Who is the moron who didn't see this coming?

[kgcayenne]

I just have to ask, why are building permits approved in the floodplain?

They aren't, but most of the people effected in Kelowna are multimillionaires who don't give a rip what the city thinks, so they build stuff right down to the lake level.

....which is exactly why I said this:

You mean these people, who by their actions have basically said: "I'm-a-gunna build mah house in a flood plain (or beside a lake, or beside a stream), and then when nature does its thing every 20-50 years or so, I'mma whine like a spoilt litta gurl."

...Guess you would say the same about forest fires too.

Yah, I actually live in an interface area, it's our responsibility to rid our property of additional fuel in the case of a forest fire; we also pay higher insurance premiums. Our choice makes it our responsibility.

[Fancy]

They aren't, but most of the people effected in Kelowna are multimillionaires who don't give a rip what the city thinks, so they build stuff right down to the lake level.

Why are so many people narrow minded when it comes down to this flooding? Kelowna isn't the end all and be all and seems to be on the tip of everyone's tongue when discussing anything to do with this crisis. Head of the lake isn't Kelowna and they have had a tough time of it along with others up and down the lake that have never had this type of flooding happen before.

[Glacier]

Why are so many people narrow minded when it comes down to this flooding? Kelowna isn't the end all and be all and seems to be on the tip of everyone's tongue when discussing anything to do with this crisis. Head of the lake isn't Kelowna and they have had a tough time of it along with others up and down the lake that have never had this type of flooding happen before.

I feel bad for the people on OIB land at the head of the lake where there are no bylaws against building at lake level who are not rich. According to Castanet, the flood level was higher in 1948 than it was now (and others point to 1904, 1896 and 1894), but memories are short, so people build too close.

[Fancy]

I feel bad for the people on OIB land at the head of the lake where there are no bylaws against building at lake level who are not rich. According to Castanet, the flood level was higher in 1948 than it was now (and others point to 1904, 1986 and 1984), but memories are short, so people build too close.

1986 and 1984 didn't have the high levels that are existing now and Castanet has been wrong before. The data I read was from years ago comparing lake levels and this year was higher that 1948.

[Glacier]

Sorry, that was my dyslexia.

Also, HOW DARE YOU question Castanet's accuracy!!!!

https://questioningthedata.wordpress.co ... ews-media/

[WalterWhite]

I just have to ask, why are building permits approved in the floodplain?

They aren't, but most of the people effected in Kelowna are multimillionaires who don't give a rip what the city thinks, so they build stuff right down to the lake level.

Historically - the greater Kelowna area has been developed on a flood plain. Yes, permits have, are, and will continue to be granted because flood plain and flood level are two completely different things. This has devolved similarly along the same lines as a cop-bashing thread - except this time it's the so-called millionaires that don't give a rip about laws that are taking the brunt.

By the thinking of a number of contributors here, Kelowna would not exist had they had their way of properly planning development - but why stop there? Vancouver would not exist. New York, Toronto, Seattle - the list is endless.

[ferri]

I only asked because in Washington state there is no way you can build in 100 yr. floodplain. And forget about getting insurance.

[WalterWhite]

I only asked because in Washington state there is no way you can build in 100 yr. floodplain. And forget about getting insurance.

- and it's an honest question to ask. I think a lot of people mistake the nomenclature between flood level and flood plain. Kelowna is built on a flood plain - however, since Mission Creek and additional tributaries were diked, and in conjunction with the lake level controls at Skaha - a flood level (referred to also as the flood construction level) is established which dictates a set building level. Inhabitable spaces are not permitted below flood level, nor are gas appliances. Foundations and support structures are permitted below flood level. The flood level is also not the established high water mark, as again they are two separate issues.

Here's the link to BC's flood plain mapping service for the southern interior:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searc ... gion3.html
- and the subsequent link for Mission Creek (once on this page select one of the 3 red rectangles to see the individual maps):
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searc ... creek.html
Map 1:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searc ... 4-43-1.pdf
Map 2:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searc ... 4-43-2.pdf
Map 3:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/data_searc ... 4-43-3.pdf

The "flood construction level" is set at 343.66M above sea level, and is indicated on map 1 just south of the mouth of Mission Creek on the map. Overnight Okanagan lake dropped 7mm to it's current level of 343.24 - 42cm below the flood construction level.

[WalterWhite]

I only asked because in Washington state there is no way you can build in 100 yr. floodplain. And forget about getting insurance.

On further thought - here's maybe an easier way to explain and differentiate the two:
A flood plain, is a location - is an area of land adjacent to a stream or river that stretches from the banks of its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls (wikipedia)
Flood level or flood construction level is a vertical measurement typically referencing above sea level.

For instance - on the flood plain mapping linked above, the Kelowna flood plain is defined as laying between the shore of Okanagan Lake - and Ziprick Rd. Last time I looked, there was a bit of development between those two points. :)

[onestop67]

The answer to the title..
A person that make this one post on here, then disappears..that is who.

Doh!!! 60, that's me you're talking about! lmao

I tend to make a couple posts and then not come back for months (disappear).

[onestop67]

I just have to ask, why are building permits approved in the floodplain?

The water table of Kelowna has always gone close to where Orchard Park is, now. That is why there were no buildings allowed to be built above 5 or 6 stories for many years. There was not the technology to build at that time.

The "Executive House" was the first high rise to be built. And if you look at it from Richter, it's tilting over.

Because technology is so much better now they can build 30 stories high.

[holycow]

INDEED

[masen]

The snow melt when clear cutting has been done in this valley not only causes faster runoff but also creates more water from the snow. I am not sure of why but maybe the speed of it there is less time for evaporation at higher levels or on route. There should be more discussion on this. The tree roots also will not hold water after the trees have been cut as they are either completely dead or almost so. None of this is a surprise to many people as we all know that if the ground isn't shaded by the trees snow melt will happen faster. We are all responsible for allowing clear cutting.

[Fancy]

*I have merged the two topics. Thanks Fancy!

[WalterWhite]

Keep in mind, logging practices around the valley and affected watersheds has been present for many years, and not all of it is immediately slotted into reforesting. I agree that clear cutting certainly has an effect on all you've pointed out - but it's not a silver bullet for this year's water issues imo.