Lake Level

[brentville]

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

[Glacier]

well, sue and get back to us on whether it was successful. my bet is that you'd lose.

[Bsuds]

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?

[brentville]

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!



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.

[Bsuds]

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 )

[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 is gonna hit the fan bigtime!

[GordonH]

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 is gonna hit the fan bigtime!

So at what point of 2017 did this happen.

[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]

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.