The Gravity Well with Jenny Yeremiy

The water cycle is broken. The sustainable development narrative has failed and Water Bankruptcy is on the Horizon but the solutions and expertise needed are here and clear. In this episode of The Gravity Well Podcast with Jenny Yeremiy, co‑hosted by Bob Morrison, I speak with Dr. Tricia Stadnyk—a Canada Research Chair in hydrologic modelling and environmental engineer at the University of Calgary—about water modelling and water security in southern Alberta and beyond. Tricia explains that her work spans global to local scales, using models to understand how climate change affects continental water supply and then zooming down to impacts on communities, ecosystems, farms, Indigenous communities, and urban areas.
Tricia outlines a “modelling chain” of distinct but linked tools: climate models provide temperature and precipitation inputs, which feed land‑surface or hydrology models that estimate bulk water supply from rain and snow before human use. Groundwater and groundwater–surface water interactions are often modelled separately because of their complexity and long timescales, while hydraulic models simulate how water moves through rivers, enabling flood forecasting and floodplain mapping that influence insurance rates. At the end of the chain, water resource management models (“worms”) incorporate human interventions such as licences, irrigation withdrawals, reservoirs, and releases to estimate post‑use water supply. These models are usually run sequentially rather than fully coupled, with each step increasing in resolution to translate global climate signals into local hydrologic and hydraulic predictions.
The discussion then turns to specific processes and uncertainties, including glaciers, groundwater, and land‑use change. Tricia notes that the contribution of glacier melt to systems like the Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers is complex and only recently being studied in detail, with earlier climate models underestimating glacier loss because they missed feedbacks such as wildfire ash darkening ice and accelerating melt. She explains that glaciers are crucial for headwater supply and that their melt feeds both rivers and groundwater, affecting late‑summer baseflows and water temperature, which are vital for aquatic ecosystems. Land‑use changes such as logging are incorporated by dynamically updating land‑cover data from satellite imagery so hydrology models can adjust runoff responses, while other cumulative effects (like fish health) are handled by separate ecological models that use hydrologic outputs such as flow and temperature. Throughout, Tricia stresses that model choice and complexity must be “fit for purpose,” balancing computational limits and the need for timely decisions, especially for operational tasks like flood forecasting.
A major theme is the shift from traditional “standards‑based” engineering (e.g., designing for a single “1‑in‑100‑year” event) toward adaptive, risk‑based management that embraces uncertainty envelopes and integrates environmental, economic, social, and cultural risk. Tricia argues that decision‑makers must choose where within a range of possible flows to design, based on their tolerance for being wrong and the consequences for communities and infrastructure, and that this inherently political and social process cannot be automated away by AI. She calls for a federal water policy framework that centers water in governance and economic planning, asking what the “resiliency threshold” of Canada’s water supply is rather than aiming merely for “sustainability,” given that basins like the South Saskatchewan are already oversubscribed and in deficit. This includes scrutinizing new industrial developments (from oil and gas to data centres) through a water‑availability lens and recognizing water as the limiting factor in many sectors.
The conversation also highlights serious data and governance gaps. Tricia explains that many social and local water uses are poorly captured: licences are modelled at their full legal volume because actual consumptive use is not monitored, return flows from irrigation are often unmeasured, and tributary and small‑stream uses can be invisible to models.
If your body were as sliced and diced as our water system is—how do you think you would fare?
Now consider, you are ~60% water.


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

The Federal and Provincial Governments are selling more fossil fuel development (pipelines, production, and gas-powered power plants for AI data centres) without environmental impact assessments and without accounting for past investment failures. For example, our $35 billion Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline investment will never be paid back as users are lobbying for toll reductions.
Seems timely to revisit Bob Morrison and I’s interview from last September with Dr. Brad Stelfox (who also appeared in The Harms of Coal Mining), a zoologist and land-use scientist who has spent over 35 years developing cumulative effects models that integrate overlapping land uses—such as roads, agriculture, oil and gas, and forestry—to show how they reshape landscapes in Alberta and beyond. His work focuses on linking social, economic, and environmental dimensions, quantifying benefits like jobs and royalties alongside impacts on natural capital, including biodiversity, soil carbon, and water quality and quantity. Stelfox argues that most models used by industry and government chase “win‑win‑win” scenarios and fail to honestly represent trade‑offs, leading to a narrative that Alberta can expand all land uses without compromising water or biodiversity—something he says has never been achieved anywhere. He points to evidence of profound losses in natural capital since Alberta became a province, with rapid ongoing degradation of water, biodiversity, and soil carbon.
In other words, Alberta and Canada need to adopt a “Less i$ more” economic model: where more land (water, air, and biodiversity) is restored rather than developed.
Brad, Bob, and I discuss how Alberta’s growing population and sharply increased per‑capita resource use have driven extensive externalization of natural capital, meaning environmental costs are left out of economic and political decision‑making.He explains that humans and land use inevitably consume water, carbon, and biodiversity, and that Alberta is no longer just drawing on “interest” from these systems but is cutting deeply into the ecological “capital.” Using native mammals as an example, he estimates that pre‑European times they made up about 99.2% of biomass, whereas today Alberta has perhaps only 4% of its pre‑European native mammal biodiversity, with most biomass now in humans, livestock, and pets. Water quality and quantity have also deteriorated, with many prairie creeks ploughed over or converted to irrigation canals and parents reluctant to let children play in creeks due to health risks, especially in southern Alberta. He characterizes Alberta’s prevailing mindset as “me here now,” focused on short‑term economic growth and local interests rather than long‑term landscape health or the well‑being of future generations.
The discussion then zooms in on southern Alberta’s landscapes and water. Stelfox describes a west‑to‑east gradient where eastern lowlands have already lost most of their biodiversity and water quality, leaving little remaining natural capital to lose, while foothills and mountains—especially the eastern slopes—are now at greatest risk. These high‑elevation areas function as “water towers,” accumulating snow and releasing critical spring flows that support fish, wildlife, and all downstream land uses, including logging, agriculture, mining, oil and gas, transportation, and residential development. He estimates that Alberta receives roughly 700–800 billion cubic meters of precipitation annually, with about three‑quarters evaporating and 130–150 billion cubic meters flowing through rivers and aquifers, forming the basis of all land uses. Yet these headwaters are being incrementally eroded by expanding acreages, roads, recreation, cattle, and especially intensive logging, which alters hydrology, increases sediment, reduces soil organics, and undermines aquifer recharge. He argues that current forestry practices diverge from best management practices on paper and are not adequately enforced, and he questions why mining, off‑highway vehicles, and riparian residential development are allowed in such critical headwater zones.
Finally, the conversation turns to policy, economics, and the difficulty of change. Stelfox notes that the Alberta Land Stewardship Act was intended to sit above other legislation and force explicit trade‑off discussions about limits on water withdrawals, timber harvests, fossil fuel extraction, livestock numbers, and even population growth, but these ideas became politically unpalatable once industry and government realized they implied constraints on economic expansion. He observes that all major land‑use sectors—forestry, energy, agriculture, transportation, residential, recreation—have experienced exponential growth yet still see their current scale as “unacceptably too small,” planning for further expansion under a growth‑driven economic model that systematically depletes natural capital. I connect biodiversity loss to Indigenous community impacts and Species At Risk (such as caribou and trout), arguing that these are indicators of ecological and ultimately human risk, and I highlight how extensive piped‑water systems around Lethbridge and Edmonton show that society is already overdrawing its “water bank account.”
A Less i$ more economy is needed, where industrial sites and access ways no longer serving us are re-naturalized for ecosystem function at scale across so-called Alberta and Canada.
You need to help Brad, Bob, and me create the political will for the polluter to finally pay.


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

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