MOUNTAIN VIEW COUNTY – If recent information session turnout is any indication, Eagle Valley property owners considering asking for statutory plan changes to allow for a gravel pit on their land face an uphill battle.
More than two dozen people attended the first of two meetings that were held at the Sundre Municipal Library on Wednesday, March 19. The second on Saturday, March 22 was attended by about 35 people.
Earlier this year, Taylor Jones and Dylan Jones had appeared as a delegation during Mountain View County council’s regular Jan. 15 meeting to discuss their plans for the 157-acre parcel.
They said the development of a gravel pit on their land would offer benefits such as creating jobs, having a local company keeping money in the community while also generating revenue for the county through the aggregate levy.
Dylan said at the time that they had spoken with neighbouring homeowners within a one-mile radius as well as some people who live off the proposed haul route, with 13 indicating support, two who flat out said no, and two who were undecided.
However, the dozens of people who attended the public information sessions organized by Frank Greif, Susan Bentley, Jason and Cindy MacKenzie and Rosalie Jorgenson, all seemed opposed and were skeptical about how thoroughly the developers had attempted to connect with landowners in the area.
County council subsequently carried a motion on Jan. 29 allowing the developers to seek an amendment to the Eagle Valley area structure plan (ASP), which was adopted in 2021, in a process that would require public consultation.
Although an application to that effect has yet to be submitted, the many landowners in the area have already begun to take steps expressing grave concerns about the potential ramifications the aggregate extraction operation could have on their own parcels if the project were ultimately approved.
“If that (application) goes ahead, then we’ve got an awful lot of work to do,” said Greif. “If (county council) decide they’re not going to entertain a request for an amendment, we can all go for Tim Hortons or pizza.”
Among the concerns are impacts on groundwater supply including contamination, loss of agricultural land, deteriorated air quality from dust caused by crushing activities and truck traffic, and environmental harm on known sensitive areas within the Red Deer River valley.
“We don’t know what either the developer has in mind for the amendment, or what the county is recommending to the developer,” said Greif.
Concerns were also raised about the process, which places the responsibility of public consultation with the developer should an application be submitted.
Reeve Angela Aalbers attended the first portion of the March 19 meeting alongside Coun. Peggy Johnson, the representative of Division 6 that includes Eagle Hill, to answer questions.
The reeve emphasized that no application had been submitted to date. If the developer follows through with an application seeking to amend the ASP, there would be a two-week advanced notification period, she said, adding anyone can present at a public hearing that can also be attended virtually.
“We’re hoping that if an application does come forward, they (the developers) are going to be able to address concerns from the residents.”
And should an application come in, that does not automatically mean it will be approved as council must be satisfied that public consultations were sufficient and would seek documented evidence of due diligence, Aalbers said.
“We know what to look for,” she said.
As well, procedures have changed over the past 15 years. Whereas proposed projects once required only a development permit approval from the municipal planning commission, developers now need to seek council approval for a land re-designation, which involves a public hearing, she said.
Douglas McCullough, who lives just outside the one-mile radius, said his property and several others are upslope from the proposed gravel pit site.
“To my knowledge, none of them have a well deeper than 30 feet,” said McCullough.
“The gravel pit is downslope and is proposed at 30 feet. Unless I’m unconscionably stupid, that means they’re going to drain the wells of everybody upslope,” he said.
Aalbers said those are the kinds of issues that would be brought forward if the developers take the next step.
“(But) without a proposal, I don’t know,” she said.
The reeve also emphasized that municipally elected officials throughout Alberta are concerned about water scarcity and have been working to get the provincial government to understand the impacts of approving temporary diversion licenses.
“Temporary diversion licenses fall under the jurisdiction of approvals of the Alberta Energy Regulator, which we think is weird,” said Aalbers.
“We’re lobbying to have that removed from the energy regulator, put back under Environment and Protected Areas. We’re not making a whole lot of traction, but we’re making a good case for it I think,” she said.
Greif also noted that per the current process, baseline studies including hydrogeological surveys are not required.
The reeve reiterated those concerns could be raised if the application is submitted.
“I was very clear to the developer, there would be a lot of opposition to this and they would have to think very hard and do a lot of work in the community if they wanted to bring this forward,” she said.
Ultimately, she said there must be a process that at least grants property owners an opportunity to propose plans for their own land.
“That’s what we have property rights for,” she said. “I’m not saying decisions will always be supported by council.”
Citing one such an example, Aalbers mentioned a previous application that had been submitted by a developer who sought an amendment to the area structure plan in Water Valley for a campground.
“We did approve them to come forward even though it didn’t align with the area structure plan, and then council did turn the application down,” she said.
“(But) I think we owe it to people to be able to come forward with proposals and work with their community to see if there is some kind of compromise to see if there’s something they can do – perhaps there’s not.”
Recognizing the right of landowners to make an application, Greif said, “How that right is exercised by the decision makers is another story, because they must take into consideration the statutory documents, rules and regulations.”
– With files from Dan Singleton
