• Walter Klenner and Sharon Cadieux v. Assistant Regional Water Manager

    Decision Date:


    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Louise Karen Eccles; HDRL Holdings Ltd., Third Parties


    Decision Date: May 30, 2012

    Panel: Alan Andison

    Keywords: Water Act – s. 92; licence amendment; diversion point; consent order

    Louise Karen Eccles held a conditional water licence on Peavine Creek, near Cache Creek, BC. The licence authorized the diversion of 500 gallons per day water throughout the year for domestic purpose, and 12.83 acre-feet of water per year from April 1 to September 30 for irrigation purpose. Ms. Eccles applied for an amendment to the licence, so she could move the point of diversion upstream from the original point of diversion authorized in her licence, as she was receiving insufficient water during the summer months.

    On July 7, 2011, the Assistant Regional Water Manager (the “Regional Manager”), Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, amended Ms. Eccles’ licence by authorizing a point of diversion further upstream on Peavine Creek. The new point of diversion is on land owned by Walter Klenner and Sharon Cadieux (the “Appellants”).

    On December 12, 2012, the Board received the Appellants’ Notice of Appeal against the Regional Manager’s decision. The Board accepted the appeal because the Appellants established that they did not receive actual notice of the Regional Manager’s decision until November 15, 2011.

    On April 30, 2012, HDRL Holdings Ltd. purchased Ms. Eccles’ property and acquired her licence on Peavine Creek. However, Ms. Eccles remained a party to the appeal, because she would continue to reside on the property for two years.

    Before the appeal was heard by the Board, the parties negotiated an agreement to settle the appeal. By consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the amended licence was varied, including adding requiring the installation of a gauging weir and volumetric flow meter on the irrigation works, and restricting the irrigation flow to 1.7 litres per second.

    Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, in part.