54616
52425

Flood Review

Re: Flood Review

Postby Fancy » Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:36 pm

LTD wrote:lake level is lowered slowly all summer and winter to account for snow melt in spring this time they felt they were smarter than mother nature and payed the price been the way since they started controlling lake level
And since the snow pack was lower than normal in April I'm guessing the lake wasn't lowered slowly this past year in accordance to previous years according to your post.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 44733
Likes: 1102 posts
Liked in: 5632 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby Fancy » Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:37 pm

LTD wrote:the level was higher on my buddies dock last spring than it usually is at the end of summer that's a screw up any way I look at it

I've got pictures that say some years the lake level is high and some years it's not at the same time of year.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 44733
Likes: 1102 posts
Liked in: 5632 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby Urban Cowboy » Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:44 pm

*removed*

Fancy wrote:And since the snow pack was lower than normal in April I'm guessing the lake wasn't lowered slowly this past year in accordance to previous years according to your post.


:up: Exactly and as much was stated back in the spring.

Had the lake been lowered, and the late snow and subsequent rains not materialized, the same guy would have been raked over the coals for allowing too much water out of the lake, and no doubt by the same people.
Last edited by ferri on Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off Topic
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Urban Cowboy
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3561
Likes: 3284 posts
Liked in: 5148 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby LTD » Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:48 pm

*removed* I'm not sure if you actually get how overfull the lake really was
Last edited by ferri on Jan 2nd, 2018, 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off Topic
LTD
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3215
Likes: 2209 posts
Liked in: 2413 posts
Joined: Mar 31st, 2010, 3:34 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby Glacier » Jan 2nd, 2018, 4:47 pm

LTD wrote:*removed* I'm not sure if you actually get how overfull the lake really was

The 2017 lake level peaked on June 11th at 343.27m above sea level. Castanet claimed that the record is 343.28m (set in 1948), but the government documents say it's either 343.074m, 343.13m, or 343.25m depending on which document you read: https://questioningthedata.wordpress.co ... ews-media/

So it's not entirely clear if the old record was beat or not.

LTD likes this post.
User avatar
Glacier
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 26739
Likes: 2802 posts
Liked in: 8917 posts
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby PDT » Jan 2nd, 2018, 5:41 pm

I can google too...

Here's a Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks document from 2000:
http://www.obwb.ca/obwrid/docs/023_2000 ... n_Lake.pdf
In 1948, prior to implementation of the Joint Board's recommendations, a major flood hit the Okanagan Valley. This time Okanagan Lake reached a maximum level of 1126.25 feet (343.28 metres). Again, widespread damage occurred throughout the valley prompting calls for action on the Board's recommendations.

So, it's not just Castanet who is "claiming" this "record". We get that you have some sort of hate-on for media, but still...
PDT
Fledgling
 
Posts: 300
Likes: 159 posts
Liked in: 124 posts
Joined: Apr 2nd, 2008, 5:13 pm
Location: Kelowna, BC

Re: Flood Review

Postby Ken7 » Jan 2nd, 2018, 10:22 pm

Someone suggested recently when we spoke of this that due to the excessive wet spring the ground was saturated. Due to this the melt did not get held back it all ran.

If this is true, it could have been difficult to predict what the outcome would be.

Sorry...I did not read the previous 5 pages.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6284
Likes: 3421 posts
Liked in: 2377 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby dirtybiker » Jan 2nd, 2018, 10:42 pm

Ken7 wrote:Sorry...I did not read the previous 5 pages.


Just like the majority of threads, you missed little and come out
with, in my mind very close to the correct conclusion !
"Don't 'p' down my neck then tell me it's raining!"

5 people like this post.
dirtybiker
Guru
 
Posts: 6339
Likes: 5359 posts
Liked in: 2763 posts
Joined: Mar 8th, 2008, 7:00 pm
Location: Central OK

Re: Flood Review

Postby Fancy » Jan 3rd, 2018, 12:55 am

Ken7 wrote:Someone suggested recently when we spoke of this that due to the excessive wet spring the ground was saturated. Due to this the melt did not get held back it all ran.

If this is true, it could have been difficult to predict what the outcome would be.

Sorry...I did not read the previous 5 pages.

