Presentation by Mike Seymour, MSR Solutions to CSRD Board, August 18, - - PDF document

Presentation by Mike Seymour, MSR Solutions to CSRD Board, August 18, 2016 Board Directors, Chair, staff and audience. Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation this morning. As this is a Land Use issue, before I start, I wish to acknowledge the ancestral, traditional and unceded Aboriginal territories of the Secwepemc Peoples, in particular, the Adams Lake (Sexqeltqin), Little Shuswap Lake (Skwlax) and Neskonlith (Sk’emtsin) Indian Bands on whose territory we stand. I am Mike Seymour with MSR Solutions. I was responsible for the design of the wastewater treatment system currently serving Gateway Lakeview Estates with an effluent quality that allows for reclaimed water uses. Currently, Gateway discharges highly treated effluent in to Shuswap Lake, in an environmentally responsible way and wishes to move to on-site disposal. If there are any questions at the end of my presentation, I, or a project member will answer your questions, or provide a follow up response as soon as possible. Odete Pinho – Land Use Planner Phil Cook – Director of Gateway Lakeview Estates Walt Kosteckyj – Counsel, who will add a brief comment after this presentation Gateway Lakeview Estates is an existing shared interest ownership recreational development, with 211 parcels that were created in 2001. The existing 211 parcels represented the first phase of the planned multi-phase development that had preliminary subdivision approval for 400 parcels. Through various changes in governance and regulations over the past 15 years, the development was halted. Gateway shared interest owners’ objective is to secure zoning and future subdivision that will permit becoming a strata, like Cottonwood Cove across the road. We are here today to avoid application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia that would review the impacts of the regulatory changes that stopped development including: the Zoning Bylaw in 2005, Official Community Plan in 2009, Liquid Waste Management Plan in 2009, and Lakes Bylaw in 2012. Both the CSRD and Gateway have made efforts to avoid legal action, and we believe the information we have provided and further clarify today, provides a resolution forward to finding a successful solution that will benefit the CSRD and specifically the community of Lee Creek. Before I speak about the lake outfall, it is important to note the other items under consideration in this

• rezoning. There are a large number of existing private buoys and a 12 slip seasonal day-use dock, which

have approvals from senior levels of government. This rezoning is to recognize what exists, and not to make any increases. A successful rezoning will also result in the creation of additional boat storage facilities on site and the development of a separated multi use pathway along the road for safe pedestrian access to the beach and Roderick Haig Brown Park, which will benefit the community of Lee Creek. Now, on with the most misunderstood issue. As you are aware, CSRD staff is limited in how they may respond to the Board with recommendations. They are restricted to the current policy requirements of the Liquid Waste Management Plan, and are

unable to provide supportive recommendations without direction and requests from the Board on alternative options. Staff are also concerned with potential costs in operating and maintaining a complex treatment and disposal system. Similarly, Gateway is restricted in how it can address treated sewage discharges under the Municipal Wastewater Regulation with the Ministry of Environment, resulting in retaining the existing lake outfall which is not in anyone’s best interests. We also point out, that Gateway is well aware of the costs associated with operating and maintaining the existing water and sewer systems. They have established operating and capital replacement funds, and have retained Corix Utilities as the operators and maintenance providers. Gateway is committed to managing the facilities in a financially and environmentally responsible manner. Delivery costs by the CSRD should not vary much from that provided by Corix. I would like to present an alternative option to the Board to avoid using the outfall. It does not require a leap of faith, only a commitment to support the rezoning, such that Gateway and the CSRD staff have a clear mandate to remove the existing discharge from Shuswap Lake and provide for discharges to land. Currently, the development discharges treated effluent to Shuswap Lake at a maximum rate of 230 m3/day, or 50,600 gpd. Costs to complete an irrigation system and infiltration basins are expected to be approximately $1.5 million, so there is little appetite on the part of the current residents to undertake any works without the ability to complete the development. With rezoning and subdivision, these works would be completed to a municipal standard as requested by Corix, and desired by the CSRD utilities group. Should a Water and Sewer Service Area be considered in the future, the full cost of

