A Cochrane-area gravel pit at the centre of groundwater contamination claims has received conditional approval from Alberta's Land and Property Rights Tribunal, which deferred environmental concerns to the province's environmental appeals board.
In a decision dated April 17, 2025, the LPRT affirmed Rocky View County's conditional approval of a development permit (DP) for the BURNCO West Cochrane Gravel Pit. The permit authorizes BURNCO Rock Products Ltd. to continue sand and gravel extraction, processing, and operation of a portable asphalt plant on a 151-acre parcel located south of Highway 1A, approximately five kilometres west of Cochrane. It also authorizes development in Phases 4, 5 and 7, which had not yet been accessed under prior permits.
The tribunal imposed a revised cap limiting land disturbance without reclamation to 66 acres — 40 for extraction and 26 for processing — and confirmed that no aggregate washing can begin until Alberta Environment and Protected Areas (AEP) provides written approval.
The 66-acre limit was the only material change imposed. The tribunal found the permit had been lawfully processed as a renewal and upheld all other conditions.
"The appeal is allowed, in part," the tribunal wrote in King v Rocky View County (Development Authority), 2025 ABLPRT 196 (File No. D24/ROCK/CO-035). "There may be compelling evidence... but the LPRT does not believe it has the expertise to weigh the documentary and oral evidence provided."
The appeal was heard under Section 685(2.1)(a) of the Municipal Government Act and Section 27 of the Matters Related to Subdivision and Development Appeal Regulation, AR 84/2022, which assign jurisdiction to the LPRT where the land is subject to provincial environmental approvals.
The BURNCO site holds approvals under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Registration #00254757-00-01) and the Water Act, including DAUT0014236 — a license currently under appeal before Alberta's Environmental Appeals Board.
The appeal was filed jointly by several nearby landowners, including A. McKendrick McNabb, D. Cornish and Dr. J. Fennell. Cornish is a professional engineer with expertise in reservoir systems. Fennell is a hydrogeologist with a background in geochemistry and groundwater modelling. According to their submissions, they sought to overturn the permit or, alternatively, impose stricter environmental controls and postpone washing operations pending further study.
Tribunal confirms wash plant was previously approved
The appellants argued the County should have required a new permit to authorize aggregate washing and that the County failed to provide complete documentation prior to the appeal deadline.
"The wash plant equipment should have been included in the Applicant's and DA's documentation in the DP decision and should not be added to official County documents after the fact," they submitted.
"Inability to obtain details of the application and approval, including site plan, prior to the appeal deadline," was cited in their notice of appeal.
BURNCO and the Development Authority responded that gravel washing had been contemplated in the original 2012 approval and reaffirmed in subsequent permits, subject to AEP approval. The tribunal agreed.
"Condition 10 states that no water shall be used for washing of gravel unless and until written approval has been received from AEP," the panel wrote. "The LPRT finds that the gravel washing use was clearly included in the DP approval."
"While it may have provided more clarity to the appellants if it had been separately listed, the LPRT agrees that the wash plant was contemplated and approved in the subject and previous DPs."
BURNCO told the tribunal the wash plant equipment is currently in use at its Springbank gravel pit, which is nearing the end of its operational life. It plans to relocate the equipment to the Cochrane site to begin washing aggregate for concrete supply.
Tribunal limits disturbed footprint to 66 acres
The panel amended Condition 7 of the permit to cap land disturbance at 66 acres — 40 for extraction and 26 for processing. The borrow area is excluded from this total.
The previous 2022 DP had allowed operations in Phases 1 through 3 only, with a disturbance limit of 37.06 acres. The updated site plan, dated June 2024, includes Phases 4, 5 and 7.
Appellants argued the permit's language lacked clarity and could permit up to 88 acres disturbed at once.
"The purpose of setting a maximum land area that is open and not reclaimed is to limit the impact of the operation," the tribunal ruled.
The applicant submitted that "70 acres total would be sufficient." The panel approved 66.
