Crowsnest Pass residents vote in favour of Grassy Mountain coal project

Residents of Crowsnest Pass in southwestern Alberta havevoted tosupport the development of a nearby coal project, in a non-binding vote that wrapped up on Monday evening.

The results of the vote, whichtook place from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Monday, showed that just over 70 per cent of those who casta ballot, or1,957 residents, were in favour of supporting Grassy Mountain,a proposed coking coal mine near Crowsnest Pass witha long and contentious history in the community.

Another 769 residents votedagainst theproject.

The proposed mine is spearheaded by Northback Holdings (formerly known as Riversdale Resources and Benga Mining), the latest incarnation of a number of corporate entities tied to Australian parent company Hancock Prospecting, all focused over the past decade to mine Grassy Mountain for steel-making coal.

In Crowsnest Pass, it's long divided the community into two camps: those who hope mining will lift the local economy, and those who worry about the environmental impacts of moving ahead with such projects.

Coal mining was responsible for building up these communities. The last mine in the area closed in 1983.

David Thomas, with Crowsnest Headwaters, a group opposed to mining in the area, said he wasn't surprised by the results of the vote.

"I think that the population here is culturally connected to its past it's going to take a bit of demographic change before that evolves."

An advanced vote on the matter took place last week. The Municipality of Crowsnest Pass said more than 1,000 people cast ballots, which represents about 20 per cent of the electorate.

Return to mining, or leave coal in the past?

29 days ago

Duration 4:51

The history of coal mining in the Crowsnest Pass, Alta., stretches back more than a century, but a proposed new project has divided the community on whether mining should return or be left in the past.

The result of Monday's votewill be non-binding, meaning it won't require officials to take any specific action. But Blair Painter, the mayor of Crowsnest Pass, said the results will indicate to council how the majority of the community feels about the project, one way or the other.

"If it does come back that our community feels that this is a very important project for our community, then council will continue to support it, and we will lobby those powers that be to try to help this thing happen," Painter said.

"If it goes the other way, and our community doesn't want it, then we will stop proceeding to push this project forward."

Thomas said he thinks the battleground must now shift to the rest of Alberta.

"It just makes no sense that a few hundred people in Crowsnest Pass would determine the fate of the quantity and quality of the Crowsnest River, which feeds into the Old Man River system and the Saskatchewan River system.

"You know, this is something that really must involve everybody in southern Alberta."

Karen Paton, who lives in the area, said she was not anti-coalbut was concerned with other issues.

"The things that matter a great deal to meis the perpetuity of clean water, good water, and not disturbing the eastern slopes," Paton said.

Jean Mikan, another Crowsnest Pass resident, said she thinks the mine would have a positive impact onthe community.

"Both my grandfather, my father and my husband all made their living from the mines, and I think it's very important that we have something in our area that will provide work for the young people that are coming in," she said.

A representative for Northback did not provide a comment by publication time, but previously told CBC News it washolding site tours and open houses in the weeks running up to the vote.

The company has registered as a third-party advertiser with Crowsnest Pass, a spokesperson with the municipality confirmed.All third-party advertisers will be required to file a report within 120 days of the vote.

Comes in advance of important hearings

While the Crowsnest Pass referendum won't carry any legal weight, judicial observers are watching other upcoming hearings closely.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is scheduled to hold a public hearing, starting Dec. 3 and continuing on Jan. 14, tied to Northback's applications for exploration permits.

"The thing I'm really watching, in terms of [being] a legal commentator what's happening this week in relation to the plebiscite isn't really changing that at all," said University of Calgary associate law professor Shaun Fluker.

In 2022, Sonya Savage, Alberta's energy minister at the time, issued a ministerial order saying "no new applications will be accepted" for coal exploration, with an exception for "advanced coal projects." The following year, Northback submitted its proposal to the AER.

Energy Minister Brian Jean wouldgo on toargue that Northback's applications be accepted. The ministry has said the Grassy Mountain project qualifies as an "advanced coal project" because a project summary and environmental impact assessment were filed with regulators several years prior to the 2022 ministerial order.

Some legal experts, meanwhile,have questioned whether Northback's project qualifies as an "advanced coal project," given that the original Grassy Mountain project was rejected and no longer exists.

With those concerns in mind, the Municipal District of Ranchlandhas arguedthe AER shouldn't have accepted the applications from Northback. The Alberta Court of Appeal released a ruling in August, stating it would hear arguments on the matter.

The Livingstone Landowners Group, an organization that was an active participant in a push against coal mining in 2020 and 2021, is also watching the results of the hearings closely.

"We are hoping that the Alberta courts decide that it was not proper, right, to allow this to go forward right under the ministerial directive," said Bill Trafford, president of the group.

Ranchlandhad previously asked for the upcoming AERpublic hearings to be adjourned while those issues were under consideration.But in September, the AER wrote that it would go ahead with the hearings, stating that "while we have the discretion to grant an adjournment, we are not persuaded that doing so in this case is appropriate."