Members of the public are being asked to give input into an independent study on the impacts of water pollution from Elk Valley coal mines.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) study, due to be completed in September 2026, will look at water quality trends, impacts to human health and well-being, impacts to ecosystems, and mitigation efforts and activities. It was announced last year as part of the broader IJC reference on water pollution in the Elk-Kootenay watershed stemming from Glencore’s massive Elk Valley coal mines.
Recently, the IJC outlined its draft plan of study and it’s now inviting the public to submit feedback before February 17 to elk@ijc.org.
Below are some suggested key messages and points to consider including in your letter.
The overarching message
Because the waters and the wildlife in the Elk Valley have been so badly damaged, the IJC Study Board should critically examine the current pollution mitigation strategies and cumulative effects management, and make recommendations for other potential solutions to address the crisis.
10 key asks:
- Continued water quality monitoring
- Bilateral and enforceable water quality standards (0.8ug/L of selenium in Lake Koocanusa, consistent with Montana Department of Environmental Quality limits, much lower than B.C.’s 2.0 ug/L)
- Adequate mine bonding / financial assurances
- Moratorium on new mines pending resolution of historic harms
- Biological offsets / compensatory mitigation (adjacent land conservation to ensure ecosystem integrity pending clean-up)
- Financial accountability for damages to Indigenous lands, businesses, and natural / cultural resources
- Continued shared management through extended watershed board
- Plan for sufficient water treatment infrastructure at scale and over time
- Improved waste rock treatment methods to reduce need for more water treatment facilities in the future
- Accelerated mine reclamation timelines to limit the amount of water seeping into waste rock piles
Other points to consider including:
- Grateful for the process
- Want a healthy watershed, for our communities and our economies
- Concern the review may be overly limited—not have enough breadth—review and summarize old science / data rather than moving toward action, mitigation
- Concern that recommendations from the IJC won’t be implemented by the United States and Canadian governments
- Need to follow the science, not the politics
- Values – this place is special because x, y and z– too special to miss this opportunity
- Threats – Glencore has already considered selling these mines, lack of adequate liability security / underbonding, lack of data and science transparency, United States and Canadian governments resistance to shared decision making and common pollution standards
- Solution – strong and continued IJC involvement, strong commitment to science, to protecting people and places, to limiting the public’s / taxpayers’ long-term liability
- Need watershed restoration – long-term shared management
- Mandate isn’t to lowball this or to argue about science that is already settled
- Use the IJC’s active verbs – your mandate is to…
- Enable timely actions
- Reduce pollution
- Mitigate impacts of pollution
- Protect people
- Protect species
- Guided by … Transparency, Open Communication, Accountability, Timeliness, Inclusiveness – collaboration
- Thank you for your attention, and for your commitment to fulfilling the mandate of a healthy and restored watershed, sustainable communities, etc.