Date:
Expiry Date:
Current Status:
Sponsors:
District:
Year:
Convention:
Category:
Status:
Vote Results:
Preamble:
WHEREAS the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) is responsible for approving confined feeding operation (CFO) applications in Alberta; and
WHEREAS the NRCB approval process does not allow for municipalities to create or implement land use bylaws that restrict, prevent, or prohibit confined feeding operations; and
WHEREAS The NRCB consults affected municipalities during the approval process only if the application affects the municipal land use bylaw or municipal development plan; and
WHEREAS The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) both allow unsatisfactory levels of municipal involvement in project developments and approvals; and
WHEREAS such developments may place undue pressure and strain on the impacted municipality’s resources, infrastructure, environment, and community relationships; and
WHEREAS comments provided by the municipalities during the approval process are often deemed insignificant, passed onto another ministry, and not adequately addressed prior to project approval;
Operative Clause:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) advocate for the Government of Alberta (GOA) to mandate the Natural Resources Conservation Board, Alberta Utilities Commission, and Alberta Energy Regulator to incorporate into their application approval processes involvement of the municipality where the proposed operation will occur;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that RMA advocates to the GOA to allow for municipalities to address, restrict, and/or create variances for confined feeding operations within their respective land use bylaws and municipal development plans.
Member Background:
Municipal involvement in proposed projects or developments that receive approvals through provincially delegated quasi-judicial agencies is of little significance to the overall approval process. The lack of municipal involvement creates undue strain on the resources, infrastructure, and local environment of the affected municipality. Without prior notification, the municipality is often unprepared for potential consequences of proposed projects. These approvals often receive community backlash which the municipality is unable to address as they were not involved in the approval process in a meaningful or significant way. This impacts community relations and fosters potential hostility between the public, the municipality, and the respective quasi-judicial agency. Notification systems of the quasi-judicial agencies are lacking; depending on the project, municipalities may not be notified of the activity at any point during the approval process, or notification is given on a short timeline with the municipality unable to form an appropriate or comprehensive response within the given timeframe. Should the municipality put forth concerns or comments, these may often be left unanswered with the approval still moving forward.
In the instance of approvals for the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB), the municipality is unable to include any provisions in their Land Use Bylaw which may impact or prohibit the development of NRCB-approved projects. When projects are proposed, the respective municipality is asked to provide comment on if the development aligns with the Land Use Bylaw. Should the municipality provide comment, they are often left unaddressed or delegated to another ministry within the provincial government. During this time, the approval is moved forward without answers for the municipality’s comments or concerns. Due to limited staffing, negative consequences of the development are often left unaddressed, and the complaints fall to the municipality that has no ability to rectify or address the issue. This process is mirrored in many quasi-judicial agencies, leaving the municipality in a difficult position across various development types proposed within their municipal boundaries.
RMA Background:
5-23F: Municipal Involvement in Quasi-Judicial Agencies
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rural Municipalities of Alberta work with the Government of Alberta to ensure coordination and/or consideration between municipal land-use planning processes and bylaws and quasi-judicial agency approval processes, establish more meaningful engagement between local municipalities and quasi-judicial boards and agencies, and ensure legislative mechanisms and processes are put into place to hold agencies and the proponents accountable for reclamation of a site from the onset of a project.
Click here to view the full resolution.
Natural Resources Conservation Board
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to resolution 6-26S from the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA) spring convention. I had the opportunity to present to the County of Big Lakes on March 11, 2026, just prior to the RMA spring convention to address the concerns they brought forward in this resolution, and I will make a point of following up with them in the future to see if they require any additional information. As you know, the concerns in 6-26S reflect the same concerns from a previous resolution from RMA (5-23F).
On January 4, 2024, our Chair at the time, Mr. Peter Woloshyn sent a letter to Mr. Paul McLaughlin, then President of RMA, responding to the concerns brought forward by 5-23F. The letter talks about NRCB’s dual mandates under the Natural Resources Conservation Board Act (NRCBA) and the Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA). It discusses how the NRCB considers municipal needs under both mandates, especially AOPA since this is the legislation where the NRCB has the most day-to-day interaction with RMA members. For example, under AOPA, municipalities are automatically considered directly affected parties on all applications for new or expanding confined feeding operations (CFOs) and approval officers must deny CFO permit applications that are inconsistent with the intermunicipal development plan or municipal development plan of the affected municipality. The letter goes on to talk about the unique efforts of the NRCB to engage rural municipalities under AOPA, including regular meetings with municipal councils and the inclusion of two of your board members – Jason Schneider and Gene Hrabec (who recently replaced Kevin Wirsta) – on important policy discussions at the Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Rather than reiterating the points in this letter, I’ve attached it for your reference.
I would like to take this opportunity to update you on the progress the NRCB has made since 2024 to carefully consider the recommendations from resolution 5-23F and the 2023 RMA Quasi-Judicial Advisory Committee (QJAC) report.
