Published in the Edmonton Journal on March 14, 2012
By David Percy
As the pace of development increases on the Mackenzie River Basin in northern Alberta and British Columbia, so does the urgency of negotiations about sharing the water of the northward flowing rivers. Past experience on eastward flowing rivers shows that a co-operative approach led the prairie provinces to a basic agreement on water sharing that works. A similar approach could help kick-start progress on the complex issues facing Canada's major northern water basin.
The Mackenzie Basin encompasses large portions of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The waters in its rivers flow northward before discharging into the Arctic Ocean. Governments are negotiating the management of the entire aquatic ecosystem, which extends over an area of more than 20 per cent of Canada's land mass.
But progress has been glacial. In 1997 the parties reached a template master agreement to create future individual water arrangements among the five participating provinces and territories. But since then there has only been one such deal, on the undeveloped rivers that flow between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Why has it been so difficult to reach a comprehensive agreement?
In the past 30 years, the management of the Mackenzie Basin has become much thornier: major pulp mills have developed, new oilsands plants have sprouted and aboriginal groups have been engaged in negotiations. There are also plans for further hydroelectric dams in both Alberta and British Columbia.
The scope of the proposed agreements has also increased, which has undoubtedly complicated negotiations. In 1982, governments were concerned with the quantity and quality of surface waters that cross jurisdictional boundaries. The parties now agree that the bilateral agreements should include matters of groundwater quantity and quality.
Before the problems on the Mackenzie sys-tem become even more complex, might the experience of the prairie provinces provide a model to break the logjam?
In 1969, after a prolonged period of disagreement between Alberta and Saskatchewan over conflicting priorities on the use of prairie rivers, the two provinces joined with the governments of Manitoba and Canada in an arrangement known as the Apportionment Agreement. Alberta and Saskatchewan overcame their competing priorities for water use and agreed instead to the rather arbitrary general principle that each upstream province would allow one-half of the natural flow of the rivers to pass to its downstream neighbour.
The prairie agreement is about the most basic water-sharing agreement possible. The accepted modern approach would integrate water-use issues with all other natural re-sources interests to produce a comprehensive ecosystem-based agreement on an entire river basin. Therefore, the prairie agreement falls far short of the modern ideal of an integrated water management plan.
That said, the Apportionment Agreement forced the representatives of the three provinces to work together on technical issues, such as the measurement of stream flows through the Prairie Provinces Water Board.
This experience created a sense of mutual confidence and has allowed the prairie agreement to expand from its modest beginnings. In 1992, its scope was extended to allow the prairie water board to set water-quality objectives for designated reaches of interprovincial rivers and to agree to consider trans-boundary groundwater matters.
Over a 40-year period, the Apportionment Agreement has become a cornerstone of planning in a region which is prone to serious water shortages. Alberta has always met its minimum flow commitments and in all recent initiatives, the province has exhibited an unwavering commitment to the agreement. The development of a co-operative approach has allowed the water board to tackle bigger issues, including a review of existing water-quality objectives with a focus on nutrients, which are a concern throughout the region.
The prairie experience suggests an alternative approach to overcome the delay in reaching agreements over the Mackenzie River. Instead of pursuing the laudable goal of dealing with the management of the quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater in a vast eco-system, it might be more fruitful to seek an initial agreement on a few essential building blocks. The confidence gained in the technical implementation of such an agreement may well allow representatives to work toward a more comprehensive package in the future.
In 1982, though the Mackenzie River was relatively pristine, governments identified the need to reach a water-sharing agreement at an early date.
The pace of projected developments on the river continues to increase. It would be tragic if the parties failed to reach agreement because, in a quest for perfection, they have bitten off more than they can chew successfully in the negotiations.
David Percy is the Borden Ladner Gervais Chair in Energy Law and Policy at the University of Alberta's Faculty of Law. His C.D. Howe Institute study, Resolving Water-Use Conflicts: Insights from the Prairie Experience for the Mackenzie River Basin, can be found atwww.cdhowe.org.
