Does the EHO have the discretionary power to relax the 30 metre (100 foot) setback requirement?
The Appellant submits that the EHO did not correctly apply section 18 of Schedule 2 of the Regulation because he did not take into consideration the flow of ground water between the proposed disposal field and Naramata Creek. The essence of his argument is that the hydrogeology of the site is such that the effluent from the disposal field will not reach the Creek within 30 metres so a permit should be issued. The Appellant maintains that there is no evidence of a direct connection of flow between the ground water at or near the proposed disposal field and the high water mark of Naramata Creek. He maintains that monitoring of the test hole on the proposed site indicates that the flow path is actually greater than the required 30 metres. The Appellant bases his argument on the fact that over a 3 month period, during spring runoff, no water was observed in the test hole which was 1.3 metres below the creek level as of July 31, 1996. The Appellant submits that this indicates that there is
