Are you seriously making the case that this is because Houston altered the environment and would have been just dandy if we had not "altered the environment"?
More that unchecked, minimally regulated, and rapacious development caused a lot of bad decisions to get made which has in large part created a situation where so many people are in harm's way of a known (and frequent from a historical perspective) threat.
Really? Okay, let's discuss your laughably broad definition of "frequent". How many times in recorded history has a city on the US mainland gotten 4 feet of rain in 4 days? Tell ya what, since it's so frequent it should be easy to find and I don't want you to hurt yourself typing, so you can stop at 10. Go.
The fact of the matter is that your Unabomber like fear of modernization is even more laughable than your definition of "frequent". Historically floods were FAR FAR FAR FAR more deadly and continue to be FAR FAR FAR FAR more deadly in older cities, third world nations and areas without modern flood controls like river dams. Despite the population density modern cities like Houston are remarkably floodproof. How many people die in floods in "unchecked, minimally regulated, and rapacious development" versus those that die in areas that are less developed and more natural? Go on, see if you can research that inconvenient little truth without your brain exploding.
That works each spring with the snow melts but our source is stalled out over the victim in an area with relatively little elevation change so some form of active mitigation must be used. Personally I believe that those reservoirs should've been drawn down prior to landfall to help make some room for the forecasted precipitation.
Right Right. And it's poorly planned development to build in earthquake zones. And it's poorly planned development to build in areas prone to wildfires. And it's poorly planned development to build in areas with blizzards, tornadoes, coastal storms, volcanoes, high winds or potential comets slamming into them. Are you seriously making the case that this is because Houston altered the environment and would have been just dandy if we had not "altered the environment"? There is not a city in the world that could have handled this in an unaltered state and none that has planned it or built their infrastructure to accommodate it. 100% of the cities on Earth would have been seriously screwed.
Rapid growth combined with poor planning are evident all across our nation and it shows each time something like this happens.One of the biggest problems is they've allowed development in known flood plains and have not dedicated enough land to detention/retention and to the rivers. Houston has very poor zoning and it shows here.
I agree that proper planning goes a long ways with ensuring that drainage is more effective during periods of high precipitation. In my area its also relatively flat and we have what appears to be good drainage with retention ponds scattered all over the area. When we were hit with a stalled tropical system it was overwhelmed flooding streets and raising water levels in the retention ponds to the limits. Even streets that usually are clear of standing water became lakes and small cars couldn't pass through them.Simply not true, there are ways to build for these things, and countries that do a much better job than the US.
Last year alone Taiwan got hit by two category 4 hurricanes and one category 5 hurricane, and they suffered less damage than what is happening in Houston from a single hurricane.
Obviously you will never have zero impact from a hurricane of this magnitude, but you could certainly do better preparations to dramatically reduce the impact of future hurricanes, because the US gulf coast is going to get hit more and more often in coming decades, and it's about time people do something about time.
So why do humans need to live through storms like this to even begin to understand the need to get away when they happen again? Makes no sense to me at all.
The Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve and how it apparently applies to hurricanes. When a memory is reinforced with some regularity a person reacts in the manner in which the memory has been reinforced. Occupants of a number of Florida cities have been hit so often by hurricanes that their reaction to an oncoming storm is to get out. I'm mentioning this because the residents of Texas who were in the path of Harvey for the most part didn't feel the need to get the hell out. But I'm not going to claim that that these people were stupid, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that when a cat 3 or greater storm is approaching, that you should evacuate. It had been so long since this area was hit by a strong storm that none of these people had any memory reference of having gone through such a storm. You would think that the aforementioned group of people would have, for the most part, at least seen footage of the damage and devastation caused by Andrew, Ivan, Rita, and Katrina, et. al., and that they would have known they should have gotten out of the area. So why do humans need to live through storms like this to even begin to understand the need to get away when they happen again? Makes no sense to me at all. My thoughts and prayers to the victims who were unable to get away, and to the first responders and medical personnel who stayed to provide assistance.
Really? Okay, let's discuss your laughably broad definition of "frequent". How many times in recorded history has a city on the US mainland gotten 4 feet of rain in 4 days? Tell ya what, since it's so frequent it should be easy to find and I don't want you to hurt yourself typing, so you can stop at 10. Go.
