So, who knew the St. John River would flood like that?

I thought of the news reports on a Friday or Saturday that predicted the Saint John River flood would peak the following Tuesday.  And that happened as predicted.  But I was surprised that the record-breaking nature of the flooding was not also predicted – a week, 10 days or two weeks beforehand.  I can’t help but think that somebody knew or should have.

I’m certain there are well-developed and accurate models of flow in the St. John River and of contributing factors in the river’s watershed including snow cover and weather.  These would be hydrologic and meteorologic models developed from empirical data collected in the watershed over many generations if not centuries.  We have models in forensic engineering investigation that serve us well too.

Sounds technical but hydrology is simply the study of the flow of water in a watershed and meteorology is the study of weather.  Put them together and you’ve got a powerful tool for predicting if a river is going to flood, when this will happen and how high.

A model is simply a set of ideas and numbers that describe the past, present or future of something such as an economy, business or, flow in a river.  Models are built using measurements and observations – empirical data – of the things that characterize what you’re interested in.

A street map is a model.  It shows the location of streets and other features of interest in an area.  Things like businesses, buildings, the local coffee shop, etc.  It doesn’t show things you’re not interested in like the height of the buildings and the level of the streets.

Good and accurate models:

  • Fit the empirical data from which they’re built
  • Explain past observations – like why the river flooded in the past
  • Predict future observations – like when the river will flood again
  • Are simple and inexpensive to use

Exhaustive data collection and study of flow in the River would have been done for design and construction of the Mactaquac Dam in 1968 – a few kilometres up river of Fredericton – and during the 50 years, half a century, after the Dam was operating.  So why not an accurate prediction of the historic flooding – not an inch or so above all previous highs but something like a foot?

We rely on models in the forensic engineering investigation of the cause of foundation failure.  Foundation design and construction is closely tied to the semi-empirical science of soil mechanics – a science partly based on measurements and observations and partly on theory.  This science developed in the early 1900s and holds us in good stead in a forensic investigation.

Annual flooding in the St. John River was being recorded each year long before the early 1900s, and the weather – temperature and rainfall – and conditions in the watershed – snow pack – were being noted.

So, I would put my money on the existence of accurate models that would predict with a respectable degree of accuracy, a week or two in advance, that New Brunswick was going to be flooded-out.  These models would include data on how the Mactaquac Dam is operated in storing and releasing water.

I was in contact with a professional forester who lives in Douglas a short distance up river of Fredericton.  He wonders too about the flooding and also noted the Dam and it’s operation as a feature in the watershed.

I can’t help but wonder if a similar situation exists in British Columbia with the flooding there.

References

  1. Giere, Ronald N, Bickle,John, and Mauldin, Robert F., Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 5th ed., 2006, Thompson Nelson, Toronto
  2. Wikipedia, May 14 and 15, 2018

How you can help break the expert evidence logjam

It sounds like a commercial but you can help break the logjam by reading Dr. Ruth M. Corbin’s paper on how we experts are helping. (Ref. 1)  Then you suggest what might be included in follow-up studies to her pilot study of 152 experts.

You might remember from my blog earlier this week that the logjam is the different perspective of expert evidence held by the courts as distinct from the experts. (Ref. 2)

Ruth calls for follow-up research on the following questions:

  1. Empirical research to strengthen the evidence-based foundation of future policy
  2. Economical modeling to complement the Supreme Court’s call for a “cost-benefit” analysis of expert testimony, and,
  3. Practical steps toward creating a forum for direct communication between experts and courts

We’ve got to get Atlantic Canada input to these follow-up studies – there’s no information on the role we had in the earlier studies.

In my earlier blog, I suggested including the following in follow-up studies: :

  1. Future studies and perspectives must be evidence-based.  I was prompted to suggest this on learning that the court’s view of expert evidence as revealed in the pilot studies was not so evidence-based.  It was this view as I understood it that influenced the policy on rules governing experts
  2. Economic modelling to complement the Supreme Court’s call for a “cost-benefit” analysis of expert testimony must include an identification of the principles governing the cost control of civil litigation involving experts.  You can’t do a reliable cost-benefit analysis without accurate expert costs arising from conformance to these principles.
  3. The role of the middle man, the advocate, in direct communications between experts and courts must be carefully spelled out.

Summary

Read Dr. Corbin’s paper – you’re in for a treat -, and possibly my blog and take on the situation, then send your comments to her.  Don’t be too refined, just get something out there like in brain storming.  Send your comments and suggestions to info@corbinpartners.com  I found Dr. Corbin’s assistant very good, responding quite quickly to my queries and promptly forwarding comment onto Ruth.

References

  1. Corbin, Ruth M., Chair, Corbin Partners Inc. and Adjunct Professor, Osgoode Hall School, Toronto, Breaking the Expert Evidence Logjam: Experts Weigh In, presented at Expert Witness Forum East, Toronto, February, 2018 (Google the paper and Ruth’s name)
  2. How experts are helping break the expert evidence logjam.  Posted April 30, 2018