2017 Okanagan Lake Flood Damage Class Action Suit

[brentville]

Are you sure? I don't think the province emergency payments to municipalities are based on negligence. I think the province has an obligation to municipalities in its domain but I do not think It is based on negligence in the same way the court finds negligence. For example a lot of that money is due to stream overflows and has nothing to do with the lake which you say is where the negligence occurred.

Yes, Municipalities are being paid under Disaster Financial Assistance (DFA) and usually involve an act of God: fire, flood, earthquake, etc. Negligence is not a prerequisite.

This was NOT an act of GOD. DFA covers almost everything in the way of public infrastructure loss ( erosion, wharves, lighting, diving boards, other improvements and include designated floodplain areas) but private property Owners do not get the same carte blanche treatment. DFA payments merely proves that a Provincial Emergency was declared and the extent of coverage they consider fair. We don't want a handout. We want to be compensated for damages caused by Province. I'm confident there is sufficient proof of "Provincial negligence", simply within the self-incriminating public statements that those involved have already made.

[Hassel99]

I disagree that there was negligence and there is clear proof of it as you say.
Obviously that is why we have courts to decide these things outside a message board ;)

best of luck, I think you have a large hill to climb.

[brentville]

I disagree that there was negligence and there is clear proof of it as you say.
Obviously that is why we have courts to decide these things outside a message board ;)
best of luck, I think you have a large hill to climb.

If one departs from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person, that is deemed negligence by the courts. Gambling on a longshot is not the actions of a reasonably prudent person. Let's ignore for a moment the excuses that have been made...

1. Flood prevention (protection of upstream users) is Reimer's top priority.

2. Kim Hyatt, co-author of the Okanagan Lake Level Forecast Program says, "10-day forecasts are often barely useable and certainly are not reliable."

3. Reimer knew this yet relied upon Environment Canada weather forecasts for several months in advance. "Garbage in, garbage out"; is a phrase used to express the idea that in computing and other spheres, incorrect or poor quality input will always produce faulty output." This "often barely useable" data wrongfully predicted a drought.

4. To protect non-priority downstream users from predicted drought conditions, Reimer set the February lake level at some 400 mm above normal.

Negligence:
A reasonably prudent person would NOT have;
i. relied upon Environment Canada data to predict 10 days in advance let alone several months
ii. made Flood Prevention a secondary priority by raising the lake level before actual evidence of a drought

Reimer's job is to balance the risks of upstream flooding vs. downstream drought and considering the enormity of risks involved, a reasonably prudent person would have looked into better solutions. If an Engineering risk assessment had been performed, a pumping system at Penticton to supplement downstream seasonal water needs would likely have been recommended. I'm unaware of any professional risk assessment being performed.

[totoramona]

Brentville, I think your arguments are very well thought out.
The fact that homeowners assume risk from "act of God" flooding, doesn't mean they forfeit their right to compensation from acts of negligence, if it can be proven. If those gates had been flung open and the lake still flooded, that would be a different story.
Also, the city of Kelowna is now requesting a "review" of how flood management is conducted as well.
https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... -requested

[Poindexter]

I think there is a lot that can be learned from the mismanagement of Okanagan Lake levels this spring but don't see how leveling punative damages against taxpayers will make it any less likely to occur again. Anyone who spent time in the snowpack this spring knew there was going to be a problem. It simply hadn't melted at it's a typical rate and when we spent time on the lake this spring even us laymen knew they had not prepared. They had the lake at levels consistent with levels in previous years despite evidence stacking up for this year being anything but normal. So while I agree there is room for improvement and I hope they make some changes to the process in future years, I do not agree with this class action suit as the solution.

Saw this after I posted, thanks toto. Mistakes are made but as long as we learn from them.

Also, the city of Kelowna is now requesting a "review" of how flood management is conducted as well.
https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... -requested

[outtawind]

I think there is a lot that can be learned from the mismanagement of Okanagan Lake levels this spring but don't see how leveling punative damages against taxpayers will make it any less likely to occur again... I do not agree with this class action suit as the solution.

Hi Poindexter,
your point is correct - a lawsuit will not help prevent these occurrences in the future. One way or the other, we're all going to pay for this neglect though - be it through higher insurance premiums or bailing out the gov't.

Agreed - this situation was obvious to the laymen. Someone needs to be held accountable with the same voracity which the government would engage private property owners if they were the cause of damage to the shoreline. As a foreshore resident, we get fined by the government if we so much as trim a juniper bush within 15m of the lake... and here the government has destroyed the entire shoreline, literally... including our property, in a single act of neglect - without any repercussion. That part is certainly not right - private owners and insurers should not bear the cost of this problem.

[brentville]

I think there is a lot that can be learned from the mismanagement of Okanagan Lake levels this spring but don't see how leveling punative damages against taxpayers will make it any less likely to occur again. Anyone who spent time in the snowpack this spring knew there was going to be a problem. It simply hadn't melted at it's a typical rate and when we spent time on the lake this spring even us laymen knew they had not prepared. They had the lake at levels consistent with levels in previous years despite evidence stacking up for this year being anything but normal. So while I agree there is room for improvement and I hope they make some changes to the process in future years, I do not agree with this class action suit as the solution.

Saw this after I posted, thanks toto. Mistakes are made but as long as we learn from them.

Also, the city of Kelowna is now requesting a "review" of how flood management is conducted as well.
https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... -requested

"punative damages against taxpayers"
This suit isn't intended as a punishment to taxpayers but compensation for those who have been damaged by Provincial negligence. I hope my involvement will also bring a long needed solution to their system that obviously has no more reliability than "betting RED on a roulette wheel".

Reimer said, "...we go back and we look and go over our decisions", yet he firmly stands behind the decision that led to all this flooding. A lot of good this so called review will do. So when they flood everyone out again, to save the downstream native fishing industry, you'll have to cough-up again....and again. He also stated DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) requested the lake level be kept high. I have attempted to find out the name of this DFO employee without success. Reimer was also asked to release this name and when such a request was made. I don't expect a response till discovery.

"damages against taxpayers" RDCO placed a loc-block wall at Antlers Beach to protect the beach and highway from erosion. I witnessed these morons setting the blocks high on the gravels (I was so stupefied I had to stop and take a few photos) without digging them in at all !!!! The 1st wind and waves ate out the gravel and gee-whiz they fell like dominoes....duh! Was this RDCO Engineering work at it's finest or was this just another waste of your taxes?

[the truth]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#202369 fyi lake levels almost normal , too the useless people in charge of the water lake levels you might want to close the flood gates soon as to not drain the lake too much more now , with the heat wave and all, fyi we are only still in july

[Silverstarqueen]

They allowed the lake levels to rise, because they anticipated a drought. Now we are in a drought. If they had lowered the levels and then we went to turn on the tap and nothing came out, people would sue for not having running water and not being able to flush the toilet. So which way do we want it?
Build your home on high land, a basic rule of homebuilding. Ignore it at your own risk.

[brentville]

They allowed the lake levels to rise, because they anticipated a drought. Now we are in a drought. If they had lowered the levels and then we went to turn on the tap and nothing came out, people would sue for not having running water and not being able to flush the toilet. So which way do we want it?
Build your home on high land, a basic rule of homebuilding. Ignore it at your own risk.

You admit they deliberately allowed the lake level to rise based on a projected drought. You however failed to mention the data used to arrive at this drought projection was utter garbage and they knew it. The co-Author of the program used has also admitted the data used was garbage. "garbage in = garbage out" The Province knew their guessing game projection results were totally unreliable yet did absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of flooding Okanagan Lake. That is negligence pure and simple!

"So which way do we want it?"
Sorry but there is no logical reason that we shouldn't have it both ways Silverstarqueen! Firstly, the system should have been operated by professionals instead of the Marx Bros. Secondly, a detailed risk management assessment should have been performed years ago. If one had been done, the 1st recommendation would have been to reduce the risks. A system that guaranteed downstream users their seasonal volume needs without the risk of upstream flooding should have been in place years ago. If a siphon/pumping station was installed at the Penticton works, upstream flooding would have been eliminated and downstream users would be guaranteed their seasonal volumes. WIN-WIN.

"Build your home on high land, a basic rule of homebuilding."
Gimme a break! Obviously you haven't a clue what's right underfoot. Most of downtown Kelowna and Penticton buildings are built on sandy loam flood plains. One good earthquake and "soil liquefaction" takes place...everything less buoyant than water sinks. I suppose you want to tell them all to pack-up-and-move?

[Even Steven]

So, how's the class action suit going?

Let me guess - it didn't go anywhere beyond moaning on Castanet forums.

[Glacier]

So, how's the class action suit going?

Let me guess - it didn't go anywhere beyond moaning on Castanet forums.

Hopefully. The snowpack wasn't above normal until May, and yet these idjits expected the operator to know that the valley was going to have the wettest Spring on record by a wide margin ahead of time, and therefore, open the flood gates in November. The operators are guys are regular humans, not prophets who can see the future.

[brentville]

So, how's the class action suit going? Let me guess - it didn't go anywhere beyond moaning on Castanet forums.

Sorry but it's actually going better than I expected.
What is wrong with some of you people....waterfront envy?
If the Fire Dept stuffed a hose through your front door and opened-r-up, when there was no fire or even smoke, I suppose you wouldn't object huh?

[GordonH]

brentville you can't blame people for maybe giving you & the class action suit a hard time, since any possible money won. Comes directly from yourself & rest of taxpayers of BC.

again good luck

[brentville]

Hopefully. The snowpack wasn't above normal until May, and yet these idjits expected the operator to know that the valley was going to have the wettest Spring on record by a wide margin ahead of time, and therefore, open the flood gates in November. The operators are guys are regular humans, not prophets who can see the future.

This "idjit" doesn't expect "the operator" to be a "prophet".
I do however expect the Province to employ responsible people that take reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably damage others (a duty of care). Do you somehow believe that GUESSING constitutes reasonable care?



READ THE EMAIL ABOVE from a co-author of the water management program being used by the Province.

"...10-day forecasts are often barely useable and certainly are not reliable)."

The Ministry knew that even 10 day forecast data was not reliable yet used forecast data for months for in advance. Using this garbage data, the program predicted a drought and they accordingly left the lake level high. Does this constitute reasonable care?

Secondly, I've explained how the system should have been simply and economically improved to eliminate both the risk of upstream flooding and downstream water shortfalls. A reasonable person doesn't gamble knowing the data being used is suspect and a slight error will cost millions. A reasonable person would have had a professional risk assessment done. Instead, the Province, in it's wisdom, continued to roll the dice till they crapped out!