A British Columbia homeowner can challenge a neighbour’s groundwater licence after the Environmental Appeal Board rejected an argument that domestic well users fall outside the statutory appeal process because they do not hold individual authorizations.
In Croxall v. Assistant Water Manager, 2026 BCEAB 16, decided March 18, 2026, panel chair Cynthia Lu found that Mark Croxall had standing to appeal. The preliminary ruling dismissed the water manager’s application to end the appeal; it did not cancel the licence or decide whether the neighbour’s water use had caused a shortage.
A shared aquifer and disputed appeal rights
Croxall uses a well for domestic water. His neighbour received a conditional licence in August 2023 allowing groundwater use for lawn, fairway and garden watering, a use classified as industrial under the regulations. The licence permits a specified quantity of water during a seasonal period and sets watering hours. Both properties draw from the same aquifer.
Croxall alleged that the licensed use reduced the water available to him. He referred to a well test and a diary of shortages but did not submit the test results or diary as evidence in response to the standing application. Those allegations were not findings that the licence had harmed his supply.
The assistant water manager argued that Croxall had not shown that his land was likely to be physically affected, one route to an appeal under the Water Sustainability Act. The manager distinguished effects on water from physical effects on land, such as flooding or erosion.
The manager also argued that domestic groundwater users were not holders of an authorization under another appeal provision. Because they could use water without obtaining a licence, and could not apply for an authorization for that domestic use, the manager said they did not qualify for that route either. In the manager’s view, statutory provisions giving domestic users priority rights dealt only with priority, not standing to appeal.
Rights granted directly by the statute
Lu focused on the provision allowing an authorization holder to appeal when they consider their rights are or will be prejudiced. She found that the legislation neither expressly included nor expressly excluded domestic groundwater users from that category, making it necessary to read the provision in the context of the wider Act.
The Act directly permits domestic groundwater use, subject to specified regulatory exceptions that did not apply in this case. It also deems domestic users to have priority rights as though those rights had been granted under an authorization. For domestic users, the date of first water use supplies the date used to determine priority.
Lu found that Croxall’s priority date preceded the August 2022 date recorded in the neighbour’s licence. His submissions described a well drilled in 1997 and his move to the property in 2005.
The broader statutory scheme mattered. The exercise of licensed rights is subject to rights with earlier priority, and the Act gives engineers powers to enforce that priority. Lu reasoned that it would be inconsistent to make licensed use subject to enforceable domestic groundwater rights while excluding those rights from consideration when a licence is issued.
It would also be impractical to protect pre-existing rights against interference while denying their holders an appeal from the decision granting the later authorization. Reading the provisions together, Lu concluded that domestic groundwater users are included as authorization holders for this appeal provision.
Standing, not a decision on water impacts
The board therefore allowed Croxall to pursue his challenge under section 105(1)(d). It did not need to decide whether he also qualified under the separate provisions for affected landowners, owners of works or people directly subject to an order.
The ruling clarifies an appeal route for domestic groundwater users whose rights are protected directly by the statute rather than by an individually issued licence. It does not mean every objection to a water licence succeeds: the standing provision concerns users who consider their rights are or will be prejudiced, and the merits of Croxall’s allegations were not determined in this decision.
