The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy

No, and in light of the fires in Peachland and Summerland, British Columbia, this past weekend, let’s revisit my conversation with Thoughtful Journalism’s Markham Hislop and commercial insurance broker Derek Connick from last summer. This discussion was around climate change, water, and insurance risk in Alberta and Canada. I explain that Markham and I connected during an election period and have since collaborated on topics like oil and gas liabilities, with Markham founding the Energy Circle and me starting this podcast to tackle difficult subjects such as climate-related insurance issues. Markham describes his work as an energy journalist running a large independent media outlet focused on the global energy transition and its implications for Canada and Alberta, emphasizing the growing importance of “risk” in public discourse and the reluctance of society to confront increasing climate-related risks. Derek introduces his 37–38 years of experience in property and casualty insurance across Western Canada, noting that water-related risk has become increasingly significant, particularly in Alberta.
The discussion then turns to how climate change is disrupting traditional insurance models and data, with Markham citing industry reports that centuries of actuarial data are being undermined by frequent “once in a thousand year” extreme weather events. Derek confirms that climate change is increasing both the frequency and severity of events, forcing insurers to rework models and reconsider whether and how to continue offering certain coverages. He explains how insurers use loss ratios, expense ratios, and combined ratios to assess profitability, and how catastrophic years push combined ratios above 100%, meaning insurers lose money. Derek outlines different insurance needs, using farmers as an example: they require property coverage, sewer backup, crop hail insurance (sometimes including wildfire), and possibly groundwater coverage, illustrating how water-related risks intersect with agriculture.
Our conversation explores practical impacts on homeowners and commercial clients, including rising premiums and coverage limitations in high-risk areas such as floodplains along Calgary’s Elbow River and hail-prone regions like Medicine Hat and Red Deer. Derek notes that brokers have become more proactive in ensuring clients have sewer backup and at least some overland water coverage, even when full flood insurance is unavailable or unaffordable, while commercial property owners are increasingly attentive to severe weather risks, though not all explicitly link them to climate change. He explains reinsurance as “insurance for insurance companies,” provided by global reinsurers who are highly attuned to climate risk and can pressure domestic insurers to limit coverage in certain geographies, contributing to higher premiums and tighter terms. Markham and Derek discuss an emerging inflection point where rising premiums (e.g., a 50% increase after hail damage) and affordability crises may finally force consumers to connect climate change with personal financial risk, potentially prompting demands for “build back better” approaches and government involvement.
In the latter part of the conversation, we broaden the lens to systemic issues: government backstopping of major events like the 2013 floods, stalled efforts to create a national flood insurance program, and the growing complexity of wildfire and cyber risks. I raise mitigation strategies such as cloud seeding in Alberta’s “hail alley” between Calgary and Red Deer, and Derek explains the use of silver iodide to reduce hail size, while noting scalability limits and possible climate-change-driven storm intensity that outpaces response capacity. They then connect water, pollution, and energy: Markham and I highlight conflicts over water use between oil and gas, agriculture, and cities under worsening drought, and Derek warns about selenium pollution from coal mines in the Oldman River system, stressing that ongoing pollution is typically excluded from commercial insurance under absolute pollution exclusions, leaving taxpayers and communities exposed. I underscore that Alberta’s regulatory framework and reduced inspection capacity mean polluter-pay principles and remediation laws are not adequately enforced, while the province continues to allow the use and pollution of roughly four million barrels of fresh water per day for oil production, raising serious questions about doubling production amid severe drought and cumulative contamination.
Want more?
Listen to Bob Sandford explain the global water bankruptcy we are facing, his report for the UN came out in January 2026.


Get full access to The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy at www.thegravitywell.net/subscribe

