Alberta’s Environmental Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 changes how provincial law defines minerals and pit operations, then removes silica sand from two Public Lands Act provisions. The changes affect which materials fall within the statutory framework for pits, and how officials can seize materials or cancel certain public-land leases.
The bill is narrow but operationally important. It separates silica sand from the materials expressly listed in the Public Lands Act’s seizure and lease-cancellation provisions, while expanding the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act’s definition of a pit to cover surface operations that remove, expose or prove sand, gravel, clay or marl.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the definition of “minerals” in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and rewrites the definition of “pit.” It also removes “silica sand” from the Public Lands Act provisions governing seizure of unlawfully removed materials and cancellation or withdrawal of certain leases.
Who It Affects
Operators extracting sand, gravel, clay, marl or silica sand, as well as owners and lessees of affected land, face the most direct consequences. Alberta environmental regulators, public-land officers and administrators of public-land leases must apply the revised definitions and enforcement authorities.
Why It Matters
The bill changes the boundary between pit regulation and other mineral activity, while narrowing two specific public-land powers as they relate to silica sand. Its practical effect depends heavily on how the amended definitions interact with approvals, land ownership and other provincial regulatory regimes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes two targeted changes to the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. First, it updates the definition of “minerals” to list additional materials, including sand, gravel, clay and marl, while expressly excluding sand and gravel belonging to the surface owner under section 58 of the Law of Property Act and clay and marl belonging to the surface owner under section 57.
The exclusion ties the definition to statutory ownership rules rather than treating every occurrence of those materials as a mineral for this Act.
Second, the bill replaces the definition of “pit.” A pit is no longer described primarily as an opening, excavation or working of the surface or subsurface. The revised definition focuses on an operation on, or excavation from, the land surface, including stripping off overburden, when undertaken to remove, open up or prove sand, gravel, clay or marl.
Associated infrastructure remains included, while mines and quarries remain outside the definition.The bill separately amends the Public Lands Act by deleting “silica sand” from the materials listed in section 52(1). That provision allows an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that listed material was unlawfully removed from public land to seize the material, along with vehicles, tools or equipment used to remove or transport it.
The amendment means silica sand is no longer named in that particular seizure authority.The same term is also removed from section 82(1)(a), which concerns cancellation of a lease or withdrawal of part of leased land after written notice when the land contains listed materials in commercial quantities. The bill therefore removes silica sand from that specific list without changing the treatment of sand, gravel, clay, marl, topsoil or peat in the quoted provision.
The text does not itself establish a replacement silica-sand regime or set out new transition rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The amended “minerals” definition expressly excludes sand and gravel owned by the surface owner under section 58 of the Law of Property Act, and clay and marl owned by the surface owner under section 57.
The new “pit” definition covers surface operations and excavations, including stripping overburden, undertaken to remove, open up or prove sand, gravel, clay or marl.
The pit definition continues to include associated infrastructure and continues to exclude mines and quarries.
Section 52(1) of the Public Lands Act no longer lists silica sand among materials that an officer may seize when unlawfully removed from public land.
Section 82(1)(a) of the Public Lands Act no longer lists silica sand among materials relevant to cancelling a lease or withdrawing leased land because of commercially valuable deposits.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Revised definition of minerals
The bill replaces the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act’s definition of “minerals.” The revised list expressly includes sand, gravel, clay and marl, but carves out those materials that belong to the surface owner under specified provisions of the Law of Property Act.
That ownership carve-out matters because the definition does not operate solely by material type. It also turns on who owns the material under Alberta’s property law, potentially distinguishing privately owned surface materials from minerals otherwise captured by the environmental statute.
Expanded definition of pit operations
The bill reframes a pit as an operation on, or excavation from, the land surface for removing, opening up or proving sand, gravel, clay or marl. It specifically captures stripping off overburden, which makes clear that preparatory surface work can fall within the definition rather than only the final extraction cavity.
Associated infrastructure remains part of the definition, while mines and quarries remain excluded. Operators and regulators must therefore distinguish between a covered pit operation and an activity regulated under the separate legal treatment of a mine or quarry.
Silica sand removed from seizure authority
The amendment to section 52(1) of the Public Lands Act deletes “silica sand” from the list of materials covered by the provision. The provision otherwise allows an officer with reasonable grounds to believe that listed material was unlawfully removed from public land to seize the material and the vehicles, tools or equipment used in its removal or transportation.
The change is specific to this statutory list. It does not, on its face, repeal every possible enforcement power relating to silica sand or establish whether another statute or legal authority may apply.
Silica sand removed from lease cancellation provision
The amendment to section 82(1)(a) removes “silica sand” from the materials relevant to a director’s decision to cancel a lease or withdraw part of leased land when the land contains listed materials in commercial quantities. The existing notice structure in the provision is not otherwise changed by this section.
As a result, silica sand is treated differently from the other listed materials for this particular lease-administration mechanism. The bill does not specify a substitute process for dealing with silica-sand deposits in leased public land.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Surface owners whose sand, gravel, clay or marl falls within the specified Law of Property Act ownership provisions, because the revised minerals definition expressly excludes those materials from its scope.
- Silica-sand operators and public-land lessees, because silica sand is removed from the two identified Public Lands Act mechanisms for seizure and lease cancellation or withdrawal.
- Regulated pit operators and environmental consultants who gain a more explicit statutory description of surface operations, overburden stripping and related infrastructure covered by the term “pit.”
Who Bears the Cost
- Operators extracting sand, gravel, clay or marl, because the revised pit definition expressly reaches operations that open up or prove deposits and can capture overburden-stripping activity.
- Alberta environmental regulators, who must apply the new ownership exclusions and distinguish covered pit operations from mines and quarries when administering the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
- Public-land officers and lease administrators, who lose the express ability under sections 52(1) and 82(1)(a) to rely on silica sand being listed in those specific statutory provisions.
- Businesses and landowners with mixed or overlapping extraction activities, because determining whether material is surface-owner property, a defined mineral, or part of a pit operation may require closer coordination between property and environmental rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to clarify when surface extraction falls within environmental regulation and to recognize ownership distinctions, while narrowing two public-land powers for silica sand. That approach may reduce overreach against surface owners and silica-sand interests, but it can also leave regulators with less direct leverage and place more weight on classification, overlapping statutes and case-specific interpretation.
The bill’s central practical uncertainty is not what it changes, but what it leaves untouched. Removing silica sand from two Public Lands Act provisions narrows those particular powers, yet the text does not create a parallel enforcement or lease-management framework.
Operators and administrators may therefore need to look to other provisions, regulations, approvals or common-law remedies to determine what remains available.
The revised definitions also introduce boundary questions. The minerals definition depends partly on statutory ownership, while the pit definition depends on the nature and purpose of surface activity.
An operation may involve materials with different ownership statuses, infrastructure shared across activities, or work that resembles a pit but is connected to a mine or quarry. The bill supplies sharper wording, but not a complete decision rule for every mixed operation.
Finally, the amendment can produce different treatment for similar extraction activity depending on the material involved and the land’s ownership structure. That may improve alignment with property rights in some cases, but it also increases the importance of classification at the permitting and enforcement stage.
The text contains no express transition provision addressing existing operations, leases or enforcement actions.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.