Lavington contaminated waters

User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35282
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by Glacier »

Interestingly they spent $70,000 of tax payer's money fighting what will likely be an $18,000 fine.
Last edited by Glacier on Oct 18th, 2013, 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
RGM
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Aug 9th, 2010, 9:06 am

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by RGM »

Big Government fines Little Government(s). What a crime. RDNO is not "them". It is us and our wallets. A provincial bureaucrat decrees a standard with no regard or responsibility to cost and then fines us because it is too expensive to fix every possibility. So, we the taxpayer must first cover the cost of dealing with the problem and its ongoing increased costs and then are forced to give the provincial tax collectors more tax in the form of a fine. Too much government and too much power to steal more of our hard earned money.
bob vernon
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4002
Joined: Oct 27th, 2008, 10:37 am

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by bob vernon »

Spend a few tens of thousands of dollars and the taxpayers go into a rage.

Spend $763 million on a hydro line to nowhere and they don't even know it's happening. Subsidize the hydro that the line carries with household hydro cost increases and they just pay it.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35282
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by Glacier »

I really don't understand NORD/RDNO's position. Any lawyer will tell you that environmental law falls under strict liability, which means that you are still at fault even if you were not the one who caused the spill. And then they start spouting off so much that the judge gets concerned that they may have been speaking mistruths.

They could have saved $70,000 if their lawyer had explained the simple concept of strict liability to them.
Last edited by Glacier on Oct 22nd, 2013, 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
image999
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Apr 20th, 2010, 6:31 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by image999 »

In particular, McKimm says comments by RDNO Board Chair, Patrick Nichol in many media publications as well as the one he heard on the radio while driving home just two days after he gave the guilty verdict, left him unsettled.

McKimm says Nicol and the RDNO continue to claim they have done nothing wrong and that they have somehow been disserved by the justice system.


Let's not forget that there was liquid cow poop exiting our kitchen faucets in much of the Coldstream Valley. More importantly, this potentially could have had dire health results and you were still continuing to claim that here was no wrongdoing ?
rvrepairnut
Board Meister
Posts: 483
Joined: Nov 6th, 2013, 8:54 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by rvrepairnut »

there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 32957
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by GordonH »

rvrepairnut wrote:there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision


What strike me odd about this why place a Well for drinking water on/near working farm land.
rvrepairnut
Board Meister
Posts: 483
Joined: Nov 6th, 2013, 8:54 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by rvrepairnut »

rvrepairnut wrote:there was much wrong doing here.One being Palfery knew or ought to have known he was causing a mess/danger situation and the people(nord) whom issue permits etc ought to have known that there was a potential hazard about to happen and or could happen(which it did).In the end NORD is indirectly responsible
I don't think the Judge has any right to publically challenge the expression(opinion) of a guilty party whom totally disagrees with the judges decision


What strike me odd about this why place a Well for drinking water on/near working farm land.[/quote]

You know I asked the same question when this mess happened and its not really that close but I believe that is the reason NORD is guilty is because as I said they ought to have realized the possible dangers of contamination and should have better protected the water intake area(rather obvious now)
image999
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Apr 20th, 2010, 6:31 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by image999 »

-New Sentencing date January 16, 2014
-judge wanting to clarify some comments made by an RDNO official. Patrick Nicol
http://www.1075kiss.com/kiss-news/lates ... encing-set
james-d
Banned
Posts: 667
Joined: May 3rd, 2010, 9:11 am

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by james-d »

Remember Walkerton. Get ready Lavington. The owner of the property in question does NOT care what he does to YOUR well, And the govts at all levels don't care what happens to you. Whoever told you they did??? they are politicians, Ever met an honest one?????
rvrepairnut
Board Meister
Posts: 483
Joined: Nov 6th, 2013, 8:54 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by rvrepairnut »

james-d wrote:Remember Walkerton. Get ready Lavington. The owner of the property in question does NOT care what he does to YOUR well, And the govts at all levels don't care what happens to you. Whoever told you they did??? they are politicians, Ever met an honest one?????


james? *removed*/ferri Palfrey is no longer in the Vernon area and has had this property repoed/sold and iam also 100% sure the RDNO has disaplined their guilty workers to the point this occurance wont repeat
image999
Newbie
Posts: 29
Joined: Apr 20th, 2010, 6:31 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by image999 »

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Postby Glacier » Oct 18th, 2013, 7:47 am
I really don't understand NORD/RDNO's position. Any lawyer will tell you that environmental law falls under strict liability, which means that you are still at fault even if you were not the one who caused the spill. And then they start spouting off so much that the judge gets concerned that they may have been speaking mistruths.

They could have saved $70,000 if their lawyer had explained the simple concept of strict liability to them.
Last edited by image999 on Jan 16th, 2014, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GordonH
Grumpy Old Bleep
Posts: 32957
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by GordonH »

shoo
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 835
Joined: Jul 16th, 2005, 8:07 am

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by shoo »

Patrick passed away today.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 35282
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Lavington contaminated waters

Post by Glacier »

shoo wrote:Patrick passed away today.

So Patrick and Palfrey both passed away within a short period of each other?

Also, there is a culvert put under the highway put in at great expens. The idea was to build some filtering/settling ponds to try and filter out the nitrates coming from the old dairy farm. Interestingly enough, the spring floods this year cut a hole in the ponds such that the water NOT being filtered at all, and instead is being pumped directly into Coldstream creek. They would have been better off letting the gravel from the farm under the road to the creek filter out some nitrates rather than sending it all directly into the creek.

No one has even tried to fix the gaping hole in the pond.

FAIL.
"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

Return to “North Okanagan”