Wall of ice destroys Manitoba homes, cottages


B00Mer
#1
Wall of ice destroys Manitoba homes, cottages



A local state of emergency has been declared in a western Manitoba municipality after homes in Ochre Beach were destroyed and seriously damaged by a wave of lake ice.

Area officials told CBC News the wind pushed built-up ice off Dauphin Lake on Friday evening and caused it to pile up in the community, located on the lake's southern shore.

The piles of ice, which were more than nine metres tall in some cases, destroyed at least six homes and cottages, according to the Rural Municipality of Ochre River.

Another 14 homes suffered extensive damage, with some structures knocked off their foundations.

Clayton Watts, Ochre River's deputy reeve, said it's a miracle no one was hurt.

He told CBC News one minute people were watching hockey in their living rooms, the next they heard something that sounded like a freight train near their homes.

"It happened so quick," said Watts. "And you can't predict it not like water that slowly comes up."

Watts said there are several cabins that were completely flattened by the wall of ice that came at them.

"The ice is over top of them, they've been crushed, there's nothing left," he said.

"There are other cabins that have been knocked right off their footings," he continued. "There's ice right over top of some of the cabins, coming over the roof on the other side."

According to Environment Canada winds were registered at about 80 km/h in the area Friday night.

No insurance coverage for ice damage

Dennis Stykalo, who's cottage is full of ice after Friday night's wind storm, told CBC News his insurance does not cover damage done by ice.

He said he's devastated after the event he can't even get inside to recover his valuables.

"You know you've got cement, concrete blocks, and steel and the ice goes through it like its just a toothpick," said Stykalo. "It just shows the power. There is nothing you can do, you just get out of the way and just watch."

CBC News also contacted an insurance company in Winnipeg who said generally coverage is not provided for damage to homes caused by shoreline ice build up or water-borne ice.

Same area hit by flood in 2011

The damage is even more traumatic for some, he added, as many of the homes in the area were ruined by flooding in 2011.

Dozens of properties in Ochre Beach and Dauphin Beach were evacuated due to extremely high lake levels that spring.

"They're devastated. Most of these people were hit pretty hard during the flood," said Watts.

"Most of them were just back to the stage where they were back living in their homes again. And now this has happened. So they're pretty devastated right now."

Ochre Beach is about 300 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg and 20 kilometres east of Dauphin.

 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#2
There is always a risk for being beach front. They should have added ice/water damage to their insurance. But probably didn't want to pay the extra premium. Probably screwed now.

But I am sure the government will provide some taxpayer money to help these people recover. One wouldn't want them to actually suffer the consequences of their piss poor planning and/or choice in location.
 
lone wolf
#3
I've seen similar results on the east sides of Simcoe and Nipissing. Even grainy soft ice is harder than it looks.
 
L Gilbert
#4
Jeeezez. I feel for those people, but it is a bit shortsighted to build close to a shoreline with only a slight gradient to it. Around here where there's only a small gradient between shoreline and homes, most people have built a good distance in vertical rise above the lake. I think there may even be something in the building code here about building far enough from the high-water mark.
 
hunboldt
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I've seen similar results on the east sides of Simcoe and Nipissing. Even grainy soft ice is harder than it looks.

YOU WANT TO BUILD UP AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. rule one. Since that is not always possible, a lake home on a narrow bay, or protected by islands, is a wise choice.

Of course, you lose the scenic vistas.
I ahve seen cabins on tubular concrete stilts, with the screened areas underneath used for storage only. the theory isthat any ice pushed ashore will flow under the cabin.....
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#6  Top Rated Post
My wife has always wanted a place on 'The Beach' although I've always worried about Hurricanes or Flooding, Ice that mows down your house has never come to mind.
 
L Gilbert
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I've seen similar results on the east sides of Simcoe and Nipissing. Even grainy soft ice is harder than it looks.

Especially when the quantity can measure in a few thousand tonnes.

Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

YOU WANT TO BUILD UP AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. rule one. Since that is not always possible, a lake home on a narrow bay, or protected by islands, is a wise choice.

