![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ElkValley-62-scaled.jpg\"\/)
Government scientist Colin Cooke\u2019s research has implications for B.C., where metallurgical coal mining is both big business and the subject of an international inquiry over extensive water pollution flowing through the Elk Valley and downstream into Montana and Idaho. Photo: Callum Gunn<\/p>\n
In a study published in October<\/a>, Cooke and his co-authors found selenium concentrations downstream of three coal mines in the McLeod River watershed exceeded guidelines meant to protect aquatic life. This was after the mines were considered to be partially, and in one case almost entirely, reclaimed. While a small amount of selenium is essential for life, too much can be toxic, leading to deformities in fish and, in a worst-case scenario, reproductive collapse.<\/p>\n The research found reclamation \u2014 the process of restoring land impacted by mining to a state of equivalent capability<\/a> as compared to before the mining \u2014 had so far failed to return selenium concentrations to pre-mining levels in a watershed that\u2019s home to two at-risk fish species. The findings called into question the effectiveness of Alberta\u2019s regulatory and mine restoration policies. It was this study Cooke was prevented from submitting for months after it was complete.<\/p>\n \u201cIt showed very clear impacts \u2014 negative impacts \u2014 on downstream water quality,\u201d Bill Donahue, a co-author on the study and former head of environmental monitoring for the Alberta government, told The Narwhal.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat our paper, I think, makes fairly clear is that there\u2019s pretty much an utter failure of environmental management regulation and enforcement in relation to coal mining,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The Narwhal requested interviews with both Cooke and Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz. Neither was granted.<\/p>\n Instead, in an emailed statement the minister\u2019s press secretary Ryan Fournier said, \u201cWe take this issue seriously. That\u2019s why we conducted this research, published it and even paid extra to make the paper open access and publicly available.\u201d The journal that published Cooke\u2019s McLeod River study, Environmental Pollution, allows authors or their institutions to make the study freely available without a subscription for a fee<\/a>. \u201cWe\u2019re conducting more research into coal remediation, and being more transparent, than any other government in Alberta\u2019s history,\u201d\u00a0Fournier said.<\/p>\n For Donahue, interference in the release and public communication of science is a major concern. \u201cIt\u2019s really erosive to accountable and responsible government,\u201d he said. And, he added, it raises serious questions like, \u201cWhat else is not being published or released or communicated?\u201d<\/p>\n Scientist repeatedly told to hold off submitting study to journal: internal emails<\/p>\n Cooke approached his superiors at Alberta Environment and Protected Areas in December 2023 to arrange briefings for senior officials about the McLeod River research, emails show. He noted the study, while not yet complete, could have \u201csignificant implications\u201d for both Alberta Environment and the Alberta Energy Regulator.<\/p>\n Multiple pages in the records The Narwhal obtained were redacted, but they show the director of watershed sciences emailed Cooke months later, in mid-June 2024, to \u201creiterate the request to hold off on submitting the McLeod manuscript to a journal\u201d until the Alberta Energy Regulator had been briefed.<\/p>\n That message, to hold off submitting the paper until leadership briefings were done, was repeated again by the executive director of the airshed and watershed stewardship branch in early July. \u201cThat message and direction is not unique to this manuscript, this topic area, or even our branch,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Later that month Cooke emailed the executive director and assistant deputy minister with the final manuscript. \u201cNow that we have briefed the [Alberta Energy Regulator] on the paper are we ok to submit the manuscript? I was hoping to submit it next Friday (August 2),\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n That date came and went. In September, a briefing note about the new study was prepared for the minister. It noted the government had previously faced criticism for not analyzing environmental monitoring data sets or releasing draft reports based on environmental data. \u201cThis current report is now ready to be shared with other departments and submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n At the end of September, Cooke again emailed his superiors to ask if he was allowed to submit the study to the journal and was again told to wait.<\/p>\n The scientist followed up again in mid-October and early November.<\/p>\n In a statement, Fournier said, \u201cThis study took about two years to complete. Internal reviews are standard practice and necessary. This review period generated additional feedback on the paper \u2014 including as late as November 2024 \u2014 and helped assess if additional monitoring or other changes were needed.\u201d<\/p>\n Concerns raised that Alberta has \u2018returned to muzzling our scientists\u2019<\/p>\n In mid-November 2024, Donahue, who left the government in 2019, expressed frustration about the delays in an email to Cooke. He said he would submit it himself if Cooke wasn\u2019t allowed to.<\/p>\n \u201cI suggest you inform the [assistant deputy minister] and chief scientist that I simply don\u2019t accept that they are refusing to permit the publication of our manuscript, and that they should remind themselves of their legal duties, as stipulated by the Alberta\u2019s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act,\u201d Donahue wrote in the email, which he shared with The Narwhal.