• George Gotzen; D.J. Parshyn and J. Bruneau; Mary-Lou Molsberry v. Deputy Comptroller of Water Rights

    Decision Date:


    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Frederick and Anita Slootweg; Ronald Sawatzky; William and Lilyan Upton; Christian Sartori; Roy Huband; Robert and Margaret Hansen; Teresa Callon, Third Parties


    Decision Date: February 13, 1997

    Panel: David Perry, Gary Robinson, Jack Lapin

    Keywords: Water Act

    Three different appellants are appealing a decision of Mr. Farrell, the Deputy Comptroller of Water Rights. Mr. Farrell issued a licence to Mr. Parshyn and Ms. Bruneau for 500 gallons a day from Adams Spring between December 1 and June 30 of each year. Mr. Parshyn and Ms. Bruneau are appealing because they applied for an order for joint works on the local water system, and in the alternative, they want year round use of Adams Spring. The other appellants are appealing Mr. FarrellÂ’s decision because they oppose the issuance of any further licenses on Adams Spring that may affect their informal agreements. The community has a local water system that is a combination of water from two streams and a well. Mr. Farrell refused to order joint works at this time because such orders require a high level of supervision and he would prefer the parties attempt to come to an agreement first.

    The Board agreed with Mr. Farrell that joint works should not be ordered before there have been sufficient attempts by the community water users to come to an agreement. Failure to reach an agreement may result in an order for joint works. The Board found that Mr. Parshyn does not have priority over other users, so he does not get more use of the flow than the other appellants. Regarding the sufficiency of the flow, water flow records from the Water Management Division show that there is a sufficient water flow to accommodate Mr. ParshynÂ’s licence which is valid during the winter months. The Board found that the licence was properly issued and that informal agreements that may be affected by the Parshyn licence are not protected under the Water Act. The Board held that neither the Board, nor the Comptroller can direct an applicant for a water licence to search for other sources of water, regardless of whether it would be cheaper. The appeal was dismissed.