As high up as possible? You mean our home, being only about 35 meters above high water mark isn't good enough and we should have built on top of the mountain behind us (some 1420 meters above lake level)?
 
captain morgan
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

There is always a risk for being beach front. They should have added ice/water damage to their insurance. But probably didn't want to pay the extra premium. Probably screwed now.

But I am sure the government will provide some taxpayer money to help these people recover. One wouldn't want them to actually suffer the consequences of their piss poor planning and/or choice in location.

Similar circumstance happened out near Sparwood, BC... Forest fires in the area threatened many homes (a number were lost). Insurance companies have never offered protection against fire damage in that community for some reason, so the inhabitants knew the risks. When a fire did strike, many locals demanded that the fed and provincial gvts compensate them for their losses.

While I do sympathize with the individuals for the loss, I can't say I am supportive of gvt bailing them out due to poor decisions.
 
hunboldt
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Especially when the quantity can measure in a few thousand tonnes.

As high up as possible? You mean our home, being only about 35 meters above high water mark isn't good enough and we should have built on top of the mountain behind us (some 1420 meters above lake level)?


Before I reply with my usual level of rational sarcasm, tell me, do you EVER reply to what anyone ACTUALLY writes?
 
SLM
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Similar circumstance happened out near Sparwood, BC... Forest fires in the area threatened many homes (a number were lost). Insurance companies have never offered protection against fire damage in that community for some reason, so the inhabitants knew the risks.

For some reason? Lol. I'd wager it has something to do with there actually being a risk in the area as to why they don't offer the insurance coverage. Because then they'd have to pay out.

Remember, insurance companies are evil, they're not stupid.

Quote:

When a fire did strike, many locals demanded that the fed and provincial gvts compensate them for their losses.

While I do sympathize with the individuals for the loss, I can't say I am supportive of gvt bailing them out due to poor decisions.

See that I don't agree with either. There is a choice being made to build a home there, why should others (taxpayers) have to compensate them for incidents that arise from their choices?

Having said that though, I can maybe see some compensation being offered when something really catastrophic occurs. Just looking at the photo in the OP, that looks fairly catastrophic to me. But I've never lived lakeside, so perhaps that is a more common occurrence that it appears to be? I would think though that Ice and Water damage would more along the lines of basements flooding, not being crushed from the roof down.
 
hunboldt
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Similar circumstance happened out near Sparwood, BC... Forest fires in the area threatened many homes (a number were lost). Insurance companies have never offered protection against fire damage in that community for some reason, so the inhabitants knew the risks. When a fire did strike, many locals demanded that the fed and provincial gvts compensate them for their losses.

While I do sympathize with the individuals for the loss, I can't say I am supportive of gvt bailing them out due to poor decisions.


Good point. Fire damage is a mitigatable risk. However, the mitigation requires clear cutting out from the communities for a considerable distance.
Steel siding, tile instead of shingles, or fireproof shingles aids considerably. Ever wonder at all the metal roofs you see in Australia?
No one likestolose the beautiful forest view....
 
Nuggler
+1
#12
I can't afford a home or cottage on waterfront. Since every insurance payout still affects the restuvus, I urge the criminals in charge not to pay.............that's just me being spiteful.

Moot point as they already said they ain't gonna.

They were flooded in 2011, now this. Maybe get a clue and move back a piece.

Glad no one was hurt. Only because the Darwin awards for this year have already been handed out.

ha ha ?
 
L Gilbert
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post


Before I reply with my usual level of rational sarcasm, tell me, do you EVER reply to what anyone ACTUALLY writes?

lol I did. You wrote it. You said, "as high up as possible" so I responded with a joke.
 
hunboldt
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

lol I did. You wrote it. You said, "as high up as possible" so I responded with a joke.

Oh, I am certain you read it. Whether you understood it was another question.
 
captain morgan
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

For some reason? Lol. I'd wager it has something to do with there actually being a risk in the area as to why they don't offer the insurance coverage. Because then they'd have to pay out.