This conversation—from fall 2024—with Alberta conservation leaders, Lorne Fitch and Kevin Van Tighem, centers on the ecological crisis and water security issues in Alberta’s Eastern Slopes and headwaters, framed through cumulative impacts from activities like irrigation expansion, coal and gravel mining, clear‑cut forestry, fossil fuel development, and recreational off‑highway vehicle use. We emphasize that Alberta is a finite, increasingly arid headwaters province whose land‑use decisions already exceed ecological thresholds, undermining river flows, biodiversity, and downstream provinces’ water security. We argue that treating the eastern slopes as an “unexploited frontier” or a warehouse to be ransacked has produced flood and drought risks, degraded native trout habitat, and shifting baselines where many no longer recognize how much has been lost. Throughout, Kevin and Lorne help link land‑use choices directly to water management, insisting that every land decision is effectively a water decision, and that current regulatory and industrial frameworks fail to account for natural capital and long‑term ecological integrity.
In response, we explores what should stop and what should replace current practices. We criticize expanding irrigation and building more dams in a context of declining natural flows and climate‑driven aridity, noting that empty reservoirs cannot solve drought and that engineering approaches cannot “outrun” climate change. We call for halting new coal mining in the Eastern Slopes, curbing excessive clear‑cutting, reforming forestry in both working forests and protected areas, and rethinking urban and industrial expansion into wildlife corridors and sensitive groundwater‑dependent ecosystems. I argue that all new fossil fuel development should cease, with industry redirected toward abandonment, decommissioning, and large‑scale restoration, including addressing hundreds of thousands of oil and gas sites and massive oil sands tailings ponds. We also highlight problematic technological “fixes,” from carbon capture and storage to atmospheric chemical injection by insurers, as examples of trying to control rather than work with nature, often creating new risks.
The conversation then turns to solutions and pathways forward, balancing individual and collective responsibility. On the personal side, Alex uses Calgary’s water‑main rupture to illustrate how simple behavioural changes—like skipping one toilet flush—can scale to millions of liters saved, while I contrast this with the vast volumes of water sent daily to oil sands tailings to show the importance of scale. Collectively, we stress the need for courageous land‑use planning that embeds cumulative‑effects science, ecological thresholds, and the value of water, space, and biodiversity, rather than entrenching status quo economic uses like timber, beef, and motorized recreation. We advocate for large‑scale, ecologically meaningful restoration—beyond “postage stamp” projects—across the eastern slopes and South Saskatchewan River basin, including removing roads, restoring beavers and wetlands, and supporting regenerative agriculture, while creating meaningful jobs for youth and reorienting environmental graduates toward repair rather than further development.
Finally, we discuss how to organize and build the political and cultural will to act. Kevin recounts how opposition to opening the Eastern Slopes to coal mining united ranchers, Indigenous communities, hunters, fishers, urban environmentalists, and people across the political spectrum, demonstrating the power of collective stewardship of common land. Building on this, he proposes a “macro” strategy of reclaiming the narrative from vested interests—e.g., resisting misframing climate‑driven fires as forest‑management failures—and a “micro” strategy of choosing one headwater sub‑drainage to fully restore as a proof of concept for water security, biodiversity, and landscape health. Lorne and Colin emphasize bioregional organizing, knitting together local leaders and existing groups in each major headwater watershed, engaging with tools like Alberta’s nature strategy survey and South Saskatchewan Regional Plan review while also building grassroots, basin‑scale voices that can steward public lands. The conversation closes with Kevin and Lorne underscoring that the eastern slopes are a gift from previous generations, part of Albertans’ “DNA,” and that honouring this legacy means not squandering it but embracing stewardship, recognizing that every land‑use choice is a water decision, and focusing one’s efforts where they can be most effective.
One outstanding question lingers: How far is too far?
According to the Government of Alberta.


Get full access to The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy at www.thegravitywell.net/subscribe

