Aha the Town admits that it was responsible

In a stunning turnaround the Town of Cobourg is obviously 'backfilling' as fast as it can. We refer to the issue of the recent flooding in the Upper George St. area. Soon after it happened the following quote was recorded: "Any flooding that occurred (in the area) was not due to any negligence whatsoever on the town's part," said Mr. MacDonald. "We (Town of Cobourg) have worked hard over the last 20 years to improve infrastructure to limit any damage that may occur during flooding."
That obviously was not quite true, in the literal sense, but what was true was the response to the opinion expressed by the BurdReport in this post here where the following questions were posed:

• If the Town has worked hard to improve infrastructure how come this area flooded?
  
• If the Town is responsible for Storm Water Management how come they haven't ordered private property owners to improve their facilities to modern standards?
  
• If the Town knew that this Railroad culvert was inadequate twenty odd years ago why haven't they followed the standards of the latest Storm Water Management Report and ordered changes on the railroad property?
• If the Town is denying culpability why didn't they tell the Homeowners to sue the Railroad Company?

So what has the Town done in response to the delegation that faced them and demanded action? Quite a lot as a report to be revealed Monday shows. If one clicks on the image readers can see the salient points of the report. It tells of a report received from the engineering firm of Gordon, in 2004, about the problems of the CN lands and its inadequate culvert and its undersizing for a 100 year storm.
The Town report also recommends that a storm water retention pond be built upstream of the George St problem area. Council in adopting the report will make a motion to spend the money to plan for such a facility. It should be noted that retention ponds aren't so great during a 100 year storm cycle, witness the failure of the ponds on the Nickerson Creek that overflowed their banks and produced epic flooding on Elgin St. Incidentally the intersection didn't flood in the '80 flood as development in that area was non-existent and the flood plain was larger than today. It was reduced to assist in the expansion of the building envelope by whiny developers. The result is apparent; modern planning in that area failed to prevent flooding.
But the questions still should be asked "Is the Town liable, and should they compensate the flood victims?" The BurdReport thinks so. But it remains to be seen if they will.