Preserving Municipal Authority in Aggregate Pit Approvals

Historically, aggregate pits on private land were considered through two complementary processes. Alberta Environment and Protected Areas reviewed environmental matters under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Water Act, the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation and the Code of Practice for Pits. Municipalities considered local land use, development compatibility, public input, traffic, roads, setbacks, operating conditions and other community impacts through statutory plans, land use bylaws and development permits.  

The Code of Practice for Pits applies to Class I pits on private land with a disturbance area of five hectares, approximately 12.5 acres, or more. Alberta’s public information reports approximately 900 Class I pits and more than 1,500 Class II pits, based on estimates published in 2018. Class II pits are smaller than five hectares and do not require registration under the Code, although conservation, reclamation and Water Act requirements may still apply.  

Bill 28 received Royal Assent on May 14, 2026 and introduced section 619.1 of the Municipal Government Act. One of the many topics addressed in Bill 28 is the approval framework for sand and gravel pits. The primary change is the elimination of the system of dual compliance between an Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEPA) approval, a pit registration, and a municipal land use bylaw and/or development permit approval. As such, a provincial registration for a pit prevails over a municipal statutory plan or related municipal authorization. Furthermore, certain statutory-plan or land-use-bylaw amendments must be approved within 90 days to ensure compliance with the provincial registration unless the applicant agrees to a longer period. 

Municipalities may attach conditions that do not conflict with the registration, but the boundary between provincial and municipal authority is not sufficiently clear. Issues such as dust, drainage, setbacks and operational impacts can have both environmental and local nuisance dimensions. If the provincial registration addresses an issue broadly, a municipality may be prevented from applying a locally appropriate condition even when the local impact, road standard, settlement pattern or neighbouring land use is different.  

The RMA’s July 2026 member resource identifies several gaps in relying on the provincial process as the primary approval mechanism. Provincial notification is governed by section 72 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, but there is no requirement for the Director or Alberta Environment and Protected Areas to hold a public hearing for a new pit registration or an amendment. The Director’s decision memo and record are not released publicly, and registrations under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act cannot be appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board. The provincial service target for an initial Code of Practice registration is 120 days.  

The combination of provincial paramountcy, a 90-day municipal amendment timeline and a 120-day provincial service target creates pressure for speed without ensuring that local infrastructure capacity, cumulative land-use effects and community concerns have been resolved. Streamlining can improve predictability, but it should not remove the information and safeguards needed to make a sound public-interest decision.  

Additionally, the sections of Bill 28 to implement the proposed changes have not yet been proclaimed in force and are expected to come into force when amendments to the Province’s Code of Practice for Pits are approved. The amendments to the Code of Practice are scheduled for approval by November 2026. 

As part of the process to update the Code of Practice and implement the intent  of Bill 28, AEPA held three virtual sessions to seek input from municipalities. The sessions revealed the following: 

• There may be limited opportunities to incorporate adjacent landowner or local participation in the approval process used by AEPA when issuing registrations compared to the degree of input allowed under the dual compliance approach (i.e. no hearing prior to a decision and no right of appeal of a decision). 

• The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act’s and its mandated focus on “environmental considerations” may limit AEPA’s ability to expand the range of topics covered by their pit approval; for example, offsite noise impacts on human or wildlife populations is not considered an “environmental consideration.” 

• While AEPA is willing to leave some topics, such as hours of operation, to be regulated by municipalities, the municipality’s ability to enforce compliance on any issues that may have been left to be addressed through the municipal development permit process, specifically the ability to issue a stop order to cease or suspend an activity that has a provincial approval that is meant to have paramountcy over any local planning decision, may be limited. 

• There may be limited flexibility available under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act compared to other legislation such as the Alberta Land Stewardship Act to establish a system which balances provincial and local land use considerations.   

With the changes introduced by Bill 28, AEPA staff will now be the decision maker on the question of  any change in land use to allow a pit. What may be lost in the process may be any consideration of compatibility with adjacent land uses, sometimes referred to as “good neighbour expectations”, and consideration of offsite infrastructure impacts. 

Given the number and significance of the unresolved issues, it does not seem prudent or wise to rush ahead with implementation of a system that has a high potential to produce unforeseen or unintended consequences due to potential legislative limitations and limited time to evaluate options. 

The proposed changes pose significant impacts to rural municipalities, who manage approximately 130,000 kilometres of roads across the province. A pit may generate repeated heavy-truck movements over roads and bridges that were not designed or funded for that traffic. Without municipal involvement before registration, an approval may proceed before haul routes, seasonal restrictions, intersection improvements, dust-control responsibilities, road-use agreements, emergency access or cost-recovery arrangements are settled. The resulting maintenance and rehabilitation costs can be shifted to the municipal tax base.  

Local impacts are not limited to roads. Aggregate development may affect drainage patterns, groundwater concerns, agricultural access, nearby homes and businesses, future residential or industrial growth, emergency response routes and the value or future use of surrounding land. Residents will continue to bring complaints and infrastructure concerns to their municipal council even when the municipality lacks authority to change the provincial registration or enforce provincial requirements. 

Required Safeguards 

A durable aggregate approval system requires both provincial environmental oversight and municipal knowledge of local roads, land use, drainage, emergency access and community development. Provincial registration should not force a municipality to approve an incompatible development or leave local taxpayers responsible for impacts that could have been addressed through early consultation and enforceable conditions. The requested amendments would support timely aggregate development while restoring the checks, transparency, and accountability needed to protect the public interest.