The episode—from the Water in Southern Alberta podcast miniseries co-hosted with Bob Morrison which originally aired in June 2025—brings together legal and planning experts to unpack how Alberta’s water law and water market function, especially in southern Alberta. Arlene Kwasniak, a long‑time scholar of water law from the University of Calgary, outlines the complex legal framework governing water, starting from the Canadian Constitution’s division of powers between federal and provincial governments over issues like fisheries, navigation, federal lands, Indigenous lands, and provincial property in water. She emphasizes that alongside federal and provincial statutes, Indigenous law, common law, international law, and policy all influence water management, but her focus is on Alberta’s Water Act and water‑use rights. Before modern legislation, common law riparian rights gave only landowners adjacent to water bodies limited household and “extraordinary” uses, with built‑in equity and sustainability because all riparians shared the same rights and could enforce them in court. These rights were largely extinguished by the Northwest Irrigation Act, which vested ownership of provincial waters in the Crown and introduced the prior allocation principle—“first in time, first in right” (FITFIR)—where licence priority is determined by date of application and senior users are fully satisfied before juniors in times of shortage.
Arlene traces the evolution from the Northwest Irrigation Act to Alberta’s Water Resources Act and then the Water Act, noting that groundwater was brought under Crown ownership and FITFIR in 1962, replacing the old rule of capture. The Water Act introduced major river basin divisions and approved water management plans—currently for the South Saskatchewan, Battle, and Milk River basins—which must be considered in key regulatory decisions like transfers. It also created statutory authorizations: household and agricultural exemptions with quantified annual volumes, and licences that grant diversion rights for specified purposes (municipal, irrigation, commercial, habitat enhancement, recreation, water conservation objectives, and others) typically on renewable 10‑year terms, while older licences have no expiry and are easily renewed. New licences can include water conservation objective (WCO) conditions that allow the director to restrict diversions when flows fall below set thresholds, whereas older licences may have in‑stream objectives (IOs) that are generally less protective. Arlene contrasts both WCOs and IOs with scientifically determined in‑stream flow needs (IFNs), arguing that WCOs and IOs are more politically set and often below IFN levels, limiting ecosystem protection.
Assessing the Water Act against an idealized water law, Arlene finds major shortcomings. She notes that while there are some tools to curb impacts for new licences, existing licences are strongly protected, there is no expropriation power for water rights, and cancellation is only possible when rights have gone unused for three years with no reasonable prospect of use. The Act offers only limited mechanisms to secure sufficient in‑stream flows, does not recognize or secure Indigenous water rights, and does not integrate quantity and quality regulation, conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, formal watershed governance, clear rules for alternative sources (wastewater, rainwater, stormwater, saline water), or climate change mitigation and adaptation—though the government is proposing amendments on some of these fronts. Household use has the highest priority, partially securing basic human needs. Overall, Arlene would grade the Act a “D” and says she would not pass it, arguing Alberta could have moved away from FITFIR toward more equitable systems like those in Saskatchewan, Australia, and New Zealand, but powerful sectors—oil and gas, municipalities, and agriculture—resisted change. In practice, Davin McIntosh—a water rights consultant and broker who specializes in facilitating water transfers in Alberta, with prior experience as a planning and municipal development lawyer and involvement in a significant proportion of water transfers in the Bow River Basin and Southern Alberta—points out that priority calls under FITFIR are rarely made, with Alberta preferring voluntary reductions to avoid cutting off junior users, especially municipalities whose licences are technically subject to FITFIR but whose drinking water cannot realistically be curtailed.
Davin then explains why and how water transfers were introduced. As recognition grew in the 1980s–1990s that full exercise of long‑standing rights could push rivers below environmentally sustainable levels, the Water Act added transfer provisions, and a 2007 moratorium on new licences in many areas made transfers the main mechanism for reallocating water. He describes an eight‑step process:
* finding a suitable right (difficult because rights are rarely advertised and cancellation risk discourages signalling non‑use),
* negotiating price and contracts despite uncertainty of approval,
* confirming the licence is in good standing (including compliance checks and sometimes costly reconstruction of works to match old plans),
* submitting a paper application,
* responding to extensive and discretionary requests for information from the director,
* publishing mandatory public notice and handling statements of concern, possible public meetings, and finally a decision. He highlights the director’s broad discretion and evolving, often unwritten policies—such as disallowing transfers “around a corner” in a Y‑shaped tributary, apportionment rules limiting how much can move from a mainstem to a tributary,
* partial good‑standing determinations, and
* the 10% conservation holdback that created government WCO licences but is now proposed to be scrapped due to limited overall transfer volumes.
With only about 400 transfers approved since 2007, roughly half being arm’s‑length, the conservation holdback has not significantly boosted in‑stream protection.
Throughout the discussion, we stress that enforcement of ecological needs and federal powers has been weak. Arlene notes that IFNs are not directly recognized in the Water Act, that WCOs and IOs fall short of IFNs, and that private in‑stream flow licences are not currently allowed, though government can and has issued WCO licences to itself.
More water lessons within the Water In Southern Alberta miniseries.


