Calcutta.
Posted on 08/30/2017 9:58:40 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
Most of DC would look just like Houston with 50 inches of rain—no doubt about it—but Capitol Hill would be high and dry—just no way to get there by car.
The White House would definitely be flooded—and the underground passages would probably be unusable so the entire structure would have to be rebuilt.
Addicks is over flowing.
Houston’s problem is no zoning laws. They can build anywhere they wish. In the bottom of a 100 year flood zone or on the top of a hill. Not that Houston has many hills since it’s bottom land. If Houston deported their half million illegals, that would eliminate excess building in hazardous areas.
A couple of inches a year. IIUC.
“Leaving finger-pointing aside, future home buyers should note that it is better to buy at the top of the hill than at the bottom!
P.S. It is better to live somewhere with hills so you can be at the top of the hill.”
Gee, I have been thinking of moving to Houston but this cinches it! As soon as the waters recede I’m there dude!
(I jest)
Which will eventually show up in second-rate used car lots around the country.
Now that is terrifying.
It is a hard balance
Smaller cities are told “If it floods once, you have to move to where it won’t flood”. The Midwest is dotted with flood plains that no longer have towns or houses in them.
You can’t do that with a city of six million. Just like NOLA would be condemned if it was a smaller city.
Calcutta...?
When you have highway 10 completely under water, nothing can fix that or even prevent it.
oh heck it won’t happen for another 500 years, let that group of Americans deal with it. /sarc
I agree, it’s kind of rude to use ‘code’ when writing for the public. On top of that, Hong Kong is not a very long name, it’s not like Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch (in Wales). For that, I can see trying to use a somewhat shorter name.
Calcutta.
I used to work for AIG. Back in the days it was focused on insuring the oil industry (before it got involved with mortgage guarantees). The company’s strength was in engineering. Our actuaries didn’t just quote risk. They, along with the engineers, developed plans involving the abatement of risk where that was economic, and quoted on the risk that remained. We had the best engineers and that’s why we were #1.
Rainfall happens. There’s a certain predictability/variability to it. But, the impact of the rainfall, in terms of torrential rainfall and in terms of lack of rainfall, is affected by water control systems.
Houston embraced a far-sighted water control system following the floods of 1935. This involved dry reservoirs and a lot more. I focus on the dry reservoirs because of their innovative idea. Today, dry reservoirs are catching on in the world. The idea of reserving land as parks or as farmlands, and having them available when the 100-year flood comes is now well-established. Think of having an armory. From time to time, it can be used for mobilization. Otherwise, it can be used for basketball games and gun shows and stuff.
The Houston system was compromised, a little here and little there, by development. So that the capacity of the system was diminished. I wonder, since you criticize me, if you’re feeling guilty about it. I’m not criticizing you or anybody else. I’m not into the blame game. I’m into the lessons-learned game.
Hong Kong. Sorry. I use old airport codes.
I’m pretty sure you don’t know what you are talking about. I live 50 yds. from a Bayou that had major renovations based on past flooding. The result, our house stayed dry, never really seriously threatened.
Greens Bayou and Braes Bayou held up admirably until rainfall exceeded 100 year level expectations. Massive flooding occurred outside the 100 year flood plain because the water that came down was far in excess of the 100 year event expectation and across such a massive area.
It is irritating living here at ground zero listening to people spout off like geniuses when actually they don’t know diddly sh*t.
The people of Texas are rolling up there sleeves and getting things done while idiots stand by trying to piss on our feet.
Frankly I expected better from people on Free Republic.
To listen to the media, you would think that the extreme flooding in Houston caused by Hurricane Harvey is a very rare, 1000+ year event for Houston. But based on info in the referenced article, Houston seems to be prone to extreme flooding imo, corrections welcome.
What disturbs me from the article is this paragraph.
"But, with our federal insurance system, things are different. Cities like Houston do not bear the cost of safety versus the benefit of risk abatement. Instead, of the city bearing the cost of reducing its margin of safety, the federal government is expected to bail the city out when natural disasters occur, in terms of rebuilding roads, highways, bridges and other public infrastructure [emphasis added]."
In a nutshell, it looks like the City of Houston's approach to dealing with chronic flooding is to let federal insurance (arguably a good idea but unconstitutional until the states choose to appropriately amend the Constitution imo) clean up any messes, as opposed to limiting damage by maintaining reservoirs dedicated to limiting damage, the reservoirs dedicated in 1935 later sacrificed for other purposes, corrections welcome.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate insurance purposes imo.)
In other words, seemingly thanks to questionable federal involvement in flood planning, Houston chose to be a flood fighter, not a flood preventer (firefighter versus fire preventer).
But also consider that if the feds weren't draining local and state taxes in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, then cities like Houston might consider the costs of flood prevention to be less of a burden.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
As a side note to the scope of the federal government's powers concerning insurance, the express power of the feds to coin money (1.8.5) arguably gives the power to provide FDIC insurance associated with bank accounts. Corrections, insights welcome.
Also, the 17th Amendment is getting honorable mention with respect to damage and loss of life as a consequence of Harvey since feds stuck their big noses into Houston flood planning with no clear constitutional authority to do so imo.
Nobody is pissing on your feet.
That’s water from a hurricane.
I understand that Texans are proud of their state and their fellow Texans.
What I don’t understand is Texans complaining when somebody looks at how the Mayor of Houston has performed.
In case nobody has told you, there’s been a problem in Houston.
Flooding streets and highways under water are two vastly different things. Tucson floods during every rainstorm too, but those floods are gone an hour after the rain stops. Now the 1983 100 Years flood was another matter entirely. We did some adjustments on that, but it was really just to make our dry rivers more durable so they wouldn’t erode so hard, we understood that that much water that quickly WILL flood the city, period, the only question is how many hows fall in the drink. 4 feet of water in 5 days WILL flood a city, period. Can’t be helped.
You think any drainage system we build now will still be intact the next time Houston gets 4 feet of rain in 5 days?
Or build a home 8 feet off the ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.