From the plaintiff

March 31st,

The Matsuyama District Court's ruling on March 18 dismissed the claim.

They appealed , stating they were "not satisfied."

In the Matsuyama District Court, in addition to arguing that the operating rules during heavy rains led to dangerous water releases, the court also sued for negligence in failing to issue evacuation warnings or prompt evacuation orders that conveyed the risk of flooding.

The points we have repeatedly raised have not been adequately considered.

We argue that the lives lost in the heavy rains have been disregarded, and we will challenge the injustice of the first instance judgment in our appeal.

The message of the judgment

• Claims against the State

i. Operations that do not respond to large-scale floods

The judgment ignores the fact that the loss of flood control capacity could be seen by looking at the Hijikawa River flood prediction system. It also ignores the "special disaster prevention operation" using the proviso.

R. Sudden release of water

It is not permitted in the case of foreseeable emergency discharges. It shouldn't be said that avoidance is not necessary if it's foreseeable.

C. Defects in operating rules

Is it acceptable for us to be unable to cope with large-scale floods and for such extensive damage to occur?

Is it acceptable to have operating rules that violate the dam plan?

Statement by the Secretariat

Hydrograph on the Nomura Dam website

Even without requests for changes from residents, flawed operating rules should be corrected.

2. Failure to provide emergency notification at least one hour in advance.

He admitted it.

Hotline, but I had told them I would send a fax when necessary.

The decision by the Nomura Dam Director to start at 6:50 was a mistake.

→They don't understand the Hijikawa flood prediction system.

Weather changes are occurring; a battlefield precipitation zone is approaching.

2. Claim against Seiyo City

Prior briefing (notification meeting) Explanation of the one-hour notice → To inform residents about the dangerous water release and evacuate them. We received the one-hour notice at 5:50, and at 6:08 we were informed by phone that "1750 tons, this is going to be a big problem."

*Seiyo City should have announced around 6:00 AM that emergency flood control operations would begin at 6:50 AM, and around 6:18 AM that the discharge volume would reach 1,750 tons and it would be dangerous to stay at home.

The ruling stated that "since 39 out of 1,922 people did not evacuate, Seiyo City is not responsible, even if there were some minor shortcomings."

However, many more people did not evacuate despite the evacuation orders broadcast from Seiyo City and the calls from the fire brigade. To make the judgment as stated in the ruling, that statement should have been made at 5:50 a.m., 10 minutes after the second broadcast. It is simply a completely arbitrary statement that "only 39 people did not evacuate."

On this point, there are also statements from former Mayor Ikeda, interviews with the fire brigade, interviews with Branch Chief Doi, and survey results. The judgment contains factual errors.

Even if there were 39 people, a person's life is not determined by the number of people. Seiyo City has a responsibility to protect the lives of those 39 people. The Matsuyama District Court's decision that it is not necessary to inform residents, even though they were informed that a large amount of water (1750 tons) would be released to avoid taking lives, and yet residents who are unaware of this are in a dangerous situation, shows a blatant disregard for human life.

I don't think the Supreme Court will uphold such a ruling.

[Field survey: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM]

1. Nomura Dam

・The state of the dam lake

・How to manage the property within the management office

- The discharged water flows downstream with a significant drop in elevation

2. Confirmation of the actions of the deceased on the day of death

Can you see the river from your house?

・If you run, you can evacuate in just a few minutes.

- How they escaped by climbing onto someone else's roof

- Regarding the couple who died, the distance from the river and the fact that their house was built lower than the surrounding area

[Examination of the plaintiff who lost her husband]
・I was woken up by an announcement saying, "The water level has reached a dangerous level that could lead to flooding." I went to see the river with my late husband. The water level had not risen. I wondered why they had made such an announcement.

・I left for work and called my husband, and the last thing I heard was, "Evacuate, evacuate."

-I had heard that in previous floods, the levee would overflow at around 800 m3/s, so if I had been informed that the discharge rate would be 1,750 m3/s, I would have evacuated early instead of going to work.

[Testimony from the plaintiff who lost her mother]

-I live at the foot of the bridge and look at the river and see that the water level is not rising.

・Thinking that the flooding would be limited to the basement, I moved my belongings to a place about 1.5 meters higher. After that, I planned to evacuate with my mother, but by the time I finished moving them, the flooding had already begun, and the water level had risen so rapidly that I was unable to move in my car, so I climbed onto the roof of someone else's house.

-The mother called her son to ask for help, but when he tried to go and help her, he was almost swept away by the muddy water and was unable to do so.

-I had heard that the discharge rate would exceed the levee at 800 m3/s, so if they had informed me that the discharge rate would be 1,750 m3/s, I would have stopped lifting the goods, which would have been a waste of time, and taken my mother to evacuate early.

[Chief of Ozu City Crisis Management Division]

- Testimony that the mayor's message to residents was not good, so everyone worked together to come up with a plan, which took time.

Regarding the discharge volume and flooding damage to houses, testimony showed that houses in low-lying areas begin to flood when the discharge volume exceeds 800 m3/s.

-We acknowledge that the evacuation order was delayed because the decision was based on the water level of the Hijikawa River.

[Examination of the plaintiff who lost both parents]

I lived in Uwajima City, 50 km from the disaster site. My friend was worried, but I was telling him that my house was far from the river and that I was safe when I received a phone call from Seiyo City. He said that his parents had died, and when I asked which of them had died, he said both of them.

The dam was constructed in a way that allowed it to function properly.

-I am not aware of any operating rules that would prevent large-scale flooding.

- He stated that he was unaware of the special disaster prevention operations, even though they had been explained at a "public information meeting" hosted by Kanogawa Dam for related organizations.

・He testified that the dam office has no obligation to directly inform residents of dam discharge information, ignoring the operational rules. There were scenes where the government's designated representative panicked.

- We acknowledge that we were aware that Ozu City had not informed residents that the discharge volume would be the largest ever and that it would reach 6,000 m3/s, but that we did not directly inform residents of this.

- They did not answer questions about why they announced that the water level had reached a dangerous level that could cause flooding, even though it had not reached that level.

-When asked why they did not inform residents that water levels would rise rapidly once emergency flood prevention operations began, they answered that they did not want residents to panic.

- He admitted that he nearly gave up when he received the call at 6:08 a.m. saying, "1,750 tons, this is going to be a big problem."

・I didn't know what the 1,750 tons contained, but I didn't ask anyone around me who knew.

-In response to a question from the judge, the defendant stated that the head of the fire department was nearby and that the fire department had withdrawn from the area near the embankment at 6:30.

-I am not aware of any operating rules that would prevent large-scale flooding.

 - He repeatedly testified that he had received a phone call at 4:30 a.m. informing people that disaster prevention operations in the event of an abnormal flood would begin at 6:20 a.m., which contradicts the fax sent at 4:30 a.m.

 - They say they can only operate in accordance with the operating rules, but they have not given clear testimony about the prohibition of sudden releases.

We are now about to begin the examination of witnesses. Please come and observe.

Wednesday, August 27th: Witness testimony: Former Nomura Dam Office Director to appear in court from 10am to 4pm

Thursday, August 28th: Witness examination: Seiyo City Former Nomura Branch Chief will appear in court from 10am to 4pm

9/18 (Thu) Witness examination: Former Kanogawa Dam office manager will appear in court from 10:00 to 16:00

9/19 (Fri) Witness examination: Ozu City Court appearance 10:00-16:00

10/8 (Wednesday) 2 plaintiffs 10:00-16:00

10/9 (Thu) Reserve day

肱川水害から5年　訴訟で明らかになった国、西予市、大洲市の過失