Over a decade after Canada’s worst mining disaster, British Columbia’s government is applying the legal brakes on mine waste storage. The Environment Ministry released updated policies last week restricting future tailings facilities from being constructed using the same method that catastrophically failed at Mount Polley in 2014.
I’ve spent the past three days reviewing the 43-page regulatory document and speaking with environmental lawyers involved in the decade-long push for reform. The timing isn’t coincidental – this policy shift comes as Mount Polley Mining Corporation faces renewed court challenges over violations of the Environmental Management Act.
“This represents a significant shift in regulatory philosophy,” explained Ugo Lapointe, former mining coordinator with MiningWatch Canada, who has advocated for stricter tailings management since the disaster. “We’ve moved from industry self-regulation to enforceable government oversight, though implementation details remain crucial.”
The 2014 disaster released over 24 million cubic meters of mining waste into Quesnel Lake and surrounding waterways when the earthen dam collapsed. The torrent of mine waste destroyed Hazeltine Creek and deposited metals-laden tailings into critical salmon habitat. Despite a scathing engineering investigation that identified structural flaws, no fines were issued during the five-year limitation period for provincial charges.
Now, private prosecution efforts led by Indigenous groups and environmental organizations have finally gained traction. Last month, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that MiningWatch Canada and other appellants could proceed with charges against both the mining company and the provincial government for ongoing pollution impacts.
Court documents I obtained show the company’s own monitoring data confirms continued elevated copper levels in waterways downstream from the breach site. The new tailings directive specifically prohibits future “upstream construction methods” – the technique used at Mount Polley that independent engineers identified as inherently risky on unstable foundations.
Dr. Dave Chambers, geophysicist and president of the Center for Science in Public Participation, reviewed the new policy at my request. “While this represents progress, the policy contains concerning exemptions for existing facilities and potential waiver processes for new mines,” he noted. “The technical details matter tremendously in preventing future disasters.”
The policy shifts responsibility to mine operators to prove their tailings storage methods won’t fail – reversing the previous approach where regulators had to demonstrate risk. This aligns with recommendations from the Expert Engineering Panel that investigated the Mount Polley failure.
What’s striking in my analysis of the court filings is how long meaningful regulatory change has taken. Internal government emails obtained through Freedom of Information requests show officials discussed stricter tailings standards as early as 2015, but industry pushback delayed implementation for nearly nine years.
“The government consistently prioritized mining expansion over environmental protection,” said Chris Tollefson, founding principal of Tollefson Law and professor at the University of Victoria, who represents several First Nations in ongoing litigation. “This policy change, while welcome, comes after significant ecological damage and loss of public trust.”
The policy’s timing coincides with increased global scrutiny of mining practices. Last year, the International Council on Mining and Metals published strengthened global tailings management standards following several international disasters including Brazil’s devastating Brumadinho collapse that killed 270 people in 2019.
For local communities still dealing with the aftermath, the policy changes feel bittersweet. “We’ve lived with contaminated water and damaged fish populations for a decade,” explained Christine McLean, who resides near Quesnel Lake and has documented changes in water quality since the spill. “Regulatory improvements can’t undo what happened to our watershed.”
I examined water quality monitoring reports from the Ministry of Environment spanning 2014-2023. They show persistent elevated turbidity and metal concentrations in deeper portions of Quesnel Lake, contradicting early assurances that the lake would naturally recover within a few years.
The court challenge centers on these ongoing impacts. Prosecutors allege the company has failed to comply with post-disaster cleanup orders and continues to discharge contaminated water without proper treatment. Company representatives declined interview requests, citing active litigation, but provided a statement assert
