Decision Date: March 15, 1999

Panel: Don Cummings

Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – Schedule 1, s. 2(b)(c); Schedule 3, s.11; On-Site Sewage Disposal Policy – ch. 3 – s. 3.2; coefficient of permeability; hydraulic conductivity, mounding, breakout, insurance, maintenance, independent review.

Brian Bray and four other local residents appealed the decision of the Environmental Health Officer (“EHO”) to issue a sewage disposal permit authorizing the construction of a package treatment plant system to service five lots located on a large property north of Shuswap Lake, in Anglemont, B.C. The Appellants argued that the estimated daily sewage flows indicated on the permit application were unrealistic and that the water conditions on the site had not been adequately considered. The Appellants also argued that the entire property should have been studied, not just the location of the proposed system, and that the system, as designed, would not adequately protect their properties and their domestic water supply. The Permit Holder argued that the system was sound, the appeals were unnecessary, and it should be awarded costs.

The Panel found that the estimated daily sewage flows were realistic, accurate, and in accordance with the Regulation, and that the EHO was correct in evaluating only the five lots to be serviced, not the entire property. However, the Panel noted that the site was marginal, more testing may be necessary, and the technical report relied upon by the EHO to approve the system should have been evaluated by an engineer with the Ministry. The Panel was particularly concerned about the potential for effluent breakout given the coefficient of permeability used to assess the site and the qualifying statements made by the Permit Holder’s engineer. The Panel gave conditional approval to the permit, subject to a number of conditions being met. The Panel also ordered that a monitoring program be developed to test for effluent breakout and mounding, and that the absorption and reserve fields be better protected from hazards. The appeal was allowed in part. The application for costs was dismissed.