• peration and maintenance would be established by determining a Parcel Tax, and a User Fee before

finalizing any Bylaw. This is the user pay basis the Regional District should be operating under to avoid future large increases in the Maximum Allocation Limit, allowed every five years. We have proposed a development total of 288 lots, which if supported by the Board will provide on site discharge to ground by means of a rapid infiltration basin and subsurface drip system, all in accordance with the Municipal Wastewater Regulation. There is also the opportunity to have the works as a foundation for a Lee Creek community system, which could operate on a year round basis. As we outlined in our report to the CSRD dated December 2014, it is feasible to stop the discharge of highly treated effluent to Shuswap Lake, and instead, reuse it for irrigation in the upper development; and during the winter period, discharge to the rapid infiltration basins. We have previously identified there would be no discharge to the outfall, if the works are allowed to be completed through a successful rezoning. However, we are subject to the Municipal Wastewater Regulation, and by using a reclaimed water, we are required to have the outfall as a backup system. The Ministry of Environment has addressed their support for the reclaimed water discharge, and have already authorized a Registration for the rapid infiltration discharge, which will not be used in June or July, when high waters can impact the ground in this area. We also clarify a mistake by your staff in that the rapid infiltration basin will be 90 m from any well in accordance with the Municipal Wastewater Regulation, and not 30 m as presented in the staff report contained in the current Board agenda. We have a full operations and notification procedure, which in the past flooding year of 2012 was well handled by Corix Utilities and eventually resulted in the planned shutdown of the wastewater system.

The Ministry of Environment has suggested there is the opportunity for the CSRD to request that the need for the outfall be rescinded, and that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation and the rapid infiltration basins be the sole need for the site discharge means. We have identified to CSRD staff a proposal to address their concerns. We have committed to a phased approach to ensure we can remove discharges from the Lake as quickly as possible, including an immediate building of the infiltration basins. However, CSRD staff and the Ministry of Environment require support and direction from the Board. We offer you a clear and compelling course of action summarized as follows: With the support of the CSRD to formally request the MoE to support a reclaimed water reuse, and waive the requirement for an alternate method of disposal for reclaimed water under Section 114(2) of the Municipal Wastewater Regulation, the MoE may allow disconnection of the outfall. We do confirm, that with the system proposed, we will not discharge to the outfall, however it is only through the CSRD support that we can be in compliance with both the LWMP, and the Municipal Wastewater Regulation

• n this issue.

 The Gateway system can be owned and operated by the private utility with guarantees to the CSRD not to use the outfall; or  With the CSRD advocating to the MoE to remove this section of the Registration on the backup discharge; allowing the physical disconnection for CSRD assurance; or  Alternatively, having the CSRD take over the system and operate it without the outfall discharge. All options are possible to avoid further discharges to Shuswap Lake. With the CSRD support to the MoE, we can guarantee the outfall is not used. Rapid infiltration basins and drip irrigation systems have been in operation for many years, and are a safe and effective means of discharge. We are willing to work with the CSRD staff to find the best method of discharge and we have the experience working in constrained spaces for effluent disposal to satisfy the utilities group of successful operation and maintenance. We see this as an opportunity to benefit the community of Lee Creek by providing a community water treatment service area. CSRD staff and Gateway require clear support from the Board for removing further discharges to Shuswap Lake. We respectfully request your support, which will provide CSRD staff the direction to solve this current impasse. We ask for your support, and we are here to answer your questions, following a brief comment from Walt. Thank you. Walt Koztekyj additional points - 1) Misinformation has been put forth. There is no raw sewage going into the lake as a consequence of the water treatment system. There is highly treated effluent. There have been various scare tactics used. System in place now was approved by the provincial government (MOE), prior to regional district land use controls. Permits took into account that effluent would be safe to treat for 400 units and the system reflected that discharge was to a sensitive fisheries

• area. The system in place now is safe.

2) Flooding Times with the current system - when the property is flooded, nobody is permitted in the area and there is restricted access to the property. 3) Ultra Vires - CSRD Bylaws opposing system that is already in place and permitted by the Ministry of Environment. There is an opportunity now for Directors to get around this

• impass. Mike has presented a proposal for onsite disposal that is doable and a way to get

around this impasse. This should be well considered by the Board before making a decision. 3) Critics of system must ask themselves 'What systems are being used by them?'. What is currently in place? Way of the future and of regionalizing this treatment facility. Using the treatment facility in this area is a solution that should be well considered.