Tribunal declines to rule on environmental risk, cites EAB jurisdiction
Appellant A. McKendrick McNabb reported hydrocarbon contamination in her domestic well in 2023. Appellants submitted that hydrocarbons were also detected in site monitoring wells and argued that pit operations — including washing infrastructure and asphalt processing — could, in their view, accelerate pollutant migration through fractured bedrock.
In October 2024, AEP responded to McKendrick McNabb's complaint:
"The department does not believe that the hydrocarbon contamination is from BURNCO's operations. At this time... the department does not have sufficient probable cause to pursue this matter further."
Dr. Fennell testified that elevated chloride, nutrient, turbidity and hydrocarbon levels had been recorded in downgradient wells. She warned of cumulative impacts to Grand Valley Creek and the Bow River.
"Groundwater flows from the gravel mine towards Grand Valley Creek and the Bow River, and contaminants mobilized from mining operations will eventually reach downgradient springs and water wells," she stated.
Cornish testified that pit dewatering and dredging operations would accelerate flow through fractured formations and potentially activate legacy coal seams.
"Recharge from the bedrock recharge zone cannot keep up with the 12,000+ m³ imputed flow from dredging," Cornish stated. "Dredging dramatically increases flow in the bedrock fractures affected, expanding the effective drawdown area and engaging coal seams."
The appellants sought enhanced monitoring, turbidity detection and stronger restrictions on asphalt and washing operations.
The tribunal declined to intervene.
"The LPRT is not satisfied that it has the requisite scientific or technical expertise to determine whether the water table has been or will be negatively impacted," the ruling states.
"Should the EAB order measures to provide relief to the appellants, [they] would supersede the existing approval."
Water Act Approval DAUT0014236 — which covers the same land as the DP — remains under EAB appeal. The matter is currently in confidential mediation. No hearing date had been set as of the tribunal's ruling.
Council postponed ARP — but pit expansion proceeds
Appellants argued that approving the permit ahead of Rocky View County's Aggregate Resource Plan (ARP) undermined local policy development and community trust. On Dec. 3, 2024, council voted to pause expansion applications pending completion of the ARP.
"It is important that this initial project, described by the appellants as a 'failed experiment,' provides a sound foundation for future development," their submission read.
The tribunal disagreed, noting that the site had already been redesignated in 2011 and that future phases were included in site plans going back to 2021.
"The site plan dated October 2021 showed the additional future phases... the subject DP application was appropriately processed as a renewal, consistent with the County's practice."
Dust incident, reporting failures noted
Appellants also alleged the company failed to meet reporting requirements following a reported dust incident in May 2023 that led the company to temporarily suspend crushing operations. The 2023 Annual Operations Report stated that "no noise and dust monitoring was completed on site."
"Monitoring and reporting standards in place did not allow the landowner an opportunity to conclusively correlate her problem with the gravel operations," the appellants stated.
The tribunal acknowledged the deficiency and said Condition 16 had been revised to apply to the full site and adjacent roads.
"The wording in the subject DP has clearer measures that refer to the site as well," the Development Authority told the panel.
While the County oversees permit conditions, the tribunal emphasized that groundwater enforcement falls solely under provincial jurisdiction.
Permit approved with conditions — EAB outcome still pending
The development permit remains valid until March 23, 2029. Aggregate washing cannot proceed until written AEP authorization is received. Wash water may not be discharged off-site unless specifically approved. The portable asphalt plant is limited to propane or natural gas fuel only.
Disturbed land is capped at 66 acres. BURNCO must submit annual reports including current site plans, groundwater monitoring summaries, noise data and incident responses.
"While the Water Act approvals for the subject land are in place, the new approval covers this land as well, and should the EAB order measures... [they] would supersede the existing approval," the tribunal concluded.
The ruling was signed by Presiding Officer H. Kim.
Sign up to get the latest local news headlines delivered directly to your inbox every afternoon.
Send your news tips, story ideas, pictures, and videos to news@discoverairdrie.com. You can also message and follow us on Twitter: @AIR1061FM.
DiscoverAirdrie encourages you to get your news directly from your trusted source by bookmarking this page and downloading the DiscoverAirdrie app.