Some were prepared for flooding, others were not.

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

One of the few times I fully agree with OWG: when you believe in global warming, not only should you take action to lower your carbon footprint, but you should also prepare for the changes in weather patterns. For people living near water, that means investing in flooding protection, while farmers need to store water for draughts like the one hitting central europe this year and people living in the shore area should move further inland.

That sounds more like common sense. Even if you don't believe in global warming.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That sounds more like common sense. Even if you don't believe in global warming.

I guess I should reveal that this thread is............sarcasm, if anyone didn't already recognize it (I post a lot of that here).

 

[DaisyDay]

Levees built and often funded with federal dollars on one part of a river are responsible for more and worse flooding across the river and downstream.

The Sny has long flouted the Corps’ restrictions on levee height. It pushed up its levees a decade ago without federal permission, and since then, residents across the river in Pike County, Missouri, have blamed the higher barriers for worsening floods that inundated farms and closed businesses in the riverfront towns of Clarksville and Louisiana.

A new analysis of Corps data shows that, by protecting itself, the Sny district has increased flooding upstream and in Pike County.

Inside a Secretive Lobbying Effort to Deregulate Federal Levees — ProPublica

Levees Make Mississippi River Floods Worse, But We Keep Building Them

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The clear answer to flooding is to not "dwell carelessly in the (coastlands)", but carefully.

 

[dgiharris]

Levees built and often funded with federal dollars on one part of a river are responsible for more and worse flooding across the river and downstream.



Levees Make Mississippi River Floods Worse, But We Keep Building Them

The clear answer to flooding is to not "dwell carelessly in the (coastlands)", but carefully.

I've never understood why areas prone to flooding do not invest heavily in a drainage-tunnel-runoff system or the reverse, levees and walls...

It is literally only a matter of time before you have a flood that will cost billions of dollars. So why not simply invest the money and build a network of drainage/runoff tunnels.

Of course, coastal areas may not be able to do so, but there are a lot of areas in America prone to flooding that can.

In Fact, Las Vegas had a huge flood in the 90s and then because of that flood they developed an impressive network of tunnels making a repeat flood impossible

 

[Desk trauma]

I've never understood why areas prone to flooding do not invest heavily in a drainage-tunnel-runoff system or the reverse, levees and walls...

It is literally only a matter of time before you have a flood that will cost billions of dollars. So why not simply invest the money and build a network of drainage/runoff tunnels.

In the case of the of the US coasts I have to suspect that it has to do with who will endure the costs. As it stands all the costal areas are covered by heavily subsidized federal insurance (not to mention extra funds at the time of the storms) that guarantees they have the ability to rebuild after the storms wipe them out with the rest of the country eating the real costs of their choice to live in an inherently hazardous area. If those same communities were to look into infrastructure that would mitigate the impact of storms they would have to pay to put it in place. Why do so when the rest of the country will just rebuild your (in many cases vacation or rental) house for you every so often?

At this point I must mention again that this storms largest area of impact was my home state which has explicitly forbidden taking the effects of rising sea level and climate change into account with respects to development and infrastructure.

Were I to have my druthers, I don't and never will but anyhow, the cost of insurance would be allowed to reflect the real risk to costal property which would solve the problem in one storm cycle.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've never understood why areas prone to flooding do not invest heavily in a drainage-tunnel-runoff system or the reverse, levees and walls...

It is literally only a matter of time before you have a flood that will cost billions of dollars. So why not simply invest the money and build a network of drainage/runoff tunnels.

Of course, coastal areas may not be able to do so, but there are a lot of areas in America prone to flooding that can.

In Fact, Las Vegas had a huge flood in the 90s and then because of that flood they developed an impressive network of tunnels making a repeat flood impossible

I don't think any of this is practical at this time. Better plan would be to cool off the earth.

 

[DaisyDay]

I've never understood why areas prone to flooding do not invest heavily in a drainage-tunnel-runoff system or the reverse, levees and walls...

It is literally only a matter of time before you have a flood that will cost billions of dollars. So why not simply invest the money and build a network of drainage/runoff tunnels.

Of course, coastal areas may not be able to do so, but there are a lot of areas in America prone to flooding that can.

In Fact, Las Vegas had a huge flood in the 90s and then because of that flood they developed an impressive network of tunnels making a repeat flood impossible

Flood plains dissipate the force as the river area becomes wide and shallow; making it narrow and deep in certain sections creates the Venturi effect. Too bad for the folk on the wrong end of that!

Every levee that goes up worsens the effect down the line. As the rivers gets walled in and rises, it goes faster, harder and more likely to break a levee down the way. As it stands, there are laws, but communities break the laws enforced by the Army Corps of Engineers - and, of course, the law favors the wealthy. "Anyone" will tell you that it only makes sense to protect the wealthy because they are worth more; let the raging river wash the poor areas away, obviously it's God's will.

 

[FireDragon76]

Flood insurance and health insurance cannot be compared in any meaningful way.

The average flood damage cost per structure is $111,000. Most structures can be protected from flood damage for $2000-$3000. If whole neighborhoods cooperate in flood control the cost would be much less.

Health care can have similarly high catastrophic costs.

I don't think punishing people who live near the coasts is necessarily appropriate . Most of our big cities are port cities and there's a reason people settle near waterways. It's cheap transportation for trade goods.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Health care can have similarly high catastrophic costs.

I don't think punishing people who live near the coasts is necessarily appropriate . Most of our big cities are port cities and there's a reason people settle near waterways. It's cheap transportation for trade goods.

Two-thirds of humanity "dwell carelessly" near these coasts. Don't they know what this means? Consider Puerto Rico. Those homes, and the electric grid, should have been built to withstand hurricane winds. As storms got worse due to global warming the prospect of severe flooding should have been considered when new structures were built; at the very least a few feet higher off the ground.

I live inland, but in a large watershed. Ten years ago we had unprecedented rainfall causing flooding over a large area. Some farm fields were lost for years as the water didn't drain away. It was suggested that our largest lake be lowered to contain water if such a storm hit the city. Of course nothing was done. Last month the city was inundated with an even larger rainstorm. Parts of the city were flooded by the lakes, which could not be drained fast enough. Flood damage was in the $millions. Once again calls go out to lower the lake level and already the usual suspects are resisting. We'll see what happens.

 

[FireDragon76]

Two-thirds of humanity "dwell carelessly" near these coasts. Don't they know what this means? Consider Puerto Rico. Those homes, and the electric grid, should have been built to withstand hurricane winds. As storms got worse due to global warming the prospect of severe flooding should have been considered when new structures were built; at the very least a few feet higher off the ground.

I used to live on Guam. Huge typhoons routinely hit the island. Only the Navy and Air Force folks had underground infrastructure, as well as concrete block houses with storm shutters. Most of the native islanders, the Chamorro people, simply rebuilt the shacks they lived in and went on.

PR on the other hand has a relatively large population, but because they are a colonial possession of the United States, that hamstrings their economic development, so they can't afford to bury infrastructure. And generally in the past, they haven't needed to. Hurricane Maria was freakishly powerful, a storm of the century.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

PR on the other hand has a relatively large population, but because they are a colonial possession of the United States, that hamstrings their economic development, so they can't afford to bury infrastructure. And generally in the past, they haven't needed to. Hurricane Maria was freakishly powerful, a storm of the century.

It will be interesting to see how they rebuild. Concrete block is cheap, and very versatile.