Sure they'd pay out, but chances are that the premiums they would require would be so high that no one would opt for it anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Remember, insurance companies are evil, they're not stupid.

In this case, the insurance groups refused to offer the coverage... Only a fool would believe that they could buck the odds, but in this case, it did catch up with the homeowner.

So, in the end, who is really evil here? The ins companies for not covering fire or the moron homeowner that bleats and whines that the paxpayer should compensate them for their ill advised decisions?

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

See that I don't agree with either. There is a choice being made to build a home there, why should others (taxpayers) have to compensate them for incidents that arise from their choices?

We' re on the same page on this... Don't confuse sympathy for a willingness to pay for someones risky decisions.


Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Having said that though, I can maybe see some compensation being offered when something really catastrophic occurs. Just looking at the photo in the OP, that looks fairly catastrophic to me. But I've never lived lakeside, so perhaps that is a more common occurrence that it appears to be? I would think though that Ice and Water damage would more along the lines of basements flooding, not being crushed from the roof down.

The same argument should apply to the lake front folks in that they took a chance on something not occurring.. Turns out, it did happen and they're now screwed.

It's not so much the magnitude of the event, but the notion that it did happen.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

Oh, I am certain you read it. Whether you understood it was another question.

How else would someone view this; "YOU WANT TO BUILD UP AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. rule one. "? But I was joking anyway. Dragging it out and making a mountain out of a molehill won't change that.
 
hunboldt
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Sure they'd pay out, but chances are that the premiums they would require would be so high that no one would opt for it anyway.



In this case, the insurance groups refused to offer the coverage... Only a fool would believe that they could buck the odds, but in this case, it did catch up with the homeowner.

So, in the end, who is really evil here? The ins companies for not covering fire or the moron homeowner that bleats and whines that the paxpayer should compensate them for their ill advised decisions?



We' re on the same page on this... Don't confuse sympathy for a willingness to pay for someones risky decisions.




The same argument should apply to the lake front folks in that they took a chance on something not occurring.. Turns out, it did happen and they're now screwed.

It's not so much the magnitude of the event, but the notion that it did happen.

The test design I saw fifteen years ago was raised on thick concrete pylons with the Cabin on concrete skid trusses with break away bolts. the theory was that a smaller Ice flow would flow under the trusses, while a larger flow would displace the cabin without distroying it.
 
captain morgan
+2
#18
Fair enough (and kinda interesting)... What it really says to me is that whoever was developing this system believes that there is a significant risk to this kind of event occurring.
 
hunboldt
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

How else would someone view this; "YOU WANT TO BUILD UP AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. rule one. "? But I was joking anyway. Dragging it out and making a mountain out of a molehill won't change that.

Try to stay with us here, Tex....

I have been describing a 'building design'.

How many Someones behind your keyboard today? check& see if there's a 'engineer '

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fair enough (and kinda interesting)... What it really says to me is that whoever was developing this system believes that there is a significant risk to this kind of event occurring.


Actually, he hasn't had an ice crush yet- the design was extremely interesting. The cabin actually slides, if needed, on old railway rails-
The design keeps his floors off the ground damp year round.

Other than the poured concrete pillars and the finishting lattice, most of it was built form recycled material.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

My wife has always wanted a place on 'The Beach' although I've always worried about Hurricanes or Flooding, Ice that mows down your house has never come to mind.

good post. When my dad's neighbour built his 'raised Cabin',I thought it was overkill.
But if there is ever an ice wall coming off our lake, his two story can move back 40 feet...If he gets a small ice push, it flows right under his floor.

Bright fellow...
 
hunboldt
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

For some reason? Lol. I'd wager it has something to do with there actually being a risk in the area as to why they don't offer the insurance coverage. Because then they'd have to pay out.

Remember, insurance companies are evil, they're not stupid.

See that I don't agree with either. There is a choice being made to build a home there, why should others (taxpayers) have to compensate them for incidents that arise from their choices?

