We have deposited Genghis Connie at U. Of T a few hours ago. 4th floor of a concrete building, with some supplies. we are expecting tropical storm winds and about Ten to twelve inches of rain through Sunday(Austin). Mom's old friends are battened down on the Second floor of their apartment.
Rockport and corpus (beach towns) getting the gak kicked out of them. turned Dell and HEB centers are now shelters for people. It's officially on shore now.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Per latest report some coastal areas are looking at FORTY INCHES of rain. I have never seen that ever. Hurricane is forecast to loiter through Sunday and then back up and over Houston.
Well we were in a bit of a drought button come on!
Yeah, news reports don't seem catastrophic for the area. For sure, it's a mess down there, but it's likely just damage to the communication infrastructure. Sure you're family is ok.
BULLETIN
Tropical Storm Harvey Intermediate Advisory Number 25A
NWS National Hurricane Center Miami FL AL092017
100 PM CDT Sat Aug 26 2017
...HARVEY BECOMES A TROPICAL STORM INLAND OVER TEXAS...
...EXTREMELY SERIOUS FLOODING EVENT UNFOLDING...
SUMMARY OF 100 PM CDT...1800 UTC...INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------
LOCATION...29.1N 97.6W
ABOUT 45 MI...70 KM WNW OF VICTORIA TEXAS
ABOUT 60 MI...95 KM ESE OF SAN ANTONIO TEXAS
MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS...70 MPH...110 KM/H
PRESENT MOVEMENT...NNW OR 340 DEGREES AT 2 MPH...4 KM/H
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE...987 MB...29.15 INCHES
Frazzled wrote: Three feet of rain has fallen in Clear Lake (NASA's center for non TEXANS).
1,000 rescues so far in Houston alone. Looks like all major freeways are shut down now. Mayor is asking for anyone with a boat to help.
My parent's flight from SA to go through Houston has been canceled. They rebooked. Canceled. Thankfully it's been minor in San Antonio so I was able to help my sister move. Still sucked to do in the constant drizzle.
Live in the Houston area. Hasn't stopped raining since Friday. 22" so far in my neighborhood. Had 4 tornados touch down within 5 miles of my house, though mostly minor damage. Fortunately, my neighborhood is realitively new and was built with lots of rention pond capacity so no flooding, just on and off ponding. Other places though not so lucky as I am sure you have seen on the news. Houston is pretty much shutdown, with even major freeways closed. Some forecasts say we will get another 20 to 25" of rain before the storm finally move out of the area Wednesday or Thursday. All the local schools systems have decided to call it a week and won't even attempt to have class until Tuesday, Sept. 5.
Needless to say this is not over yet with the worst still to come as creeks and bayous continue to rise and spill over banks. Well wishes and prayers appreciated.
For the curious, the following is a good site for the statistics;
Usually you can click on the more information link to view the historicals and current water level, though some stations are going Out Of Service (OOS).
I can't figure this out. Most of the narrative seems to be that it isn't that big of a deal, but the images I've seen of Houston being pretty much underwater seem pretty serious.
sebster wrote: I can't figure this out. Most of the narrative seems to be that it isn't that big of a deal, but the images I've seen of Houston being pretty much underwater seem pretty serious.
It might be because the worst hasn't happened yet. Once all the water that got dumped further inland makes its way down is when the real damage will occur.
Looks like it's forecast to shift further East when it comes around. Now coming back in near Louisiana and then up and out. It's mellowed out Austin way now , but La Grange is under water. All of Texas hopes "the girls"got out ok.
I originally thought it wouldn't be bad in Houston but I just saw the pictures coming out of there. My Aunt lives there. I just sent out a bunch of texts and emails and am trying to find her phone number, but can anyone tell me the general situation there? Have there been fatalities and what's the rescue operation like? (Global News here is somewhat sparse with the details apart from giving their condolences)
Three dead. There have been 2,000 rescues at this point. What part of the Houston area?
EDIT: EVEN if flooded,its about people. Things can be replaced. People have been sent to shelters in Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and new ones are opening way up in Dallas. They may be out of communication for some time, so be patient.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Not quite sure, we've never been to her place. She always visits us (I hate travelling, she loves travelling). But it should be somewhere more urban.
EDIT: At least only 3 dead means the situation isn't that bad yet. Although I hope those three aren't her and her family.
Seven million people in the area, thats not an issue. But this is all still occurring there, so be patient. Per my peeps there power comes on and off etc.
EDIT2: Per the stream gauge behind the old Houston house, 25.2 inches of rain in the last three days. Wow.
EDIT: Sorry for the somewhat panicked state I'm in. I got the news just before I went to bed last night so I'm a little shaken up. Didn't help this morning when I went into the office and found more stuff "went south" so to speak (unrelated to the flood, something else came up). I'm currently trying to process all of it and see what I can do to help.
Frazzled wrote: Also the towers themselves may be out of order at this point.
More than that, what always happens during these emergencies is people panic because they can't get a hold of someone and keep calling/texting/whatever and overload the system.
It's always the way it goes here in NC when we have snowstorms or hurricanes. I just don't bother calling or texting until after the state of emergency gets lifted.
Hopefully that's all it is in Mecha's case. This whole thing sucks for everyone involved, but expect to see it happen more and more.
Frazzled wrote: Also the towers themselves may be out of order at this point.
