Appeal Against Water Diversion Approval for Gravel Washing

2026 ABEAB 4                                                                                        Appeal No. 24-002-011-ID3 [NAME] BOARD Decision Date of Decision – February 27, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF sections 91, 92, and 95 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E‑12, and section 115 of the Water Act , RSA 2000, c W-3; -and- IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by [NAME], and [NAME] with respect to Water Act [NAME] No. DAUT0015800 issued to [COMPANY]. by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME]. Cite as:            Issues Decision and Addendum: [NAME] v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME], re: [COMPANY], 2026 ABEAB 4. BEFORE: [NAME], Board Chair. PARTIES: Appellants: [redacted] [NAME]: [COMPANY]., represented by [NAME], V.P. Operations. Director: [NAME], Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] represented by [NAME]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [NAME] issued a [NAME] (the [NAME]) under the Water Act to [COMPANY]. ([NAME]) allowing [NAME] to operate a works and to divert up to 3,775 cubic metres of water per year at a maximum rate of 0.05 cubic metres per second for the purpose of commercial (gravel washing) from a pond at the Ross Pit located in SE 35-032-06-W5 west of the Town of Sundre (the Activity). The Environmental Appeals Board (the Board) received Notices of Appeal from Ms. [NAME], and [NAME] together with several requests for a stay (the First Stay Application). The Board denied the First Stay Application and found [NAME], Ms. [NAME], Mr. [NAME], Mr. and Mrs. [NAME], and Ms. [NAME] ([NAME]) as well as [NAME] directly affected by the decision of the Director to issue the [NAME]. [NAME] subsequently withdrew their appeal. [NAME] alleged their domestic water wells were drawing water from the same hydrogeological system as the [NAME] and that the Activity authorized under the [NAME] could result in degradation of the quality and quantity of water [NAME] rely on for drinking and household use. The Board requested submissions from [NAME], the Director and [NAME] (the Parties) regarding proposed issues for the appeals. Having reviewed the submissions of the Parties and the record, including the Director’s Record, the Board set the issues for the hearing as follows:

1.                   Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.                    Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.                   Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.                    Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.                   Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.         Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? Further to the Addendum issued by the Board, the following issue was added to the issues that will be considered at the hearing of these appeals:

3.         Who bears the onus in these appeals? That is, who is responsible for convincing the Board that the [NAME] should be confirmed, reversed (cancelled), or varied. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ..... INTRODUCTION .. 1 2. .....

BACKGROUND .. 2 2.1.          The Pit and the [NAME] . 2 2.2.          The Appeals . 3 3. ..... Submissions . 7 3.1.          Appellants . 7 3.2.          Director 11 3.3.          [NAME] 12 4. ..... Analysis and Findings . 13 5. .....

DECISION .. 15 1.                                          INTRODUCTION [ 1 ]                                        These are the reasons for the decision of the Environmental Appeals Board (the Board) regarding issues for the hearing of the appeals of [NAME] No. DAUT0015800 (the [NAME]) issued to [COMPANY]. ([NAME]) under the Water Act , RSA 2000, c W-3 (the Water Act ) by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] (the Director) for the purposes of commercial gravel washing at a gravel pit located near Sundre, [NAME] (the Ross Pit). [ 2 ]                                        The Environmental Appeals Board (the Board) received Notices of Appeal from Ms. [NAME], and [NAME]. [ 3 ]                                        The Board found [NAME], Ms. [NAME], Mr. [NAME], Mr. and Ms. [NAME], and [NAME] ([NAME]) as well as [NAME] directly affected by the decision of the Director to issue the [NAME]. [1] [NAME] subsequently withdrew their appeal. [ 4 ]                                        For the reasons which follow, pursuant to section 95 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA), the Board set the issues for the hearing of the appeals of the Approval as follows:

1.                   Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.                    Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.                   Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.                    Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.                   Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.         Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? 2.

