Okanagan Lake exceeds "full pool" 4 out of the last 5 years

[GordonH]

^^^ here’s an idea brentville take the government to court, oh right you planned to do that before. How did that go over or is it still ongoing.

added: if you need financial help I hear gofundme may work.

You're as helpful as ever. 25508 posts and not one worth reading.
Instead of your usual rhetorical garbage, lets test your IQ.
Tell us all the problems you see with the alternate method I suggested.
It's my idea so it must be garbage...put on that pointy hat and blow some holes in it.

Every year on the farm I grew up on a 20+ acre area would flood. Instead of and complaining we went to work and built up that area that would flood. Close to 50 years later and that area under different owners hasn’t had flooding issues.

So maybe instead of looking to someone else to fix the problem, do something with your property to fix the flooding issue.

[LANDM]

How could the goal be to exceed “full pool”??? To intentionally flood the lake and all the crawl spaces of people that live on the lake? This makes no sense. Do you understand the damage it causes to not only docks, but homes when it rises even .10m past full pool? Obviously you have no grasp on this situation.

No, that is not the case at all and it indicates perhaps a lack of grasp of the situation.
Read up on full pool, look up those elevations, see what that means in real life. Over full pool does not necessarily cause any damage at all. At a certain point, yes.....but that is far above full pool.

[Glacier]

Take a good look at Guideline 1: Do not fill Okanagan Lake above 342.69 meters.

And Full pool is 342.48! That's 21cm BELOW the "do not fill line."

BTW, this year peaked at 342.757, which was the result of record snowpack and an extremely wet May-June.

[brentville]

Take a good look at Guideline 1: Do not fill Okanagan Lake above 342.69 meters.

And Full pool is 342.48! That's 21cm BELOW the "do not fill line."

BTW, this year peaked at 342.757, which was the result of record snowpack and an extremely wet May-June.

Are your math skills just lacking or did you not understand 'Guideline 1'? 342.75 is more than 342.69 by 6mm and therefore they screwed up once again and will shirk all responsibility for any damage (including dead fingerlings).

The very 1st rule suggests don't flood private properties which is in keeping with dam operations as per the WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT!!!!! The ACT' states that all dam operators in the Province, "must exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging land, works, trees or other property of another person"

Screwing up 4 years out of 5 is NOT in any way shape or form 'reasonable care' and the cause is NOT, "the result of record snowpack and an extremely wet May-June", it's incompetence!

If I operated a private dam, deliberately raised the water level and as a result damaged private property, even if it had rained for 40 days and nights, just what do you think my liability would be? According to the WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT there are no exceptions and I'd be responsible for all of it .... so provide your reasoning as to why the Ministry should be exempt.

[Glacier]

You can't be sued if you're following the guidelines. A few mm above the maximum line didn't cause any damage this year.

[brentville]

You can't be sued if you're following the guidelines. A few mm above the maximum line didn't cause any damage this year.

Congratulations, you and the other enormous posters that have nothing better to do and contribute absolutely NOTHING, got exactly what you wanted....thread moved to the 'bickering room'.

I beg to differ. 6mm over isn't much but it doesn't meet the guidelines does it. There is a big difference between alternate vs actual facts! Denying the guidelines were broken makes you an 'alternate facts' guy, just like Trump. This wasn't a near miss, they went over...end of story! My property is being eroded further right now every-time there is the slightest wind and I will have it back.

NOW, instead of picking lint off the sweater, please answer my question and tell us all why the Province should be exempt from flood damages when the WATER SUSTAINABILITY ACT clearly says they're 100% responsible if they didn't take 'reasonable care'.

Other than an actual answer to the question above, I don't want to hear anything from you or the other useless 5000 posts blowhards. I'm done with those that have nothing better to do than troll and annoy. Goodbye Castanet Forums!

[Glacier]

They were letting out water very early this year. The flood gates were wide open very early. Also, they underestimated the amount of snowpack in the Okanagan because there aren't enough stations to get an accurate number. There's not much else they could do except let even more water out in the Fall and Winter, but if they did that and we hit drought conditions starting February, everyone would be crying about how they let too much water out, so the operator can't win.

[brentville]

"everyone would be crying about how they let too much water out" That's a load of dung and someone needs to blow the dam!

If properties downstream of Penticton have a problem with seasonal supply then, like everyone else, they should PAY for what they need. If that translates into retaining water in Okanagan Lake then maybe they should supply insurance coverage to upstream properties put at risk. As it is, it's like your Brother loaning your car to his kid without asking you and when the car gets totaled your Bro says "Sorry, the roads were wet!" This is bull!

Gambling with upstream property flood damage, then giving those Owners the finger when the Ministry fails to control the 'risk' they took, isn't an option and never should have been!

I'm still waiting for you to 'provide your reasoning as to why the Ministry should be exempt.'

[Boosted632]

*removed*

[Silverstarqueen]

We used to live near the lake. After we got tired of having a wet basement on some years, we moved to higher ground. No moisture in the basement since.

[Gilchy]

"everyone would be crying about how they let too much water out" That's a load of dung and someone needs to blow the dam!

If properties downstream of Penticton have a problem with seasonal supply then, like everyone else, they should PAY for what they need. If that translates into retaining water in Okanagan Lake then maybe they should supply insurance coverage to upstream properties put at risk. As it is, it's like your Brother loaning your car to his kid without asking you and when the car gets totaled your Bro says "Sorry, the roads were wet!" This is bull!

Gambling with upstream property flood damage, then giving those Owners the finger when the Ministry fails to control the 'risk' they took, isn't an option and never should have been!

I'm still waiting for you to 'provide your reasoning as to why the Ministry should be exempt.'

Translation: I am more important than anyone else.

[brentville]

*removed*

[LANDM]

How’s the lawsuit coming along?

[Bsuds]

Goodbye Castanet Forums!

Can't stay away huh?

I do sympathize with your plight, it must be very frustrating to have this happen year after year.

[Fraink]

The ability to lower or raise the level of Okanagan lake by manmade means ie. the Dam at the south end is very limited. The management of said Dam is required to meet certain criteria (down stream obligations in the USA, local irrigation demands, kokanee spawning needs etc.) and is done only with the information that is available. We talk about snowpack levels every year and "normal". I'm sure when ever we use the word "normal" in terms of weather, Mother nature thinks "hold my beer". Mother Natures ability to overwhelm our best controls is endless. Regardless of the snowpack, if the thaw is late and we get midlevel melt and high level melt at the same time it is more than we can accommodate on the few weeks notice that gives us. Toss in a month of heavy rain and things get that much harder to deal with. Just like the armchair experts always know how to fight forest fires better than the people who are trained to do it, I see an abundance of criticism of a man who does his best to do the job he has been trained to do, control the level of Okanagan Lake. It's always easy to look back and think you could have done it better, but you wouldn't have had the luxury of looking back when the decisions needed to be made. I am sure Shaun Reimer goes to work every day with the intention of doing his job to the best of his ability, just like you do. Be kind people, it's not as hard as you think!
Lorne Truden