In January 2025, Sandi Roberts, Chair of the NRCB, and I met with you, Jason Schneider and Warren Noga on the NRCB’s processes for approving CFOs and how we consider municipal needs. Following this meeting, NRCB created a sub-committee under PAG to carefully consider the QJAC recommendations. The sub-committee included RMA representatives Jason Schneider and Warren Noga along with representatives from the NRCB and Agriculture and Irrigation (AGI). It was generally recognized by the sub-committee and in the QJAC report that the design of AOPA’s legislation, particularly as it relates to considering municipal planning needs, is considered a key success by RMA. The NRCB’s efforts to place a high priority on communicating with RMA members was also acknowledged. Six recommendations from the QJAC report were discussed by the sub-committee:
For recommendations I, III, V and VI, the sub-committee felt that existing AOPA legislation and NRCB polices address these recommendations, and no further action is required. For recommendations II and IV, the sub-committee identified simple actions for the NRCB and considerations for RMA:
Recommendation II:
NRCB: NRCB works with AGI colleagues to create a statement for the NRCB website about public interest and AOPA. Completed.
RMA: The RMA board will decide whether to follow up with the Government of Alberta on requiring a clear public interest statement in AOPA.
Recommendation IV:
NRCB: The NRCB will create a package of resources for applicants on best practices for hosting public hearings. Completed.
RMA: The RMA board will consider whether they want to pursue a legislative change under AOPA requiring applicants to hold public hearings for CFO permits.
The NRCB continues to connect with rural municipalities on a regular basis to help increase the understanding of the NRCB’s processes for permitting CFOs. Over the last two years, my leadership team and I have presented at three RMA district meetings and the RMA Spring convention (2024). We have also presented to the councils of Kneehill County, MD of Wainwright, Lacombe County, Town of Fort Macleod, Mountain View County, Sturgeon County, MD of Willow Creek, County of Barrhead, and Big Lakes County. Future meetings are scheduled with Red Deer County and Rocky View County. In every case, we’ve discussed the NRCB’s process for CFO permits, how municipal needs and planning are considered, compliance issues, and how the Board considers municipal needs in its decisions. This has been an excellent opportunity to hear concerns from rural municipalities firsthand and discuss how the NRCB can address these concerns. Although this is only a small sub-section of your 69 members, we are focusing our efforts on those municipalities with significant densities of CFOs.
We openly encourage municipalities to include us on their agenda if they have questions about the CFO permitting and CFO compliance issues.
Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation
The Government of Alberta recognizes the role municipalities play in land use planning and acknowledges the concerns raised regarding municipal involvement in regulatory processes associated with confined feeding operations (CFOs).
Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA) is administered by Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) on behalf of AGI.
Under AOPA, municipalities are responsible for developing statutory planning documents, including Municipal Development Plans (MDPs) and Intermunicipal Development Plans (IDPs), to guide future growth and land use patterns. Since 2002, AOPA has required CFO applications be consistent with applicable MDPs.
Amendments introduced through Bill 44 (2025) further aligned AOPA with the Municipal Government Act planning hierarchy by referencing IDPs in addition to MDPs. This alignment was intended to strengthen consideration of municipal statutory plans where those documents provide applicable land use direction for the proposed location of a CFO.
Municipal participation is incorporated into the AOPA approval process. Municipalities are notified when a CFO application is received and again when it is deemed complete and are provided 20 working days to submit comments to the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB). Additional engagement may occur at the discretion of the approval officer. Municipal input may assist the NRCB by providing local context relevant to the application.
Where a proposed CFO is inconsistent with an applicable MDP or IDP, the approval officer is required to deny the application. Applicants may request a review of that decision. If a review hearing is granted, the NRCB Board may uphold, vary, or change the decision and is not bound by municipal statutory plans. AOPA also establishes that where a conflict exists between AOPA and a municipal land use bylaw, AOPA prevails.
The existing provincial framework is intended to balance municipal planning objectives with consistent regulatory oversight across Alberta. Municipal perspectives regarding the role of municipalities in provincial approval processes and the application of local planning tools are noted within the administration of current legislation
Development:
RMA appreciates the response from the NRCB that highlights several actions undertaken to address the recommendations of the QJAC report. Although the NRCB has placed a high emphasis on communication protocols with municipalities and has worked collaboratively with RMA through the PAG sub-committee, the NRCB’s response does not specifically address the gaps in municipal autonomy that still remain with regard to how CFOs are managed. Resolution 6-26S highlights several existing issues:
While municipalities are notified by the NRCB about proposed CFOs, municipalities are seeking further involvement in how CFOs are sited and in the approval processes of the NRCB. Municipal comments and input that highlight concerns with CFO developments are not always captured by the NRCB in their decision or get passed along to other regulatory agencies, especially in cases that concern water management. Despite the collaborative efforts made in improving regulatory approval processes, these concerns still remain.
The response from Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation highlights the legislative context surrounding the management and approval of CFOs. While it is encouraging that under AOPA, CFO applications are required to align with MDPs, resolution 6-26S highlights how municipalities are still unable to include guidelines surrounding CFO development in Land Use Bylaws, which would help municipalities more effectively manage land and help regulators navigate specific local contexts when making decisions on CFO approvals.
RMA assigns this resolution a status of Intent Not Met and will continue advocating for improvements in regulatory approval processes across all quasi-judicial agencies.
Provincial Ministries:
Provincial Boards and Organizations:
Internal Notes:
