Why do people want to live on a water course? Especially on a curve that will erode over time? Maybe these people can move their houses to some land that just floods every so often. I wouldn't be giving them a dime of taxpayers money. The Salvation Army should step up and help these idiots find God. Then they can ask if it was an act of God, or just something that they should have expected.

Well my home should qualify for some assistance too because we live out in the country and we've endured a catepillar infestation, mountain pine beetle killing most of our trees, but the worst of all is the MOSQUITOES this year. We can barely even go outside most evenings, so our home is more or less ruined....nodoby from the government warned us about any of these problems, so I want a huge grant to move my home to a better area. Also, it rains too much and now my roof leaks, so perhaps my grant will cover those costs too. (Should I even mention the snow that almost crushed my roof?...someone should pay for that too)

"Also, it rains too much and now my roof leaks, so perhaps my grant will cover those costs too."

Actually, if you can qualify based on low income, you can get a forgivable loan from CMHC under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program or Emergency Repair Program of up to $19,000 or so.

In fact, if the Miworth subdivision was a CMHC approved subdivision, then CMHC may be liable for not ensuring that the developer adequately protected the land against such events.

I live on a property, for instance, which is in a CMHC approved subdivision which was developed by the City. The City did not build the subdivision according to plan, which included a swale at the property line so that any water accumulation on the City park side would not cross over onto the property. They did not build that swale and water has crossed it twice and threatened the house.

They have still not put in the swale some 30 years later. The homeowner is not liable for the negligence of others when the outcome of known likely events is known and can be mitigated in the first place by not subdividing or by protecting the subdivided land properly.

Remember, the engineers and planners, as well as the City and the Regional Districts are the experts who must save the public harmless from known conditions. The general public cannot be expected to do that on their own.

It is called "designing a product fit for the purpose for which it is intended”.

A subdivision designed by engineers and approved by various municipal authorities is expected to be “designed fit for the purpose for which it is intended.” This is not much different than a car recall which is deficient in its design and manufacture.

The RDFFG did not practice its due diligence by approving this subdivision without setting appropriate building setbacks, and/or providing appropriate lot depths in those outside corners.

That was then and this is now. The "experts" back in the days when the Miworth sub was made weren't as smart as we are today. So since we are smarter now, or supposed to have smarter baby sitters, the people providing "a product fit for the purpose for which it is intended”, which is to say an RDFFG, should wrap up a disband the government on a regular basis. That way the poor product provided by past governments isn't the responsibility of the present government.
The situation reminds me of the laughable show the Federal Liberal government put on by apologizing to the Japs for treating Japs like enemies during the Second World War!

"So since we are smarter now"

Now that is an extreme assumption which I do not buy into one iota based on my experience. In many cases which I encounter on almost a daily basis, the opposite appears to be true.

First, I used to own lot 3 for about 5 years. I am intimately familiar with the subdivision and the riverbank problem. I had a house designed for that lot which would have been set back about 200 feet from the top of the bank. I thought I would have been safe in my lifetime at the least.

Water edge erosion, whether rivers, lakes, or oceans, has been known to geotechnical engineers much longer than I have been on this earth. The various riverbank protection systems all over the more urbanized world have been around for centuries. This one even goes back thousands of years, albeit that it is for a slower and lower volume situation:

http://www.parsonshurdles.co.uk/river.html

Subdivisions require geotechnical reports both then and now. I would not be surprised if the report for the subdivision includes some cautionary clause about those lots. As a purchaser, I was not made aware of any. After all, how many people ask for the engineering report on the subdivision development in which they are purchasing a property? I am familiar with this stuff and I didn’t. Why should the average person ask?