Mine vote about information gathering, says Pass mayor; advocacy group denied chance to speak to Lethbridge city council

By Al Beeber - Lethbridge Herald on November 9, 2024.

LETHBRIDGE HERALDabeeber@lethbridgeherald.com

An offer by the Crowsnest Headwaters organization to speak to Lethbridge city council about a non-binding Nov. 25 referendum on a potential coal mine at Grassy Mountain has been turned down.
The organization wants council to adopt a resolution challenging the referendum passed by the Crowsnest Pass municipal council.
David Thomas, communications co-ordinator for the advocacy organization said Crowsnest Headwaters is “puzzled” because mining operations will have a huge impact on everyone downstream.
A Crowsnest Headwaters delegation has already spoken to Fort Macleod town council and will be speaking to others including High River, MD of Pincher Creek, and MD Ranchland.
Lethbridge is the only community which has declined the organization’s request, says Thomas.
A submission to area councils by Crowsnest Headquarters states in part that “we wish to apologize on behalf of the Crowsnest Pass citizens who value friendship with our downstream and eastern slope neighbours for the selfish decision by our municipal council to conduct a referendum intended to endorse Northback’s attempts to mine coal at Grassy Mountain.”
Crowsnest Pass mayor Blair Painter on Friday afternoon told The Herald that the community’s governance simply wants to hear what all residents think about a mine. Specifically, residents Pass are going to be asked if they support development of a coal mine at Grassy Mountain.
Councillor Dean Ward put forward the motion stating “in the last 10 years Northback and its predecessors have been attempting to develop a coal mine to the north of our municipality. Many individuals, organizations and levels of government have expressed an opinion on whether this project should move forward or not. Unfortunately very few of these groups have asked the opinion of the residents of the Crowsnest Pass.”
Painter said he’s hoping the referendum sees a broad representation of all Pass residents turning out to vote.
“It’s a non binding vote, it’s an information gathering process for the municipality, for council and that’s where it ends. It’s information gathering for us. The outcome of this question that we’re asking has no bearing on what the province does, or what the federal government does. It just gives us direction as where we need to be focused,” said Painter.
“If it boils down that the majority of our residents do not want us to proceed with supporting this endeavour then we won’t. If the majority, on the other hand, says ‘yes, we fully support this project moving forward’ we need to represent 51 per cent of our residents. We would like to represent more of our residents but however the outcome is, that’s the direction council will move forward and then we’ll set guidelines for councils in the future moving forward,” said Painter.
“This whole question that we’re asking is we want to know how our residents that live here full-time – live, play in our community, work in our community 24 hours a day 365 days of the year, how they feel about this topic. Our demographics have changed through the years; we’re having more and more new people moving into our community. Our community has grown by a little over five per cent since the last census. . .we want to know, not just the old people of the Crowsnest Pass how they feel about coal mining, we want to know how everybody that lives, works and plays in our community, that owns property, that resides here 24 hours a day how they feel about it,” added Painter.
“There’s no way that me or anyone I know wants to pollute the water.”
Painter has concerns about the focus on just selenium as a potential pollutant once water leaves the Pass.
“There’s no control over what happens from when the water leaves our municipality and we want to be good corporate citizens, good environment stewards and say ‘hey, we’re confident the water that leaves our area is going to be good for everybody that lives downstream.'”
Manure, pesticides and fertilizers and other contaminants can all reach the river and Painter says mine opponents “are looking at one little element of which there are very, very, very strict guidelines on how much of that can be released. Nobody talks about how many millions of tonnes of manure or pesticides or fertilizer that leaks in the river.”
An email received by Thomas from the City of Lethbridge’s Legislative Services manager on Tuesday said that the agenda review committee consisting of mayor Blaine Hyggen, deputy mayor Nick Paladino and acting mayor Jeff Carlson reviewed information provided by Thomas and asked that it be circulated to their colleagues which it has – but it won’t form part of a council agenda.
The Crowsnest Headquarters submission also states “nowhere in the Alberta Municipal Government Act is a municipality empowered to override or veto the powers or jurisdiction of its neighbours. Thus, a municipal referendum cannot have force, influence, or consequence insofar as the result could affect other Alberta municipalities, such as downstream communities in the case of any project that could affect water quality or quantity.
“Nor should the Alberta government treat the result of a single municipality’s resolution, bylaw or referendum as a mandate to effect actions that would impact other municipalities. A municipal referendum has no force or consequence with respect to an initiative geographically located in another municipality,” it adds.
The proposed mine, pointed out Thomas Friday is not even in council’s jurisdiction, because it is situated in the nearby MD of Ranchlands.
“The whole thing is outrageous,” said Thomas in a phone interview.

3
-2