The fact of the matter is that your Unabomber like fear of modernization is even more laughable than your definition of "frequent". Historically floods were FAR FAR FAR FAR more deadly and continue to be FAR FAR FAR FAR more deadly in older cities, third world nations and areas without modern flood controls like river dams. Despite the population density modern cities like Houston are remarkably floodproof. How many people die in floods in "unchecked, minimally regulated, and rapacious development" versus those that die in areas that are less developed and more natural? Go on, see if you can research that inconvenient little truth without your brain exploding.
People probably recall Hurricane Matthew last year, that was supposed to decimate Jacksonville, but aside from a few areas of the city, there was very little substantial flooding. Why?
Hurricane Matthew dumped 6.5 inches of rain on Jacksonville. Harvey has dropped over 50 inches of rain on Houston and it is still going. The two don't even compare.
Sure, but it was also supposed to bring a massive surge, which IIRC happened, but didn't do much. I know, no surge on Huston, obviously--I'm just pointing out that Huston intentionally decimated their actual flood mitigation tools, whereas other large cities have left them intact, to great success (granted, the ongoing dredging of St Johns river isn't going to be helping...)
So very true not to mention the fact that Houston is 50ft ASL which adds to their woes. Not enough contrast in elevation for the water to drain away effectively means they will have persistent water for a longer period of time. Even if they had massive pumping stations where would they pump the water to? They would need many miles of pipeline to push that water away from the region so it didn't rush back on them in short order.
I wonder what it would cost to build new reservoirs west of that area in the desert plains and then pump excess water to them?[/QUOTE]
LOL, desert plains? You mean West Texas? That's 500+ miles away and 1000+ feet higher in elevation.
Hurricane Harvey could be the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history with a potential price tag of $160 billion, according to a preliminary estimate from private weather firm AccuWeather.
This is equal to the combined cost of Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, and represents a 0.8% economic hit to the gross national product, AccuWeather said.
Wow the price tag for this one is sticker shock inspiring....
LOL, desert plains? You mean West Texas? That's 500+ miles away and 1000+ feet higher in elevation.
Why yes haven't you heard "Huston we have a probwem?"Huston?
Really? Okay, let's discuss your laughably broad definition of "frequent". How many times in recorded history has a city on the US mainland gotten 4 feet of rain in 4 days? Tell ya what, since it's so frequent it should be easy to find and I don't want you to hurt yourself typing, so you can stop at 10. Go.
To be fair, it also covers 627 sq miles. In comparison, Dallas covers 385 sq miles, and NYC 469 sq miles.Houston has more billion dollar disasters than any other city.
https://www.curbed.com/2017/8/29/16216176/hurricane-harvey-houston-flooding-climate-change
So I haven't heard any criticism of Trump's handling of this crisis yet. I went looking and found nothing. Is the consensus that he handled this ok thus far?
As I live here in the largest city area wise in the lower 48 I can tell you that when it rains it floods...literally and the poorest sections of town are the recipients of the excess water. Its been this way for decades yet the city pours money into the richest sections of town. We're so spread out that you can spend and hour or more trying to commute from one side to the other and if you throw in some traffic congestion forget it. We're also under intense development so areas that were vacant or wooded not so long ago are being prepped for new housing or shopping districts even though some other new ones are failing.Jacksonville's really the only close contender, at 747 sq miles. Not sure on disaster statistics there though wrt hurricanes/floods, might be in much better shape.
Good example of how large-scale development can cause exponential problems, especially when the true development (and money) get focused into very specific pockets, to the detriment of everywhere else.As I live here in the largest city area wise in the lower 48 I can tell you that when it rains it floods...literally and the poorest sections of town are the recipients of the excess water. Its been this way for decades yet the city pours money into the richest sections of town. We're so spread out that you can spend and hour or more trying to commute from one side to the other and if you throw in some traffic congestion forget it. We're also under intense development so areas that were vacant or wooded not so long ago are being prepped for new housing or shopping districts even though some other new ones are failing.
Our republican leadership was reluctant to refuse a rich developer who wanted to turn the downtown into a haven for the elite so they could dock their yachts at their luxury condo's on the river but best of all is that they wanted the taxpayers, most of which who wouldn't benefit from it, to pay for it. Fortunately it was rejected but I'm sure they'll look for another way to squander the public treasury.