Water case law in Québec 3: groundwater extraction under the agricultural zoning regime
In Québec, a new groundwater abstraction may have to be authorised under two governmental authorisation regimes.
The first regime is provided for by the Groundwater Catchment Regulation and generally targets all groundwater extraction projects in Quebec.
The second authorisation regime, which is provided by the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (ARPALAA), is not primarily concerned with groundwater management and is only applicable in rural areas.
Nevertheless, the ARPALAA has impacts on groundwater management in Québec. Some of these impacts are described in this article.
The purpose of the ARPALAA is to preserve agriculture and agricultural land. Essentially, the ARPALAA is a land use management statute that generally prohibits any person, except with the authorisation of the Commission de protection du territoire agricole (CPTAQ), from using real estate property for purposes other than agricultural activities in designated agricultural regions.
Hence, if someone wants to extract groundwater in zoned agricultural land, the CPTAQ has to pre-authorise the extraction project. However, CPTAQ's decision, whether positive or negative, can be contested before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ).
In Vergers Leahy inc. v. Fédération de l'UPA de St-Jean-Valleyfield (in French), the Appellant requests CPTAQ's authorisation to sink a well to produce bottled water in agricultural zone. The CPTAQ rejects the application and the Appellant contests this decision before the ATQ. In this instance, the parties request permission to file new evidence.
Among the many issues pertaining to administrative law decided in this appeal, the Court of Appeal crucially delineates the cases in which new evidence can be brought before the ATQ in appeal of the CPTAQ.
The Court establishes that the ATQ can only consider new evidence when there is an error in law or a determining error in fact in CPTAQ's original decision, in conformity with section 21.4 of ARPALAA.
As a result of all this, a refusal to authorise a groundwater abstraction project stands.
This entry was posted on at 12:53 PM and is filed under Case Law, Groundwater, Québec, Québec water case law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
The average cost of family health insurance coverage rose 3% to $13,770 in 2010, while at the same time the employee's share of the c...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Linda Gyulai reports in the Montreal Gazette here that the City of Montreal and Génieau have begun arbitration to settle the com...
-
There are four house bills that propose changes to the current custody statute. However, H.1306 and H.2684 are practically the same, though...
-
According to a New York Times article , the New York State legislature recently approved legislation that would allow No-Fault divorces in N...
-
(BY HUGO) A report from MARSH Canada, A Review of Water-Related Opportunities and Threats , outlines insurance issues in the sector to ensur...
-
There are two ways to ask this question: Can I start dating while my divorce case is pending? and Should I start dating while my divorce cas...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...