Lake Level

User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by brentville »

Glacier wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 6:18 am Oh, I misread my post.. no typo... I said the same thing both times... as for you question, I have no idea. I'm no lawyer, but I would assume that there's no legal recourse. If there was, then the courts would be saying that they should just rip out the dam entirely.

Okay, I was wrong about always reaching full pool as a mandate. The operator certainly has a minimum level he aims for. Otherwise he wouldn't throttle back flow during dry winters. What that level is, I do not know.
I'm not a Lawyer either so cited a case where the courts had already rejected an Act of God defense.
An act of God is events outside human control.

It's very easy to prove that the Ministry was liable:
1. The Ministry took a know risk of damaging private property by operating the Penticton dam
2. If flood gates had been left wide open, there would not have been flood damages in 2017
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35286
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by Glacier »

well, sue and get back to us on whether it was successful. my bet is that you'd lose.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 51421
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Lake Level

Post by Bsuds »

brentville wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 10:53 am 1. The Ministry took a know risk of damaging private property by operating the Penticton dam
2. If flood gates had been left wide open, there would not have been flood damages in 2017
But would there have been more damage downstream if they were left wide open that they could be held liable for?
I might look normal but believe me, I talk to animals and wait for them to reply.
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by brentville »

Bsuds wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 1:18 pm But would there have been more damage downstream if they were left wide open that they could be held liable for?
No, the natural flow is what existed prior to installing the dam.
Any downstream damage would then actually be an act of god.

There are simple and inexpensive ways, such as pipes in the lake below the lowest level of the floodgates feeding into the canal. This would solve existing flood problems that rely on storing extra water for downstream users use. The Ministry is just too ignorant to address this in a logical manner. I originally wrote Reimer suggesting a pumping system (after researching a bit it could be done with gravity fed pipes...see pic below), he merely brushed it off without any investigation into costs or risk assessment. Fire this idiot!

Image

My suggestions aren't merely armchair bulls^t either. I was a civil and structural Contractor that redesigned, tendered and built many large projects for Federal, Provincial and Municipal entities as well a CNR, CPR and BC Rail.

Image
Last edited by brentville on Jun 22nd, 2022, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 51421
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Lake Level

Post by Bsuds »

brentville wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 1:39 pm
Bsuds wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 1:18 pm But would there have been more damage downstream if they were left wide open that they could be held liable for?
No, the natural flow is what existed prior to installing the dam.
Any downstream damage would then actually be an act of god.
Why should I be damaged without recourse to protect those downstream?
I'm not positive but I think there is an agreement with the Americans about how much water is allowed to go through.

Kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't. (pun intended :D )
I might look normal but believe me, I talk to animals and wait for them to reply.
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by brentville »

I'm not positive but I think there is an agreement with the Americans about how much water is allowed to go through.
In 2017 the dam gates were eventually opened full bore...not a peep from the Americans.
If they are not in this state now then :cuss: is gonna hit the fan bigtime!
Last edited by ferri on Jun 22nd, 2022, 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Word censor workaround.
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 32963
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by GordonH »

brentville wrote: Jun 22nd, 2022, 2:24 pm
I'm not positive but I think there is an agreement with the Americans about how much water is allowed to go through.
In 2017 the dam gates were eventually opened full bore...not a peep from the Americans.
If they are not in this state now then :cuss: is gonna hit the fan bigtime!
So at what point of 2017 did this happen.
I don't give a damn whether people/posters like me or dislike me, I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
birdsarentreal.com
User avatar
brentville
Fledgling
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 14th, 2008, 4:25 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by brentville »

So at what point of 2017 did this happen.
I have this info in my files. Sorry, but not taking an hour to dig it out without good reason.
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 32963
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Lake Level

Post by GordonH »

brentville wrote: Jun 23rd, 2022, 1:51 pm
So at what point of 2017 did this happen.
I have this info in my files. Sorry, but not taking an hour to dig it out without good reason.
How is your court battle going with province. It’s been what 4 or 5 years now.
I don't give a damn whether people/posters like me or dislike me, I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
birdsarentreal.com

Return to “Flood Watch 2022”