22
JANUARY 10, 2013 | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | THE WESTERN PRODUCER
FARM LIVING
ALBERTA | SEWAGE REGULATIONS
Landowners upset by sewage boundary rules Sewage system standards | Acreage owners raise stink over rules to protect streams and sensitive areas from effluent BY MARY MACARTHUR CAMROSE BUREAU
EDMONTON — Will and Marion Pattison weren’t expecting a $25,000 bill for a high-end septic tank when they sold their home quarter to their daughter and carved off a small acreage nearby. But that’s what the family from Kingman, Alta., paid to comply with Alberta’s rural plumbing code and obtain their acreage permit. “I think it begs the question, why are they insisting on this?” said Will Pattison. “It’s a pretty onerous requirement.” Alberta’s Private Sewage Systems standards require septic pump-outs to be at least 90 metres from a property line. They must also be a certain distance from a water course, a water source or a building. However, it’s the regulations about distance to boundary lines that is causing county residences and councillors the most grief, said Camrose County reeve Don Gregorwich. “It’s really frustrating and we’re having a lot of residents in the county complain to us,” Gregorwich said. The regulations have put county staff in a difficult spot. Acreages must be at least nine acres to fit a pump-out system into the boundary requirements, but the county doesn’t want acreages to be larger than five acres so that it can limit the amount of agricultural land gobbled up by rural development. “For the county and the farmers, that’s a waste of good farmland,” said Gregorwich. “To get around the boundary rules, you have to make the acreages larger. That adds up to quite a chunk of farmland taken out of use because of boundary line requirements.” Pattison said it doesn’t make sense for the long-term preservation of farmland to carve 10 acre parcels of land out of quarter sections just to meet an arbitrary provincial regulation. “If you do that long term, that is a disturbing trend.” Gregorwich introduced a resolu-
Landowners developing a new home quarter must follow Alberta’s Private Sewage System standards. | FILE PHOTO tion at the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties convention in November to ask the province to study the quality of effluent leaving septic tanks of open discharge private sewage systems to see if existing setbacks can be reduced. “We maintain, or believe, the effluent coming from septic systems is not as harmful as is claimed and the issue needs to be reviewed,” he told the convention. The resolution was defeated. Gregorwich said he plans to reword the resolution to ask the province to reduce the distance a pump-out can be from the boundary line and have it discussed at the AAMD&C’s spring convention. “For retiring farmers who want to carve off a section of the home quarter, the new rules mean it can take up to 10 acres,” he said. “Open discharge is not good if it’s in
a subdivision. We’re not arguing with that, but when their closest neighbour is a mile away in any direction, it flies in the face of common sense. When a retired farm couple comes in to ask for subdivision, the first thing that happens is they’re hit with a $40,000 bill to change the system that has probably been operating well for them for a long time.” The alternative is to install septic mounds or septic fields, which can cost $20,000 to $40,000. “The bad thing is fields are not fail proof. They fail fairly often, even after the test holes are dug and the soil is analyzed. It has not proven to be successful,” he said. Gregorwich wondered what is wrong with continuing to use the simple, inexpensive septic pumpout systems that cost $5,000 to $7,000 and have worked across the Prairies for years. “Why trap a person into a system
that doesn’t work?” he said. “There’s been a lot of resistance in Camrose County.” It was a combination of boundary lines and soil conditions that wouldn’t allow Pattison to install a septic field. Instead, he was required to install a more expensive $25,000 “at grade system,” a sophisticated septic system with four holding tanks, an aeration pump and a 150 ft. long pump-out that discharges evenly over the entire discharge pump. “The clarity of the water at pumpout is quite good,” he said. Pattison’s discharge line is tucked among the trees and covered in wood chips to reduce freezing. “I would hate to put it out in the open.” Pattison and Gregorwich agree there must be rules to ensure that the effluent from septic pump-outs doesn’t go directly into streams or environmentally sensitive areas, but
they wish there was more flexibility around the rules. Brent Hoyland, assistant chief administrative officer with Flagstaff County, said his municipality prefers smaller acreages but has recently changed the rules to allow 10-acre acreages to accommodate the tougher septic pump-out rules. Hoyland said he understands why fields and other septic systems are required in multi-lot subdivisions, but doesn’t believe they’re needed in sparsely populated counties such as Flagstaff. As well, he said residents who have installed the pricey fields or mounds have complained they don’t work well. Heather Koszuba, a communications official with Alberta Municipal Affairs, said the regulations are in place to reduce potential risk to public health and safety and the environment. A private sewage task force has been established to look at private sewage systems, and boundary line setbacks are just one of the issues it has discussed. Any changes that are approved wouldn’t take place until next year. Alf Durnie, chief inspector for private sewage systems with the municipal affairs department, said his office could issue variances on the boundary line setback. He estimated it has issued 80 such variances in the past year. Durnie said county officials know about the variance option, but he doesn’t know if they pass on the information to landowners. “They may well have their own reasons why they don’t want to make it a regular occurrence,” he said. Gregorwich said he’s an example of the lack of knowledge about variances. Even though he’s reeve of his county, he only recently learned about the option. “I’m an example of a guy that doesn’t know what’s going on.” Durnie said options such as mounds and holding tanks are available in areas where fields and pumpouts don’t work.
CONSERVATION | EASEMENT
Man. parkland protected through conservation partnership BY BILL STILWELL FREELANCE WRITER
BRANDON — A tract of aspen parkland southwest of Grandview, Man., is now protected with a conservation easement, the first agreement carried out by a partnership that includes the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Intermountain Conservation District. Located in the Pleasant Valley district, this rolling tree-covered property holds special significance for landowner Ivan Leschasin. “If the bush was ever cut down, it would break my heart,” he said. “I was an organic farmer and cropped part of it,” he said, noting that it has been dormant for six years. The bulk of the 159-acre property, consisting of trembling aspen, wetlands and small grassy clearings,
remains in a natural state. Aaron Kulbacki, Intermountain Conservation District manager, said this pocket of aspen and white spruce forest is good wildlife habitat that helps link Duck Mountain and Riding Mountain. “It is a relatively natural area, and while it is just a small parcel, it plays a very important role in helping to connect the habitat found in these two protected areas.” The arrangement between the NCC, IMCD and Leschasin represents the first partnership agreement where these two conservation agencies have worked together. NCC will not disclose the value of this specific transaction but says the values of conservation agreements are based on an appraisal of fair market value. Such agreements in Manitoba have
Ivan Leschasin, left, arranged a conservation easement on his land with Gerald Forsyth of the Nature Conservancy of Canada and the Intermountain Conservation District. | BILL STILWELL PHOTO been receiving $80 to 125 per acre. This new partnership with NCC seemed like the perfect opportunity for a joint project that would protect
a small, but critical piece of habitat, said IMCD chair Syd Puchailo. “It’s a start,” he said. “It’s not very often that you have
individuals who are willing to leave their land in a natural state. It is refreshing to see it kept that way. “We are seeing a lot of critical pieces of marginal land being broken up and cleared,” he said, citing high land prices and input costs as farmers’ challenges in farming profitably. This forest holds many fond memories for Leschasin, who spent many hours enjoying the outdoors, cutting firewood and experiencing nature. Born and raised in the area, he wanted to ensure the land would never be cleared or drained. A conservation easement seemed like his best option. “I heard about the NCC from a local guy who has a caveat on five of his quarter sections,” Leschasin said. “I was interested in the fact that the bush would never be cut down.”