BACKGROUND [ 5 ]                                        The Board has considered the records before it, including the Director’s Record, and the written submissions of [NAME] and has summarized the relevant information for the purposes of this decision below. 2.1.                                     The Pit and the [NAME] [ 6 ]                                        On April 24, 2024, the Director issued a [NAME] to [NAME] authorizing it to operate a works and to divert up to 3775 cubic metres of water per year at a maximum rate of 0.05 cubic metres per second for the purposes of gravel washing at a gravel pit located at SE 35-032-06-W5 in Mountain View County near Sundre, [NAME] . (the Ross Pit). [ 7 ]                                        Gravel washing was proposed for approximately 60 days per year based on weather conditions and demand for aggregate and would occur within May to September. The [NAME] is related to water consumed during the gravel washing process because of adherence to aggregate and evaporated losses of water due to the gravel washing system using open ponds. [2] [ 8 ]                                        A development permit was issued on July 20, 2023, to operate the Ross Pit. On March 28, 2024, Registration No. 00499751-00-00 was issued to [NAME] for the Ross Pit by Environment and Protected Areas. The Ross Pit is a dry pit which means aggregate extraction will not occur below the water table [3] and, as a result, a Water Act approval is not required. 2.2.                                     The Appeal s [ 9 ]                                        From May 6, 2024, to May 23, 2024, the Environmental Appeals Board received Notices of Appeal from [NAME], and [NAME] ([NAME] and [NAME], collectively referred to as the Other Appellants) together with several requests for a stay (the First Stay Application). [ 10 ]                                    On May 31, 2024, the Board requested the Director provide copies of the Amisk Report, Report No. DAPP0080623-R002 [4] and Plan No. DAPP0080623-P0017 [5] which were incorporated by reference into the [NAME] (the Reports and Plan). [ 11 ]                                    On June 7, 2024, the Director provided the Board with the Reports and Plan which the Board provided to the Parties on June 19, 2024. [ 12 ]                                    Between May 31 and July 13, 2024, the Board received submissions and information regarding the First Stay Application as well as information from [NAME] and the Other Appellants regarding the location of their respective water wells. [ 13 ]                                    On July 11, 2024, the Board requested [NAME] provided a photo with the approximate locations of [NAME] water wells together with a copy of each of their respective land titles. [ 14 ]                                    On July 25, 2024, the Board denied the First Stay Application and provided reasons for its decision on April 8, 2025. [6] The Board also set a process for receiving submissions from [NAME], the Director and [NAME] (the Parties), as well as the Other Appellants, regarding the directly affected status of [NAME] and the Other Appellants. [ 15 ]                                    Between August 11 and October 31, 2024, the Board received submissions from [NAME] and the Other Appellants regarding their directly affected status. On August 11, 2024, [NAME] also requested the Board reconsider its decision regarding the First Stay Application. The request was acknowledged by the Board on August 12, 2024. [ 16 ]                                    On August 22, 2024, the Board denied [NAME]’s request for a reconsideration of the First Stay Application. Reasons for the Board’s decision were provided on May16, 2025. [7] [ 17 ]                                    On August 29, 2024, the Director provided the Board the Director’s Record. The Board provided the Director’s Record to [NAME], the Other Appellants, and [NAME] on September 12, 2024. [ 18 ]                                    On April 8, 2025, the Board