2017 Okanagan Lake Flooding
Risk is a consequence of actions taken in spite of potentially undesirable outcomes.
If one puts a bullet in a six-shooter, points it at someone and pulls the trigger, there there is a known risk. This risk can be quantified as a 1 in 6 chance that someone will be maimed or killed. If one proceeds, they automatically become liable for the consequences and no excuse, other than insanity, will be entertained. The act was willful and the risks were known.
FLNRORD was fully aware that altering the natural levels of Okanagan Lake created a flood risk yet proceeded anyway. Foreknowledge of this risk has been admitted and is also demonstrated by their efforts to control it.
It is ludicrous for FLNRORD to claim that, “unforeseen weather”, somehow excludes them from liability. They were not only aware that such weather conditions were possible but their job description may as well be, “avoid flooding by compiling an analyzing weather prediction data.” The act was willful and the risk of “unforeseen weather” was known.
Examination of this flood risk reveals it has two components and both must be true in order to have flooding:
1. Inflows must exceed outflow capacity
2. Lake levels must be abnormally high
Regardless of the merits of their ridiculous excuse, higher lake levels exasperated flood damages. The Ministry readily admits they deliberately maintained extremely high Spring lake levels in anticipation of a drought. It is also easily demonstrated that altering the natural lake levels exasperated flooding and subsequent damages.
The picture above is a graph of 2017 and 2018 Okanagan Lake 'mean elevations' sent to me by Environment Canada. The Orange line is the 2017 profile superimposed at the same April 14th date and elevation of 1.206 in 2018.
*** Note the April 14th lake elevations of 1.685 and 1.206
The April 14th 2018 elevation of 1.206 could have easily been achieved on this same date in 2017. Had FLNRORD used the same April 14th 2018 elevation of 1.206 in 2017, instead of acting upon their 'drought prediction', no flooding would have occurred at all. The cause of the 2017 Okanagan Lake flood was therefore acting upon a 'drought prediction' as if it were written in stone! The report should have fully investigated FLNRORD's 'drought prediction'.
The Associated Report:
Table 4-1 details the 'Okanagan Lake Regulation System Operation Plan' and details, "340.236 m is used to convert to GSC datum."
Figure 7-2 of this report states, "Note: March end-of-month target was "As High as Possible" due to low inflow forecasts." This is undeniable proof that FLNRORD deliberately raised the lake level early in 2017. According to this graph, starting in October of 2016, Okanagan Lake elevation was allowed to rise above the established 'mean daily water level'. The obvious question is: What information did FLNRORD use to predict a drought 6 months in advance? The word 'drought' was only used 9 times in the entire report and considering the root cause of the flood was this 'drought prediction', I can only conclude it was conveniently omitted.
The above graph has been altered from Associated's Report (Figure 7-2). The dark orange line is the 2017 lake levels superimposed to match "mean daily water level, 1943-2015" on May 1st. The elevations were also stretched to enhance the vertical axis and show the max, elevation reached at 343.25 M. This visually shows that had FLNRORD met the same 1943-2015 average lake level on May 1st, the max. lake elevation would have reached +/- 342.7 (550 mm less) and flood damages would therefore have been minimal to non-existent. On May 1st 2018 the lake elevation was even lower at +/- 341.5 (1750 mm less than 2017 max. flood level) yet there was no downstream fish loss or lack of irrigation water reported!
The graph above (7-1) is also from Associated's Report and depicts 2017 inflows in weekly increments. Total snow at the Vernon North climate station recorded 342% of normal in February 2017(3) yet FLNRORD continued as if a drought was eminent. In conjunction with the previous graph, inflows were above average in March (indicating a drought was no longer eminent) and FLNRORD had more than sufficient time to lower the lake level to match the "1943-2015" May 1st average.
"we have not identified any recommendations that would have resulted in improved outcomes." A 342% above normal snow-pack was observed in February, lake levels were well above mean average and March inflows were almost double yet the FLNRORD 'drought prediction' remained in effect? Did Associated fail to connect the dots or was this omission deliberate? Figure 7-1 proves lake levels were well above mean average and inflows were almost double in March. Inflow data did NOT support 'drought' and even slightly above normal temperatures and rainfall could spell disaster yet FLNRORD did nothing!
The Associated report does not examine the reliability of the current operational plan other than mentioning some methods used were flawed. It fails to even recommend an independent risk assessment be performed. Such an assessment would have revealed the current operational plan relies upon data known to be suspect and even if their operational plan is followed to the letter, inflows due to weather (heat & rainfall) will always remain unpredictable. In other words, uncontrollable flooding can just as easily occur as an insufficient downstream supply. FLNRORD's operational plan relies more upon guesswork than science.
The report also fails to single out causation. It mentions numerous aspects that could be improved but fails to reveal a "smoking gun"(1). Even with Guy's suggested improvements, there's no guarantee that flooding will not happen again and again. With this in mind, alternate methods that might reduce flood risks should have been at least suggested. Suggestions that didn't involve "weather forecasting" weren't even mentioned.
Page iv: "Okanagan, Kalamalka, and Nicola Lakes were managed professionally and appropriately in 2017, and we have not identified any recommendations that would have resulted in improved outcomes." (1)
"The DFO input is considered advisory, as the Water Manager retains responsibility for managing
the Dam." (2)
"...total snow recorded at Vernon North climate station was recorded to be
130% and 342% of normal for December 2016 and February 2017..." (3)
Reimer stated to Global News that DFO had instructed him to keep lake elevations high. Hence the title of their report:
Okanagan Lake wasn’t lowered sooner to protect fish stock - Globalnews.ca
I confronted Reimer by email on this as "DFO input is considered advisory" (2).
A Siphon Alternate:
The following online tool calculates gravity-fed pipe flow: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/civil/hazen-williams_g
The following image is of this online tool being used to calculate flow of a 1.2M diameter steel pipe that drops 3M over 1.5 Km:
The resultant flow is 2.19 M3/sec or 77.7 CuFt/sec.
The Oliver Irrigation works can only handle a MAXIMUM of 110 CuFt/sec.
OBWB has been examining 'DROUGHT PREVENTION" for years and it is all documented. On Nov 16th, 2016 Reimer made a presentation before the OBWB on making drought predictions:
Is this why FLNRORD predicted a 'drought' for 2017?