Alberta's Land and Property Rights Tribunal (LPRT) is letting Burnco's wash plant at their Cochrane West gravel pit go ahead as planned.
The proposed expansion has been contentious, with expansion application permits halted by Rocky View County (RVC) following a series of concerned voices, who ultimately brought it before the LPRT at the beginning of this year.
The appellants included hydro-geologist and geo-chemist Jon Fennell and proponent of responsible aggregate mining, Darryl Cornish, who spoke about potential contamination and destruction of aquifers throughout the hearings.
Burnco applicant Travis Coates maintained that the company has followed all necessary protocols and vowed to adhere to land reclamation promises, which would see previously mined and disturbed lands returned to a natural state.
However, many took issue with the proposed 7.5 acre wash plant, which they argued did not get addressed by council when Burnco's development permit was renewed.
Appellants argued that approving the permit ahead of Rocky View County's Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) undermined local policy development and community trust.
"We, who live on and know these lands, their springs, wetlands, wells, and groundwater, are deeply concerned for RVC, Cochrane, Calgary, and the areas beyond who get their drinking water from the Bow River, especially as we face drought and ongoing poor water management," the appellants shared with Rocky View Weekly.
While standards surrounding the proposed asphalt plant were deemed satisfactory, the panel agreed to hear the appellants case against the wash plant - prompting documents and presentations from both the appellants and Burnco to be submitted throughout the past several months.
In a decision dated April 17, 2025, the LPRT affirmed RVC's conditional approval of a development permit, authorizing Burnco to continue sand and gravel extraction, processing, and operation of a portable asphalt plant on their 151-acre parcel located five kilometres west of Cochrane.
Wash plant equipment is currently in use at Burnco's Springbank gravel pit and will be relocated to the Cochrane West site.
"The LPRT finds that the gravel washing use was clearly included in the development permit approval, subject to AEP approval," the tribunal wrote in their decision. "Based on the photograph of the current Springbank wash plant that is to be moved to this site, the LPRT finds it is properly characterized as equipment that is used for the approved use of gravel processing, not a structure that would require a separate development permit."
The tribunal did, however, impose a revised cap limiting land disturbance without reclamation to 66 acres, 40 for extraction and 26 for processing, and confirmed that no aggregate washing can begin until Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEP) provides written approval.
The LPRT found the permit had been lawfully processed as a renewal and upheld all other conditions and that potential hydrocarbon contamination, which sat at the centre of the appellants concerns, has not been caused by Burnco's operations.
However, the appellants still feel their submitted evidence illustrates potential issues that should be taken into consideration, maintaining RVC had sent info about the gravel washing plan to AEP for a review, but never got a response.
They said there is no independent review of the "irreparable damages done to date," nor the escalation of contaminants reported in Burnco’s own reports.
"Landowners are caught between jurisdictions – new water impact information has been provided by the consultants and the landowners to the Alberta Government and RVC in the past several months," the appellants noted. "Neither RVC nor the LPRT have the resources to consider the reports and new information. On the other hand, the Alberta Government made its decision before the new information was available and will not consider the new information."
Furthermore, the LPRT found that conditions related to dust, noise and traffic are appropriate for the permit approval. The Appellants did not specifically highlight noise levels as a concern, and the LPRT considers the development permit condition, with respect to maximum recorded noise level, to be adequate.
"The DA recognized that the condition in the previous DP lacked clarity, and revised it in the subject DP," the tribunal added. "The LPRT finds that the revision improves the clarity of the condition and is of the opinion that it adequately addresses the Appellants’ concern with respect to dust."
Environmental impacts were discussed in detail, and while the LPRT said they appreciated the level of documentary reports and technical information provided, they noted that the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) is the most appropriate forum to determine the impacts on water quality and the environment.
"Ground water is complex and precious," the appellants said. "The Alberta Government’s priorities are not protecting our water as we anticipate another year of drought."
There is currently an ongoing appeal brought about by the same applicants with the EAB.
The LRPT wrote that the development permit sought by Burnco will be valid until March 23, 2029. RVC must now officially grant the permit renewal, should they deem the findings satisfactory.
"The water quantity and quality are at risk from the Burnco gravel mine being only 400 meters from the Bow River," the appellants concluded. "We are not against gravel mining and business - we are for responsible stewardship from our government and actions of the gravel companies. We urge the public to become aware and take action."
