Appeal No. 99-143


Date of Mediation Meeting/Settlement Conference - February 10, 2000

Date of Report and Recommendations - February 11, 2000


IN THE MATTER OF Sections 84, 85, 87, 92 and 93 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (S.A. 1992, ch. E-13.3 as amended);


IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by Mr. Worley Rosson Jr. with respect to Licence No. 00074866-00-00 issued under the Water Act to Search Energy Corp. by the Regional Water Manager, Northwest Boreal Region, Alberta Environment.

Cite as: Rosson v. Regional Water Manager, Northwest Boreal Region, Alberta Environment re: Search Energy Corp.







 Dr. Steve E. Hrudey


Appellant: Mr. Worley Rosson, Jr.

Department: Ms. Heather Veale, counsel, Alberta Justice, representing Mr. Nico Wyngaarden, Natural Resources Service, Operations Support, Northwest Boreal Region, Alberta Environment and Mr. Rob George, Hydrologist, Natural Resources Service, Regional Support, Northeast Boreal Region, Alberta Environment

Approval Holder: Mr. Jeff Heim, Search Energy Corp., Mr. Roger Clissold, Hydrological Consultants Ltd. employed by Search Energy Corp.

Other Participant: Mr. Jake Drozda



[1] On July 7, 1999, the Regional Water Manager, Northwest Boreal Region, Alberta Environment, issued Licence No. 00074866-00-00 under the Water Act to Search Energy Corp. authorizing the diversion of 21, 900 cubic meters of water annually from the well in LSD 2-22-66-21-W5 for the purpose of industrial (injection).

[2] On August 18, 1999, the Environmental Appeal Board (the Board) received a Notice of Appeal dated August 13, 1999 from Mr. Worley Rosson, Jr. (the Appellant) advising the Board of his wish to appeal the application for a licence to divert water issued to Search Energy Corp.

[3] The Board wrote to the Appellant on August 19, 1999, acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Appeal and by copy of that letter, requested the Department of Environment (the Department) to provide copies of all related correspondence, documents and materials related to this matter.

[4] On August 23, 1999, the Board provided Mr. Roger Clissold, a hydrogeological consultant employed by Search Energy Corp., with a copy of the Appellant's appeal, and advised him that the Board would further contact him after receiving documentation from the Department.

[5] According to standard practice, on August 23, 1999, the Board wrote to the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) asking whether this matter had been the subject of a hearing or review under their respective Boards' legislation. A reply was subsequently received from the NRCB on August 25, 1999 stating that they did not hold any hearing or review under their respective legislation. On October 13, 1999 the AEUB replied to the Board stating:

....since the subject well is a water well of less than 150 metres deep...the well does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB)....However, the AEUB is aware that the subject well licence was originally administered under the Water Resources Act for this purpose."

[6] On November 30, 1999 copies of the documents requested by the Board were provided by the Department. On December 3, 1999 a copy was forwarded to the Appellant and Search Energy Corp. On December 8, 1999 the Board wrote to the Appellant on a number of issues.(1) The Board also wrote to procedural matters which included asking the Appellant if he wished to have a mediation meeting under section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation(2), and if there were any other persons who might have an interest in the appeal. On the same date the Board wrote to the Department and Search Energy Corp. asking for comments on participating in a mediation meeting and asking whether there were any other persons who may have an interest in the appeal. The Board requested written representations from all parties by December 22, 1999.

[7] On December 16, 1999, the Appellant wrote to the Board, responding to all of the questions posed in the Board's letter of December 8, 1999. On December 22, 1999, the Department provided dates for a mediation meeting/settlement conference, and advised that they would be in a better position to provide comments for a mediation agenda once they reviewed the Appellant's response to the Board's letter.

[8] On December 30, 1999, after reviewing all of the written representations, and consulting with the parties, the Board decided to schedule a mediation/settlement conference for February 10, 2000 in the Board's office in Edmonton. On January 12, 2000, a Notice of Mediation/Settlement Conference and Public Hearing was advertised in the Valley Views on January 12, 2000.

[9] On January 20, 2000, the Board received a facsimile from Mr. Jake Drozda requesting information in regard to this appeal. Mr. Drozda did not file a Notice of Appeal. However, he objected to the application of ground water diversion on the grounds that he found his water well to be failing.

[10] On January 26, 1999, the Board wrote to all of the parties, including Mr. Drozda advising them that Mr. Drozda would attend the mediation meeting/settlement conference on February 10, 1999, and act as a representative on behalf of the Appellant, as well as an observer, if no objections were received by the Board by January 27, 2000. On the same day, the Department advised that they did not object to Mr. Drozda's appearance at the mediation/settlement conference.


[11] Pursuant to section 11 of the regulations(3) the Board conducted a mediation meeting in Edmonton, Alberta on February 10, 2000 with Dr. Steve E. Hrudey as presiding Board member.

[12] According to the Board's standard practice, the Board called the mediation meeting in an attempt to mediate or facilitate through a settlement conference the resolution of this appeal; or failing that, to structure procedural arrangements for the oral hearing. The Board invited representatives from each party to participate in the mediation meeting.

[13] In conducting the mediation meeting, Dr. Hrudey reviewed the appeal and mediation process and explained the purpose of the mediation meeting. He then circulated copies of the "Participants' Agreement to Mediate". All parties signed the Agreement and discussions ensued.

[14] Following productive and detailed discussions, a resolution evolved at the February 10, 2000 mediation meeting and the attached resolution was signed (page 5 of this report).


[15] The Board recommends that the Minister of Environment approve the conditions of the resolution contained herein.

[16] Further, with respect to section 92(2) and 93 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Board recommends that copies of this Report and Recommendations and of any decision by the Minister be sent by the Board to the following parties:


Dated February 11, 2000, at Edmonton, Alberta.

Dr. Steve E. Hrudey


I, Gary Mar, Q.C., Minister of Environment, pursuant to Section 92 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, hereby order make the order in the attached appendix being the Environmental Appeal Board Appeal number 99-143-R Order.

DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 29th day of February, 2000.


Honourable Gary Mar, Q.C.
Minister of Environment



1. Issues such as; if the Appellant's letter of August 13, 1999, was intended to be a Notice of Appeal, if he satisfied the requirement to file an appeal, whether he objected to specific/objectionable provisions of a licence, relief requested and the Appellant's grounds for the appeal.

2. AR 114/93 (hereinafter "the regulations")

3. Section 11 of the Environmental Appeal Board Regulation (AR 114/93) states:

11 Where the Board has determined the parties to the appeal, the Board may, prior to conducting the hearing of the appeal, on its own initiative or at the request of the any of the parties, convene a meeting of the parties and any other interested persons the Board considers should attend, for the purpose of

(a) mediating a resolution of the subject matter of the notice of appeal, or

(b) determining any of the matters referred to in section 13.

home back to decisions