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
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
The AFL-CIO blog claims a new study shows the excise tax on "Cadillac" health plans would affect significantly more non-union w...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...