A tidal wave of protest has risen over the province’s plans to remove illegal docks from Shuswap Lake.
Some 300 residents from around the lake met at Quaaout Lodge Monday night to discuss options.
Representing the North Shuswap Chamber of Commerce, Dave Cunliffe says semi-waterfront and waterfront owners from all areas of the lake attended.
“This was an initial meeting to see if there’s an interest to work collectively to effect some changes,” he said, noting his focus is on the right of semi-waterfront owners to have docks and the need to get provincial permits to make dock repairs. “It’s about our local economy and I represent members of the chamber that will definitely be affected by this.”
At issue is the removal of structures on Crown land and docks belonging to residents who live near, but not on the water.
Laying the blame on the Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process (SLIPP), Cunliffe says the organization’s “new direction” is threatening tourism and the economic viability of the area.
But SLIPP, a multi-stakeholder organization including all levels of government created in 2007 in response to concerns regarding the deterioration of the lake, has never had enforcement power of any kind.
Pat Tobin, regional manager of compliance and enforcement of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, credits SLIPP as being a very useful inventory and planning tool for understanding what’s happening on the lake and finding ways to restore portions of the lake to its natural condition.
But he emphasizes it is the province that has increased its focus on compliance and enforcement through legislation that is among the oldest in B.C.
Tobin is very clear on two things – while waterfront property owners may have docks within regulations, they cannot build structures without getting ministry approval on anything below the “natural present boundary” or mean annual high water mark, which is Crown land.
And “upland property owners” (or “semi waterfront” in CSRD’s zoning bylaw) whose property is separated from the water by a road or railway have no right to have a private dock on Crown Land.
Marcin Pachcinski, CSRD’s Parks and Recreation manager, says the CSRD zoning bylaw also only permits true waterfront owners to have docks.
“The intent there is it would not make sense to have a local zoning bylaw allowing docks for properties that we know the province would not allow,” he says. “We have a shared jurisdiction, that’s why we made such a strong commitment to make local government regulations mimic federal and provincial regulations.”
Tobin and Pachcinski agree the enforcement focus is on 100 to 150 structures out of an estimated 2,700-plus that would never be permitted in their current form because they’re either grossly over-built, built in high-value habitats, or were built without the right to construct on the beach or water.
“People built them without getting permission; they were not entitled,” Tobin said. “I’m mystified, especially because Shuswap Lake has one of the most significant salmonid fisheries, certainly in B.C. if not North America. We’re trying to get back to as natural a system as possible on a lake that is facing significant public pressure.”
Mike Simpson, senior regional manager of the Fraser Basin Council, which administers SLIPP, says that while water quality was a big issue when the organization was formed, it was not the only one.
He says the only involvement SLIPP has had in the illegal dock and structure issue was to use funds provided by The Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation – not taxpayers’ money – in a pilot project in which upland owners were offered funds to pay for the modification or removal of their illegal docks.
“That has gone over like a lead balloon,” he says, noting the last of the projects was completed in March, at which point SLIPP walked away and is in no way involved in enforcement activities.
Tobin reiterates property owners need to be aware that docks without permits will have to be removed.
“Removal of said structures can happen voluntarily (owner complies and removes), or they can be ordered to remove via a trespass notice from Compliance and Enforcement,” he says, estimating the process will take about three to four years to complete.
On their part, Cunliffe says the property owners provided their contact information when they signed in at Monday night’s meeting.
“An email will go out to each of them and people will express their opinions on where they want to go next,” he said.
“There was definite interest to form some kind of a group to see if there is a way to resolve this.”
