Lake Level

[Lady tehMa]

The lake is officially above full pool.
A while ago, in the Nice Weather thread - featfan posted this:

Not sure if everyone knows this.
Go to weather link and click on Kelowna from the drop down menu.
Click on the lake level box.
Up pops a graph with 2021 and 2022 levels.
Under the graph you can click on 2020 levels which shows a graph of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.

And it was really neat. That was before full pool, June 2nd.

Now the lake is over full pool, and I thought I'd look at it again and compare 2017 to now.

https://www.castanet.net/okanagan-lake-level/2021/

Only, someone removed 2017 from the graph!

I can't compare current levels with 2017 if it is missing.

I don't suppose anyone would know where I could find that info?

[Lady tehMa]

AHA! I did more poking around, and I found it under link labelled 2020

https://www.castanet.net/okanagan-lake-level/2020/

[brentville]

Here we go again!
In 2017 the co-author of the program used by the Ministry of Forests to predict Okanagan Lake inflows, stated in response to my email,
"10-day forecasts are often barely useable and certainly not reliable."



These Bozos attempt to predict lake levels, then adjust levels by operating gates at the Penticton dam.
Their #1 mandate is to NOT EXCEED FULL POOL yet they've exceeded this 5 times in 7 years !!!!!
I could do better with a dart board :(


I'll guarantee that, as in 2017, they'll blame flood damages on God, knowing full well that God doesn't own or operate the Penticton dam. They should weld the damn flood gates wide open and fire all of them for incompetence.

[Glacier]

These Bozos attempt to predict lake levels, then adjust levels by operating gates at the Penticton dam.
Their #1 mandate is to NOT EXCEED FULL POOL yet they've exceeded this 5 times in 7 years !!!!!
I could do better with a dart board :(


I'll guarantee that, as in 2017, they'll blame flood damages on God, knowing full well that God doesn't own or operate the Penticton dam. They should weld the damn flood gates wide open and fire all of them for incompetence.

Maybe you shouldn't buy property so close to the water. Must be nice to be able to afford what 95% of us can't. First world problems galore. You have zero sympathy from me.

Their mandate is NOT to NOT EXCEED FULL POOL, rather their #1 mandate is have more water in the lake than would be otherwise if there was no dam and to try and reach full pool even on dry years. During wet years they will exceed full pool because they err on the side of too much water over not enough. Their mandate is to ensure there's enough water during extreme drought conditions.

[brentville]

*removed*

[Glacier]

Here you go.... https://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/acat/documen ... bf04fa.pdf

[brentville]

removed.

[brentville]

This photo is from a report by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, "Water Management of the Okanagan Lake Regulation System":


It clearly shows "Guideline 1 : Do NOT fill Okanagan Lake above 342.69 meters."

This report was presented to the OBWB on November 16, 2016 by none other than Shawn Reimer.
His presentation addressed "Drought Trigger Guidelines", with help of Brian T. Guy, you know the author of the infamous "Review of 2017 Flood Response" report that blamed the 2017 flood damages on God.

7 months later, Reimer, while betting on a drought he'd just made a presentation on, caused the 2017 record flooding!!!

https://www.obwb.ca/newsite/wp-content/ ... v-2016.pdf

[Glacier]

Those aren't listed in level (no pun intended) of importance. The operator both wants to keep more water in the lake than would be without a dam, but also try to keep it below a certain level. Both are not possible.

[brentville]

Both are not possible.

Sadly, I have no control over what the Ministry of Forest does.

They risk damaging upstream properties by deliberately adding "more water in the lake than would be without a dam".
Using Okanagan Lake as a reservoir is a deliberate act with known consequences.
Resulting damage from deliberate risk is NOT an act of God no matter what complicated the outcome.

If I want to chop down a tree close to your property, there is a known risk that it could damage your property.
When a gust of wind blows just as the tree falls, sending it crashing through your roof, is that an act of God and you're out of luck?

Like everyone else, when the Ministry of Forests gambles and roll craps, they are obligated to pay up!

[Glacier]

sorry, I had a typo... I meant to say "both are impossible" because adding more water than would be naturally will inevitably cause excessive flooding.

[brentville]

I'm not concerned about the typo, we all make mistakes.
I would however like to hear your response to my question...

When a gust of wind blows just as the tree falls, sending it crashing through your roof, is that an act of God and you're out of luck?

[GordonH]

I guess individuals on here tend to forget their is another party that has say on how much Canada can open gates.

[brentville]

Those aren't listed in level (no pun intended) of importance. The operator both wants to keep more water in the lake than would be without a dam, but also try to keep it below a certain level. Both are not possible.

I say the 'Guidelines' are numbered exactly by their level of importance.
You didn't even no this existed so what newfound insight into 'the Ministries 'Guidelines List' gives you the ability to state otherwise?

their #1 mandate is have more water in the lake than would be otherwise if there was no dam and to try and reach full pool even on dry years.

I see no 'Guideline' in the list mentioning retaining water till full pool is reached.

PS: I'd still like to hear your response to my question...

[Glacier]

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.