To say that a group of Rocky View County residents are disappointed in Council’s latest decision to slow down progress in arriving at a comprehensive gravel policy after at least 12 years of discussions would be putting it mildly.
As one councillor put it, the end result may have been a case of sacrificing the good in hopes of achieving the perfect.
Rocky View Gravel Watch, a group that describes itself as “A volunteer group of residents concerned about the impact of gravel development on the health, safety and quality of life in Rocky View,” said that by voting against the latest motion (put forward by Councillor Samantha Wright at the July 23 RVC meeting), Council was in effect, slowing down the process on overseeing gravel extraction.
Wright’s motion was and is seen by the gravel lobby group as a positive step forward, designed to “speed up the process” that’s been dragging on since 2013.
They saw it as a way to get things rolling forward. It read: “that Council direct Administration to bring an amended Aggregate Resource Plan Terms of Reference no later than September 30, 2024, identifying recommended actions and a workplan.”
Coun. Sunny Samra reminded his colleagues that staff had assured them they could deliver on the motion’s timeline. He also pointed out that council frequently moved things up in the queue and that this had been in the queue since 2013, so it should get dealt with.
That motion, supported by Gravel Watch and other residents, was defeated 3-4.
The motion that was passed and has raised the ire of the gravel lobby groups who want to see more of a commitment to tighter timelines, was a recommendation from Administration: “THAT Council direct Administration to bring a report back to Council no later than the end of Q4, 2024, that includes an analysis of the Committee Report and outlines recommended actions, a workplan, and review of budget implications.”
Vivian Pharis of the Bighill Creek Preservation Society came away from the meeting extremely disappointed. She was one of a group of about 10 watching from the gallery.
“We’re surprisingly disappointed. Crystal Kissel was so supportive of us at the hearing. If they do this delay, it may just languish like the previous plan did,” Pharis said.
“And now they’re dragging their feet again.”
She said the concern is that developing a gravel plan is again no longer a priority.
“When this council was elected, they said the Aggregate Resource Plan would be a priority,” she said. “So they’re reneging on a promise made to the public.”
“We feel abandoned,” Pharis said.
“We were all so disappointed with Reeve Kissel’s response as she had been strong on the need for an ARP. In fact, many in her zone supported her election based on her stance on gravel mining around the provincial park especially. I guess she does not want her job to continue,” she added.
Rocky View Gravel Watch’s report on the meeting states: “Despite an opportunity to expedite the process, we are left with staff’s original recommendation that delays bringing back a detailed analysis of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee’s report, revised terms of reference, a work plan, and any associated budget adjustments until the end of the calendar year – a full year behind schedule.”
The report says that when Council considered the issue at its July 23rd meeting, it was hoped that they would stand by their earlier unanimous commitment to move the ARP process forward to completion before the next municipal election, but instead, in a 4-3 decision, Reeve Crystal Kissel, Deputy Reeve Don Kochan and Councillors Greg Boehlke and Al Schule voted against Councillor Samanntha Wright’s motion to reinstate some speed into the project. Only Councillors Kevin Hanson and Sunny Samra supported her motion.
“From our perspective,” the report continues, “the majority’s decision is unfathomable given that, during the meeting, Administration repeatedly indicated that they could easily bring back revised terms of reference and a work plan by the end of September – the direction in Wright’s motion. At the very least, it would have signalled council’s commitment to getting the ARP back on schedule to both residents and industry.
“We were particularly surprised by Kissel’s position since gravel is a major issue for many residents in her division. Without an effective ARP in place, her Division 3 residents will continue to face the negative impacts from existing gravel pits and threats from prospective pits.”
Gravel Watch said none of the issues identified by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee are new – they were all discussed ad nauseum in the last ARP process.
“We really feel the majority dropped the ball,” said Gravel Watch spokesperson Janet Ballantine.
“Staff told them they could move more quickly – we just don’t understand why they’re not.”
Ballantine wasn’t sure what the next step might be.
“I honestly don’t know. It’s so depressing,” she said. ‘We’re going to be left with a crap shoot as to what the next council looks like.”
The next municipal elections are set for Oct. 20, 2025.
Gerry Bietz of Bighill Creek Preservation Society has sent Kissel an email saying: “Crystal, I was surprised and disappointed you voted to kick the ARP can further down the road. Regulatory delay is a primary tactic of the gravel industry. I was not surprised three Councillors voted to support industry when this issue is not in their back yard and given their previous record in favour of gravel.
“However, it is illogical and wasteful to require detailed budgeting and workplans without first approving policy- especially when administration stated they have the necessary capacity to proceed as motioned by Councillor Wright,” he said.
Bietz goes on to point out that in Kissel’s division, the approximately 1300 acres of existing, approved and prospective Big Hill Springs gravel mines will likely create the County’s largest industrial site.
“I don’t need to remind you of the negative impacts on traffic safety, on the environment (including direct impacts on Big Hill Springs Provincial Park) and on Division 3 residents’ quality of life that will result from these operations. As for Councillor Boehlke’s comment regarding Alberta Government oversight; it is absurd, (as has been demonstrated many times) to expect provincial agencies will protect the Park or residents from any of the broad scope of foreseeable harmful consequences of a gravel mine- let alone the cumulative impacts of multiple operations.”
Bietz, who was a member of the advisory committee struck to review the ARP, said the County must create policies to govern gravel approvals and regulations to actively monitor operations and enforce standards.
“Costs of doing so, rightfully and must be borne by the gravel industry. Implementation of the ARP is a very important and long delayed issue for your constituents, many of whom supported your election. We may be having second thoughts,” he stated in the email.
Bietz said he’s hopeful that the next time Kissel has an opportunity to expedite regulation of the gravel industry she “will be there for your constituents. The ARP needs to be place before Burnco makes their application for a mine on their three quarter sections surrounding Big Hill Springs Provincial Park or their next Cochrane West expansion.”
The Eagle reached out to Kissel for a response to all of these allegations but did not get a return call or email.