Get full access to The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy at www.thegravitywell.net/subscribe

Bob Sandford introduces himself to the Concerned Citizens on Climate Change (4C) group, in February of 2026, as a long-time Alberta-based water and climate expert who now serves as senior government relations liaison for global climate emergency response at the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, noting that his institute recently launched a major global report on “global water bankruptcy” at the UN General Assembly. He frames his remarks within UN principles and Indigenous rights, emphasizing that all cultures contribute to a shared human heritage. From his vantage point as an Albertan, he criticizes the UCP government’s libertarian direction, arguing that its policies undermine healthcare, education, and environmental protection while flooding the public sphere with divisive, misleading messaging that distracts from deeper crises and an apparent agenda to dismantle democracy and separate Alberta from Canada. He warns that amid these distractions, a long‑advancing global water crisis has become an even more immediate threat than accelerated climate warming, which Alberta’s government largely denies.
Sandford explains the UN “global water bankruptcy” concept as a post‑crisis state where societies persistently withdraw more water than renewable flows can support, depleting natural capital such as snowpack, glaciers, wetlands, and groundwater that provide “liquid income.” The report shows that even water‑rich countries like Canada, and regions such as southern Alberta, are not immune and may be nearing water bankruptcy, prompting initiatives like the Canada Water Agency. He argues that Alberta has failed to “repay” nature through forest, watershed, and biodiversity protection, and that maladaptive responses—creating weak watershed bodies, building more dams, drilling deeper wells, and diverting rivers—temporarily mask insecurity while deepening insolvency. Nature, he says, is now “initiating foreclosure” by shutting off water, as seen in glacier loss and shrinking snow and ice, and each drained wetland or logged headwater further erodes resilience beyond what engineering can replace.
Summary continues before this news update!
WOW: Did you see Hoekstra on Ryan Jespersen’s Real Talk?
With water bankruptcy—and the West Texas Intermediate system collapse on the horizon—can you believe what is coming out of Pete Hoekstra’s mouth?
Frequency of Contact with Alberta Premier:
Admits that he talks to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith “maybe once every three or four weeks” and speaks with her representatives in Ottawa “at least every week.”
Lack of Expertise on Canadian Perspectives:
States: “I’m not an expert on Canadian citizens or why they think the way that they do or what drives them and those kinds of things.” This is Pete’s job.
Acknowledgment of the “No Need for Canada” Position:
Confirms: “He says we don’t need Canada” — acknowledging that the president has made this statement on the record.
The Sales Approach:
Expects the Canadian provinces to “put on your sales hat” and actively pitch why buying from Canada is beneficial, rather than expecting automatic trade relationships.
Bob and Water Bankruptcy continued
Looking ahead, Sandford urges Alberta to formally acknowledge water bankruptcy risk and adopt transparent, fair rules for sharing scarcity, with participatory processes and strong social safety nets—conditions he says are absent under the current government. He links water security directly to food security and broader sustainable and circular economies, noting that water is often the only issue warring or divided groups can agree on, citing examples from the Middle East, the Northwest Territories, and transboundary agreements with Alberta. He highlights emerging climate science from James Hansen suggesting another El Niño and accelerated warming that could push global temperatures toward 2°C in the 2030s, with Canada warming at twice the global rate, implying severe drought, reduced snowpack, year‑round wildfire risk, and deep social and economic disruption in Alberta by 2027 and beyond. He likens the current moment to “Munich 1939,” arguing that Alberta is unprepared for three degrees of warming, with unpredictable precipitation, concurrent floods and droughts, and increasingly manipulated water licensing.
Politically, Sandford and other speakers connect water to a broader project of “rescuing, reviving, and restoring democracy” in Alberta, suggesting that the looming threat of water bankruptcy could galvanize citizens across issues like education, healthcare, and food security without relying on existing political parties.
TAKE ACTION
Join Public Interest Alberta’s, “No thanks. We choose hope.” Campaign!


Get full access to The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy at www.thegravitywell.net/subscribe

