All letters to the editor published by KelownaNow reflect only the opinions of the readers who write them, and not necessarily those of KelownaNow or its staff.

RE: Focus has now turned to Okanagan Lake for flooding concerns

Downstream property owners are supplemented with seasonal water "on the taxpayers dime" and upstream property owners bear the costs of flood damages when the Ministry screws up….is this in any way "fair treatment?" I have suggested risk free alternatives to supplement downstream water but Shaun Reimer says, "…no government or agency builds infrastructure for the most extreme conditions or events as we experienced this year."  I suppose all the seismic upgrading of buildings and infrastructure happened on some other planet?

Tens of millions have been spent on Okanagan Lake downstream water infrastructure but not one dime has been spent to guarantee supply and/or eliminate risk. The lake has been used in this manner, as a reservoir, since the 70's and obviously demand has increased dramatically. Every year more and more water is needed and eventually flooding will be an annual event if downstream needs take precedence.  No "independent risk assessment" of the Ministry's methods has ever been performed! 

Photo Credit: KelownaNow

Okanagan Lake flooding last year was NOT an "act of God" as weather, extreme or otherwise, part of the risk the Ministry undertakes when playing with lake levels.  Everyone knows that weather can be unpredictable. The Ministry has now reduced Okanagan Lake outflow to protect downstream properties and the trade-off is, properties on Okanagan Lake that were devastated last year will likely be damaged again. Like everyone else, the Province must adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Playing with the Penticton flood gates has the potential to "harm others" and did so in 2017.

Even if these deliberate acts of negligence are ignored, what about the law? The Provincial Water Sustainability Act 29(1) defines responsibility and also requires the Province "exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging land" in the operation of a dam. "A person referred to in subsection (1) (a), (b) or (c) is liable to owners of land or premises for damage or loss resulting from the construction, maintenance, use, operation or failure of the person's works."  

Deciding to take a risk always comes with consequences! The Ministry of Forests (Ministry) admits that their operations to supplement downstream water creates a risk of flooding to upstream properties. However, merely altering lake levels cannot cause a flood. Inflow must exceed discharge capacity in order for there to be any flooding. Inflow is the at the root of the risk the Ministry accepts and inflow is caused solely by temperature and rainfall (weather). In an attempt to control inflow risk, the Ministry operates an inflow prediction program and negligent operation of it can foreseeably harm others.  Weather, extreme or otherwise, does not absolve the Ministry of liability as their job description is literally to avoid flooding by predicting inflows caused by weather.    

The actual cause of the 2017 flood: 

The Ministry inflow prediction program was co-authored by Kim Hyatt of DFO and it predicted a drought for 2017. Then the Ministry acted upon this result as if it was written in stone, even though they knew the weather prediction data being used was garbage. Environment Canada data was  known to be "unreliable" and any reasonable person would have attempted to reduce risk. The Ministry didn't reduce the risk of flooding because they never intended to accept any responsibility from the onset. Risk is doesn't exist without consequences and NO scenario exists where the Ministry would accept liability for flood damages. Please ask Shaun Reimer, "Under what conditions would the Ministry accept liability for Okanagan Lake flood damages?"

Thank you,
Dave Calla
Peachland, BC