk or water quality concerns, they’re not stopping at the border. What we’re doing is impacting our downstream communities in the Highline of Montana. And what’s happening in the headwaters of the Cypress Hills is impacting all the areas in southeast Saskatchewan. And in 2013, there were some major changes happening in terms of PFRA. The federal government was pulling out of the community pastors and leaving some major question marks in terms of what was going to happen to some really beautiful, intact native rangelands and critically important habitat for a lot of species risk.

And that project in 2013, it really helped, well one, continue to build just as we’ve been talking about, building those relationships with other trans boundary partners. But it also made us start thinking about, okay, what are issues like sage gross? We’re going to have an environmental protection order for sage gross in southeastern Alberta. Well, maybe we should be talking to our Montana partners about the hunting season that was allowing ’em to take three birds a day in north central Montana. And if those are, and what are we managing for here? A lot of difficult conversations have come built out of this, but by being able to work on these major issues transboundary, it’s helping us move in the positive direction for sure.

Bob:

You’ve been a catalyst to a lot of cooperation.

Tim:

And even more recently, of course, the IJC is bound to the Boundary Waters Treaty and it brings together the two countries in terms of water management in the trans boundary. But grassland issues, species of risk issues were all being managed in a bubble. And I know fish and wildlife biologists that worked in southeastern eastern Alberta that didn’t even know who their counterparts were in North central Montana. And now we’ve been able to build those networks and we have a group called the Transboundary Grasslands Partnership that brings all those three groups together, the three jurisdictions together annually and rotates around to build relationships. And it’s been really good because people recognize that we all have passion for the work that we’re doing, but sometimes you get so focused on exactly the issue at hand right in front of you that you don’t see the bigger picture. And our work has really helped people better connect and understand how they’re related and how their actions are impacting others. And that’s fundamental to the work that we can do in terms of bringing people together.

Bob:

Well, and Susan, you certainly were instrumental in getting people to see the bigger picture on Pigeon Lake in terms of where Pigeon Lake is now. What are the issues that you think that basically are under control, if not solved, and what are the issues that are still outstanding there?

Susan:

First of all, it wasn’t all me by any means. We had all of us, we partnered with all these different groups and many did so much in terms of moving parts forward. There was research done on the options for the lake. The government was instrumental in some of those. There was research on the lake, some of which the government did, some of which we partnered. There was a professor Rolf Fein Brook at the U of A who did, what are the cyanobacteria? We have lots of different cyanobacteria. There was research done just on the land development and what had been developed and what needed to be done. At first, we couldn’t do a watershed management plan because we felt that we needed more research and now we’re the most researched in the province, I think. But we did get a watershed management plan done that was an award-winning plan, and we’ve moved forward on a whole bunch of areas on that and we’ve got the areas that need to be continued work on.

And clean runoff is a huge issue and continues to be because people decide to build a bigger house on their lot and the developers come in and take everything off the lake. With the Alberta Low Impact Development Partnership, we created a clean guide of which a lot was used. We looked at trying to help municipalities put in place regulations and worked with Judy Stewart on a model land use by law. That may or may not be. It’s really helped in terms of some of the bylaws. Our model starts with the science and the social considerations, and then we bring it down into objectives for the plan. And those objectives then have, for example, one is clean runoff and we promote clean runoff practices under that. We’ve got recommendations to do with roads and statutory plans and land use bylaws and beaver management, you name it.

Every aspect of nature and social considerations is in this plan of which a group continues. The biggest issue is if we don’t have much cyanobacteria obvious to people, many people only go on the weekends and cyanobacteria come and go, and when it’s obvious, we have a lot of motivated people to do something for the lake. When it gets better or they don’t see it much and don’t know what a healthy shoreline looks like, for example, then they’re not motivated to do much on it. Those relationships and the ongoing awareness is a huge ongoing, ongoing issue. And most of the summer villages certainly stepped up. I couldn’t do much in terms of schools and the kids that lived in the area. Some people said, if you want to get the adults to change, you have to get their own kids after them. And after I left, the next person worked a lot with the kids and the schools.

I did bring about a family fund day that partners came: Cows and Fish Trout Unlimited, the Government of Alberta Lake management system, they all challenged us to bring something fun and engaging. And we got people from all over that area coming for three or four hours learning about the aquatic system and the invertebrates and what makes a healthy lake. And one family, as Tim said, people keep you going. One family said, “We need a lot of volunteers.” They were wonderful. The people coming together to make those things happen and the family who kept going back every year, and I said, it must be year four by now that you’ve come every single year. And the dad said, yeah, and every year we learn different stuff. It’s great. And I was just thrilled with that.

Bob:

That’s fascinating how you’ve gotten all these people involved, but that’s an interesting comment about how when things look good, the motivation level goes down and then people start to maybe not do all the things that they should do. Is that the kind of thing that you’re discovering in the bow basin, Mike, that when things start looking good, when people look at the watershed assessment and say, okay, yeah, we’ve got this one under control, do they lose that motivation or that interest?

Mike:

I think the average person probably doesn’t think about it that much because I think for the most part, things are going okay. We go into this back and forth between, oh, we’ve just had a flood, everything we do is about flood. Then we have a drought and everything we do is about drought, but we forget about the flood, which could happen. Floods can happen the year after a drought. How do you maintain an even keel when in terms of tackling all of the challenges that are out there? When I first started data, as Tim was mentioning, data was a bit sparse. It might’ve been there, but getting it was hard. Now there’s so much of it. The challenge is what do you do with all of it and what is a scientifically correct way of representing that data? I think we have a pretty good handle on the main stem, but maybe some of the areas we don’t have enough information on might be how some of these smaller systems that feed into the bow, how are they being affected by climate change?

And I think the overall question some people might have would be, where is this metaphorical cliff? If we push the system to a certain level, where is the edge? And I think if you’re looking for a gap or something maybe people aren’t really thinking about because everything seems like it’s going fairly well, that might be some of the questions that some of our members would have is with all this climate change we feel is happening, we know there’s pressure on water, we all have uses for it, and there’s only a limited supply of it, how far can we push it before we have some effect on the river that we can’t fix?

I think the average person’s probably not thinking about those challenges. But I do know that a lot of the organizations are, some of the things that as a council that we’re trying to promote is if we see a gap. For instance, we would like to see more groundwater monitoring. Our science committee has put together a small grounding group that’s going out there getting equipment and then seeking out people to measure the groundwater. The council has found funding for stewardship groups like the elbow and the Ghost River groups to go out there and actually do sampling, cabin sampling. And I think maybe the overall concerns that we are not really getting, or there’s not been a flood or a drought right this second, I think some of our stewardship partners are the ones that help us take on those challenges, and quite honestly can help the whole system by getting out there and doing their part by measuring their piece of the watershed and then reporting back so that when we do maybe see a challenge coming, we can do something about it.

Maybe not the canary in the coal mine, but that idea that if there is something that’s showing up with the steward group, maybe that sends up enough red flags or alarm bells that someone else will do a bit more monitoring and we’ll get a better handle on it quicker than we would if we just waited for those issues to show up in the main stem, which might take a very long time. The problem might’ve already gotten to a place where we didn’t want it before. You’d see the actual implications in the bow main stem

Bob:

That would be vitally important for those smaller streams that you’re talking about, but you raised the question of where is the edge, the limits, and that leads Jenny very much into those watershed plans that the councils have been developing.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you, Mike. Because I’ve had the opportunity to have some conversations around this edge pushing too. One of the members I remember speaking to about groundwater recharge and do we know when we might push it so that we won’t have that groundwater recharge? And the answer she gave was, no, we don’t know that limit. We don’t know what we’re pushing. That’s a real example of how things look on the surface versus how things are going in the whole system are potentially two different things that the public wouldn’t appreciate. And the one thing I just want to reiterate from our conversations before I kick it back to you all is Mike, you’ve said the membership makes decisions. And I think it’s really important for people to understand that because reiterated to me, we need more public members to help understand the issue from outside of potentially the proponents pushing for decisions on the landscape.

Because the councils are limited to education. You can’t advocate for scientific outcomes or things like that. You can only educate your members and have those members make the decisions. That’s just my, I’ll say we can do this as a round of what’s coming next and some takeaways. I see we are getting close to the hour and I want to be respectful of everybody, so, if you can talk a bit, I’ll let you lead Mike about what is the state of the watershed and what are the asks the needs of the system, let’s say, and how can we help people get involved or help, or how do you help move things in that right direction, let’s say? Thank you.

Moving in the Right Direction

Mike (00:44:17):

Yeah. I’ll start with the first thing we do, and you’re correct, we try to produce good information. And I speak, I think for all the groups that are here, that these groups are recognized as trusted voices in the watershed. We work very, very hard to stay that way. And how you do that is to make sure that you have data-driven, scientifically valid information and you try to provide it in a non-biased way. We like to say that we create decision support tools. Our first two watershed measure plans that we put together, although they were not regulatory and you did not have to follow them, the 30 or so communities that helped us develop them, adopted many aspects of those plans and made them theirs. And that’s when those plans become plans, whether or not you’re forcing someone to do it or they want to do it, I think you actually get maybe a bit more buy-in if they get to choose what they get to do rather than being forced to do something.

That’s one way that we do it. And the people that we have at the table are the people that want to be there, are energized by being there and want to be part of the solution. I think we don’t necessarily need numbers, we just need those people that are interested in finding the solution. That’s what we’re interested in finding. And a lot of the watershed management stuff that we do now, 15 years ago, was probably more of an interest to CPAWS and other groups put together watershed management plans. I think that the environment has evolved a little bit more, and I think there are larger organizations that maybe W PACS can help augment their work, their source water protection plans and their other stuff. And maybe we can be more efficient with our time helping others get a better product than trying to create our own and then bringing it out to them. That’s the strategy we have approached currently, and I think that’s probably the best way to go right now with the limited capacities that we all have and trying to be as efficient as possible and the knowledge that the more people we have working on an issue, the better the outcome will be in all likelihood.

Jenny:

Yeah, wonderful. I fully agree. I think there’s so much benefit for any organization to look to the watershed councils and what you guys have already built in terms of your ability to bring stakeholders together to make decisions can be a leap forward. Speaking of which, Susan is going to help us take this work and make it even better in the fall when we get into the future. Susan, can you offer some thoughts too about how we take these plans forward? How do we keep the ball rolling, as you said, as interest comes up and down and et cetera? How do we help people move in the right direction? Thanks.

Susan:

Well, that’s always a great question, Jenny. We have to continually look at where we are and where we want to be. We certainly were able to get all of the summer villages and all of the four native nations of quiche signed off on the watershed management plans, but plans get put on Shell’s councils change, there’s new people all the time. That ongoing engagement, those trusted relationships that Mike and Tim have talked about are just so critical. And I’ve been away from the Pigeon Lake Watershed Association, but when I was there, the tools that we made in terms of that clean runoff guide in terms of the model land use bylaw, there was other directors who were very clear that we wanted to invest this for tools for the broader audience, other lakes who didn’t have the means that we had. I enjoyed so many directors who had expertise or influence, and all of this needs to go forward.

Groups really need to be clear about where they are communicating about where they are and what else needs to be done. Every year I would do, okay, this is how far we’ve come on this bar, this area, we needed to do riparian restoration work. I got a few going with cows and fish. The next year I’d say we did this many and make demonstration sites, try and get people to come out and see what a healthy shoreline looks like because there were too many that had been cleared. It’s a lot of ongoing work. And without those relationships, the summer students that I had would come from environmental science, and at the end of the year I’d say, what’s the biggest takeaway you guys had? And most of them would say, well, we came in from a science perspective, which is critical, but it’s the “people” stuff that makes all the difference.

It’s ongoing building relationships, please. I met one of the directors just a week ago. They are continuing to move this stuff forward. They now have three First Nation people on the board. We had one when I was there, and it certainly helped leverage us to build those relationships and get a committee going in terms of how we were going to engage with them. It’s an ongoing issue, but being clear and finding we had low hanging apples in the first place before there was the science. We all knew we needed to stop the furthest fertilizers and pesticides before all the summer villages eventually adopted bylaws. And it really did change the social norms to be, nobody uses fertilizers around the lake, but then new people come in and the ongoing, this is what is, and this is what you need to do. But more and more people were able to speak up in the beginning, people had to live beside each other and they didn’t want to confront. And their relationships living together was more important than whether or not they used fertilizers. Now it’s shifted. It’s just what you do, and I’m helping you to understand this is something that’s important for the lake. There’s been a lot of shifts and now some of the bigger boulders are having to be moved. One of you said isn’t obvious. That communication relationship is ongoing big time.

Jenny:

And like you said, there’s still some boulders in there that need to move. And I think that’s a thing that we’re all potentially feeling, as you said, Mike, when we have some limits coming our way. Tim, I’m really excited about the thought of the trans boundary work that you’re doing and how important that would be to help people understand how to do that work well and thinking from an energy standpoint. Oil and gas closure work, for example, to me, should also be happening on a watershed scale, not on a trans boundary scale, if you will. There’s some work there, I think too, to think about. But anyway, can you lead us off, sorry, finish us off I should say, with some of your thoughts around taking this work forward as well. Anything these other two missed?

Tim:

I think Mike hit the nail on the head in terms of how the planning environment in this province has changed quite a bit from the start of the Water for Life and Lauren Taylor’s vision for the work that we would do as watershed planning and advisory councils. And I do think that we’ve got some advantages, again, being based in the local communities, we can turn that bus a little faster than, for instance, the governing province right now. But we don’t have that local authority. Any of the work that we do, just like Susan and Mike said, has to be valuable to our community members and our stakeholders. We have an integrated water prevention plan that we spent a lot of energy putting together back in 2015. It’s 10 years old now. We’re right now trying to figure out how we are going to do this?

