Keywords:Water Act – ss. 1 definition of “stream”, 2(1), 5(a), 12(1); notice; priority of licences
The Appellant company appealed the Assistant Regional Water Manager’s decision to issue a Conditional Water Licence to the Third Party. The Appellant claimed that the Third Party’s water licence allowed for the diversion of water from the same source that the Appellant had a licence to divert water from. The Appellant claimed that it was not given notice of the Third Party’s application, and that its licence had priority over the Third Party’s licence.
At the appeal hearing, the Assistant Regional Water Manager provided evidence showing that notice of the application had been given to the Appellant. The Appellant agreed to have the appeal dismissed if the Assistant Regional Water Manager confirmed in a letter that the two water licences were on the same “stream,” for the purposes of the Water Act, and that the Appellant’s water licence had priority over the Third Party’s.
The Assistant Regional Water Manager subsequently wrote the requested letter, and the Panel found that it complied with the agreement reached by the parties.