found [NAME] and [NAME] directly affected by the decision of the Director to issue the [NAME]. The Board determined [NAME] and [NAME] were not directly affected and dismissed their appeals. [8] The Board also set up a process to schedule a mediation meeting. [ 19 ]                                    On April 10, 2025, [NAME] advised the Board he would not be participating in the mediation meeting as the Board had stated cumulative effects were not within the scope of the Water Act or the [NAME]. On April 16, 2025, the Board requested [NAME] to advise if he was withdrawing his appeal. [ 20 ]                                    On May 15, 2025, the Board advised the Parties and [NAME] that [NAME] was not withdrawing his appeal and asked if [NAME] understands that if he failed to participate and the appeals were resolved at mediation, his appeal could be summarily dismissed. [ 21 ]                                    On June 16, 2025, the Board scheduled a mediation meeting for June 23, 2025. [ 22 ]                                    On June 19, 2025, the Board advised the Parties and [NAME], that [NAME] and [NAME] would not be participating in the mediation meeting. The Board stated it would like to proceed with the mediation meeting and requested the Johnsons confirm they would like to proceed with their appeal. [ 23 ]                                    On June 23, 2025, the Board was advised by [NAME] they were withdrawing their appeal. Pursuant to section 95(7) of EPEA, the Board discontinued its proceedings in the [NAME]’s appeal and closed its file. [ 24 ]                                    On July 9, 2025, the Board advised that on June 25, 2025, a mediation meeting was held and [NAME] did not participate. The mediation did not result in a resolution of the appeals. The Board stated it was considering dismissing [NAME]’s appeal for failure to attend the mediation meeting and set up a process to receive submissions to determine if [NAME]’s appeal should be dismissed. The Board noted [NAME] cited his reason not to attend the mediation meeting was he believed the Board would not address the issue of the cumulative effects of the number of gravel pits in the area. The Board requested [NAME] to address the issue of cumulative effects. [ 25 ]                                    On July 14, 2025, [NAME] responded to the Board’s request of July 9, 2025, stating it was “disingenuous to the residents and businesses in South McDougal Flats to not consider the volume of water being removed cumulatively on a daily basis from the aquifer” due to the existence of eight gravel pits, a pending application for a gravel pit, several lumber processing facilities, other existing businesses and residences. Between July 22 and July 27, 2025, the Board received further submissions from the Director, [NAME] and [NAME] regarding the dismissal of [NAME]’s appeal. [ 26 ]                                    On December 9, 2025, [NAME] advised the Board it declined to participate in any further mediation and stated it was prepared to move the matter forward through the formal hearing process. [ 27 ]                                    On December 9, 2025, the Board advised it was closing the mediation process and requested the Parties provide dates for the hearing in March and April 2026 and propose issues for the hearing. [ 28 ]                                    On December 16, 2025, the Board set a schedule for providing written submissions for the hearing and requested the Parties provide any preliminary issues they wished the Board to decide before the hearing. [ 29 ]                                    On December 19, 2025, the Director provided his proposed issues for the hearing (the Director’s Initial Submission). [ 30 ]                                    On December 19, 2025, [NAME] provided its proposed issues for the hearing ([NAME]’s Initial Submission). [ 31 ]                                    On December 23, 2025, [NAME] provided the Board their proposed issues for the hearing ([NAME]’ Initial Submission) and made the following preliminary motions: [NAME] requested: 1.                   