Tim:

Are we going to dust it off and do a check back in and see how we’re doing with those priorities from 10 years ago? If things change, where are we at now in terms of providing advice? But I know in the last few years we’ve done more work like you mentioned with the trans boundary issues, but water security and water contingency planning for drought and major diversion failures like we’ve had here the last couple years has been really important. And that’s been the valuable resources that we’ve been creating for our municipal partners, and it’s helping inform the provincial response and international response in some cases. That stuff has been really, really valuable. In recognizing we are a safe space for indigenous communities and others to be involved with without feeling that they’re being, or having legally be engaged with in ways that nations, the nations should be engaging and making sure that their vision for our community is reflected in the work that we’re doing. That’s something just as Susan said, it’s critically important to make sure all stakeholders are recognized. That’s it on the planning side of things. Yeah.

Jenny:

Yeah. Just because I know it’s out there in the public anyway, Tim, it’s my understanding that the Irrigation district has been shut off for the year in the milk due to this diversion breakdown that happened last year. Is that right?

Tim:

For those that aren’t as familiar with the Milk River Basin and the St. Mary’s Basin, one of the very first beer reclamation projects that was completed in the United States was done to transfer water from the St. Mary’s River down by Bab Montana, just south of Cardston, up over the Continental divide through two sets of syphons and really incredible technology. We’re talking about things that were engineered and the first surveys were conducted in 1903 to 1905 and engineered and built in the teens. Roll forms steel from Chicago that was brought up on barges and then on wagon trains in pieces from Great Falls to establish. This incredible infrastructure that really was, that opened up settlement in North Central Montana. But I’ve got three plus generations of residents in our area in the Milk River portion of Alberta that have never seen natural flow for 110 years during summer months on the Milk River.

We have naturally a prairie stream that really doesn’t sustain that as many as six years out of 10 in areas that would’ve had no flow naturally that has sustained flow through the summer. And then in 110 years also, we’ve got an aquatic environment that’s adapted to that of fisheries that are very unique, that are coming up through the Missouri River system that aren’t found anywhere else. Stone Cat and Western Silver Minnow and Rocky Mountain Sculp. Species at Risk that are found in the Milk River Alberta that are nowhere else in the province. And the first major, basically Chicken Little has been saying for 25 years now that we’ve got an infrastructure deficit. This equipment’s been 60 years plus its lifespan, anticipated lifespan in Montana. That’s super critical for communities in Alberta as well as over 28,000 residents and six municipalities in Montana. And in 2020 the first light went out, dropping five on the end of the system that, just below the Whiskey Gap in Montana, blew out.

And for the majority of the summer we had had basically no flow in Alberta. We’ve got about 40 farm families or independent irrigators that are completely reliant on the Milk River for their irrigation. And again, I mentioned all the extensive native range lands that we have a major forage deficit in order to be able to feed the livestock that are being restricted at timing on the grazing of the native grasslands, we need alternative forages, and that’s where the irrigation water helps make our budget. It’s been a major challenge. In 2020, they got $10 million US to make those major repairs there still, everybody thought, well, we’re out of the woodwork now and you’re not. We had about a $ 350 million deficit still of equipment and infrastructure in Montana that we’re reliant on here. Yeah, last June, we had a major failure of the St. Mary’s syphon, honestly put the Calgary situation to make it look pretty minor except for there’s not 1.8 billion.

No kidding people reliant on it over whatever, close to 4,000 linear feet of eight foot diameter syphon pipe blew out. And incredibly, they were able to get the funding in us secured to replace the infrastructure. I just got word last night that starting in two days, they’re going to be running some test flows through the new syphon and we will see some return of flow for about six weeks this summer in the Milk River here, but it’s too late. We’re in the fourth year of a shadow of a major drought in this area. And we talked a little bit briefly about ground surface water interaction earlier. Our groundwater, we’ve got a few too many straws in the milkshake this year without a lot of recharge and we’re not seeing as much base flow in the river. And yeah, our irrigators are off for the season right now. It is a tough situation for a lot of families. We’re probably looking at least a couple million dollars worth of lost revenue just from lower crop production values. But more importantly, this is the bottom line for about 40 farm families that are reliant on it, plus the residents and other water users. It’s going to be wild.

Jenny:

Yeah. I know it’s a unique situation, and I know we will have a whole other hour when I say this, but I wonder about the lessons from this on some of the other basins like we’ve talked about, Mike, the Overallocation in the South Saskatchewan River basin. What are some of the lessons to understand in terms of those emergency type decision making, which you guys obviously are heavily involved in facilitating. Thank you for that very much, Bob. You’re welcome to anything you want to catch before we let these folks go?

Approved Water Management Plans

Bob (00:58:55):

Well, I’ve got one quick question. Tim, you mentioned creating this safe space where you don’t have these legal issues that pop up often in terms of dealing with or consulting with people, but there are these things called approved water management plans, all three of you. In terms of the plans that you have or are going to develop or revise, would your areas, your lake, Susan, your basins, Mike and Tim, would you be interested in coming up with one of those or getting approval for your water management plans, or would you want to keep it one of these safer places where the legal technicalities don’t get involved.

Tim:

I just want to mention it took us about 10 years working with our partners with the GOA. We have an approved water management plan that was established just last year, quietly came out, passed by cabinet. But there’s a big difference between an approved water management plan and what I feel needs to be involved with an integrated watershed management plan. An approved water management plan is really looking at the nuts and bolts of how water is managed and regulated and it really has to have a regulatory team. Allocations, transfers, inter basin transfers, all those major issues in there. And it speaks well to that. IT integrated water management plan really has to bring all those other pieces together and that’s again, that’s that safe space and everything. But it also, I feel that I, WPS, really have to speak well to municipal needs, to community values, all those other aspects and how land use is interacting with outside of just the nuts and bolts of who gets what water. That’s where I see it is that they’re really two different beasts. They both have value maybe and they compliment each other in a lot of ways, but I really see their approved water management plan as a regulatory tool and the IWMP is this is the goalpost that we want to set ourselves for our community in the future.

Bob:

Okay. That’s interesting because when I looked at the provincial site about which ones have been approved in terms of the plans, Milk River wasn’t mentioned. I’m going to have to send a note to somebody in the province to let them know. Mike, you’re up.

Mike:

I mentioned earlier about a process that happened in the early two thousands about, and I think many of the BRBC members, in fact, BRBC was involved in that process. There is a really well working network of water users that I think the system is, as we saw in the drought, it was pretty easy to come up with water agreements. And I think that’s because that community already exists of people who want to work together. I think going forward, if we were looking at changes to the system, that’s where we got to spend a lot of time thinking about it. Because it is so complex. It’s not, you make one little change and you have so many unintended consequences. I think it’s really important to understand that before we make large changes in how it’s managed, but currently I think that the communities that are involved all work very well together and are communicating.

That’s all you hope for. Going back to Tim’s point as well is that when you do a watershed management plan, you’re trying to put together the idea that there is surface water that you’re looking at, but also there’s groundwater land uses other things that are going on and I’d like to think of our planning exercises and the report that we put together afterwards is a good place to start on new initiatives on areas of water management. It hopefully is building that crystallizing factor that helps start some new planning initiatives underway rather than trying to get something that I think a watershed management plan might be something that’s too complex to actually push through into a regulatory process. You allow a lot more openness, I think, collaborative ideas to generate from that plan rather than, I would think if you wanted to make it a regulatory tool, you’d have to really refine the scope and outcome expected for it before you could really get it through quickly. And quickly would still mean years. I think we can generate a lot more momentum as a WPACs. Now other organizations might have more power to generate something much more powerful on their own. But for groups like WPACs, I think the best momentum we can generate is through the way that we do planning now.

Bob:

Okay. Susan, in terms of Pigeon Lake, there’s lots of regulatory things there in terms of land use and those kinds of things, but you’ve had the most success in terms of getting people to voluntarily do things like cutting back on fertilizer. Do you think an approved water management plan would provide a benefit to Pigeon Lake?

Susan:

I am not sure if the government approved our watershed management plan. When I left. They had been very much involved and I think that they were going to, and I never did find out because to my mind it wasn’t that important. We had the critical stakeholders, everybody else, the government was working with us already. We had the counties and all of the summer villages and we created it as a living plan. And I think this year, the Pigeon Lake Watershed Association, it’s one of their years to review the plan and I think with the First Nations representation on the board, it will have more input from them than it’s ever had in the past. All four pieces to sign off on the vision and how to report on how we could work together or compliment each other. And the biggest thing was to be going back to it, making sure it came off the shelf and that people were looking at what’s been done, what is the next batch of things that could be low hanging, what needs to be ongoing?

And I have confidence that the people who are with the Pigeon Lake Watershed Association and the summer villages will continue to do that to some degree. The other thing is summer villages, they’re small. They can’t take anyone to court. I mean, if something came up in our summer village, the mayor would take a case of beer down to whoever was having an issue. The issuer was out of line and talked about it and tried to figure it out. People wanted us to be watchdogs and we said, no, we’re not taking that on. Although if the government, we would try and have people phone in if there was something that they saw, people used to cut down reeds in front of their place, which all lakes need certain percent of their lake to be reed beds to be healthy.

Yeah, the endorsement in terms of approval, it’s, the area concept plans and the structure plans that need to be endorsed in terms of summer villages. One administrator told a counsellor, it doesn’t matter about the bylaws because you can’t enforce them anyway. And I said, when I was on the P-L-W-A-I research and 70% of the people before they made a major investment such as development, they would look to see if there were bylaws and 70% of them, all of those bylaws. Just having them in place is really important. Even if they can’t be enforced. It’s interesting. Plans have a major part in the whole process, but for a lot of people they never see them. I ended up doing a huge survey to make sure that people knew about the areas and whether or not they approved with what was in the plan, and we got over 90% endorsement for each section of the plan. But time has gone past. Whether or not people think to look back to the plan, I doubt it. It needs people to be bringing these things forward and not necessarily in the form of a plan.

Bob:

Thank you. Those have been very useful comments, and I didn’t answer your question, Jenny, in terms of final comments, excellent conversation. I was really happy to be part of it. Thanks.

Jenny:

Yes. Thank you all very much for especially staying after work or after school, if you will. Any final things from you guys that we missed or anything you want to hit home before we close?

Susan:

I want to thank Mike and Tim for all the good work they’re doing. Thank you. So important.

Jenny:

Yes. Thank you both very much. I couldn’t agree more. We need to, we just had this conversation with Tricia Stadnik, Dr. Tricia Stadnik, and man, do we need to start making decisions on water first and foremost. I just feel that your work is vital to where we need to move forward and I’m just so grateful for all of your experience and continued contribution. Okay, let’s leave it there. Oh, go ahead, Mike.

Mike:

I just want to say thank you, Susan, for all you’ve done as well. Been folks like you or been why I love working with the BRBC and other groups. Yeah, no one does it by themselves.

Susan:

I might have to come back to the Bow River Basin Council.

Mike:

You’re welcome.

Jenny:

I love it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you all so much. Have a great rest of your day. We’ll be in touch soon.

Bob:

Thanks.

Tim:

Thank you for the opportunity.

This episode previously aired in February of 2024, Colin Smith of Land Lovers Network joined Alex MacGillivray (my former co-host) and I. Colin and I connected through anti–clear‑cut logging advocacy with the Calgary Climate Hub in Southern Alberta. Colin introduces himself as a lifelong Southern Albertan with a background as an electrician, small business owner, and caregiver, now extending his caregiving to land and ecosystems; he describes how caring for his grandmother during the pandemic led him to deep engagement with soil microbiology, the soil food web, and high‑quality composting, culminating in Compost Club meetups at an urban farm hub in Calgary.

A major portion of this discussion unpacks the “nine planetary boundaries” popularized by Joe Brewer’s work on regenerating Cascadia, which I frame as “laws of the land” as literal earth system limits and a way to define the polycrisis humanity faces. Colin walks through boundaries including climate change, biosphere integrity, land‑system change, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus), ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and novel entities like microplastics and PFAS chemicals, emphasizing that most thresholds have already been crossed and that nitrogen/phosphorus flows are “most off the chart.” Colin adds detailed examples such as Lake Winnipeg’s blue‑green algae and microcystin issues linked to phosphates and dams, and notes Geological Survey of Canada findings that such formations are associated with several major past extinctions, while Colin and Alex highlight the ubiquity of microplastics and PFAS, including tire‑derived microplastics reaching even remote mountain lakes. They stress that these interacting boundaries create feedbacks—such as aerosols temporarily masking warming—and that recent removal of Sulphur from marine fuels may have accelerated atmospheric warming, illustrating how different boundaries can counteract or amplify each other.

In response to this crisis, our conversation shifts to bioregions and ecological‑based economies, drawing on Indigenous territorial perspectives and watershed‑based governance. Colin explains bioregions as nested, fractal landscape units defined by watersheds, flora, fauna, and climate, using Southern Alberta’s Bow River Basin and its tributaries (Ghost, Jumping Pound, Elbow, Highwood, Sheep, Oldman) as examples, and contrasts this with nation‑state borders and modern capitalism’s pull toward resource extraction and urban concentration. Alex and Colin discuss territorial self‑governance and local food systems, citing Redcliff, Alberta’s large greenhouse complex as a model for year‑round vegetable production that reduces transport emissions, and proposing co‑locating greenhouses with existing gas wells to use natural gas and captured carbon for food production. Colin and I then highlight social design principles from Joe Brewer’s work: defining shared identity and purpose, equitable allocation of contributions and benefits, fair and inclusive decision‑making, fast conflict resolution, and “stability projects” as a starting point before deeper regeneration, all aimed at moving from a wasteful, ever‑growth economy toward collective, outcomes‑based systems.

Throughout, we grapple with the emotional and political dimensions of ecological collapse. Colin argues that recent spikes in wildfires, floods, drought, and other anomalies suggest we are “outside of the realm of survivability” for current lifestyles, and criticizes short‑term political thinking and promises of unlimited growth, calling instead for grassroots, mycelium‑like community organizing, unexpected alliances across political divides, and a redefinition of wealth away from material growth toward regeneration of natural abundance. He and I emphasize the need to face grief and fear together, avoid tribalism, and use nature itself—through initiatives like Land Lovers and Compost Club—as a healing, community‑building context that mirrors the diversity and interdependence of healthy ecosystems. The episode closes with me reiterating that the crisis is not just “climate change” but a nine‑facet planetary problem driven by a wasteful growth economy, and expressing hope that conversations like this, and potential collaboration with Joe Brewer, can help “pull the tapestry together” among many people already doing ecological work in Alberta and beyond.

For more information on Joe Brewer’s work, check out this YouTube playlist on bioregional organizing I made:

In episode 4 of the Water in Southern Alberta series, Dr. Trisha Stadnyk, a hydrologic modelling expert, discusses the intricacies of water modelling and its implications for future water availability and quality. The conversation highlights the challenges of integrating various models, such as climate, hydrology, and water resource management, to address local and global water issues. Dr. Stadnyk emphasizes the importance of adaptive risk-based management over traditional standards-based approaches, advocating for a shift towards resilience in water policy: a water first philosophy. The discussion also touches on the need for improved data collection and monitoring, particularly for groundwater and small streams, to enhance model accuracy and inform decision-making. The episode concludes with a call to action for individuals to become more aware of their water usage and for policymakers to prioritize water conservation and sustainable management practices. The podcast invites listeners to engage with these pressing issues and consider the broader implications of water management on future generations.

Introductions to Dr. Tricia Stadnyk

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast. I am your host, Jenny Yeremiy. Here you break down heavy ideas with me to understand their complexities and connections. Our mission is to work through dilemmas together in conversation and process. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territory of Treaty seven and Metis districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature by giving back and uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversation. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

Jenny:

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. Join us@thegravitywall.net. Good morning everyone. It’s a sunny day in Calgary. It is lovely to have Dr. Trisha Stadnyk with us today to talk about the water cycle as well as some modelling. This is in the context of conversations we’ve been holding around Water in Southern Alberta. This is also, if you follow the show, episode 12 of season two, but it’s episode four of this series, this miniseries on water that Bob Morrison has been co-hosting with me. Why are we talking about water? Again, just that’s for the general public. We want people who are involved in water to feel empowered to have conversations about the future of water and where we’re headed. And also concerned citizens like myself, geoscientists, that are now very focused on water in our province.

We’ve had a few conversations so far, as I mentioned, the first was on the history of irrigation with Shannon Stunden Bower and Jordan Christianson. Then we’ve had a couple conversations so far on the environment. First on the impacts of resource extraction and then on the water laws and licence system. That’s where we’re at. And today, as I said, we’re going to talk about water modelling and the future of water availability and quality and quantity. And then after that we’re going to go into some stewardship conversations. And then in the fall we’re going to reconvene with some conversations around the future. I know Tricia, you just had a wonderful conversation with the Council of Canadians and in it you mentioned some recommendations which I’d love for you to touch on here, but obviously we want to potentially get deeper in the fall. Okay. I’m going to stop there and let Bob reintroduce himself for us and a little bit for this conversation and then we’ll get into it with you.

Bob:

Okay. My name is Bob Morrison and I’m a retired planner. My career was mainly in water management and since retirement I’ve been involved in municipal issues here in Calgary. And for this podcast I’m particularly interested in where water modelling can take us for the future because it is one of those key tools that’s going to help us understand and predict where we’re going in terms of our water use, our water management, and our water protection. Thanks, Jenny.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Okay, Trish, I have you down as a professor at the University of Calgary in Civil Engineering, with a crossover in the Geography department within the Faculty of Arts. This interesting Social Science dynamic of water, as well, which I’m excited to hear about. You combine engineering, environmental and earth and planetary sciences with social sciences to understand large scale continental water resource supply. Yeah, please tell us a little bit more about your background before we get into this. Trish, thank you.

Tricia:

Yeah, for sure. Thank you very much for having me. First of all, it’s my pleasure to be here and something that’s very near and dear to my heart, which is having a broader based conversation about water and just for people that are interested and want to learn more. I’m very happy to be here. I’m a Canada research chair in hydrologic modelling. I guess my core area is to develop models that simulate water supply, typically speaking on large scales. Looking at how climate change is impacting the overall amount of water and distribution of water on the entire earth, but particularly on continental scales. But I also zoomed down to the community level and take a look at what the impacts of that could be for the ecosystem for people living on farms, for indigenous communities, and just generally people in urban areas. What does drought mean and what can we do to help contribute to all of that? All of that is my area of interest. I’m an environmental engineer by trade and training. I’ve worked in civil engineering my entire career, but it’s only been since 2019 that I joined the faculty of arts to better understand human behaviour around water and response to climate change.

Jenny:

Fascinating stuff. Okay, Bob, why don’t you lead off the first question please.

Bob:

Many people in organizations are involved in water modelling here in Southern Alberta in terms of understanding the system. What roles do each type of modelling play and what have we learned from the different models that we’ve got out there and what are the strengths and weaknesses of the kind of modelling that’s being done?

Tricia:

Oh my goodness, I could talk for a whole hour on that. That’s a loaded question. First of all, I want to say I never really get a chance to talk about the different types of models. That’s something that’s really important to know is that it’s not one size fits all. Typically speaking, the information that the general public gets about the water is after a downstream of maybe five or six different types of models or modelling type analysis. With each one there’s strengths and weaknesses, but there’s also intent in terms of different purposes. It starts with climate models. We can’t do anything without weather and some information on temperature and precipitation. And if you’re like me and you live in Calgary, then you know you don’t really trust the weather forecast that much. And ultimately that’s why it’s difficult to predict water is because we’re at the mercy of the weather forecast and it’s only as accurate as the weather forecast.

If it says it’s going to rain and it doesn’t, then we’ve got too much water in the stream and that water never actually fell. That’s really why it’s such a difficult process with so much uncertainty, particularly as we go forward into futures unknown with the climate system. But from there, typically what we do is we feed that into a land surface model, otherwise known as a hydrology model. Hydrology models simulate how much water supply is generated from rain and snow processes, plain and simple, how much water is there? This is before we as humans have any kind of interaction with the water. It’s like the bulk supply if you want to think of it like that. From there, we might simulate groundwater or groundwater surface water interactions. How much water from the surface disappears subsurface, and that’s a different type of model as well.

Some models in unique situations can combine those two, but typically only very small scale processes because they’re very computationally heavy, meaning it takes a lot of computer power to run those models. We typically can’t do that over large areas. If we’re interested in peak flow for flood prediction or low flow prediction, then we have to run what’s called a hydraulic model. And a hydraulic model literally simulates how much of that water supply ends up in the river, at what point in time and at what time are you going to hit the peak or the low flow as a result of different processes that are happening. Those are also the same type of models that we use to do floodplain mapping. All of your insurance rates, if you happen to live in a city, are determined based on hydraulic models that are taking the information from hydrology models and distributing the water across the land.

As I said, we might want to have focused groundwater studies and look at how much water is long-term. That’s a process that acts on hundreds if not thousands of years. A very different timescale than all of the other types of models that I’ve talked about. And there could be very detailed modelling of that. And the last one is actually what we call water resource management models or worms affectionately. I have many international students who can’t remember the acronyms that I’m like, just call them worms. It works, right? Worms rain, but water resource management models are the ones that actually determine how much water supply there is after we as humans have interfered with the water cycle. Once we’ve taken out the water due to water licences, used the water for irrigation, stored it in reservoirs and released it, those are the models that add all those kinds of human interventions and then look at the water supply.

Bob:

Do these all happen separately or are they happening together?

Tricia:

That’s a fantastic question. Bob, very, very few times does this happen together in what we call coupled modelling. Most times this actually happens separately. It’s often what we describe as a modelling chain and literally think of it as that a chain with different links and one model feeds into the next model which feeds into the next model, and you build that information or dataset as you go depending on what the actual problem is, you’ll keep going in that modelling chain until you’re able to answer your questions.

Jenny:

You mentioned that you think globally and then locally as well. I just think about this, is it a result of this understanding of the impacts of water from various activities that we’re doing that’s causing this? Because what it sounds like is we need potentially an upscaling of the way we approach modelling and you’re linking things together because of that potential. We’ve talked about in this room, the compartmentalization of the work we do. I’m assuming it’s a combination of this compartmentalization and then also the problem growing in our understanding. Is that true?

Tricia:

There’s a couple of reasons for it, but you’re very perceptive there in describing it the way that you did. In my work, I look at water supply as affected by climate change. Climate change is a global scale process. It’s something that happens globally, not locally, but it’s experienced locally in terms of its impact on the overall water supply and how much water there is. Really what we need is this global, down to continental, down to regional, down to local scaling through that modelling chain in order to answer the local questions about what climate change means to a community, to a city, to a water supply at the provincial or even river basin and scale level like looking at the South Saskatchewan River. But that modelling chain has to start global because if it doesn’t, then we’re not getting the right, what we call forcing data. These changes are happening and being forced by processes that actually start in the Arctic and feed the entire globe in terms of changing global circulation patterns. That is necessary to use as input to the more local models.

Jenny:

And just to follow up to that, I can’t remember where I heard this, but that you were saying the local, it’s felt locally, are the global models quite sensitive to the local changes? Meaning I understood that the global models are potentially looking at too large of a scale and not being able to sum those local changes which amount to much more than what can be realized in those models. Is that

Tricia:

Absolutely, absolutely the case, which is why I would never use runoff from a global model to make a prediction for what the impact on the water supply at a local community level is. But by going from a global climate model down to a hydrology model that describes how water’s distributed on the land surface, then I take the global scale inputs of precipitation temperature and I use that to feed into the next model, which is a much finer resolution of what the land surface looks like and how the water moves or behaves on that land surface, how much evaporation is lost, those kinds of things. From there, if I need an even more detailed picture, not just what the overall volume of water is, but what is the water level in said community at said time in response to a large storm event, then I have to go to the next level or modelling chain, which would be a hydraulic model and so on. This is where the modelling chain comes in as each model has an increasingly high resolution because we can’t just downscale or use the global model scale information at the local scale. It wouldn’t be accurate enough.

Jenny:

Yeah, I think of that as a geophysicist. I think of it as a large scale versus seismic scale, right? You just don’t have the resolution to be able to see those things locally, like globally, but you certainly can if you look at it locally. Okay, Bob, I’ve taken over. Go ahead. Your turn please.

What contributes to water supply: Precipitation, Groundwater, and Glaciers

Bob:

No, you’re asking excellent questions. You mentioned precipitation, you mentioned groundwater.

Jenny:

Yes.

Bob:

You didn’t mention glaciers in the South Saskatchewan system or just say the bow basin. What’s the contribution from each of those to the water supply that we see in terms of precipitation, glacier melting or groundwater itself?

Tricia:

That’s a complicated question and I wish I could give an actual number, but I can’t. This is really at the forefront of where we’re investigating right now, and these are processes that largely haven’t been studied in detail until the last decade or so because they’re complicated. And the reason why it’s complicated is because there’s a feedback between how the glacier is changing and the climate system and those feedbacks aren’t well represented within the climate models and they’re not as well represented historically within the hydrologic models. We’re working on that and trying to bridge that gap so that we get that feedback back. Correct, because it’s important to give a very specific example, the previous generation of climate models really underestimated the impact of temperature increases on the loss of glaciers and the original projections. If you go up to the Columbia ice fields, you’ll see a museum on the bottom floor and it says the glacier could be gone as soon as 2050.

We now know that that’s more accurately 2035 approximately so much, much faster. And the reason for that is that the previous climate models did not take into account the temperatures increasing the rate of wildfire and the wildfire depositing ash on top of the glacier, which is dark and absorbs more heat. There’s what we call a positive feedback process of climate change that actually works to accelerate the loss of the glacier. These are things that we’re learning as we go through experience unfortunately, but each generation of climate models and models in general gets better as a result of that knowledge. The glaciers and the loss of glaciers are typically simulated within the hydrology models or separately using the information from the hydrology models. They’re extremely important in setting the water supply at the headwaters of a basin. If we look at the South Saskatchewan river basin, we would be wrong for the entire river estimate, river flow estimate or level estimate.

If we didn’t take into account glacier melt, which is the very headwater, the Bow Glacier on the Bow River, and of course the Columbia ice fields for the North Saskatchewan River, these are very important processes. They are included in many of our model simulations. And the loss of the glaciers is now being included in many of the simulations that are being generated today, which is great news. What is poorly known unfortunately, is the impact that this has on groundwater supply. We know the glaciers feed the groundwater system, and in fact, there’s an age old debate between hydrologists and hydrogeologists depending on what side you stand on to say is it groundwater or is it glacial melt? In fact, it’s both. We know that a large proportion of the glacial melt goes directly subsurface and ends up reappearing within the bow river and the South Saskatchewan river further downstream closer to Calgary.

As those glaciers disappear, that groundwater system is going to change and the contribution that we get to the base flow in a river, the flow that comes from the subsurface and leeches into the river is also going to change. And that’s concerning for two reasons. Number one, the quantity of water, particularly at times of the year where the glaciers are the highest and our rainfall is the lowest, which is late summer, early fall, and the temperature of the water, which is extremely important for eco hydrology or fish and aquatic species that live in that river.

Bob:

There’s eco modelling then as well, someplace in the system.

Tricia:

Yes, we haven’t gotten to that, but we were talking about water supply up until now. But yes, taking the output from this very large modelling chain that I’ve already described to you and actually determining, okay, what is the impact to X, Y, z fish health, aquatic species, water temperature, water supply intake is just one piece of this very large puzzle. And the cumulative effects modelling happens with whatever results the modelling chain that I produce or my teams produce outputs. And unfortunately these processes aren’t very well integrated, but it is still that kind of feed forward, keep building that chain, keep adding links as we go to try to answer the questions that different communities have and that includes water quality as well.

Bob:

Okay. Jenny, you may want to ask based on what we heard about logging practices, forestry practices.

Jenny:

Yeah, well sure I can lead into that, but I wanted to touch on, as I do talking about the potentially double counting of water is what I might be hearing,

Tricia:

Not really double counting, it’s more how we describe it. The volume is the volume, we’re not adding it twice, it’s just whether it’s described as glacial melt or whether it’s described as groundwater, really depends on your perspective and your training. I think from observations, we know approximately what the overall volume is. It’s just a question of whether that water goes immediately into the subsurface and becomes groundwater or whether it goes overland and into the rivers, like the bow river from the glacier headwater. And of course we know that there’s both. Some goes into the subsurface, some goes into the surface, we monitor for that and we do have an idea of what that split is, but it’s mostly semantics in the community.