In light of the closing of the Alberta Water Council—as we learned from Jay White—and the 2026 Global Water Bankruptcy report—courtesy of Bob Sandford—now is a great time to revisit Engineer J. Bruce Smedley’s recommendation to form a public water agency.
This conversation from August 2024 centers on Alberta’s escalating water crisis, framed by drought conditions, failing infrastructure, and inadequate government planning and oversight. I outline recent drought impacts, including four southern Alberta communities that had to have water trucked in, and highlights the auditor general’s findings: modelling is limited to parts of the province, most basins lack conservation objectives, there is weak monitoring of water pressure and risk triggers, and enforcement of water licenses and compliance is ineffective. Bruce stress that current models assume “water in equals water out” and ignore losses from heat and evapotranspiration, and that surface water analysis is largely missing, with monitoring focused on rivers and streams rather than the full hydrological picture. We also connect Alberta’s decisions to downstream regions, noting that Alberta is effectively “the taps” for Saskatchewan and Manitoba,—not the Mississippi basin (oops!)—so local choices have far-reaching consequences.
Against this backdrop, Bruce presents his proposal for an integrated water resource preservation and restoration agency that is public, independent, apolitical, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and accountable.
Bruce’s Water Agency Framework
* Terms of Reference: coherent initiative of social planning with an interdisciplinary approach to managing water basin resources and their uses to identify and satisfy water resource stability and sustainability sufficient to secure ecological, social, and human subsistence indefinitely given resource conflicts, external disruptions, and climate change.
* Scope of work: to include intake, withdrawal and loss of every drop of surface water, groundwater, aquifer, relative to watershed management including; flood control, tourism, hydropower, fisheries, water quality, navigation, sand and gravel extraction, and riverbank enhancement, erosion, relocation, etc.
* Adequate data collection and information consistent with the scope and modeling requirements.
* Scenario modeling and analysis including climate change, extreme weather, financial and institutional risk.
* Government and public response, input, and real time communication and information.
* Forecast modeling consistent with sustaining food, health, safety, ecosystem, and biomass sustainability.
* Agency accountability that ensures system integrity and optimized investment decisions, allocation of capital resources, time horizons, and project implementation and operations.
* Communication to inform public awareness. disaster readiness, and ensure contingency plans are available for rapid disaster response, food and water security, as well as communicate cost, liability, and inherent risk in real time, consistent with global weather fluctuations of hours, days, and weeks.
* Government and industry funding, staffing, scheduling, and accountability.
His letter calls for a 10,000‑foot, river‑basin‑wide perspective that considers future water supply under climate change, glacier loss, and increasingly extreme and erratic weather, rather than just current allocations. He argues that no one is currently modelling entire basins or systematically integrating rainfall, aquifers, usage, and ecosystem needs across agriculture, urban, recreational, and wildlife uses. The proposed agency’s terms of reference include tracking intake, withdrawal, and loss of every drop of water from mountain precipitation through snow and ice fields to river flows, recognizing that only about 25% of falling moisture becomes usable river water. It would use complex systems modelling and advances in mathematics and AI to run scenario analyses, identify failure points, and guide long‑term, province‑wide planning, funded on a multi‑decade horizon rather than political cycles.
The discussion then broadens into practical implications, governance gaps, and examples of both failure and opportunity. We describe failing and aging infrastructure, such as Calgary’s major water pipe installed 49 years ago and similar vulnerabilities in other systems, noting that promises of “hundred‑year” assets outlast the people responsible and erode accountability. We criticize fragmented watershed councils that can only advise, not veto projects like proposed Bow River dams, and point out that infrastructure‑heavy solutions are being pursued despite scientific skepticism and uncertainty about future water availability. We highlight how development, oil and gas, and gravel extraction are expanding water use in sensitive areas even as shortages loom, and how sampling is mis‑targeted—focused on rivers rather than wells where contamination and drying are actually being observed by landowners. Bruce’s experience with government responses underscores a pattern of political “feel‑good” letters that claim things are under control without engaging the urgency or substance of his proposals, reinforcing the need for public pressure and stakeholder‑driven change.
Finally, we emphasize accountability, equity, and systemic thinking about water, food, and land use. Bruce insists that all humans need water and should be treated equitably, and that agriculture, urban use, and industry must be reconsidered to reduce waste, including shifting to local food systems such as rooftop or vertical farming to cut transport and water use. Alex cites Dutch vertical gardening and local greenhouse operations as proof that low‑water, local production is feasible and could reduce emissions and pesticide use. We argue that small changes—like replacing imported strawberries with local production—can significantly alter complex models because everything is interrelated, and warn that once we alter systems (e.g., dams, clear‑cuts, urban heat islands), there is “no going back,” so interventions must be carefully evaluated for ecosystem impacts on flora, fauna, and even jet streams.
Next Up, I’ll jump ahead reshare Bob Sandford’s outlining of risks of Global Water Bankruptcy. Stay tuned!
Help me get to 500 subscribers on YouTube and 1000 here on Substack! Like and share this video.


Get full access to The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy at www.thegravitywell.net/subscribe