the Board issue a stay of the [NAME] pending the outcome of the appeals (the Second Stay Application); 2.                   the Board require the Director obtain and disclose an independent hydrogeological assessment prepared by an APEGA-certified professional (the Independent Study); 3.                   the Board permit its representatives; [NAME], Mr. [NAME], and Mr. [NAME] ([NAME]) be able to speak at the hearing on behalf of [NAME]; and 4.                   the Board permit the inclusion of the [COMPANY]. report dated November 6, 2012, prepared by [NAME], P. Geol., Senior Hydrogeologist, and [NAME], P. Geol., Intermediate Hydrogeologist (the 2012 Waterline Report). [ 32 ]                                    On December 23, 2025, the Board requested [NAME] provide additional information regarding the Second Stay Application and denied [NAME]’ request to require the Director commission the Independent Study. The Board stated it did not have the power to compel any party to prepare a report, or have it reviewed by someone, and it was Appellants’ responsibility to have new evidence developed if they wanted it for the hearing. [ 33 ]                                    On January 2, 2026, the Board confirmed [NAME] may have anyone represent them at the hearing as their representative (their agent) and may present anyone as witnesses. The Board further advised it granted the request to have [NAME]’ Representatives speak on [NAME]’ behalf provided: 1.                   [NAME] who has an appeal currently before the Board and [NAME] who had an appeal previously before the Board, speak to the merits of the appeals currently before the Board, not to the merits of their respective appeals as that provides no assistance to the Board in current matter; and 2.                   At least one of [NAME] should appear as a witness before the Board as it is important for the Board and the other parties to be able to question at least one Appellant with personal knowledge about the appeals and its subject matter. [ 34 ]                                    On January 2, 2026, the Board also granted the request of [NAME] to present the 2012 Waterline Report at the hearing. The Board noted that evidence to be submitted at the hearing should be submitted as part of the written submissions for the hearing and the person presenting the evidence must explain why it is relevant (why it matters) and what weight (what value) to place on the evidence. The Board also noted it was best to present the author of the report or some other person to speak to the report and be subject to cross examination because without someone to speak, the report will have limited value to the Board. [ 35 ]                                    On January 6, 2026, [NAME] provided additional comments with respect to the proposed issues for the hearing ([NAME]’ Additional Submission) and provided further information regarding the Second Stay Application. [ 36 ]                                    On January 8, 2026, the Director provided comments regarding the proposed issues for the hearing (the Director’s Response Submission). [ 37 ]                                    On January 8, 2026, [NAME] provided comments regarding the proposed issues for the hearing ([NAME]’s Response Submission). [ 38 ]                                    On January 8, 2026, [NAME] provided the Board a copy of the 2012 Waterline Report. The 2012 Waterline Report has been added to the Board’s record for the purpose of the hearing of these appeals. [ 39 ]                                    On January 9, 2026, the Board received [NAME]’ comments regarding the proposed issues for the hearing ([NAME]’ Response Submission). [ 40 ]                                    On January 9, 2026, the Board dismissed the Second Stay Application as the Board had determined [NAME] had not made a prima facie case for a stay. As a result, the Board did not request submissions from the Director or [NAME].