Jenny:

Yeah, I heard you discussing in your conversation with the Council of Canadians that we really just have one system that is separated into three systems. I just noticed that when we’re doing things compartmentalized, I wonder if, again, not a criticism of the work, but a criticism or just a consequence of the way that those stuff is calculated. I wonder if there’s double counting. Yeah, I hope that was understood. I think what Bob was hoping to bring into this is processes like logging. Let’s use it as an example. We just met with Dr. Uni Alila who walked us through his work in terms of understanding extreme weather events related to logging and how it actually accelerates drought long-term being that it takes out those, the highs will remove more sediment, which closes off cements, et cetera. How does a process like that get incorporated? And then we brought in other things like oil and gas, removing water from the system or so we get how complicated it is, but how do these things, this cumulative impact get layered into your work? Thank you.

Tricia:

Yeah, no, those are great questions. And just to kind of roll that all into the double counting part, of course, the ideal would be to have what we call in the community a digital earth twin where all of these processes are modelled at the exact same time simultaneously in one model framework. This is being developed within the modelling community at local skills and then scaling up to global. It is very difficult because we’re really pushing the limits of computational power that’s available to us. And I know that sounds crazy because to most people we have unlimited computational power. We think of things like ai, but really what we’re talking about here is a whole linkage. The way the earth functions is absolutely incredible and amazing. And also a mystery, just like the human body is in many of these linkages, we need mathematical equations, complex mathematical equations to describe every single transfer of a water molecule through the earth system.

And to be able to do that all in one model requires a massive amount of supercomputing to the point that there’s really only one earth system computer that could handle this. And there is clearly a lineup to be able to access that computer and also oftentimes to get the predictions from it, they’re not in time to be able to make decisions on the ground such as do we open the dam gate or not? We need to kind of dumb down the science a bit, put them into smaller compartmentalized models and then run them one at a time. And that’s essentially what we’ve done is just fragment the mathematics in terms of looking at cumulative effects. That’s a great question and I would describe that as FITFIR purpose in my community. We set up a model to answer questions. Those questions have to be defined at the beginning because the choices that I make as a modeller are going to be determined based on what those questions that I’m trying to answer are.

And if I’m looking at the effects of logging, then I know that I’m looking at the effects of land cover change and land cover, how much forest was there, how much forest is there now, and what did that area become? Is it just a bare open area or is it turned to grassland? All of those kinds of things I need to know and I can numerically code the model to actually describe those changes over time with the advent of space-based technology. Land cover that’s dynamic that really we get imagery on a daily basis or every few days, we can update that information in terms of what the land surface looks like, the land cover effect, and then the hydrology model can respond to that land cover, meaning within the model itself, how much water is generated from a storm on a forested area will be significantly different than how much water is generated.

Runoff is generated from a bare soil area and the model can respond to those dynamic changes over time. And that’s essentially how we do it is by changing the land cover and having the model be linked with those changes. Land cover, that’s an example of something we can do within the hydrology model. There are other cumulative effects like fish health that we can’t do within a hydrology model, but the fish biologists would take the water temperature and the stream flow and the water levels that our models would produce, and then they have their own series of models that they would run to look at the impact on the fish health.

Jenny:

Yeah, I can see how the timeframe to be able to make decisions on that would be challenging based on the amount of steps in the process to be able, and then the dependency of these models that are based on inputs that you have no control over, you can only monitor and measure.

Bob:

I was going to talk about the same thing, timing. Because you’re saying you’ve got to get the models all at the same time and then you’ve got to be able to do it in a timely fashion.

Tricia:

Correct.

Bob:

How are we doing on that? Are we being successful? Are we making progress?

Tricia:

This would come down to the type of problem that I have been asked to address. If I’ve been asked to address flood forecasting to look at peak flows, I know that if I’m working with the city of Calgary, I need an answer in a few hours, not a few days, but I have to be able to run that model, update that model, and give them a new answer. All of that process can only take a couple of hours. At best. If I’m working on long-term response to climate change, then I could have a longer timeframe or a longer time window to update the model and run it, which makes sense because I’m also running not a single event or a couple of days worth of flows, but I’m actually running a 100 to 200 year time series for climate change simulation. I need that extra modelling time and I could plan for that simulation to take two months, four months, six months, whatever it takes.

It really depends on the purpose. How we’re doing on that is exactly why we have probably hundreds of models to choose from because the choice of the model will be dictated by the problem because you can’t have a one size fits all solution to be able to do that. If you take the most complex integrated surface water groundwater model out there to most accurately describe the glaciers and the runoff from it, it’s going to take six months to run on this basin and you’re not going to get an operational solution. Instead we take the most important parts of the problem that will give us the best guess of the peak flow, and we run a simpler framework to try to guess our best estimate of what that flow might be. And this sounds like it’s all guesstimate, but these models are ground truth and benchmarked and all this stuff over time and calibrated. That’s a very fancy way of saying that we check the model output to make sure that we’re making appropriate assumptions for the problem that we’re trying to address.

How is water continuously accounted for with rapid changes?

Bob:

But in many ways, in terms of calibration, the goalposts keep changing on you, whether it’s the way we’re using the land or what climate is doing to the hydrologic cycle, how do we somehow get, particularly from an operational point of view, how do we make this all come together in a timely fashion given that time is progressing far faster than we think it is in a way?

Tricia:

Absolutely. And this is one of the reasons why I personally love water resources so much because it is really complex. There’s no playbook for this. I used to live in Manitoba and I had a saying where no, one flood is ever the same. I lived through two 230 year floods out there, the 2011 and 2014 floods, and they were completely different. And you couldn’t use the same model to describe those because the cause effect relationship was different and calibration is really no different. The way in which you approach it is by best understanding the system that you’re working in and what’s really driving the change in the flow or the peak flow, finding the model that best and most accurately represents that, and then calibrating that model to an event that’s very similar to the event that you are interested in modelling. What is changing? Is it the rainfall that’s changing or is it the snow melt that’s changing or is it that you now have rain on snow happening at the same time and then you calibrate to an event on the record that is closest to that event?

Tricia:

And if it’s not as extreme, then you can actually make synthetic events to calibrate those models to do your best to push them further from what our historic record shows. But the key is that the models must be dynamic, they’re calibrated to historical storm sequences, but we’re not setting them to a solid response to the same storm all the time. Meaning if we change land cover over time, then the extreme runoff that’s going to come from that same event from the historic time series is going to get more severe in the future. And that’s the key is that we have to evolve those models over time and make sure that the system dynamics are well represented.

Bob (29:01):

But it sounds like the same kind of problem that the climate modellers have. You’re dealing with probabilities. Absolutely. There is no fixed answer. That’s correct. The poor guy at the end or the poor gal at the end doing the operational models, they need one solution, but they know very well that it’s a range of solutions in a sense.

Tricia:

Absolutely. And this is why we’re now as an engineering community evolving from what we call standards-based practice, which is really you have a storm event, this is the amount of flow to expect from that, and that’s your standard one in 100 year event is what we’ve often heard it called the Calgary 2013 flood is another way that the public has heard it referenced. We are evolving away from that and towards something called adaptive management practice or risk-based management practice. And that is a very simple way of saying instead of having a single one in 100 year flood event, you have a range that flood event will be within, and that’s called the uncertainty envelope or the risk envelope. And that it’s really far more complicated than a single hydrologist could answer to. Say, if you’re designing your pipe for a 1 in 100 year event, this is going to be your flow.

You have to take into account not only the environmental change or the climate change, which that envelope shows, but also your economic resiliency, your social and cultural resiliency. Where is the floodplain? How far are the houses from that? What is the consequence of me being under on that flood event versus what is the consequence of me overdesigning for that flood event? These days, decision making is far more complex for clients and they have to really understand how much economic risk, how much environmental risk, and how much social cultural risk are they willing to accept on being wrong? Because the reality is we know there’s a much higher chance of us being wrong now.

Bob:

In a sense, we have a social cultural economic model someplace in somebody’s head or in the spreadsheets or in the actual computers.

Tricia:

These are things that are probably the future right now we don’t unfortunately have one single model that takes that into account, but what we’re really talking about is modelling these kinds of decision spaces where the environmental or how high is that flow going to be is only one piece to that puzzle that urban planners or urban designers would get that piece of information. But you would also understand the risk level of your city council, where the houses are on the floodplain and what the cost of being wrong would be. That’s not something that a hydrologist can decide. That has to be something that the client who procures the hydrology scenario decides and takes into account. And then you would either choose the lowest, the middle or the top end of that uncertainty envelope depending on what risk you are willing to accept.

Bob:

It’s also a political model and it really depends nowadays, at least in terms of the computer inside people’s heads,

Tricia:

And this is why when people talk about, oh, aren’t you afraid of artificial intelligence taking over your job? I’m like, no way. My job’s just become way more complex. And actually, if anything, the social sciences and the person and the decision-making has actually become more relevant. AI can do a lot, but now we have a lot more to do. It’s going to help us in ways that we haven’t been able to see before then. Thank goodness we’re going to need it.

How to Model for Water Security, Quality and Quantity

Jenny (32:37):

Yeah. I want to back up a little bit because I really appreciate it. In this presentation you just gave, talking about the federal, what your recommendation is, you’ve touched on a little bit here, focusing on economics is one of those pieces and also this adaptive risk-based design that switches, I appreciate that. Can you speak a little bit about what question you would want to ask? Meaning with that in mind, with this framework in mind of a federal water policy framework and mandate? You were talking about how your water model is only as good as the questions it’s asked. If you were given free reign, what would the question be to help move us in the right direction in terms of understanding water security, let’s say both quality and quantity?

Tricia:

That’s a great question at a loaded one, I don’t know that I actually brainstormed that, but I would say that it would have everything to do with what is the resiliency threshold for the Canadian water supply? And I use the word resilient on purpose, not sustainable. I know some people don’t like it, but I need to make this distinction sustainable is what we have today. And preserving the ability to meet that into the future, I would argue what we have today is already inadequate. We are already oversubscribed for water licences in the South Saskatchewan River basin. We are already in a water deficit. We need to do better than that. Resiliency takes into account the ability of a system to adapt and have adaptive capacity in the face of hazards and how that system is able to recover. I think honestly, we need to roll things back.

We need to become much more water focused and water central in terms of our governance and decision-making. And instead of just haphazardly building a community within a city in location X, because the land is available for cheap and there’s a developer who says first, “Okay, well full stop. Is there a water supply to do that?” If we’re going to procure new economic development and grow in industry, not only in terms of oil and gas, which is the obvious low hanging fruit, but also in terms of things like Google data centers or massive computing facilities, okay, full stop, how much water is that going to require? These are questions that we’re not even asking and that’s why we don’t have the models to be able to answer those is because there hasn’t been the demand to do so. But honestly, it’s the most important factor if we are going to continue to grow our population to thrive in this particular location, which happens to be some of the driest regions of Canada and support future generations well into the future with climate change.

Jenny:

Yeah, could not agree more. This thought of to me, can we center our economy on water, water quality, availability, and like you were saying, not just in a human use way, but in an ecologically resilient way. To me that is just massive in terms

Tricia:

And it’s a climate issue, it’s also a social justice and human issue. We know that there are still people that don’t have access to proper and clean water supply. In this day and age, that’s just unforgivable. We need to do better, right?

Jenny:

A hundred percent. And I just think if that was our focus, it would really help us make those decisions. Like you’re saying, for example, the water smart who does a lot of the water modelling, modelled the planned hydrogen projects and was saying you’ve got most of your projects in a basin that does not have the water supply to provide you that try. Again, these are where we are wasting time because we’re not looking at the water picture. A big part of that to me would also be fracking. We have some municipalities mentioned in that discussion that have banned fracking well, but then where is the water coming from because the fracking is still happening and water is still being used for it. One question with respect to this local issue in terms of the overall water modelling effort, and I’m going to say quantity effort, I’d like to touch more on the social sciences in this. Tricia, can you help me because there’s a lot of water that’s being used that I imagine the system cannot incorporate.

Tricia:

Yes.

Jenny:

To be specific, I’m on the watershed, like the watershed council coordinating committee for the Bow Basin, and one of the conversations was around that its tributaries and surface water is not really being accounted for. The use of that water is not being accounted for. Can you speak a little bit about, not necessarily specifically on that, but you get the idea of this social activity that’s happening that is potentially not being incorporated fully in the model.

Accounting for Cumulative Impacts in Water Modelling

Tricia (37:24):

Absolutely. That speaks in part to the type of modelling chain that you would choose to really incorporate decision making around water and water use, water licences, water withdrawals, water storage. We need that water resource management modelling. We do some of that in this province, and actually we do quite a good job of it overall. Water smart, you mentioned they have done quite a bit of that, but we don’t do it specific to the problem that’s being asked, and in some cases we don’t actually have the data to do it properly. A very good example is that when we incorporate water licensing, we have to incorporate the actual value of the licence regardless of how much water has actually been used. Why? Because we don’t actually monitor consumption. We don’t have consumptive use as a dataset at our disposal. If the data doesn’t exist, then I can’t incorporate that into the model.

Maximum licence use is the total value of the licence, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that that individual extracted the full amount of water that they’re able to. And in fact, sometimes it’s less than half. It really depends. And that has a very distinct local impact in terms of the amount of water that is used and the impact on the amount of water that would stay in the river at that particular point in time. That would be a big reason why models could sometimes be wrong or overestimating or underestimating in addition to a lack of data. Sometimes it is just a lack of knowledge, meaning water is withdrawn under permits. We know the point where the irrigation districts withdraw, but then when farmers return irrigation to a river, they often just hook up a hose and return it to the river. We don’t actually have data on what that water return is, how much it’s been gone from the system.

There’s no magic tracer within that water. We don’t know if it was withdrawn months ago or just that day or two days ago. And all of that has a significant impact on the residents time of the water in the river or on the surface. These are all issues that local municipal supplies have been grappling with that significantly impact the instream flow need or the amount of water that’s left in a river at a particular time. And how this is linked with behaviour is number one, conservation mindset. How we use water or how we overuse water, I should say. But number two, how we don’t really think it’s important enough to track it or keep tabs on our water usage. And if I asked you how much water does your family use in a day, you probably, maybe you, but some people, most people would have no idea they’d be pulling a number out of the dark.

