Posted on 03/24/2021 11:17:14 AM PDT by rktman
Natural flood plains form where floods spread silt and mud in river valleys. Being flat, fertile, picturesque, and usually supplied with surface and underground water, they attract farms, orchards, and gardens. These are inevitably followed by roads, houses, and businesses.
Despite the all the planners with their rules, the pressure of people plus a bit of corruption has always resulted in population clustering on fertile flood plains and deltas beside scenic rivers. There is no point trying to stop or reverse this tide of history, but those who choose to build on flood plains must bear the costs of the occasional flood.
Community groups will always help those stricken by floods, but taxpayers and insurers should not be forced to subsidize the insurance and damage costs for those who choose to live in risky places — their choice, their risk, their cost. Insurance for flood-prone property will be expensive or not available — a clear message for those with ears to hear.
More cautious people build on the hills and leave the flood plains for floods, farms, trees, market gardens, and grass. Rational town planning would require sellers and developers to provide accurate flood maps to buyers, and councils should paint flood levels on power poles.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
As communities grow politicians like to grab and build on land on flood plains. They build the land up then the previously unflooded areas are all of a sudden. Been going on for decades.
Yup.
Low ground always sucks. Don’t buy the low ground.
Yes.
Instead of destroying everybody’s economy, just build the houses at seashores by planning for a foot rise in the ocean. That should be enough for as far as anybody is concerned. (over 100 years!).
If you want to be safe for thousand years, plan for 10ft.
The whole Back Bay section of Boston was underwater in 1776.
Look at any of the Revolutionary War maps.
The difference is that there was bedrock under that muck. The John Hancock tower(60 stories) and Prudential Center(50+stories) are built there.
That’s why I live in the heights.
After super storm Sandy hit the NYC/NJ/CT area the state of CT increased the height above the high tide line on Long Island Sound to 13’. Plus you need to be on pilings down 30+ feet into the ground.
My understanding is that they intend to use multiple means to drive up the cost of housing (such as super-high utility rates, insane construction requirements, etc.) to the point that the Middle Class and Upper Middle Class is driven out, leaving only the very wealthy being able to afford to still live in houses. They’ll instead build China-style high-rise apartment buildings for the former home owners to live in.
At that point, they’ll raze the 100 million or so empty houses and make open space space out of it (or re-forest the areas, depending on specifics). Most of their ‘justification’ for their plan is due to the ‘environmental footprint’ of houses, versus highly concentrated apartment buildings. Along with the obvious increased energy used in houses, the ability to operate mass transportation systems is much better, with the people concentrated in apartments, and there will also be far fewer automobile owners (as, needless to say, there won’t be parking at those buildings).
I’m not saying that I like or agree with their plan, but that is an expected result of giving them complete power to run the country. Oh well, won’t be my problem for long!
5,187 ft elevation. Still good at high tide.
That is the perfect description of Chesterfield,MO ( just out of ST. Louis on I-64). It use to be called Gumbo bottoms when it was all farm land. Now its high-end stores and businesses for miles all behind a levee to keep the Missouri River back. In the 1993 flood it provided some sensational pictures. But they built back even more and made the levee higher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCZ_5Jsz2z0
Easy calculations will give you, that even if all ice on Earth melts and drain to the ocean, the maximum possible rise in seas would be around 200 ft! That would still leave most of the land dry and actually uncover and made available a lot of frozen and ice covered land.
Land lost in Florida could be replaced by nice beachfront in Antarctica.
Don’t spoil the lie. Sheesh. 😱
Yep. That’s the area I was thinking of.
Greenland! Baffin Island! Think of the new mines and oil wells that may be there.
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.