Ridenbaugh Press/Water Rights

Would creating additional reservoirs in Georgia help that state with its impending water shortage – owing substantial stream flow to Alabama and Florida, or at least help in negotiations with those states?

New George Governor Nathan Deal argues that it would. Speaking February 8 to the Georgia Farm Bureau, Deal said that additional reservoirs may help provide more water that can be sent downstream without overly burdening Georgians.

He thinks it could be so helpful that his current state budget proposal contemplates eventually spending $300 million on their creation, with about $46 million to borrowing in the next fiscal year.

The requirement for Georgia to send more water downstream is included in a federal court decision from about three years ago. The fight over the water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint river system, which flow through all three states but originating in Georgia, has been ongoing for more than 20 years. The federal court decision, coming after many years of failed negotiations, may have marked a turning point.

Deal’s idea did not get kudos everywhere.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, leader of one of the parties prevailing so far in the federal suit, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on February 3 that such reservoirs would be bad idea. Water taken by Georgia for new reservoirs might be water not allowed for downstream communities – just what the court decision disapproved of.

A new report released on December 9 in Edmonton, Alberta, said that contaminants and low water levels in the Athabasca River system are impacting treaty rights.

The peer reviewed study was conducted with the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation. It examined traditional land and water use, and the impact of contaminants and low water levels in the lower Athabasca River system.

Chief Roxanne Marcel of the Mikisew Cree First Nation said “This study confirms what our elders and Chiefs have been telling government for years – that our treaty rights are being impacted by the quality and quantity of the water. When water levels are down, we can no longer access our Traditional Lands by boat, which limits our fishing, trapping and hunting. Our members have been stranded. We no longer drink the water. We see our rights along with our River deteriorating before
us.”

Treaty 8 was signed on July 13, 1899, protecting hunting, fishing and trapping rights. These rights are guaranteed by Canada’s Constitution, and affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation said “This study is the kind of research we have repeatedly asked the government to do, and is the type of information needed to properly assess the impacts of development on Treaty Rights. It provides an opportunity for meaningful dialogue between our First Nations and the Governments of Alberta and Canada. If the Governments are to fulfill their Treaty obligations with us, the information and recommendations in this study must be considered in plans for water withdrawals from the Athabasca River.”

Dr. David Schindler, water scientist and a peer reviewer of the study said that “This is an important report. The way in which the treaty was obtained and is now being ignored by our political leaders must rank as one of the darkest chapters in Canadian History.”

In publishing this report, the Mikisew Cree First Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation are also issuing an invitation to the Premier and federal and provincial Ministers to deal seriously with water quality and quantity issues downstream of the tar sands, something that even the federal Auditors General says they aren’t doing. The Chiefs said “We are inviting them to visit Fort Chipewyan early in 2011, to hear directly from our communities, to work with us to deal with the quality and quantity of water in the Athabasca River, and to address impacts to Treaty 8.”

The report maps how Treaty rights have been adversely affected by low flow, and by fear of contaminants in the river. It provides recommendations, and suggests rights-based thresholds to guide tar sands-related water withdrawals. Dr. Craig Candler, principal author and president of Firelight Research Group, says “This study is a great example of First Nations working together to commission quality community-based research. The results and the recommendations are clear. The communities have been saying these things for years. This report just brings what the community already knows together with credible social science.”

The Alberta Court of Appeal has turned back a challenge to the province from the Tsuu T’ina Nation and Samson Cree Nation, which argued that the province had not adequately consulted them before developing a new water management (and water rights) plan.

The plan, okayed in August 2006, covered the South Saskatchewan River Basin.

This is not the only lawsuit growing out of the water plan; another is proceeding as well in another court.

[see the Calgary (AB) Herald, April 29]

The Canadian province of Alberta is launching a systemic review of its water rights process, out of recognition that water supplies will become more strained in the decades ahead.

Environment Minister Rob Renner told the Calgary Herald that “The water allocation system that we have in place needs to be reviewed. hould a market develop? To what degree should the government be involved in regulating that market? Or should the government be involved at all?”

A public scoping of the process and substance likely will begin within a year and a half, he said.

Alberta has operated on a water licensing system similar to many western states to its south. But the system has been tightened in recent years; no new licenses have been granted recently in the the Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan river basins.