That’s not right. This is the single most important thing that we have. It is life sustaining. You can’t go more than three days without having access to clean water. This is something that we all depend on and yet we almost never think about. And that’s where the social sciences come into play. And that then determines our policies and our laws that are made, what we monitor, when we monitor it, where we monitor it, but also how much money is put towards that. And quite frankly, governments are not putting enough money towards keeping tabs on our water systems and water is not prioritized high enough within the overall legislative system for us to be able to do what we need to do to even answer the questions that we have.

Bob:

Well, it sounds like the magpie has stopped heckling us.

Jenny:

It was a greenwashing bird.

Tricia:

Yes. They’re fighting over a nest.

Bob:

I thought maybe it was a modeller that they used for their modelling. In some, you were talking about lack of data in terms of actual water use. Is this fundamentally a problem with not having enough monitoring, measuring devices out there?

Tricia:

Absolutely. And in terms of the large scale monitoring, our federal programme that monitors flows and levels, this has been a constant battle really. There were massive cutbacks in the 1980s. We lost a huge number of gauges and monitoring locations because the government just quite frankly didn’t prioritize the spending. Since then, we’ve been gradually recovering and we have some more monitoring in place to help at the larger scale, but what I’m fundamentally talking about here is the additional monitoring that we don’t even have in place right now. We don’t monitor groundwater adequately. There is no national groundwater monitoring program. We don’t monitor water quality sufficiently. It is very much left up to the provinces and territories, and some provinces have a handful of locations where they grab samples five times a year at best. That’s not nearly enough information to monitor the cumulative effects of changes that we’re starting to see in these systems.

That can happen really, really quickly, and we’re missing a lot of that. We do not have any water use monitoring how much water is actually consumed or used. And I’m not talking about a whole licence or as a city. I’m talking about individual houses to the hour at which they’re using the water. We can really look at not only reporting back to people what their water usage is, but introducing billing rates that reflect over consumption of water that is unnecessary. And that includes not only domestic but also industrial. And then we might actually get to the point where we can clear some of the legislative hurdles for grey water reuse or water conservation practices, particularly for industry. I don’t understand why we’re not reusing water more or making that a mandatory part of new builds. This absolutely has to be something that we prioritize in this part of the world. There have been other regions very similar, Orange County, California, that are 25 years in advance of us in terms of the drought. We’re starting to see that now they have gone to complete water recycling protocols. We know this can be done. We know how to do it. There is a playbook for this. We just have to actually make up our minds to do it.

Bob:

Now, you mentioned the metering of individual households. Is this becoming something like what they talk about in terms of energy use with smart meters and smart grid systems and that sort of thing?

Tricia:

Yes, and I’m very proud to say that it is part of the city of Calgary’s drought response plan, and they have committed to having all houses metered smart metering for water by 2030. I hope we can expedite that, but I’m very excited to see that in terms of people responding to what their water consumption is. That said, the current billing system doesn’t lend itself very nicely to water conservation. The majority of what we pay similar to energy is in distribution fees, not in terms of consumptive fees. We really need to flip that ratio and start putting more priority on consumptive measures.

Jenny:

And I just think it’s fascinating to your point that we see an hourly consumption of and gas, but we don’t see that in terms of water. That is an example of how we have been made water blind in what we do. And even those with this catastrophe that we had last summer, which of course we would’ve known this was a coming issue of course, from years of neglect in our system. But what water is being used for, I’ve learned that 80% of the energy we use in the world is related to moving water in some fashion or processing water in some fashion. We think about how interrelated they are, water and energy. I was saying in a couple conversations ago that for one barrel we produce, we are using one barrel of water. This is not

Tricia:

Three to four, three to four barrels of water for every barrel of oil. In this province where energy comes from oil and gas, we really need to think about water as the limiting factor. Not unlike agriculture, they’ve learned that phosphorus is the limiting nutrient, not nitrogen. That’s the critical one to focus on. For us, water is the critical one, and yet no one’s focusing on it.

Jenny:

Agree. Yeah. And I think about… I see we’re nearing the hour, and I want to make sure I’m respectful of your time. Bob, did you have any questions you wanted to ask before we wrap?

Bob:

Yes. Yeah. Jenny, you had mentioned small streams. Is it even possible to come up with realistic models for smaller streams? And I ask that because if you’re an individual living on one of those streams, or if you’re the fish who depend on that particular first spawning, those streams are very important. Yet our models are very much focused on the mainstream of rivers plus the main tributaries. Is it even possible to model small streams?

Tricia:

Great question. Is it possible? Absolutely, a hundred percent. It is. Again, this comes down to FITFIR purpose. I wouldn’t pick the same model that I use to model the South Saskatchewan River as I would to model processes that connect on a different scale and require more data and more information to run accurately on the small scale. The problem becomes how good are those models? And we don’t actually know because unless it’s a research intensive study where the researchers have committed to collecting the data, we don’t have data at a small scale. The federal program really focuses on basins that are 300 square kilometers or up, which oftentimes neglects these very small catchments that are like 20 square kilometers. And we make some really terrible assumptions with some really basic and primitive models at this point to do our best guess at what the water supply is or the impact of a changing climate. But we really need more information to be able to model those processes in detail.

Bob:

Okay. Final question from me, Jenny, if it’s okay. How do you model the legal system?

Tricia:

We don’t. I’m not a lawyer. This is a human social science problem. And honestly, this is exactly why after 20 some-odd years in the physical sciences and climate change and water resources, I voluntarily signed myself up to learn more about social studies and human behaviour because these are decisions that are far more complex than the climate system and interrelationships with water. And that’s complicated enough. But humans are a whole other level, and for the life of me, it’s very tricky to model human behaviour, even in response to large scale catastrophic events, which is what our policy is often defined from or our legal system. Catastrophic failures or ruptures of water mains defining laws that help protect us against that is very tricky because it all depends on the human or societal response and that.

Accounting for FITFIR in Water Modelling and Key Takeaways

Bob (48:38):

Okay. I think I was asking the wrong question, but I got the right answer except for one thing in terms of first in time, first in right, is that actually modelled in particular these operational models?

Tricia:

Not all of them. It has to be intentional and it has to be embedded as rules in terms of how much water can actually pass the border at a certain point in time. Water Smart has done some of that work. My team has done some of that work, and I know that Global Water features based out of the University of Saskatchewan has done some of that work. It is possible. It isn’t done all the time though, and these are the things that need to be done all the time because it’s essential to look at the adequacy of the decisions that we’re making.

Jenny:

Awesome. Okay. I have another loaded question, I’m sure, but this is more just thought provoking, Tricia, and I hope you have some thoughts on this as well. But I think about your comments with respect to the future and where we need to be headed in terms of federal, this is interprovincial concerns, et cetera, all of those things. But I think about this modelling and you’re talking about the cumulative impacts, but my question is are there conversations happening around what restoration looks like and how we can rebuild water storage capacity? Because I think of, for example, I’ll use myself in the oil and gas industry, if we weren’t developing new, we could turn around and start modelling really well how we remove sites off the landscape and how we restore the system function, let’s say water land system function. To me, what are those conversations looking like and is that a third option that’s even out there of the discussion? Because we talk about, for example, in your conversation, and I’ll make sure to share this Council of Canadians conversation, these dams and infrastructure systems that are really thinking on an annual basis or maybe 25 years out and not thinking about this thousand year timescale that you really need to be starting to shift gears to. I’m just curious, I’ll stop there. In terms of what are we seeing for optionality for people in terms of do we develop, do we restore, do something in between? How are we making those decisions? Thank

Tricia:

You. Yeah, no problem. Jenny. I would say that that is part of the shift from standards-based decision making to adaptive decision-making. Adaptive risk-based decision making takes a seventh generation view to everything. Is it okay for today? Is it okay and if not better in the future? And how does it recover from disaster and pressures and hazards that are likely to be presented in the future? And I think that’s the key is that we have to start thinking much longer term in terms of looking at consequences and effects. But the other missing piece to this is that we’re really good at defining the cost of damages. If you don’t put in that dam and there’s a massive flood, how many communities downstream get washed out? What is the cost of that versus if we put in that dam, then we save all those communities full.

What we don’t look at is what is the cost to the environment in monetary terms? Ecological cost and what is the benefit that we receive when we restore? If that dam is to be removed in the future and we roll that ecosystem back to what it used to be, what are some of the benefits of not having that dam anymore, like upstream wetlands and beavers and all of that that helps to naturally mitigate flooding but also has a secondary benefit to water quality and it’s a massive benefit. And also groundwater, we do not value that right now. This is all called nature-based accounting. The United Nations has actually moved to have the equity for a lot of infrastructure, national infrastructure and international infrastructure projects take this into account. But unfortunately, there isn’t a strong accounting system that currently knows how to deal with some of those costs and benefits of nature-based solutions and natural restoration. It’s an evolving science right now. It is something that the rest of the world, particularly Europe, is far more advanced at than Canada right now. It’s not currently written into our laws that engineers or project designers have to include this. And that is a big mistake because we shouldn’t just be asking what is the cost of not doing something? We should be asking what is the cost of doing it to the ecosystem and to the water quality and to the cumulative effects and the health of that system overall.

Jenny:

Right. And I’ll just finish with, to me, I think about the glacial loss and our ability to potentially slow that or potentially restore it if we were to really meaningfully move on climate quickly. Anyway, I’ll stop there. Bob, I’m sure you have some closing thoughts or questions for Tricia.

Bob:

This has been a fascinating discussion and you managed to take some very dry material about modelling, which I’m sure it can be quite. Thank you very much. I really

Tricia:

My pleasure

Bob:

Listening to you and very much appreciated you coming onto the podcast. Thank you very much.

Tricia:

Thank you for inviting me. It was my pleasure.

Jenny:

Anything that we missed, Trisha, that you would love to hit home before we wrap? Yeah, anything that, or even a question for the future you’d like us to think about? Anything,

Tricia:

I’d like everyone to think about their role in water usage and water conservation. I don’t think we have to wait for this to be legislated. I don’t think we have to wait for the powers that be to tell us to do this. We know it’s the right thing to do and anyone listening to this podcast up until this point is thinking about it naturally. I challenge everyone to figure out what their own water usage is and how they can improve on that. Because honestly, that’s just the right thing to do. And the more people that do, the more pressure is applied and the faster the change can happen legislatively as well.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you for that. I think there is such an important role for us to play in terms of bringing water awareness into our lives. And one of the conversations we had was just around licensing and FITFIR and the laws. And the question came down to if we had an emergency, what would we need to do? And it comes down to those conversations, those genuine on the landscape, what are we doing with our water conversations? The more we do that now you’re suggesting the better.

Tricia:

That’s right.

Jenny:

Fantastic. Okay. Thank you so much. I certainly hope we get an opportunity to work with you again, Trisha, I really appreciate the work you’re doing and thank you for giving our audience this information.

Tricia:

Thank you for everything you’re doing.

Jenny:

Take care for now.

This is Episode 3 of the Water in Southern Alberta miniseries, the discussion centers on the legal system and water market in Southern Alberta. The podcast features guests Arlene Kwasniak, a law professor, and Davin MacIntosh, a water rights facilitator, who explore the intricacies of water law and transfers. The conversation highlights the historical and current frameworks governing water rights, the challenges of the “first in time, first in right” principle, and the complexities of water transfers. The episode also addresses the need for reforms in water management to ensure sustainability, equity, and adaptation to climate change. Listeners are encouraged to engage with ongoing consultations on water availability and management in Alberta.

Introductions to Arlene Kwasniak and Davin MacIntosh

Jenny:

Welcome to The Gravity Well Podcast. I am your host, Jenny Yeremiy. Here you break down heavy ideas with me to understand their complexities and connections. Our mission is to work through dilemmas together in conversation and process. I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territory of Treaty 7 and Metis districts 5 and 6. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples were created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature by giving back and uphold reciprocal relationships. This knowledge and intention are what guide The Gravity Well conversation. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The gravity well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts. Join us@thegravitywall.net. Welcome everyone. Very glad to have, of course, Bob Morrison, my co-host in this water series that we’ve been doing. This is our third episode now, but we are in the midst of season two. This is episode 11 for anybody who follows the show. We are talking about the legal system and the water market today. We have two guests with us, Arlene Kwazniak, who’s a Professor Emeritus of Law with the University of Calgary law faculty and Davin MacIntosh, who practiced planning and municipal law for several years before facilitating water transfers. Really excited to dive into these two areas of water for us. Why are we talking about Water in Southern Alberta? This is a series of podcasts that is for the general public, for people involved in water. We want to empower those that are working in water and concerned citizens who wish to take positive action towards water security in the future. We’ve had two conversations so far. We did a history of irrigation with Shannon Stunden Bower and Jordan Christianson, and we’ve done one conversation in the environment, which is what this conversation sits within. And that one was on the impacts of resource extraction with David Mayhood, Jason Unger, and Younes Alila.

Both of those are available on my website, thegravitywell.net, and after these conversations, we’ll move into stewardship. That’s going to be in the next couple of weeks, reducing our impact. And then in the future conversations will happen in the fall. We might be looking to the two of you to return for some clarification questions then if this all goes accordingly. Thank you so much for being here. Let’s just do a quick round of proper introductions if you would. Bob, can we start with you please?

Bob:

My name’s Bob Morrison and I’m a retired planner. Originally we worked in water management and transportation planning. Since retirement, I’ve been involved in municipal issues and my main concern is getting people to understand water and how important it is in their lives. Thanks, Jenny.

Jenny:

Thank you, Bob. Arlene, you’re next, please.

Arlene:

Yeah, I am Arlene, Kwasniak, as you said, professor Emeritus of law, faculty of law. I’m also an adjunct with Environmental design and senior Research fellow of the Canadian Institute of Resources Law and I’ve been involved with water law for several years, I guess, since taking water law from David Percy back in 1979 or so. And I think he really got my interest going and it’s been kept on since then and I’ve been publishing and doing what I can to help sustainable water use and aquatic ecosystem protection.