It's known about the saturated ground but that fact hasn't changed anyone's minds who think water should have been released faster.
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
Fancy
The Pilgrim
 
Posts: 44733
Likes: 1102 posts
Liked in: 5632 posts
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby AlienSoldier » Jan 3rd, 2018, 7:31 am

You can't just open flood gates to release water. There are treaty's and rules on how fast (min and max) you can release as it affects dams, rivers, communities, etc. down from the dam. Yes, this caused damage to Kelowna properties but releasing water faster might have created more issues.

An alternative is to increase the space between the lake and homes (or increase their insurance for flooding) and increase wetlands which can handle more water during extreme weather events.

4 people like this post.
AlienSoldier
Fledgling
 
Posts: 156
Likes: 20 posts
Liked in: 123 posts
Joined: Oct 30th, 2017, 11:53 am

Re: Flood Review

Postby Grandan » Jan 3rd, 2018, 8:39 am

PDT wrote:I can google too...

Here's a Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks document from 2000:
http://www.obwb.ca/obwrid/docs/023_2000 ... n_Lake.pdf
In 1948, prior to implementation of the Joint Board's recommendations, a major flood hit the Okanagan Valley. This time Okanagan Lake reached a maximum level of 1126.25 feet (343.28 metres). Again, widespread damage occurred throughout the valley prompting calls for action on the Board's recommendations.

So, it's not just Castanet who is "claiming" this "record". We get that you have some sort of hate-on for media, but still...
Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks document from 2000:
http://www.obwb.ca/obwrid/docs/023_2000 ... n_Lake.pdf

Just because there was a maximum in 1948 does not mean it was the all time maximum,
If you read the fine print 1904 had a maximum water level that was 17" higher (0.44m)
The highest recorded natural lake level was determined to be 107.0 feet (343.72 metres) in
1904, although there were reports of higher levels in both 1894 and 1896.
B Symonds (09/05/2000) Page 1
River Improvements for Navigation:
Prior to 1909 there had been no alterations made to either Okanagan River
Waste not

Jflem1983 likes this post.
Grandan
Übergod
 
Posts: 1688
Likes: 137 posts
Liked in: 755 posts
Joined: Aug 14th, 2007, 4:05 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Flood Review

Postby TMBOkanagan » Jan 3rd, 2018, 6:38 pm

AlienSoldier wrote:You can't just open flood gates to release water. There are treaty's and rules on how fast (min and max) you can release as it affects dams, rivers, communities, etc. down from the dam. Yes, this caused damage to Kelowna properties but releasing water faster might have created more issues.

An alternative is to increase the space between the lake and homes (or increase their insurance for flooding) and increase wetlands which can handle more water during extreme weather events.


And reduce site coverage of impermeable surfaces, restrict basements in the floodplain, build storm water retention ponds...
TMBOkanagan
Fledgling
 
Posts: 115
Likes: 444 posts
Liked in: 68 posts
Joined: Aug 8th, 2016, 2:02 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby steve mc » Jan 3rd, 2018, 9:21 pm

there was no downstream problems we didnot open floodgate soon enough, I checked all the dams all the way to mouth of columbia river there were not restricting any release of water. some of the upper snowpac can be diverted to the nicol river and fraser river.
steve mc
Fledgling
 
Posts: 124
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: May 15th, 2014, 7:53 am

Re: Flood Review

Postby Urban Cowboy » Jan 4th, 2018, 12:51 am

steve mc wrote:there was no downstream problems we didnot open floodgate soon enough, I checked all the dams all the way to mouth of columbia river there were not restricting any release of water. some of the upper snowpac can be diverted to the nicol river and fraser river.


"Did not open floodgate soon enough", in hindsight which is always 20/20.

Had the person in charge known all the factors about to happen ahead of time, no doubt he would have opened the gates to increase outflow sooner.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Urban Cowboy
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3561
Likes: 3284 posts
Liked in: 5148 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Re: Flood Review

Postby steve mc » Jan 4th, 2018, 8:43 am

why didn;t they know thats the job,
steve mc
Fledgling
 
Posts: 124
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: May 15th, 2014, 7:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Flood Watch 2018

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest