3 ms·

Should we restrict human expansion and destruction of coastal wetlands? Is it smart to live in a place where flooding is the norm, and it's costs must continual

Should we restrict human expansion and destruction of coastal wetlands? Is it smart to live in a place where flooding is the norm, and it's costs must continually be subsidized by local, state and federal government? Is it fair to spend federal dollars necessary to rebuild Houston? These are interesting questions - but the fact is that 20-50 inches of rain fell along the Texas coast the past 4 days. No amount of eco circle jerk or voting is ever going to prevent a disaster like this. Even the article says the amount of water shed run off affected by expansion is a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of rainfall Harvey will produce. This did not just affect Houston either - but multiple counties along the Texas coast all the way to Louisiana. Should we not rebuild San Francisco when the next big earthquake hits? Should we not rebuild New Jersey or New Orleans when they get hit by another hurricane? Where do we draw the line on rebuilding large cities after natural disasters? I don't have good answers here - we are all still trying to recover in Houston at this point. Like Angersock said, the sooner we recover the better for people like QAPereo. We are pioneers in Houston - space, heart surgery, oil and gas to name a few - why not rebuild?

skybrian 9y ago
None of that. It just means being smart about city planning like the Netherlands.
- surgeryres 9y ago
  Hurricanes don't affect the Netherlands. No amount of planning can prevent devastation from a storm that drops three feet of water in your front yard. You seem uniformed about what is going on here. This hurricane was bigger than Rita, Katrina, Sandy - and those were real beasts. Maybe you are uninformed because national news coverage of this storm is limited compared to others like it - there have been few deaths because as Texans we have done a damn good job dealing with it so far.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    It's not all or nothing, it's a continuum. Decisions about city planning can make things better or worse. There were things done wrong that made it worse. For example, building homes in a reservoir [1] seems like an obvious bad idea. Do you really want to defend that? [1] https://plus.google.com/+BrianSlesinsky/posts/GwxF2yM3QmC https://plus.google.com/+BrianSlesinsky/posts/GwxF2yM3QmC
    - surgeryres 9y ago
      It is a continuum, and we are way to the right on a log scale in terms of event intensity. I agree we can do certain things like require people to have flood insurance. Neat reference, but you are misquoting it. The homes are not built in a resevoir. They are built in a 100 year flood plain artificially created by earthen dams designed to protect the city.
      - civilitty 9y ago
        The only reason it was designated a "100 year" flood plain was because of faulty government standards. We're only way to the right on a log scale because that scale massively underestimated 0 to 1.
      - skybrian 9y ago
        Isn't that what a reservoir is? You build a dam and everything behind it floods. (Typically anyone living there already gets bought out.) Apparently not all the land behind the dam was bought when it was vacant, people built houses there, therefore these reservoirs can't be allowed to fill all the way during the storm, and they have to release water sooner than they would have otherwise. (Or at least that's what ProPublica seems to be saying. Other news reports say differently.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

skybrian 9y ago

None of that. It just means being smart about city planning like the Netherlands.

surgeryres 9y ago
Hurricanes don't affect the Netherlands. No amount of planning can prevent devastation from a storm that drops three feet of water in your front yard. You seem uniformed about what is going on here. This hurricane was bigger than Rita, Katrina, Sandy - and those were real beasts. Maybe you are uninformed because national news coverage of this storm is limited compared to others like it - there have been few deaths because as Texans we have done a damn good job dealing with it so far.
- skybrian 9y ago
  It's not all or nothing, it's a continuum. Decisions about city planning can make things better or worse. There were things done wrong that made it worse. For example, building homes in a reservoir [1] seems like an obvious bad idea. Do you really want to defend that? [1] https://plus.google.com/+BrianSlesinsky/posts/GwxF2yM3QmC https://plus.google.com/+BrianSlesinsky/posts/GwxF2yM3QmC
  - surgeryres 9y ago
    It is a continuum, and we are way to the right on a log scale in terms of event intensity. I agree we can do certain things like require people to have flood insurance. Neat reference, but you are misquoting it. The homes are not built in a resevoir. They are built in a 100 year flood plain artificially created by earthen dams designed to protect the city.
    - civilitty 9y ago
      The only reason it was designated a "100 year" flood plain was because of faulty government standards. We're only way to the right on a log scale because that scale massively underestimated 0 to 1.
    - skybrian 9y ago
      Isn't that what a reservoir is? You build a dam and everything behind it floods. (Typically anyone living there already gets bought out.) Apparently not all the land behind the dam was bought when it was vacant, people built houses there, therefore these reservoirs can't be allowed to fill all the way during the storm, and they have to release water sooner than they would have otherwise. (Or at least that's what ProPublica seems to be saying. Other news reports say differently.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]