Jenny:

Thank you so much for your work, Arlene. Really excited to hear more about it. Davin, please introduce yourself.

Davin:

Sure. Davin MacIntosh. I’m the owner of Water Transfer Alberta. I guess my interest in the space started when I was doing my undergrad law degree and people like Arlene and Nigel Bankes at University of Calgary inspired me to learn more about the area. I went on to have a career as a planning and municipal development lawyer with a couple of Alberta’s biggest firms where many of my clients were developers or municipalities and had questions about the evolving framework for water rights in the province. And seeing that as an opportunity, I went back to UFC and did it at a master’s and worked with Arlene. A pleasure to be here with Arlene today and started Water Transfer Alberta in 2007. Since then, I’ve been, I’d say it’s consultancy under brokerage for water rights, and I’ve been involved in a significant proportion of the water transfers that have happened in the Bow River Basin, then also many in southern Alberta.

Jenny:

Yeah, excited to hear more about this area, a space where people are not really clear on how this all goes down in our province. I’m very excited. Okay, we’re going to start with you Arlene. Arlene has prepared a presentation for us, so let’s get going on it. Please.

The Legal Framework for Water Management in Alberta

Arlene (00:05:20):

I was asked to talk about laws that affect and regulate water and water use in Alberta, and there are tons of them. I think we start with the constitution of Canada, which divides legislative powers, who can regulate what, and you’ll see that there are lots of federal powers that can deal with water issues such as fisheries, some pollution that can harm fisheries, migratory birds navigation, navigable rivers, water embed shores on federal lands as well as indigenous lands, interprovincial and international water species risk. Though we can’t discount that, there’s a lot of federal interest, but I won’t be talking about that today. And then provincial laws can regulate water as a provincial property, and I think that’s the main constitutional basis that I’ll be talking about. Water use rights, pollution, water bodies and bed shores, environmental matters, municipalities, things like fishing limits. And then the constitution of course recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal rights and treaty rights.

There’s a whole body of indigenous water law and we constantly are trying to determine the extent of indigenous water rights, but I have no doubt that they exist. And then there’s federal and provincial statutes that are made hoarding to these constitutional divisions of powers. There’s the indigenous law and the common law, which I’ll talk about a little bit, international law in there, policies which are something less than law, but governments make and can be very important with how we manage water and water rights. I’m going to mainly focus on water use management and water rights primarily under Alberta water legislation. But before I start, I just want to say, well, what if we could just invent a water law out of the blue without having anything else to worry about? What would we do? Well, I think what we’d have to do is we would invent a water management system where we wouldn’t let particular water rights holders inordinately impact private or public interests such as impairing in any significant way aquatic ecosystems.

You need mechanisms in the law to curb, cancel, and appropriate diversion rights in the public interest. You also need to secure sufficient instream flow to make sure that you have water systems that will even accommodate human diversions. You needed secure water for drinking, washing and other basic human needs. It regulates quantity and quality. That just makes sense because of course, pollution, assimilation, it depends upon the amount of water one is dealing with. You didn’t have something called conjunctive use where you’d regulate both groundwater and surface water together because they do form a system. You’d incorporate watershed governance and management. You would not just regulate the water in a watercourse or a water body, but also bring in the water uses on the land because they can affect what’s in the water body. You clarify rules regarding alternative sources because water that we can use doesn’t just come from rivers and lakes, it also comes from wastewater, reused rainwater, stormwater and Selene water, which I don’t have down here, but it’s also very important to the oil and gas industry.

And you would incorporate climate change mitigation and adaptation plans and actions because this is not only inevitable but happening and impacting our water resources. What is the background to our water law? And at the end, if I have time, I’ll go through those things I just mentioned to see how our water law measures up. Prior to water management and use legislation in Western Canada common law riparian rights apply. And this is a common law court made law and under it only occupants of riparian land land that is directly adjacent to a river or a watercourse for a water body had the right to divert and use water. And they also had the right to the continued flow. All riparian zones were subject to that limitation. There were two basic riparian rights, the household use, which was very limited to things like drinking water, washing clothes, just what really a household would need and an extraordinary use, which could include commercial uses, but all the uses much must be reasonable and leave the water source undiminished in quality and quantity.

There was built-in equity for riparian zones and sustainability limits because each riparian had the same. If someone was violating someone else’s riparian, right, they could go to court to try to enforce it. But riparian rights weren’t really working in Alberta and in the other what were back in the 19 hundreds called the late 18 hundreds called the Northwest Territories. The Dominion at that time passed a legislation that was called the Northwest Irrigation Act, meaning the dry prairies. There weren’t really that many riparian zones and this act extinguished all riparian rights except for the household, which was then quantified in the legislation and a couple other riparian rights which still exist such as the right to land that accretes to your property in a slow and perceptible way. And there are still some modified access rights to the water body or water course.

The Northwest Irrigation Act, and in subsequent legislation the way it works is that the crown claims ownership of all the water in the province and the right to divert use and generally disturb it. Since it claims it owns it, it can then give that right to people who apply for it to divert, use or disturb water through legislation. And the way that’s done is through statutory authorization. And I should mention that the Crown also claims ownership of the Bed shores of rivers and other water courses and lakes and permanent naturally occurring water bodies. But that’s under a different set of legislation. Most water rights beginning with the Northwest Irrigation Act are based on the principle of priority allocation, known as first in time, first in right or FITFIR. You don’t have to be a riparian owner to get a FITFIR, the priority or the right to divert is based on the date of the application for a water licence.

And what that means is that in times of shortage, the most senior gets all of their allocation before any less senior has the right to any water. And I like to use the following analogy, how this would work with water is like if you have Joe who got his water licence 100 acre feet, that’s how they were measured back then. Amount of water needed to fill an acre of land in 1900 and then Sally 50 in 1946 and Mary in 1988 and these licences run with the land. Even though Joe’s not with us, whoever who owns that land would have that right, could get all his 100 acre feet even though it might be downstream from Sally or Mary before Sally or Mary have the right to any of it. It’s sort of like if we had a family food supplement supply entitlement rules where the oldest person gets as much food as they need, as might’ve been determined sometime, and then the next oldest gets to fill their food needs and then follow the same pattern until the family runs out of food.

Grandpa Joe gets to eat everything he wants and then whatever is left, goes to Sister Sally, then to Dad Doug, then to mom Sue, and then to baby Bev. What could happen in a time of shortages, the most junior entitlement holder just gets nothing at all. We have to ask ourselves right now, is this really a reasonable way to allocate water? The Northwest Irrigation Act was law until the transfer of public lands and natural resources from the dominion to the Prairie provinces in 1930. As you might recall, the dominion held those public lands and natural resources back from the prairie provinces when they became provinces, and then Alberta then had to pass its own legislation, which it did with the Water Resources Act in 1931, and that only applied to surface water as in the Northwest Irrigation Act and then Water Resources Act added groundwater to the crown owned water.

All of a sudden it said we own groundwater as well in 1962 and before that the rule of capture applied at common law where the owner could just take as much as they wanted and the heck with any other groundwater users. But then it was now subject to the groundwater and was subject to prior allocation and FITFIR just like surface water. And then the Water Act replaced the Water Resources Act in 1999 when it was declared into effect and FITFIR was carried forward in the Water Resources Act and in the Water Act. And I can tell you there was discussion on whether it should be because I was a member of the Water Management Review committee that gave their recommendations to the province in enacting the Water Act and there was a lot of discussion, although the main water users certainly won the day and FITFIR stayed.

What the Act does that’s different from the Water Resources Act, I guess the first thing it does is it divides the province into what are called major river basins. This is just a map of it and I just want to mention that there is a, I guess I can call it a consultation, although the government calls it an engagement on water availability because the government is going to be amending the Water Act in various ways, and I have it here as Alberta Water Availability Engagement Survey (WAES), which anyone can fill out online until June 30th. One thing that wants to do is to merge the Peace Slave and Athabasca basins that certainly will have consequences for water transfers and maybe other things as well. Another major change is it brought in planning requirements and mechanisms and most significant are what are called approved water management plans because these must be considered in some important regulatory actions under the Water Act such as transfers, and there are only three, as far as I know right now, the South Saskatchewan River Basin approved Water Management Plan, battle River approved Water Management Plan and the Milk River approved Water Management Plan phase one.

There’s lots of other water management plans, but they aren’t approved by Cabinet, they don’t have the same regulatory impact in effect in the Water Act. How does one get a water right? Well, there are statutory authorizations. The first one is an exemption. I think it’s a regulatory right, but it means you don’t have to do anything more to acquire it. There are specific exemptions in the regulations for fire control and things like that, but the main ones are the household use exemption, which pretty much brings forward the household use riparian, right, quantifies it to 1,250 cubic meters a year, and it only applies to riparian but also groundwater users. Then there are agricultural use exemptions and for traditional agricultural uses up to 62 50 cubic meters a year. This is things like raising cattle and having dugouts, and again, here I have the water availability survey noted because the government is proposing to increase the number of exemptions and also the quantity of water that is exempted or you could acquire a regulatory right, such as a licence or an approval.

Yeah, licences are the main ones that we talk about today because they give the right to divert a quantity of water for an authorized purpose, typically for a 10 year renewable term under the Water Resources Act and predecessor legislation, there was no term, the existing licences, the ones that still exist don’t expire, but water licences are, I understand quite easily renewed. The purposes are set out in the regulations, the government has the right to change purposes without amending the statute, and I’m not going to go through them all, but as you can see there as one could expect municipal agriculture, irrigation, commercial and so on and so forth. But then some interesting ones like Habitat Enhancement recreation implementing a water conservation objective, which I’ll talk about a little bit. And then any other purpose specified by the director has seemed to have fallen off this, the director can just get an application for a water licence.

Then I guess just identify a purpose and it can be a purpose for a water licence. This is an old slide, but it does show you who the main water users are. We have agriculture being the largest commercial and then oil and gas and then other uses in the municipality. Some points on the Water Act licences compared with Pre Water Act licences, what are called the existing licences is they can have water conservation objectives or conditions. That means that the director under the Water Act who’s issuing the licence can require what are basically minimum flow conditions that if the water source does not meet certain minimum flows, then the director has the right to cut back on the amount of water that the licence holder can divert as determined by the water conservation objective. How much water does the government want left in the watercourse?

Now I just want to mention and compare these two in-stream objectives, which are, that’s the term that was used for minimum flows prior to the Water Act, on the existing licences you might have in-stream objectives which also give the directive the right to cut back on the allocation if the instream objective isn’t met, but it could be quantified in a different way from the water conservation objectives and is usually less as far as we can ascertain, but also compare both WCOs and IOs, to instream flow needs, because instream flow needs are scientifically determined quantity and quality of water that is needed to protect aquatic ecosystems, and this is a scientifically determined amount and as opposed to more of a politically determined amount with the WCO and the instream objectives, which are okay, the government may determine what the water course needs the instream flow needs, but then just take some number between that and nothing and make that as the WCO or the IO to enable as much allocation as it wants.

The Pre Water Act licences, the existing licences are really greatly protected under the Water Act and in that if the terms and conditions of existing water licences are inconsistent with anything in the Water Act, the terms and conditions apply, which is pretty amazing to me. And new water licences can be modified subject to certain limitations including because of ecological aquatic ecological conditions and some with compensation payable, but this does not apply to existing licences and new water licences can be transferred in regulated and limited situations and Davin will be talking about that. I have WAES written in a couple places here because the government proposes amendments, which will alter what I say here. Back to the obvious points. This was a really brief overview, how does the Water Act measure up with respect to not permitting water right holders to inordinately impact public and private interests in water?

Well, they curb in part, at least for new water licences, but existing water licences, there’s not much the government can do about them, but there’s no appropriation power, which I think is quite amazing since government can expropriate private land and water rights are not even property interests. Cancellation power is very limited water, right? Only if the water right has not been used for three years and there’s no reasonable possibility that it will be used securing sufficient instream flow where there are a few tools in the act, but they are really quite limited in recognizing indigenous water rights and securing water for them. The Act does not do that. Securing water for drinking, washing and other basic human needs household use, right, does have the highest priority. It does that, at least in part regulating water with quantity and quality. No, the Act doesn’t do that. Conjunctive use groundwater surface water. I think maybe the government tries to do that when it’s consistent with FITFIR, but there’s no requirement incorporating watershed governance and management, certainly not formally, although there are all kinds of things like watershed organizations that work towards this, clarifying rules regarding alternative sources, wastewater, so on rainwater and so on. No, but the government plans to add these into the Water Act, corporate climate change and mitigation adaptation. Sorry, it does not do that. That’s the end.

Davin:

Would you give it an A, B, C or D?

Jenny :

D or yeah, please. Would you pass this act? Is this something that you feel is sufficient?

Arlene:

No, absolutely not. No. I think it certainly did a few things over the Water Resources Act, which are good, but it could have done a lot more. It could have just done and FITFIR, it’s been done at other places in Saskatchewan, Australia, New Zealand, and have more equitable way of distributing water, and I think it probably could do it with respect to water management generally, but honestly, I know from being on the Water Management Review Committee that the really powerful sectors, oil and gas, municipalities and agriculture just wouldn’t have it FITFIR is pretty solidly in there. It’s not going anywhere.

Jenny:

Right. Yeah. I have so many questions, but I’m going to ask one out of the gates, which is I loved your diagram of showing Joe have his senior licence and that comes first. I don’t understand how that works in a geography sense. Meaning if you have somebody down in the irrigation district that has a senior licence, presuming that that’s true, how would somebody who has a junior licence in the headwaters know that there’s not enough allocation for them to receive their licence? I am just wondering in real time, how would that decision be made?

Arlene:

Well, I understand it’s done in conjunction with Alberta Environment and they will let you know when you can have your water. Is that how you understand it, Davin?

Davin:

Yeah. Well I think the long and short of it is it’s rarely if ever being done priority calls have rarely been, rarely happened on the basis despite that it’s the cornerstone of the act and Alberta has of course taken on lots of initiatives to avoid priority calls in anticipating shortages. We saw last year big multi-stakeholder negotiations to get voluntary reduction so that a priority call wouldn’t happen. And if you think about the risk of a priority call, many of the more junior licences, if you go back to Arlene’s slide, which showed how the relative proportion of uses municipal uses are growing and most of the rest are staying more stable, so many of those more junior licences are held by municipalities or for municipal purposes and you can’t cut off people’s drinking water.