<\/p>\n He said senior officials should be asking themselves, \u201cWhat is worse, the public learning how badly coal mining in Alberta has been harming downstream water quality and aquatic ecosystems, or the public learning how badly coal mining in Alberta has been harming downstream water quality and aquatic ecosystems and that we\u2019ve returned to muzzling our scientists in an attempt to cover it up while the government tries to convince Albertans that coal mining is environmentally benign?\u201d<\/p>\n Six days later, Cooke, who had just returned from vacation, forwarded the email to his director. A week after that, he was allowed to submit the paper.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m quite confident that my letter shook some trees,\u201d Donahue said.<\/p>\n From his perspective there was no reasonable justification for the government to delay the study\u2019s submission to a journal. He said there had been ample opportunity for briefings and noted it can take several months to go through the peer-review process after a study is submitted to a journal before it\u2019s published.<\/p>\n By this point, Alberta had been embroiled, for years, in a fierce debate over the prospect of a renewed metallurgical coal mining industry in the eastern slopes of the Rockies (metallurgical coal is used in steel-making, as opposed to electricity generation). In January, not long after Cooke got the green-light to submit his study, the Alberta government rescinded the moratorium on coal mining in the eastern slopes<\/a> it put in place in 2021 and 2022. The moratorium had come in response to public backlash to a government decision in 2020 to cancel the province\u2019s previous long-standing coal policy from 1976.<\/p>\n Last December, Energy Minister Brian Jean said the province would return to the 1976 policy as it developed a new coal policy. He said the new policy, yet to be released, would require new mines to be underground or to use technologies to prevent selenium<\/a> from entering waterways. But these measures would not apply to projects considered to be \u201cadvanced,\u201d including the controversial proposal for the Grassy Mountain mine in the Crowsnest Pass.<\/p>\n Cooke\u2019s paper, which was eventually published in October 2025, summarized decades of government and industry water quality monitoring at three Rocky Mountain coal mines in Alberta. Donahue noted the early years of data, now a couple decades old, revealed concerning selenium concentrations downstream of the mines. But little was done to address it, he said, suggesting the province has largely viewed monitoring as \u201ca box-checking exercise.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAlberta Environment and the Alberta Energy Regulator have been asleep at the switch for 20 plus years when it comes to responding to clear evidence of very harmful downstream effects from coal mining,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Katie Morrison, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society\u2019s southern Alberta chapter, said it\u2019s \u201creally frustrating to see the government trying to keep information from the public, but especially on something as important as water quality.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAlbertans are really aware of and really concerned about the quality of our water in general, but particularly in this context of coal mining,\u201d she said. \u201cResearch like this that shows these risks is so important to have in those conversations, so that we can hold the government accountable.\u201d<\/p>\n Scientist prevented from accepting media request, community speaking invitation, emails suggest<\/p>\n As senior officials delayed the submission of the McLeod River study, Cooke was also seemingly being prevented from speaking to the media and community groups about previous research into coal mine pollution, emails included in the document release suggest.<\/p>\n In January 2024, a reporter for The Canadian Press requested an interview with either Cooke or co-author Craig Emmerton, another government scientist, about their recently published study<\/a> describing lasting water quality impacts from more than a century of coal mining in Crowsnest Pass, the released emails show.<\/p>\n The executive director of airshed and watershed stewardship indicated in an email to Cooke that she was supportive of an interview, as was the director of communications and the assistant deputy minister. Days later, word came down from the assistant deputy minister that the minister\u2019s office had taken the lead on the request.<\/p>\n![\"a](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/20251212-_DSC8274-scaled-e1765659565824.jpg\"\/)
Bill Donahue, a scientist and former head of environmental monitoring for the Alberta government, raised concerns about the muzzling of government scientist when submission of the paper he co-authored with Colin Cooke was delayed by senior officials. Photo: Shane Gross \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n![\"John](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/20200922AlbertaRanchers20-scaled.jpg\"\/)
The Alberta government has faced a backlash from ranchers and others opposed to the prospect of a renewed coal mining industry in the eastern slopes of the Rockies, in part, over the threat of water contamination. Photo: Leah Hennel \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Katie-Morrison-scaled.jpg\"\/)
Katie Morrison, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society\u2019s southern Alberta chapter, said it\u2019s important to have research on the impacts of coal mining on water quality available as part of the public discourse. Photo: Supplied by Katie Morrison<\/p>\n
![\"two](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/20200922AlbertaRanchers6-scaled.jpg\"\/)
Open-pit coal mining can increase levels of selenium in rivers, which can be toxic to fish populations and contaminate drinking water. Photo: Leah Hennel \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n