A roundtable with a focus on “future-proofing water management policies for mine closure” was hosted at the Water in Mining Global Summit in Vancouver during April 2026.
This was organised in recognition of the increasing scrutiny on mining companies. Governments, regulators, industry associations, and companies themselves are strengthening frameworks to enhance planning and water management from the outset and through/beyond the entire mining lifecycle. Integrated closure planning is now a prerequisite for securing permits for existing operations, expansions, and new projects.
This shift has transformed mine closure, and water management sits at the heart of this change, demanding innovative strategies that balance compliance, resilience, and long-term sustainability. Water is vital and a precious shared resource with high social, cultural, environmental, and economic value. Access to water is also integral to wellbeing, and water stewardship is how we use and manage water in ways that are socially equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically beneficial.
Some of the important themes emerging from an active discussion through the diverse representation are summarised as follows.
Do people risks pose the biggest challenge for water management at mine closure?
Disconnections between operations and closure teams, loss of institutional knowledge, and lack of ownership become key issues during closure say industry practitioners
During the roundtable, key leaders from mining companies around the world identified people as a critical factor in successful mine closure planning and delivery.
Here today gone tomorrow
A strong theme that emerged during the session, which was delivered and facilitated in association with GHD, was the challenge that arises when most, if not all, of the operational workforce moves on from a site as operations transition into closure. “I’ve seen the closure of two operating sites, and that operations team transitions to a completely different team,” one participant shared.
With them, they take valuable site-specific knowledge built up over the years of operation, which often results in a loss of continuity, institutional knowledge gaps, and delays to the closure process. Sites can also become overly reliant on a small number of knowledge keepers.
A related issue can often tie in with a lack of accountability among operations teams if they know they’re going to “hand the keys to the projects team” at closure. “If you know
you’re not going to be there at closure, why would you worry about it?”, one participant asked.
To address this problem, the participants discussed a project where the same team executed the whole way through, before being gradually ramped down and supplemented by contractors when specific support was required. This model is expected to be adopted more widely by the company in question going forward.
More integrated operating structures at asset and broader organisational levels are also helping to address such issues.
The silver tsunami
In addition to losing knowledge across the life of a project, another issue that was raised was the loss to retirement of workers with an interest and expertise in water management – the so-called “silver tsunami”.
“The people who do care want to retire,” one participant explained, adding that it’s not that the new talent coming in doesn’t care, it’s just that they lack the exposure, meaningful development pathways and experience to make decisions.
Sharing ownership
In response to these challenges, the question becomes: how does the industry shift behaviours and long-established practices around closure? How do we achieve lasting positive legacies?
There was strong agreement that responsibility for closure should be shared across the different functions of the organisation, despite the challenge of competing priorities, metrics, and matrix. Shared ownership improves accountability and encourages better decision-making throughout the life of the mine for a shared objective.
Similarly, establishing clear, aligned goals (and site performance objectives) early helps to combat the variance people can bring to a role. One senior leader explained how sites can vary at the point of closure depending on how much the project manager and operational leads prioritised water in the long term at the point of construction. They added that other factors include how much a site general manager cares about the site beyond maximising production and minimising cost, and how much influence and ownership an environmental superintendent has to invest up-front.
The appropriate role of consultants was also discussed, with one participant arguing that consultants and staff have highly variable understandings of how water should be considered. In relation to the issue of ownership, another participant shared the case of a site where an over-reliance on consultants, without proper ownership from the
environmental superintendent, proved to be detrimental for water management at closure.
Legacy sites
The extensive footprint of historic mining-related legacy sites has been an issue for the industry in terms of reputational impacts and ongoing site management requirements, for both private sector companies and governments.
This was recognised in framing the session as a challenge, as well as an opportunity, in how we address priority legacy sites and avoid such future occurrences, which led to an active discussion given the associated complexities.
From a people-perspective, related challenges do place additional pressure on key leaders with primary responsibilities and already-constrained teams. This reinforces the importance of robust planning, knowledge (continuity and transfer), and long-term accountability.
Other important considerations discussed included inherited design/solution limitations (long-term water management, passive treatment, climate resilience), site contamination, deferral of liabilities (accumulated environmental and water management related), integration constraints (with modern integrated closure standards), and regulatory uplifts (previous regime “approvals” compared to more stringent current requirements).
No easy feat
The session reinforced the point that shifting behaviour and securing buy-in from people who may not be directly affected at the point of closure is not easy. The industry continues to face a set of complex challenges, varying from evolving regulatory expectations to technical constraints such as the transition from active to passive water treatment in closure.
A key takeaway, nonetheless, was that if the industry can shift behaviours and embed a mindset that considers how today’s decisions shape closure outcomes, then there is an opportunity to unlock meaningful efficiencies and better results. However, this requires genuine care for minimising long-term harm.