Jenny:

Right. That’s the one thing I heard that is protected in the Act primarily is household use you were saying, is that right?

Davin:

Yes, household use generally, but licences issued to municipalities do come with a priority and are FAI subject to first in time, first in just like every other licence.

Arlene:

If you don’t live in a riparian and you get your water from the municipality, you’re getting the water is as good as the municipality’s priority though as Davin says, there really hasn’t been a call, so don’t have to worry about it very much.

Bob:

In terms of the groundwater, can they apply FITFIR to groundwater, but if an irrigation district wanted to make a call on their priority, would they be able to go after groundwater people as well?

Arlene:

I don’t see why not, especially if the groundwater is connected to the surface water and can impact it, but I don’t really know technically how that would work.

Bob:

It would have to be connected to the system. It wouldn’t be fossil water that is not connected to the river system anymore.

Davin:

Yeah, I mean generally speaking in the water regime there is a pretty big separation between surface water and groundwater and the Water Act focuses on surface water, and typically you don’t see groundwater serving larger users because the amount of water you can get out of a well is pretty limited unless you’re lucky enough to sit over a giant aquifer that isn’t connected to the river to surface water. Because if you have a well that’s near a river and it’s seen as connected, then technically you need a surface water licence even though you’re taking the water out of the ground.

Arlene:

Yeah, that’s right. And then it would just be subject to all the surface water priorities.

Bob:

Well, that leads to another question I have. TransAlta has on the Bow system, they’re hydroelectric plants, and those originally came in under, what was it, the Dominion Water Power Act, and then they somehow got into the Water Resources Act. Then back in the 1980s, I think, the provincial government said, okay, now part of the priority system, which apparently maybe they weren’t before that. Has anybody ever analyzed that to see if TransAlta had some sort of special rights in terms of FITFIR?

Davin:

I don’t know how much it would be worth considering because as you said, their rights are among the oldest in the province. If they did, they would have effectively first priority anyway. I think in the end it’s a moot point, but there have been negotiations between TransAlta and municipalities over the years about how to deal with water shortages and floods and all kinds of other things, and TransAlta does hold a lot of potential power in the system.

Bob:

Yeah, that’s the reason I was asking is because every time things start to get tight, whether it’s flood management or management during a drought, people tend to look at TransAlta and say, can you help us out? And I was wondering how they potentially may not fit into the system or maybe they’re completely in the system like everybody else.

Davin:

It’s my understanding that they are in the system like everybody else at times, they’ve explored opportunities to wield that power or monetize some of their interests, and at other times they’ve just wanted to help and collaborate with municipalities and other big users.

Bob:

Right. We’re hoping to have a conversation with TransAlta at some point in this series.

Jenny:

You mentioned Instream flow needs and how that can be scientifically quantified or substantiated, let’s say. I’m curious again, in terms of execution being a scientist and wondering about how would that be enforced? Again, thinking about a river and its needs and significant potential water shortages on the landscape, how would the rights of nature, let’s say, be enforced through the Water Act or would it be other, is it a federal question? I’m just curious how that would actually be enforced,

Arlene:

Whether it’s a federal thing. Curiously, I had another student who, Davin knows Maureen Bell who wrote a thesis on that, and she argued it could be though I don’t think the federal government has acknowledged it, and certainly the province hasn’t, but the way IFN–Instream flow needs could be enforced. Would it be only to the extent that the Water Act recognizes them and has some sort of law that requires that they be enforced and right now they’re not. There is WCO, which could be enforced in the water conservation objectives can be enforced with respect to particular licences and instream objectives. But as far as I have been able to ascertain and I rely on others to do the science here, that IO and WCO is not the same as is less than IFN. You can maybe protect some of the water, but not all.

Arlene:

And there’s also a possibility of government WCO licences, the government could give itself a licence to protect WCO, which I understand it has done, and then that water is presumably protected. But there are no, as I mentioned to earlier, just when we were just having a conversation that there are no instream flow private Instream flow licences, you can’t get a licence under the Act just to protect Instream flow, or at least we tried and Davin and I and Maureen Bell tried, but we’re not successful. That’s on the WAES, the water availability survey. If people are interested, they might want to ask the government to amend the Act to clarify that you can have instream flow licences. I think that would go a long way or at least part of the way to protect and stream flow.

Davin:

I think the big picture, and one of Arlene’s criticisms of the Act, is that it isn’t very adaptive when there’s less water in the province, there’s not necessarily less use. We see the tools that the government does have as pretty limited. I think generally there was a line of thinking that was that nowhere should more than approximately 50% of natural flows be allocated under licences. And that was the motivation, the impetus for the moratorium on issuing new licences in the South Saskatchewan River Basin and other parts of the province. The remainder is allocated under licences and then you see terms and conditions in licences. Every licence is different and you see these water conservation objective conditions that say thou shalt not divert if the water is below a certain level at a certain station. Unfortunately, that’s really difficult to police when you’ve got thousands of licences out there.

Davin:

It’s really self-regulated for the most part, and it takes some sophisticated analysis, which I think probably the big users, the irrigation districts, the larger municipalities are doing a pretty good job of making sure that their use corresponds to the terms and conditions of their licences. But for smaller users who would have to go and calculate the instream flows at a couple of stations over time and decide whether they can irrigate tonight or not, it might be much more difficult. And I expect that in practice, not many farmers are doing that. Not many private licence holders.

Bob:

Arlene, in terms of Instream flow needs, you mentioned the federal powers, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, in particular the Fisheries Act. How has that played into the management of water in Alberta?

Arlene:

It really hasn’t. I mean, there are, people need Fisheries Act authorizations that they’re going to be carrying out some project that will impact fish habitat. I mean, it has played out that way. But as far as focusing on Instream flow needs, I mean there was one case from, I don’t even remember when the seventies or so where I believe a…maybe Davin can remember this. I think it was an irrigation district or maybe it was a private irrigator who was cut off by the federal government because they were using too much water and fish habitat was being impacted. But then there was a big kerfuffle over that and the federal government just withdrew from that action, and I haven’t heard anything about that since. The federal legislation is mainly approvals to do things that will impair navigation or impair fisheries. And although as I said, Maureen Bell, who’s also a lawyer practicing in the water transfer area, I think to some degree argued that the federal government has power to enforce instream flow needs in so far as they might impact navigation or fish habitat hasn’t been enforcing those powers.

Bob:

I was looking at the Water Act last night, not that I’m a legislation junkie, but I remembered a clause that was in there from some other time, and it says very early on in the act, the Crown is bound by the Act. That seemed odd to me because again, I’m not a legislation junkie. I don’t recall ever seeing something like that in the traffic laws or anything like that. Is there some particular reason why that ended up in the Water Act?

Arlene:

I think it’s pretty common that maybe it’s because it had to be clearly said in natural resources type legislation. I think it’s fairly common that the Crown is bound by its own legislation.

Bob:

It would put in the legislation specifically the Crown is bound by the act because being an ordinary citizen, I would assume the Crown’s bound by anything else just like us, but maybe not.

Arlene:

Oh, you mean that it doesn’t have to be said,

Bob:

Right? Oh, well, not being a legal expert, I would assume the government can’t just make its own law and then say it doesn’t apply to us.

Arlene:

Well, sometimes it does. I mean, sometimes it’ll specifically say it’s not bound or it’s not bound by certain provisions of the Act. I think the standard is that the crown is bound by its own legislation.

Bob:

Okay, just take that as a dumb question from an illegal dummy.

Jenny/Arlene:

That is a good question. Yeah, exactly. I didn’t know that

Davin:

As an example. I mean, you see the crown holding water licences and being bound by their terms and conditions, and when they don’t have them, they go and get them. Alberta Environment has been a participant in the system and even a potential purchaser of water rights in some circumstances.

Jenny:

Wow. Okay. If that isn’t complicated enough, now let’s talk about water transfers. Can you please help us understand, Davin, the water transfer process, how that works in Alberta, please?

Explanation of the Prior Allocation (first in time, first in right) System for Water Licences in Alberta

Davin (00:39:49):

I guess just stepping back again, big picture, why do we have the transfer provisions? And it goes back to the fact that rights were issued for over a hundred years, most without any expiry date. And along the way, I guess it was in the eighties and nineties, there was a recognition that if all those rights were exercised at once, that many of Alberta’s rivers and streams would be below environmentally sustainable levels, could have disastrous consequences for wildlife, habitat, drought, all those sorts of things. Along came the new Water Act and included provisions that would allow for the transfer of water licences, and then slightly later along with the implementation of the South Saskatchewan, the approved water management plans generally, and then an order, we had a moratorium in 2007, which stopped the issuance of new water licences in many areas of the province. That was when the transfer provisions, which were in the act from earlier, actually came into effect.

The transfer system, it’s not as simple as it first appears. I’ve been facilitating transfers for more than 18 years now, and I still get surprised frequently. It looks pretty simple on paper. You can go online and find the process spelled out in four or five steps, but I’ve seen lots of consultants who try to work through it and not many have stuck with it over the years. Yeah, I guess I’d say there are basically eight steps to the transfer process. First is finding a suitable right. It’s not easy to find rights. People generally don’t generally put them for sale. There are provisions in the act that say if you don’t have a current use for your water, they’re subject to cancellation. As Arlene said, that’s rarely happened, but if rights haven’t been used for three years or more and there’s no reasonable prospect of use, licences can be cancelled.

Going and advertising that you got water rights for sale sometimes is seen as a red flag come, maybe I don’t need it anymore. Maybe I haven’t been using it. You don’t typically see that. It can be difficult to find a suitable one. And then transfers, I tell my clients it’s a bit like arranging a marriage in some ways because what the seller sells and what the buyer gets may be quite different and the engagement will end badly if the transfer is refused. Arranging a transfer, you really have to consider and anticipate the analysis that the director will make after an application is submitted. It’s like a mini environmental review process that happens between the application from the buyer and seller to the transfer being approved. Step one, finding a suitable right, and then you have to negotiate a purchase price because someone has to give their write up, and that doesn’t generally happen for free.

That’s where the legal aspect and the business aspect comes in when contracting for, as I said, you’re not buying and selling a physical thing that necessarily comes out the other end the same, and there’s no certainty that that transfer will be allowed. It can be a little bit mired coming up with reasonable contractual terms because if both participants, both the seller and the buyer, don’t cooperate through the process of the review, then it’ll never be approved. I remember a time back in 2009 or 10, and I spoke to the approvals manager and I said, how many transfer applications have been refused? And at the time he said, well, none. And I said, how many have you had? He said, well, 50 or some, but we’ve only had a handful that have been determined to be complete. That’s the thing, you submit an application and then that gets to step two, which is confirming it’s in good standing.

And step three, which is requests for further information, the director has a lot of discretion to ask for additional information before deeming an application complete. In many cases, you see applications submitted, but they’re never deemed complete, they’re never formally refused, but they’re never approved either. Yeah, step two, you got to confirm a licence is in good standing. That is a condition precedent to consideration of a transfer application. The approvals manager or the compliance group will look at a licence, say, have there been any identification of any non-compliance issues? Has it been used? Has it been reported on? Do the works match the plans on file, all that sort of stuff. And sometimes that can take a lot of time. I had a licence transfer a few years ago and it was a little private irrigation canal, and it had changed over the hundred years or so that the licence had been issued.

The check structures were in slightly different places or they didn’t look exactly as they did in the original plan. They’d still been using it and reporting it. It wasn’t really not in good standing, but it didn’t match the plan. And interestingly, Alberta environment said, well, go fix it all, go make it match the plan and then we’ll consider a transfer. All this money and time was spent rebuilding works so that they could be retired a few months later. And that happens quite frequently. Yeah, then there’s a paper application. The paper application looks pretty simple, buyer and seller sign that they’re in agreement and how much of the allocation’s going to be transferred and what rate of diversion is going to be transferred and then come the request for information from the director. Historically, there’s not much in the act that limits what the director can ask for a tremendous amount of discretion to ask for very specific detail or very general detail.

And this has been a challenge, especially in light of all kinds of, I could say policies. I mean the director’s consideration is supposed to focus around two basic heads of consideration, which is the effect on the aquatic environment and other water users. And that doesn’t give much guidance on what exactly the director should look at in deciding whether a transfer should be approved or denied and you get transfer applications to go from one side of the province to the other or from a big river to a little creek or vice versa. There’s all kinds of ways that you could look at the impact on the environment and other users of those proposed transfers. And there hasn’t been much bounding that. What we’ve seen is a host of policies, administrative policies, but unwritten generally not. You can’t find them anywhere a list of how these things are all considered.

I mean that’s really been a core of the value. I added a lot in a lot of cases to transfers is just understanding how different directors think sometimes, but also how those policies are evolving, how those considerations are evolving and being implemented. We’ve seen all kinds of policies that get discussed, and some of them do get documented at some point, like a few years ago, they stopped allowing transfers that went around a corner from one side of a tributary to another because of the lack of apparent connectivity between the flow of the water. Apportionment is another policy that has been discussed a lot. What that means is when you’re transferring a right from a bigger river to a smaller tributary, you can only move the percentage that tributary contributes to that bigger river upstream to the tributary. And that really changed the system and changed prices and changed what was being approved.

And that was phased in over time. Just ideas and considerations of a couple of different directors and others at Alberta Environment. See other things like good standing once or twice, I’ve seen a good licence be determined to be in good standing, but only part of it’s in good standing, not all of it. That was an interesting one. And then we’ve seen lots of back and forth on the issue of whether to impose the conservation holdback. The Water Act allows for a 10% conservation holdback, 10% of every licence transfer to be issued as a water conservation objective licence to the government. For a while it was imposed on public transfers, but not between municipalities or other groups. Then it was imposed on everybody. And now with the new consultation, it looks like it’s going to be scrapped. I think initially that was intended to help put more water back into instream flows, generally protecting instream flows and making system more adaptive at the end of the day, given that only about 400 transfers have been approved in Alberta since 2007, and many of those have not really been arm’s length, like probably half or actually arm’s length deals, the volume of water that’s transferred has not been significant enough to add up to significant WCO licences through the conservation holdback.

I think that was part of the consideration and allowing licence holders the luxury of not having to lose 10%. Okay. I was going through the steps. One is finding the licence. Two is confirming good standing. Three is the application, four is the request for information. Then there’s a mandatory public notice usually that is a required publication in a newspaper or other media source in the area. And then there’s a 30 day period during which anyone who thinks they might be affected can submit questions or concerns. After that 30 day period, the applicant would respond to those statements of concern. Not very clear how much Alberta Environment participates in that response process or the applicant or what the standard is. That’s an interesting sort of question in my head. I should know I’ve done this a million times, but it’s never clear how much of that burden falls to each.

But then the director has the discretion to also request a public meeting, which could mean an opportunity to dig a bit deeper into some of those issues that have been raised with statements of concern and then another additional period for submission. And then yeah, sometimes following all that there are additional requests for information. And then finally a decision. I do notice that in the water engagement study, it looks like they’ll be putting some cap on the number of requests for information, which I’m sure all licence transfers are interested in seeing, but a request for information could include 50 questions or two. I don’t know that having fewer requests for information opportunities will necessarily change the quantity of information required. That’s the short form of how the water transfer system works.

Terms and Conditions of Water Licences

Jenny (00:51:10):

Brilliant. I’m curious, and I guess this question goes to both of you. I haven’t heard any distinction between industrial water use and I’ll call it temporary water use. What I mean by that is as a geophysicist, as somebody who’s quite aware of how water is used in industry, a lot of fresh water is disposed of in the process of industrial use, let’s say for oil and gas fracking for example. Is there any provision in the Water Act or in any law that states if you were to transfer a water licence from somebody who is using it for irrigation versus somebody that’s using it to frack and dispose, is there any distinction there? Are there any limits to those types of transfers? I’m just curious. Thank you.

Davin:

Sort of. I can take that and then Arlene might have more to add. But yeah, every licence has terms and conditions and it’ll specify the amount that you can divert from the river, the rate of that diversion. And then a typical condition is how much you have to return to the river after use. Just for example, municipal uses that go through your house, you flush your toilets, flush down the sink, it goes to the water treatment plant, and typically in excess of 80% of the water that goes into your house ends up back in the river at the end of the day. Municipalities return high volumes and their licences will require that other uses, like the ones you’re talking about, may return zero. And interestingly too, agricultural irrigation is considered as returning zero or maybe it evaporates whatever, but it is not treated as going back into the river.

Licences do impact that. And at the beginning of the transfer system, those return flow requirements weren’t really considered in the mix. And we saw transfers approved from uses that returned 90 or even a hundred percent of the water to the river to uses that were a hundred percent consumptive and return none to the river. But that was considered early. And then policy changed on that and we suck quickly, I’d say about 2010 or that was reconsidered. And the return flow requirement is a big, big piece of the value of a licence and the fit between a buyer and a seller. I guess the other thing I didn’t mention is that the Water Act and nothing in the legislation really does prioritize between uses. It’s been relatively simple to change uses from, for instance, irrigation to municipal use, and that can be done by an amendment. It doesn’t necessarily require any public notice or consultation. The director has the discretion to require that in an amendment, but those uses have and do change frequently.

Arlene:

Interestingly, the Water Act doesn’t specifically allow changes of use in that informal way, but no one would ever challenge that. I don’t think the water availability survey does have a section on return flow and what we should be doing about that because there hasn’t been consistency through the years as Davin mentioned as to how we treat refer return flow. I mean, what is the true quantity in the allocation? I mean, do you always subtract the return flow or can you keep using your return flow until you’ve used your whole allocation as some municipal licensees? Treat it with what they call net licences. I think that’s something that is I guess as good as going to be dealing with. But I’m interested in ensuring that where there is a return flow requirement that will assist the aquatic environment, that we don’t just make all return flow, not a real requirement, and that people can just keep using their licences over and over until they’ve used the whole gross allocation.

Davin:

This has come up in some interesting ways too. For instance, there was an application for a transfer, I think it was to the town of Okotoks, and they found a licence that was a hundred percent consumption. It was probably an irrigation licence, they didn’t have to return any water. And they said, well, if it goes through our system, we’re returning 90% of the water from this licence. In fact, why don’t you give us a licence that’s 10 times as big because we’re going to return the same amount. And that I was given serious consideration. And I mean if you think about it in terms of the actual effect on the river, there’s an argument to be made. We make all kinds of these arguments.

Bob:

This is fascinating, all of it, but the transfer one in particular and very different from the way we manage land. If I want to sell my house, there are certain legal requirements, but it’s basically between me and the buyer and in particular, I can go onto a website with the real estate board and I can see how much money has been paid for one house or another. Do we have a similar public database that we can consult on water transfers?

Arlene:

My understanding is no. But that’s another thing that the Alberta Engagement Survey is addressing is getting the amount of consideration given for the water transfers made public.

Davin:

There’ve been some initiatives to start bulletin boards over the years, and none of them have really succeeded. There are examples of that in the US and other jurisdictions that have tradable water rights and maybe someday we will. I think there are a few things that make it look like a good solution, but it may not be. And it comes down to just finding a right that is the right volume in terms and conditions. It doesn’t mean that it can be transferred to where you need it. There are a lot of other issues to consider. And then on top of that, there are the use it or lose it provisions in the act, which I think scare a lot of people from advertising that they’re ready to give up their rights. It might help with transparency,

Bob:

It would help with transparency, but the transparency. But the interesting thing is in some way, we are creating a price on water that we didn’t have before because people are willing to pay a certain amount for a certain amount of water. And that leads to the whole question of, well, does the government charge for water or should they charge for water?

Davin:

And I mean, as Arlene started off with, the government owns all the water, there’s a price on licences, and that is an important distinction and one that we always keep in mind. It’s a subordinate, right? It’s not a property, right? You can’t register it on title, but it’s a right to use water and it does trade at a price. And that’s another big challenge with the market. The government doesn’t get involved in any aspect of the commercial purchase and sale agreement for water, with almost no price information available. And typically the contracts that are negotiated include confidentiality provisions. Neither the buyer nor the seller are really allowed to share the price they paid. That’s another place where people like me who’ve seen hundreds of transfers have valuable information. I know the prices that all of those are traded, and I have shared that in certain six circumstances with any private information stripped out, I have been asked over the years to do appraisals, valuations of water rights. It’s a bit of a rough art because there aren’t that many transfers and every licence is a little bit different depending on where it is in terms and conditions, et cetera, et cetera. But I get a lot of questions about price.

Jenny:

You mentioned that Alberta Environment is responsible for the water licence transfers, water diversion licences, though they are run by the Alberta Energy Regulator? I’m just curious what’s the distinction between a water diversion licence and a water transfer? And also is the water accounted for in both spots? Like what I’m saying, I’m an industry person, I’m used to looking at the Alberta Energy Regulator’s public notice of application and seeing those water diversion licences listed there. Is that the total of water diversion licences occurring or are there others that are with Alberta Environment that we might not see?

Arlene:

Well, you won’t see the household use, for example, but those are not recorded or don’t have to be, I don’t think. And maybe they’re somewhere he won’t see those, and it’s not just Alberta. The way I understand who takes care of the diversions and regulates them is that for any energy project, it’ll be the Alberta Energy regulator. For most other things, it’ll be Alberta Environment and Protected Areas. But then now we have the Minister of All Seasons resorts as well in there who will be dealing with land that’s designated under that new legislation will be dealing with them. I think it can be a pretty confusing mix.

Davin:

AER and AEP, they deal with the same basket of licences. If you’re applying for a transfer, I’ve had transfers where I’m making an application to AEP and they say, oh no, we’re going to hand this one to AER and vice versa. It depends who asks for what. Sometimes it’s when an energy company is a buyer, sometimes when it’s a seller, there seems to be very little rhyme or reason over who is going to handle the transfer process. The process is more or less the same, but different people and different timeframes even find that between different offices of Alberta environment transfers in Southern Alberta on the old man for example, happen typically two or three times as fast as those on the bow. I’m not really sure why. It’s just the timelines they’re used to and the process they follow.

Bob:

Yeah. You gave that example of the small irrigator with the works that weren’t quite in compliance and they asked them to fix that up at some point, maybe in your experience, or do you expect someplace down the road that somebody’s going to have a project like that and it could potentially affect their priority rights because they didn’t go through the right steps to maintain that priority because of the good standing issue? Have you run across that or do you think that’s potentially an issue?

Davin:

I don’t know. I mean, the priority has never been in question in any licence I’ve ever dealt with. The question is whether the licence is in good standing and sometimes whether the licence actually exists anymore because it may not have been used for 20 or 30 years. I mean, that typically is why I think these questions come up. And I know that Arlene taught me that one of the big concerns when the New Water Act was passed and we talked about transfers and putting a price on water rights, was that it would have a tendency to wake up all these old rights that hadn’t been used. Everybody would say, oh, I have a licence, or My grandfather has a licence on this land, and I’m going to wake it up and use it a bit and then sell it. We do see that frequently, but it hasn’t affected the priority. It has, as I said, affected in some cases the quantity of a licence allowed to transfer. I’d always thought of good standing as binary, either it is or it isn’t in good standing. But I did have a couple along the way where they said, well, you’ve only actually used a portion of the right that you had originally. Your works are only built to divert half of what your licences, we’re only going to consider a portion of it to be in good standing.

Arlene:

And that’s another thing that’s going to be considered in this survey is the government wants to amend the Water Act to clarify what good standing means.

Jenny:

Yeah, I understand The Environmental Law Centre is doing an engagement or helping inform folks on that.

Jenny:

We’ll do our best here to help get people engaged in that and offer some feedback as well. One thing I might want to leave as a question is that in my case, there’s so much to take in here is, as you mentioned, Davin, last year we had some really touch and go concerns about water and how we were going to address, let’s say a catastrophic situation. I guess if I’ll leave my question to you guys, my final question is what would action look like to you if we were in a situation, let’s say in Southern Alberta where I understand we’re an over allocated basin potentially, what does a bad situation look like for us and what would be the way to use these tools to help engage the public in a way that could help, let’s say, get the Water Act to a better than a pass fail situation or a fail situation? What would you do if you had the opportunity to help change or amend the way we’re currently operating in water and licencing?

Key Takeaways

Arlene (01:05:18):

There’s, I think, a lot of issues in that. One thing I was going to mention is there are recent changes to the Water Act to give the government more power in emergency situations and indeed to in a declaring an emergency, they have a lot more discretion and then can do things like require interbasin transfers in an emergency situation where before the amendments you would need a new act, act of legislature. And now I think you just need a cabin aurora order if there’s an emergency and that should be fairly easy to get if you have a government like we have now. I think that’s something to be concerned about because I think one thing that we would like to see prevail is the rule of law and that the legislation should be clear as to what occurs in an emergency, how long an emergency can exist, especially if the government has a right to declare that provisions of the Water Act don’t apply, then I think they should be really clear what that means and for how long that is and what an emergency is. And all those powers should be quite curtailed. As far as changing the Water Act, I think those questions are too big for me right now. I’d certainly want to have provisions to protect instream flow needs. Also recognition of indigenous water rights and ways to meet those water rights would be a couple of things. Climate change provisions, climate change is not just an emergency anymore, it’s a reality that we have to deal with. I think that I’ll just leave it at that and hand it over to my learned colleague here.

Davin:

I think it comes down to what we said earlier, the Water Act isn’t very adaptive. It doesn’t really, it can’t quickly address issues related to shortage. I think that’s the rationale for the emergency powers trying to find shortcuts to deal with issues. Practically speaking, we’ve seen years where it’s been pretty easy to anticipate problems back. One of the earlier events was a threatened priority call that would’ve affected, I think it was a meat packing plant on the St. Mary and all of the ranchers in the area said, “Oh, well if that meat packing plant gets shut down, we don’t have anything to do with all of our beef.” You saw the community come together and negotiate an agreement and preempt that potential issue. Again, these are problems that FITFIR doesn’t really help with, and I think we’ll see that again and again. As Arlene said, climate change is likely to result in less water in the system, the water not being adaptive, we’re going to have to use other measures. The best we’ve had so far is negotiated agreements. They’ve all been voluntary, with very little force of law. Maybe with these emergency powers there will be more, but things need to happen really fast when you’ve got a water shortage and we’re not very good at making these deals and arrangements and imposing laws quickly and legislative change takes forever.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. I think that I’m hearing, it’s going to come down to the proponents on the landscape and how to have adult conversations around water should that emergency emerge. Well, and it is here, as you said, Arlene. Bob, did you have any last questions?

Bob:

No, just to say thank you very much. This has been very informative and an excellent conversation, the kind of thing that Jenny likes to do on The Gravity Well.

Jenny:

Thank you. Any final thoughts from the two of you? Anything we missed that you wish we would’ve asked?

Davin:

Oh, there’s so many interesting things we could have dug into and maybe for a subsequent podcast, but I think this will be great and I think this might be a useful tool for many people entering the space. I feel like often in the water area, people are really focused on their lane irrigation districts on all the subordinate rights they issue and their issues. Me in the transfer space, and then Arlene very much focused on the legal framework and there aren’t that many forums that bring all the different voices together. And I think if I were taking a job at Alberta Environment or something, I might think this would be a good podcast to listen to.

Jenny:

That’s great. And yeah, you’re absolutely right. That’s certainly something I experienced in the fossil fuel industry as well. Just how little a geophysicist understands the impact that we have in terms of liability, creating emissions, use of water, or harms to the landscape. All of this stuff is very compartmentalized in our work and we don’t see a lot of that. This has been a tremendous learning for me since my eyes have been open to it. You’re right. I think the more that we do this in collaborative spaces, the more that people will understand how much we’re interrelated and interdependent. Thank you. I really appreciate your time, especially going over. This has been amazing and yes, I’m imagining we’re going to have another conversation, so thank you so much. Well take care. Thanks.