Decision Date: May 29, 2015

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Water Act – s. 87; order; approval; pond; riparian land; mitigation; consent order

Comet Investments Ltd., Inc. No. 69349, and P.G. Realty and Insurance Agency Ltd., Inc. No. 63919 (the “Appellants”) appealed two orders issued in August and September 2011 by the Assistant Regional Water Manager, Northern Region, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. The orders related to alleged unauthorized works in and about a creek and pond on a parcel of riparian land (“Lot A”) owned by the Appellants. The first order required the Appellants to cease any further works on Lot A that may cause or allow erosion, retain a qualified professional, and prepare a plan for remediating the alleged unauthorized works. The second order extended the dates for compliance with the first order.

The Appellants appealed on the basis that the orders were made without jurisdiction because they do not pertain to a “stream”, and that the Assistant Regional Water Manager’s decision-making process was unfair. The Appellants submitted that the creek named in the orders is not a “stream” as defined in the Water Act; rather, it is a man-made ditch that the Appellants constructed several years ago in response to the City of Prince George authorizing developments that diverted storm water run-off to a pond on Lot A. The Appellants submitted that the diverted storm water caused flooding on Lot A.

Before the appeals were heard by the Board, the parties negotiated an agreement to resolve the appeals. The Appellants agreed to implement mitigation works on two parcels of riparian land (other than Lot A) that the Appellants dedicated to the City of Prince George. Specifically, the Appellants agreed to re-plant willows in Spring 2015 within 10-metre wide strips along the pond and creek, and to monitor the areas in Spring 2016 to ensure that at least 65% of the willows survive. The Assistant Regional Water Manager agreed to issue a new approval under the Water Act to the Appellants in relation to Lot A, to replace an approval that was issued in November 1995. The new approval would contain specific requirements for the Appellants to meet regarding the discharge of water from the creek and the pond on Lot A, and the water level to be maintained in the pond.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, by consent.