3.                                          Submissions 3.1.                                     Appellants [ 41 ]                                    [NAME] identified nine issues which they submitted arose directly from the Notices of Appeal, are connected to the issuance and conditions of the [NAME] and satisfy the Board’s established criteria for determining the scope of the appeal. [ 42 ]                                    [NAME] proposed the following issues for the appeals:

1.                   Did the Director fail to protect priority household groundwater users when issuing the [NAME]? 2.                   Did the Director fail to consider existing adverse effect on groundwater quality, quantity, and human health? 3.                   Was the [NAME] issued without adequate baseline groundwater data, contrary to the Water Act.

4.                   Did the Director unreasonably rely on incomplete or deficient hydrogeological reports? 5.                   Did the Director fail to assess cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the South McDougall flats aquifer? 6.                   Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] inadequate to protect groundwater and household users? 7.                   Is the complaint-response framework in the [NAME] inconsistent with the Water Act’s purpose? 8.                   Did the Director fail to properly consider drought conditions and water conservation objectives? 9.                   Was the Director’s decision an unreasonable exercise of statutory discretion given the information before [him]? [9] [ 43 ]                                    [NAME] provided submissions regarding each of their proposed issues as summarized below. Issue 1 - Did the Director fail to protect priority household groundwater users when issuing the Licen ce? [ 44 ]                                    [NAME] submitted protection of the priority of household groundwater users was a central concern of the Water Act citing section 21(2 ) : “(2)      Subject to subsection (3) and section 23 and any exemptions specified in the regulations, a person who owns or occupies land under which groundwater exists (a)        has the right to commence and continue the diversion of the groundwater for household purposes, and (b)        may not obtain a [NAME] for the diversion of the groundwater for household purposes.” Further, [NAME] referred to section 27(b) of the Water Act which provides: “27       A person who diverts water pursuant to section 21 … (b)       has priority over a person who is entitled to divert water (i)        pursuant to an approval, [NAME] or registration, or (ii)       that is authorized under this Act other than pursuant to section 21.” [ 45 ]                                    [NAME] further submitted that [NAME]’ households were directly affected by the diversion of water under the [NAME] as [NAME] rely on the shallow, sensitive alluvial aquifers for domestic use. [NAME] argued Issue 1 captured the direct impact on household water rights under section 21(2) and (27(b) of the Water Act. Issue 2 - Did the Director fail to consider existing adverse effect on groundwater quality, quantity, and human health? [ 46 ]                                    [NAME] cited section 38(2)(b)(i) of the Water Act which states: “38(1)  Subject to section 34, the Director may issue or refuse to issue an approval to an applicant to commence or continue an activity. (2)        In making a decision under this section, the Director … (b)       may consider any existing, potential or cumulative (i) effects on the aquatic environment, …” [ 47 ]                                    [NAME] submitted their Notice of Appeals expressly raised lead and copper contamination, loss of potable water, medical impacts, and cumulative impacts from multiple gravel operations. [NAME] argued documented incidents of water contamination and declining potable water quality underscored the necessity of Issue 2 for the hearing. Issue 3 - Was the [NAME] issued without adequate baseline groundwater data, contrary to the Water Act? [ 48 ]                                    [NAME] submitted section 38(2)(b)(ii) the Water Act required consideration of hydrogeological effects, and the [NAME] was issued without sufficient baseline hydrogeological data. Section 38(2)(b)(ii) states in making a decision under section 38, the Director: “(b) may consider any existing, potential or cumulative (ii) hydraulic, hydrological and hydrogeological effects, and …” [ 49 ]                                    [NAME] argued the decision of the Director to issue the [NAME] did not adequately consider the aquifer, monitoring, drought conditions, and cumulative withdrawals of water from the aquifer. [NAME] further argued Issue 3 was essential to assess the Director’s decision and potential harm to household users. Issue 4 - Did the Director unreasonably rely on incomplete or deficient hydrogeological reports? [ 50 ]                                    [NAME] submitted section 38(3) of the Water Act provided the Director the authority to impose appropriate terms and conditions. [10] However, the prior hydrogeological assessments contained errors or omissions and lacked independent review and insufficient monitoring. [NAME] argued Issue 3 was within the scope of the appeal. Issue 5 - Did the Director fail to assess cumulative groundwater withdrawals in the South McDougall flats aquifer? Issue 6 – Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] inadequate to protect groundwater and household users? Issue 7 - Is the complaint-response framework in the [NAME] inconsistent with the Water Act’s purpose? [ 51 ]                                    [NAME] submitted they raised concerns regarding the cumulative drawdown of the aquifer from multiple gravel pits and temporary diversion licences, and the inadequate monitoring and reporting, and incomplete complaint-response terms and conditions of the [NAME]. [NAME] argued Issues 5 to 7 related to matters that directly affected household health, water quality and property and were within the scope of the appeals. Issue 8 - Did the Director fail to properly consider drought conditions and water conservation objectives? [ 52 ]                                    [NAME] submitted stage 4 and 5 drought conditions, related municipal guidance and household priority rights were explicitly raised in their Notices of Appeal and Issue 8 was within the scope of the appeals. [NAME] argued the Board must consider drought impacts in relation to the cumulative withdrawals from the aquifer and household priority rights. Issue 8 - Was the Director’s decision an unreasonable exercise of statutory discretion given the information before [him]? [ 53 ]                                    [NAME] submitted the issuance of the [NAME] without adequate consideration of cumulative effects, household priority and environmental protection was an unreasonable exercise of the Director’s discretion under the Water Act and was within the scope of the appeals . 3.2.                                     Director [ 54 ]                                    The Director submitted the issues for the hearing should be:

1.                   Will the issuance of the [NAME] authorizing the total diversion of 3775 cubic metres of water per year impact adjacent water users' ability to divert their allocated water volume? 2.                   Are the terms and conditions of the [NAME] appropriate and reasonable to protect adjacent water users' diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality? [11] [ 55 ]                                    The Director submitted that for a matter to be properly before the Board and set as an issue for the hearing the matter must be (1) included in the Notice of Appeal, (2) relate to the decision being appealed, and (3) be within the Board’s jurisdiction as reflected in the Board’s preliminary motion decision in [NAME] v Director, Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region, [NAME], re : [COMPANY] , 2018 ABEAB 12 ( [NAME]). [12] [ 56 ]                                    The Director submitted each of the nine issued proposed by [NAME] are properly encompassed within either or both of the issues proposed by the Director. [ 57 ]                                    The Director further submitted the first two issues proposed by [NAME] are adequately covered by the first issue proposed by the Director and the second two issues proposed by [NAME] are adequately covered by the second issue proposed by the Director. 3.3.                                     [NAME] [ 58 ]                                    [NAME] proposed the following issues for the hearing:

1.                   Whether the limited diversion authorized by the [NAME] (3,775 cubic metres per year), when carried out in accordance with its terms and conditions, could reasonably be expected to interfere with adjacent water users' access to water.

2.                   Whether the technical information supporting the application adequately addressed water availability and potential effects on surrounding users, including the hydrogeological evaluations prepared by [NAME] and the operational assessment by [COMPANY]., prepared in reliance on those evaluations.

3.                   Whether terms and conditions included in the [NAME] (monitoring, reporting, and complaint-response requirements) provide reasonable and effective safeguards to identify and address any potential impacts should they arise.

4.                   Whether, given that no gravel washing or water diversion has occurred since the [NAME] was issued, there is a basis to alter or overturn a [NAME] that was issued following technical review. [13] [ 59 ]                                    [NAME] submitted the nine issues proposed by [NAME] were overlapping, duplicative or sought to re-litigate technical and policy matters already addressed through the application process or raised generalized or historical concerns that were not specific to the [NAME] under appeal. [ 60 ]                                    [NAME] submitted [NAME] proposed Issues 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 raised concerns regarding groundwater quantity priority household use, cumulative effects, drought conditions, and alleged impairment. [NAME] argued these matters could be addressed though a single issue as follows: “Whether the limited diversion authorized by the [NAME], when carried out in accordance with its terms and conditions, could reasonably be expected to interfere with adjacent water users' access to water.” [14] [ 61 ]                                    [NAME] further submitted proposed Issues 3 and 4 challenged the adequacy of baseline groundwater data and the Director’s reliance on hydrogeological studies. [NAME] submitted these matters are procedural and evidentiary in nature and are appropriately address through a single issue: “Whether the technical information relied upon in issuing the [NAME] adequately addressed water availability and potential effects on surrounding user.” [ 62 ]                                    [NAME] submitted [NAME]’ proposed Issues 6 and 7 challenged the adequacy of monitoring, reporting and complaint-response conditions and could be properly framed as: “Whether the monitoring, reporting and complaint-response conditions included in the [NAME] provide reasonable and effective safeguards to identify and address any potential impacts should they arise.” [15]

4.                                          Analysis and Findings [ 63 ]                                    The authority of the Board to set the issues for the appeals is found in section 95(2) of EPEA: 95(2)    Prior to conducting a hearing of an appeal, the Board may, in accordance with the regulations, determine which matters included in notices of appeal properly before it will be included in the hearing of the appeal, and in making that determination the Board may consider the following: … (d)       whether any new information will be presented to the Board that is relevant to the decision appealed from and was not available to the person who made the decision at the time the decision was made; (e)        any other criteria specified in the regulations.” [ 64 ]                                    Further, section 95(4) of EPEA provides: “(4)      Where the Board determines that a matter will not be included in the hearing of an appeal, no representations may be made on that matter at the hearing.” [ 65 ]                                    For a matter to be considered at the hearing, the matter must be: (1) identified in the Notice of Appeal; (2) within the Board’s jurisdiction; and (3) connected to the Director’s decision being appealed. [16] [ 66 ]                                    [NAME] have proposed nine issues for the appeals. Their proposed issues can be summarized as follows:

1.                   Issue 1 (protection of priority household ground water usage), Issue 2 (consideration of groundwater quality, quantity and human health), Issue 5 (cumulative groundwater withdrawals), and Issue 8 (drought conditions and water conservation objectives) relate to the potential adverse impact of the diversion of surface water under the [NAME] on the quality or quantity of groundwater feeding [NAME]’ wells;

2.                   Issue 3 (adequate baseline groundwater data), Issue 4 (incomplete or deficient hydrogeological reports), Issue 5 (cumulative groundwater withdrawals), Issue 8 (drought conditions and water conservation objectives), and Issue 9 (unreasonable exercise of statutory discretion) relate to the basis upon which the Director made his decision and whether he had adequate and appropriate information having regard to potential adverse impact on the quality and quantity of the groundwater used by [NAME] and their priority statutory rights as a household water users; and 3.                   Issues 6 (adequacy of monitoring and reporting conditions) and Issue 7 (adequacy of complaint-response framework) relate to the adequacy of the monitoring, reporting and dispute resolution conditions in the [NAME]. [ 67 ]                                    Both the Director and [NAME] argued the issues proposed by [NAME] were overlapping or duplicative. [NAME] also submitted some of the issues proposed by [NAME] sought to re-litigate technical and policy matters already addressed through the application process or raised generalized or historical concerns that were not specific to the [NAME] under appeal. [ 68 ]                                    The Board considered each of [NAME]’ proposed issues to determine if they were included raised by Appellants in their Notices of Appeal, connected to the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME], and fall within the Board’s jurisdiction such that they should be considered by the Board when setting the issues for the appeals and set the following issues for the hearing:

1.                   Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.                    Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.                   Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.                    Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.                   Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.                    Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.                   Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? [ 69 ]                                    The Board notes [NAME] have raised issues in their Notices of Appeals regarding decreased property value, cumulative increase in noise and dust and the number of gravel pits in the area. In addition, [NAME] have raised concerns regarding the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26 (the Municipal Government Act) and the Public Health Act, RSA 2000, c p-37 (the Public Health Act). The Board notes its jurisdiction is limited to that granted to it under EPEA and the Water Act as it applies to the decision under appeal . [ 70 ]                                    In these appeals, the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to considering the decision being challenged, which is the [NAME] issued under Water Act authorizing the diversion of up to 3,775 cubic metres of water per year from a surface water fed pond at the Ross Pit. The Board has no jurisdiction regarding the Registration for the Ross Pit as the Director’s decision to issue the Registration is regulated under EPEA and is not an appealable decision. As well, any concerns regarding compliance with the Municipal Government Act or the Public Health Act or Mountain View County’s decision to issue the development permit are outside of the Board’s jurisdiction and the scope of these appeals.

5.

DECISION [ 71 ]                                    The Board sets the following issues for the appeals by Appellants of the decision of the Director to issue [NAME] No. DAUT0015800 to [NAME]:

1.                   Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.                    Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.                   Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.                    Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.                   Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to a.                    Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.                   Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? Dated on February 25, 2026, at Edmonton, [NAME]. -original signed- __________________ [NAME] Board Chair Addendum – February 27, 2026 [ 1 ]                                        On February 25, 2026, I issued reasons for my decision regarding the issue that will be considered at the hearing of these appeals. These reasons identified two issues with a number of sub-issues. Specifically, my reasons identified the following issues:

1.                   Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.         Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.         Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.         Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.         Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? [ 2 ]                                        Since I initially made my decision – shortly after January 9, 2026, when the last of the written submissions were filed – and began preparing these reasons, the Court of King’s Bench issued its decision and reasons in [NAME] v [NAME] (Environment and Protected Areas) , 2026 ABKB 98 ( [NAME] ). In this decision, the Court of King’s Bench addressed the matter of onus. Onus is the legal term for who is responsible for proving something. In the case of the Board, it means the responsibility for proving whether an appealed decision (here Water Act [NAME]) should be confirmed, reversed (cancelled), or varied. The Board’s past practice has been to place the onus of proving that the decision being appealed should be reversed (cancelled) or varied on the party filing the appeal ([NAME]). [ 3 ]                                        In [NAME] , at paragraph 130, the Court of King’s Bench determined, at least for the purpose of that case, that Board’s decision on onus is “…unreasonable because it is internally incoherent and not based on a rational chain of analysis.” As a result of this finding, the Court of King’s Bench quashed (invalidated) the Board’s report and recommendations and the Minister’s decision. [ 4 ]                                        Before these reasons were released, with my approval, the Board issued a hearing procedure letter for these appeals (the Hearing Procedure Letter). The Hearing Procedure Letter was dated February 24, 2026. The Hearing Procedure Letter identified three issues, and a number of sub-issues, that would be considered at the hearing of these appeals. Specifically, the Hearing Procedures Letter identified the following issues:

1.         Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.         Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.         Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.         Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.         Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? 3.         Who bears the onus in these appeals? That is, who is responsible for convincing the Board that the [NAME] should be confirmed, reversed (cancelled), or varied. [ 5 ]                                        It appears, because of the time of the release of the Hearing Procedure Letter and my reasons for my decision, there is some confusion regarding the issues that will be heard at the hearing of these appeals. For the clarification of all Parties, at the hearing of these appeals the Board will be considering the following issues:

1.         Was the Director’s decision to issue the [NAME] appropriate and in accordance with the Water Act? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Did the Director adequately consider the connectivity of the surface water diverted under the [NAME] to the groundwater used by [NAME] for household purposes? b.         Did the Director adequately consider [NAME]’ statutory priority right under the Water Act to water as a household user? c.         Was the Director’s decision based on incomplete or inconclusive information? 2.         Are the terms and conditions in the [NAME] appropriate to protect [NAME]’ statutory diversion rights and downgradient aquifer water quality and quantity? This includes, but is not limited to: a.         Are the monitoring and reporting conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? b.         Are the complaint investigation conditions in the [NAME] appropriate? 3.         Who bears the onus in these appeals? That is, who is responsible for convincing the Board that the [NAME] should be confirmed, reversed (cancelled), or varied. [ 6 ]                                        In my view, because of the decision of the Court of King’s Bench in [NAME] , it is necessary for the Board to consider the matter of onus. This is why this third issue was added to the Hearing Procedure Letter and now to my reasons for decision. [ 7 ]                                        I am issuing this Addendum pursuant to the Board’s powers to reconsider as found in section 101 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act , RSA 2000, c 12, which provides: “Subject to the principles of natural justice, the Board may reconsider, vary or revoke any decision, order, direction, report, recommendation or ruling made by it.” Dated on February 27, 2026, at Edmonton, [NAME]. -original signed- __________________ [NAME] Board Chair [1]              Directly Affected Decision: [NAME] et al v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] , re: [COMPANY] , 2025 ABEAB 5. [2]              Report No. DAPP0080623-R001, R OSS PIT, SE 35-032-06-W5, [COMPANY]., Application under the Water Act for Gravel Washing, [COMPANY]., (April 4, 2024) (the Amisk Report) at page 2. [3]              [NAME]’s letter to the Board dated July 18, 2024. [4]              Groundwater Supply Evaluation for Water Act Application , [NAME] (August 2023). [5]              Washing Plan , [COMPANY]., (March 28, 2024). [6]              Stay Decision : [NAME] et al. v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME], re : [COMPANY] , 2025 ABEAB 6 [7]              Letter dated May 16, 2025, from the Board to [NAME]. [8]              Directly Affected Decision: [NAME] et al v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] , re: [COMPANY] , 2025 ABEAB 5. [9]              Appellants’ Initial Submission at pages 4 to 6. [10]            Section 38(3) of the Water Act states: “ (3)          The Director may issue an approval subject to any terms and conditions that the Director considers appropriate.” [11]            Director’s Initial Submission at page 1. [12]            [NAME] at paragraph 108. [13]            [NAME]’s Initial Submission at page 1. [14]            [NAME]’s Response Submission at page 1. [15]            [NAME]’s Response Submission at page 1. [16]            [NAME] at paragraph 108.