Updated Hydrometric Data Charts for Lake Okanagan

[occasional thoughts]

So, 21 hours of straight rain reported at E.C. Weather Office, Kelowna (YLW) report, as of 8 a.m. today. How's that going for our streams and lakes?

[LANDM]

"Ok, I’ll go sentence by sentence.
First sentence, wrong because it doesn’t mean they screwed up. The lake is above full pool on many years, and adjusting outflows is far more difficult than you may think"
.

I don't give a ratz azz how difficult the Marx Bros. have made their toss of the dice predictions. 'Adjusting" isn't required if the dam is removed. Upstream Owners property and infrastructure is put at risk for to provide seasonal water for downstream property Owners needs and the Ministry takes zero responsibility for any damages their action cause....just what part of this crap-shoot should I be responsible for? NONE! Get rid of their whole useless water level prediction game, let the lake take it's natural level, replace the dam with control valves and pipes and there will be zero flooding ever again. Solved!

"Second sentence, wrong because you don’t "loose" of your property to the province.".

My property that was above high water is now gone and I'm NOT allowed to recover it, let alone send the Ministry a bill for the damages they caused, so how do you figure this is fair?
https://www.regionaldistrict.com/media/246481/A_Resource_for_Okanagan_Lakeshore_Living_web.pdf
"[b]The area below the present natural
boundary of the lake is Crown
land, and is available for casual
public use. This area should not
be blocked by retaining walls,
fences, or other development."

Third sentence, wrong because the high water mark does not change yearly. The high water level for the year may have changed but the official high water mark does not.
It is totally incorrect to believe that the land below the yearly high water level "reverts to the province". I don’t know how to say it further than it simply not being the case, no matter what you think.

My property pin is now some 30 feet in the lake. The 'natural boundary" has moved by erosion caused by water levels exceeding 'full pool' and RDCO sent me a nice colourful blurb explaining that all property below the high water mark is now Crown land and no longer mine. Please explain how I'm to enjoy the use of what is no longer my property?

If I attempt to build a retaining wall from my North pin to my South pin (which is now some 30 feet in the lake) to recover the land their actions have eroded, I'll have my azz sued off by the Ministry of the Environment. Don't just give me an opinion, phone them and ask, then tell me I'm wrong!

You are making two separate claims. If the usability of your land has diminished because of erosion, that is a totally separate matter than a change in legal lot size.
You are simply wrong and no matter what you incorrectly say to try and justify it, it is still wrong.
I don’t have to phone anyone to ask about whether you are right or wrong. I already know.
As for building within the riparian zone, that is in effect for everyone’s property that borders on a waterway in B.C. and nobody else can build a retaining wall in that manner either.

You are confusing issues with your ignorance of the matter. Study up on it and comment further. Until then, your claims are simply incorrect.

[brentville]

You are making two separate claims. If the usability of your land has diminished because of erosion, that is a totally separate matter than a change in legal lot size.
You are simply wrong and no matter what you incorrectly say to try and justify it, it is still wrong.
I don’t have to phone anyone to ask about whether you are right or wrong. I already know.
As for building within the riparian zone, that is in effect for everyone’s property that borders on a waterway in B.C. and nobody else can build a retaining wall in that manner either.

You are confusing issues with your ignorance of the matter. Study up on it and comment further. Until then, your claims are simply incorrect.

Just where do you see me stating there was "a change in legal lot size"?
There was no resurvey or pins relocated so don't misquote me!

" I already know." Isn't that just special...you know it all but provide zero evidence :(

"your ignorance of the matter"? I don't know where people like you get off making out like armchair Lawyers. Maybe you'd like to speak with my Daughter on the subject of the 'Riparian Act'. She's a DIRECTOR with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and co-authored a large portion of RAR !!!!!

"To erect protective works beyond the present natural boundary needs the consent of the Crown."
The 'Crown' (Ministry of the Environment) has summarily refused my request to reclaim land that was eroded during the 2017 flood and the Ministry of Forests has refused any responsibility for the flooding, even though they operate the dam that controls the lake level. ...and removed this is fair treatment of my property rights? removed

[Catsumi]

Please keep your responses impersonal, otherwise your entire post may be removed. Thanks

[LANDM]

You are making two separate claims. If the usability of your land has diminished because of erosion, that is a totally separate matter than a change in legal lot size.
You are simply wrong and no matter what you incorrectly say to try and justify it, it is still wrong.
I don’t have to phone anyone to ask about whether you are right or wrong. I already know.
As for building within the riparian zone, that is in effect for everyone’s property that borders on a waterway in B.C. and nobody else can build a retaining wall in that manner either.

You are confusing issues with your ignorance of the matter. Study up on it and comment further. Until then, your claims are simply incorrect.

Just where do you see me stating there was "a change in legal lot size"?
There was no resurvey or pins relocated so don't misquote me!

" I already know." Isn't that just special...you know it all but provide zero evidence :(

"your ignorance of the matter"? I don't know where people like you get off making out like armchair Lawyers. Maybe you'd like to speak with my Daughter on the subject of the 'Riparian Act'. She's a DIRECTOR with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and co-authored a large portion of RAR !!!!!

"To erect protective works beyond the present natural boundary needs the consent of the Crown."
The 'Crown' (Ministry of the Environment) has summarily refused my request to reclaim land that was eroded during the 2017 flood and the Ministry of Forests has refused any responsibility for the flooding, even though they operate the dam that controls the lake level. ...and removed this is fair treatment of my property rights? removed

I see you saying it when you said

Every time they screw up, I loose a little more of MY property to the Province. Anything below 'high water mark' then reverts to the Province as Property Owners are not allowed to reclaim eroded land

.
It is pretty clear when saying you lose it (or loose it, as you said) and that it reverts to the province. Your notion that the natural boundary changes each year based on lake levels is not correct. A legal surveyor may determine where the natural boundary is, not a fluctuation in current lake level.

Since your daughter is well schooled on the riparian act, then it is *you* that should consult her for an accurate discussion on why you are wrong, over and over.
Of course you cannot, without permit, make changes beyond the natural boundary. It is not not your land and to do so, you would need a specific or general permission.

Have your chat with her. She will explain why your post is wrong. You are bouncing all over the place and mixing entirely different issues so you may be better off chatting with a trusted source. You obviously don’t believe what I say so there is nothing more to discuss. My statements are correct, yours are incorrect. Deal with it.

[brentville]

....you may be better off chatting with a trusted source...

All these posts and now you suggest I discuss this with a "trusted source"?
Maybe you should have stated that in your 1st reply instead of,
"No, you are absolutely incorrect. That isn’t how it works at all."

I've already spoken with several Lawyers, my Daughter, my MLA, my Regional Director, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of the Environment. Then you come along and try to tell me you know better! As you so rudely put it, "your ignorance of the matter", speaks volumes. Unsubstantiated rhetoric may get you 'Brownie Points' with others here but I deal in facts and you haven't provided a single one. I'm done with you here so don't bother posting a reply as I won't be wasting my time reading it.

[LANDM]

....you may be better off chatting with a trusted source...

All these posts and now you suggest I discuss this with a "trusted source"?
Maybe you should have stated that in your 1st reply instead of,
"No, you are absolutely incorrect. That isn’t how it works at all."

I've already spoken with several Lawyers, my Daughter, my MLA, my Regional Director, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of the Environment. Then you come along and try to tell me you know better! As you so rudely put it, "your ignorance of the matter", speaks volumes. Unsubstantiated rhetoric may get you 'Brownie Points' with others here but I deal in facts and you haven't provided a single one. I'm done with you here so don't bother posting a reply as I won't be wasting my time reading it.

Well, you certainly seem to have your mind made up so having a trusted source is the only way you can be satisfied obviously.
Your "facts" are wrong or what you have mistakenly outlined as your facts is wrong. Nothing will change that.

Not knowing your property or your situation disallows any provision of anything in detail on my end, other than simply saying what you have provided is incorrect. You are welcome to give additional detail, but what you have provided thus far is disjointed and doesn’t conform to reality.

The fact that you have seen "several lawyers, your daughter, your MLA, your RD, MOF and MOE", on this topic all speaks volumes that you are not getting the answers you are looking for. It also confirms, to me, that they also consider you to be wrong, if you are stating to them what you state here and are having to take it to this extent.

So, just rack me up alongside all of the other sources that have already said you are wrong.

[LANDM]

Further to my post above, it seems that you have been trying to deal with this for years.

Re: Permanent Solution to Okanagan Lake Flooding
by brentville » Apr 9th, 2018, 8:09 pm
GordonH wrote:
brentville how is your court case against the Province going.


Currently negotiating terms.
It all comes down to what % at what incremental amount.
Almost need a Lawyer just to walk thru Retainer Agreements.




Re: 2017 Okanagan Lake Flood Damage Class Action Suit
by brentville » Aug 2nd, 2017, 4:13 pm
Even Steven wrote:
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?

I guess it’s pretty obvious where the correct information lies.

[seewood]

The Channel was ripping on Friday, all 5 gates are open.

[Equanomally]

Hey Brentville,

Isn't it interesting how everyone is saying the same thing here - apparently you are not allowed to question the bureaucrats who clearly continue to do a substandard job and continue to cause suffering and millions of dollars of damage with impunity. When everyone in a room is saying the same thing, someone is lying.

[LANDM]

My property pin is now some 30 feet in the lake. The 'natural boundary" has moved by erosion caused by water levels exceeding 'full pool' and RDCO sent me a nice colourful blurb explaining that all property below the high water mark is now Crown land and no longer mine. Please explain how I'm to enjoy the use of what is no longer my property?

If I attempt to build a retaining wall from my North pin to my South pin (which is now some 30 feet in the lake) to recover the land their actions have eroded, I'll have my azz sued off by the Ministry of the Environment. Don't just give me an opinion, phone them and ask, then tell me I'm wrong!

No your property line is NOT 30 feet into the lake. If it was, then a surveyor screwed up many years ago and it would place it halfway down your damaged dock. I just looked on the GIS mapping.
You are on a steep lot with little usable lakeshore. Your improvements would not be considered conforming at the beach and now you expect to be able to do whatever you wish after damage occurred to you, along with many others.

It doesn’t work that way.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Thanks for posting these. I also saw your updated Twitter account. Just curious. Where do you take the temperature readings for the lake? What location and how far from shore? Just the surface? How deep?

[Boosted632]

The Channel was ripping on Friday, all 5 gates are open.

I think mission creek is filling it faster right now than they can let it out add woods and kal all the other creeks and the several feet of snow still in the greystokes plateau and there could be some flooding again

[SAILINGONE]

Dear Mr. Shaun Reimer

In late March I was concerned about the lowest lake level I had experienced since becoming a sailboater on Lake Okanagan.
By my measurement tracking the level in March was about 40 cm lower than normal and concern about being stuck in the mud until late June, even with the high snow pack. Mr. Reimer got it right this year, the unusual cool temperatures, record snow and rain in the spring, were not enough to cause a repeat of the conditions experienced in 2017.
Job well done Shaun Reimer & thanks, we have been sailing & gone since early May.

[GordonH]

Being discussed here: https://forums.castanet.net/viewtopic.php?f=126&t=85312