Having said that though, I can maybe see some compensation being offered when something really catastrophic occurs. Just looking at the photo in the OP, that looks fairly catastrophic to me. But I've never lived lakeside, so perhaps that is a more common occurrence that it appears to be? I would think though that Ice and Water damage would more along the lines of basements flooding, not being crushed from the roof down.

From the CBC:
No insurance coverage, residents hope for disaster funding
Dennis Stykalo's, whose home was destroyed in the wind storm, told CBC News his insurance company does not cover any damage done by ice.
"You can't buy insurance coverage for ice," said Stykalo. "So what you have to do is hope the province through the disaster relief assistance, can come forward and provide some sort of assistance to cottage owners and also the homeowners," he sad.
Stan Struthers, the MLA for Dauphin, was in Ochre Beach Saturday to show his support.
"It's a little early right now to say what kind of funding is available, but we right now need to sort through the kind of mess that's here with all the ice," said Struthers.
He said he will help connect people with federal and provincial officials so the damage can be assessed.
"My focus here... is to talk to my friends and my constituents, who are undergoing this stress again," said Struthers. "Hear their stories so I can advocate on their behalf."

An amazing number of people never read their policies...
 
SLM
+2
#21
See I think if you can't actually purchase insurance coverage then there should be some sort of waiver signed before you're allowed to build in an area where particular disasters are known to occur. Either that or some kind of arrangement to pay into a disaster relief fund. Something. But this crossing of fingers and just hoping that nothing happens, then hoping to get some government funding doesn't seem right.
 
hunboldt
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Fair enough (and kinda interesting)... What it really says to me is that whoever was developing this system believes that there is a significant risk to this kind of event occurring.


At the time, 50 Lb rail was sellingfor scrap prices. could be some dollars to be made here...What say we go into business?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

See I think if you can't actually purchase insurance coverage then there should be some sort of waiver signed before you're allowed to build in an area where particular disasters are known to occur. Either that or some kind of arrangement to pay into a disaster relief fund. Something. But this crossing of fingers and just hoping that nothing happens, then hoping to get some government funding doesn't seem right.

Usually there is insurance available for anything assuming the companies are allowed to charge whatever premium they wish. I believe that for cases like this, they probably can't charge what they need to charge to mitigate the risk so they just don't offer it.
 
captain morgan
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post


At the time, 50 Lb rail was sellingfor scrap prices. could be some dollars to be made here...What say we go into business?

I dunno on that... I remember having friends with lake front in Manitoba and Ontario and the value of their homes was not enough to justify the additional costs
 
hunboldt
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I dunno on that... I remember having friends with lake front in Manitoba and Ontario and the value of their homes was not enough to justify the additional costs


'Retrofitting 'would be a bad idea. However, most of the ice damaged & distroyed cabins can't be salvaged- we would be starting from brownfield lots.

We also would want to work with a builder who could 'Think out side the Box'.

Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

I can't afford a home or cottage on waterfront. Since every insurance payout still affects the restuvus, I urge the criminals in charge not to pay.............that's just me being spiteful.

Moot point as they already said they ain't gonna.

They were flooded in 2011, now this. Maybe get a clue and move back a piece.

Glad no one was hurt. Only because the Darwin awards for this year have already been handed out.

ha ha ?

This is something I have to agree with . If you give payment ' for bad design work, you just encourage more of it.

However, a lot of lakeside homes have only so much lot to work with- and zoning bylaws on where you put your house onthat lot..
 
lone wolf
+1
#26
Lakeside? I was raised in "cottage country". If there's a big enough puddle, some developer will put mansions around it.
 
WindWalker
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Lakeside? I was raised in "cottage country". If there's a big enough puddle, some developer will put mansions around it.

And people will rush to buy it. Now that's a special kind of stupid.
 
hunboldt
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by WindWalkerView Post

And people will rush to buy it. Now that's a special kind of stupid.

Puddles don't generate walls of Drift ice!
 
lone wolf
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by hunboldtView Post

Puddles don't generate walls of Drift ice!

Zoom!
 

Similar Threads

0
1
Fire destroys hotel
by BC Bob | Oct 9th, 2005
no new posts