Drudge Report headlines it as "'MOST RAIN EVER' AS BRITISH COLUMBIA HIT BY MONSTER STORM...". Since I live there, I clicked to get the details on what I've been experiencing.

The link is to a Canadian Press article written by Scott Sutherland. It, in turn, is headlined "Intense rainfall most ever recorded as storm sweeps southern B.C." The certainty expressed by the headline is watered down in the body of the text:

"We've been measuring very high rates of rainfall, in fact, probably some of the highest rainfall we've ever measured at a number of sites throughout the south coast."

Another problem with the CP article: "Temperatures soared to 15C (60F) in Vancouver on Monday." It didn't soar; it's been around 15C here for the last week or two (interrupted by a two-day plunge in temperature about a week ago). I'd been wearing shortsleeve shirts before Monday's apparent temperature soar.

"Some areas had seen 200 to 350 millimeters of rain since Thursday afternoon..." What surprises me is that there isn't more fuss being made over the 350mm (13.8") of rain. Perhaps because it's reported in millimeters, people aren't aware of just how large that number is. The part that troubles me, however, is that no one is reporting just where that rain fell. Contrast that number with the previous all-time record for Vancouver of 5". 13.7" vs 5"...

Also, we're not seeing the effects of nearly 14" of rainfall. Some houses have flooded, but we're not seeing the flooding that normally occurs after a heavy rain. I just returned from checking Clayburn Road,which always floods, but water has just reached the edge of road. Either the ground is soaking up a lot of water, or we didn't get 14" of rain.