Conservation advocates say Alberta’s proposed wetland reforms could reduce oversight of seasonal and temporary wetlands that support wildlife, water storage and watershed health, while the province says the changes will reduce red tape for farmers. Alberta’s proposed changes to wetland regulations are drawing criticism from conservation advocates who say the reforms could reduce oversight of wetlands that play an important role in wildlife habitat and watershed health, including within the Beaver Hills Biosphere.

The province says the changes will reduce red tape for farmers while maintaining protections for neighbouring landowners, infrastructure, and sensitive species. Under the proposed reforms, some activities affecting wetlands on agricultural land would no longer require the same level of assessment currently required. “The impacts of losing so-called ephemeral wetlands would be quite significant,” said Lucien Royer, executive director of the Global Foundation and a resident of Beaver Hills.

Royer said wetlands in the region are already under pressure from drainage, development and climate change. About 65 per cent of the biosphere is privately owned and used for agriculture. While temporary and seasonal wetlands do not hold water year-round, Royer said they still play an important role in the broader watershed. “It’s being made to be this private property rights issue when really it’s an issue about our collective watersheds and their health and function,” he said.

Kennedy Halvorson, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association, said Alberta’s current wetland policy does not stop producers from farming or developing land. Instead, she said, the current process requires qualified professionals to assess wetlands before they are altered, with regulators considering those findings as part of the approval process. “The Alberta Wetland Policy was never a conservation or protection policy,” she said. “It’s more a framework of saying we will consider the benefits of all wetlands.” Records obtained by the Alberta Wilderness Association through a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy request show Alberta’s Water Availability Engagement process identified wetlands as contributing to water storage, biodiversity, drought resilience and watershed health.

The records also show divisions over wetland policy, with agricultural organizations generally supporting regulatory changes and environmental groups and members of the public favouring stronger protections. Halvorson said she has not seen scientific evidence publicly released by the province supporting the proposed reduction in oversight.

She also questioned a previously discussed proposal that would apply different rules to wetlands holding water for fewer than 17 weeks each year. “When we’ve asked the government where the 17 weeks or less number comes from, it was an arbitrary number chosen,” she said. The province rejects suggestions the changes would significantly weaken wetland protections, saying the reforms are intended to modernize regulation while maintaining environmental safeguards.

In a statement, the ministry said it reviewed approaches used across Canada and pointed to Manitoba and Saskatchewan as examples of jurisdictions where some agricultural drainage activities can proceed without wetland replacement requirements. Halvorson argued those provinces still use permitting systems and other forms of oversight, making Alberta’s proposal substantially different.

The province also said it expects little overall change within the Beaver Hills Biosphere and that existing protections for neighbouring landowners, infrastructure, and sensitive species would remain in place. Asked what evidence led the province to conclude temporary and seasonal wetlands require less oversight, the ministry pointed to farmer stewardship. “Alberta’s government believes farmers know best how to manage wetlands on their property,” the ministry said.

Royer said the discussion should focus on the role wetlands play, in any form, across the landscape. “Just because there’s no water for periods of time does not mean they don’t play a significant part of wetland management,” he said. For critics, the central concern is that reducing oversight could accelerate the loss of wetlands that provide flood protection, water storage, and other benefits extending far beyond individual properties.

TWilkie@postmedia.com