More than that, what always happens during these emergencies is people panic because they can't get a hold of someone and keep calling/texting/whatever and overload the system.
It's always the way it goes here in NC when we have snowstorms or hurricanes. I just don't bother calling or texting until after the state of emergency gets lifted.
Hopefully that's all it is in Mecha's case. This whole thing sucks for everyone involved, but expect to see it happen more and more.
My aunt finally replied and told me that they're currently away on vacation (in Spain) so at least the people are safe (and explains why I can't reach em). Material goods we can deal with when the time comes, but at least that's a load off of my mind.
That is literally the policy that lead to a million people starving to death in the Irish potato famine. The exact same policy. How can they still be parroting that when they have a perfect historical case study sitting on their doorstep?
Da Boss wrote: That is literally the policy that lead to a million people starving to death in the Irish potato famine. The exact same policy. How can they still be parroting that when they have a perfect historical case study sitting on their doorstep?
This is the country where cutting taxes on the rich is pushed as serious economic policy. Raw capitalism has long been glorified in US culture, and we more or less put profit ahead of history, data, or morality when it comes to economic policy.
Terrible time for us all... I'm in the Bastrop area, so we got over 32 hours of non-stop heavy rain. I had to dig a few trenches in the backyard to channel the water as it was pouring down, but otherwise we all came out fine. And, we finally heard from our friends in Dickson that was purported to be completely underwater and they are fine.
And... prayers to those that lost,
congrats to those that survived.
Feth to those that think it is OK to gouge in a time of suffering.
The area where I live is subject to periodic flooding but it's a more genteel kind of flood than this hurricane. The kind of flood where you can sit on the pub terrace with your legs in the water and keep on drinking.
At first I thought you probably would be OK if you stocked up some camping gas, bottled water/filter/purifier pills, tinned food and so on. You could sit on the upper floors of your house and wait for the waters to subside. However it's obvious that that only works if your house isn't severely damaged by the hurricane winds. Also, it looks like this situation is going to carry on for more than a few days. It could be two or three weeks for the water to drain away. As well as rescuing people in imminent danger of being swept away and drowned, the emergency services need to set up refugee camps for the people who have got out by themselves, and also get ready to drop supplies to people who are trapped but all right but need water and food.
I've seen a lot of neighbourly help happening on TV and it's great but it won't be enough to help 100s of thousands of people.
I've been following it on the news still and this is the moment that heroes will be made. And not just the people on the ground rescuing others. It's gonna be a logistics pain but whoever can crunch the numbers fast enough will rescue far more people than those running out there with boats. I just hope no more instances of corporate greed or fear of blame stalls these efforts.
It's kinda hard to watch some of the earlier newscasts now. I remember seeing a man saying he's just buying some non-perishable supplied and hoping he can wait it out with his family in the basement. This was before the storm ramped up to life threatening levels.
Water is now over the top of the Addicks Dam. Houston Chronicle reporting an HPD officer has drowned.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pentagon conference, looks like they are mobilizing 20,000 nat guard and other troops from other states, to relieve current guard units and equipment.
Frazzled wrote: News says uncontrolled released will continue through Sept. 20.holy crap
Automatically Appended Next Post: They have pulled vehicles out of the Nat Guard museum to help. Wow
The current rainfall to date would be enough to fill a 4x4x4 kilometer cube, although I'm not sure that actually helps visualize any better, because who pictures 64 cubic kilometers of anything?
Think of it this way. 60 inches of rain is enough for a red neck outdoor pool the size of France!
On the positive:
1. Looks like Fayette and Bastrop counties will have major rivers below flood stage by tomorrow. Once it actually stops raining the Houston area drains very quickly. It just needs to fething STOP RAINING.
2. Mom's old friends are still safe on the second floor of their apartment and the power is still on. Rain has slackened on the west side of town.
Frazzled wrote: News says uncontrolled released will continue through Sept. 20.holy crap
Automatically Appended Next Post: They have pulled vehicles out of the Nat Guard museum to help. Wow
The current rainfall to date would be enough to fill a 4x4x4 kilometer cube, although I'm not sure that actually helps visualize any better, because who pictures 64 cubic kilometers of anything?
For those who aren't familiar with metric, thats a cube roughly 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles by 2.5 miles.
A Georgia Anheuser-Busch brewery has transported more than 155,000 cans of water that had been marked for beer production to Texas and Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, NBC News reported Monday.
A brewery in Cartersville, Ga., is sending water using the trucks it typically uses for daily beer shipments.
A Georgia Anheuser-Busch brewery has transported more than 155,000 cans of water that had been marked for beer production to Texas and Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, NBC News reported Monday.
A brewery in Cartersville, Ga., is sending water using the trucks it typically uses for daily beer shipments.
fair fething play, good for them.
Just about every US brewery/beverage company is doing this... AB is more widely known as they have 12 massive breweries.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How's this for size comparison...
Weather Channel just stated that Houston basically go doused by Lake Michigan (15 trillion gallons of water).
Well I'm gonna make a note of these breweries and ask for their beer whenever I go out to drink. Kudos to them for putting their humanity first. I'd certainly drink to that.
A Georgia Anheuser-Busch brewery has transported more than 155,000 cans of water that had been marked for beer production to Texas and Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, NBC News reported Monday.
A brewery in Cartersville, Ga., is sending water using the trucks it typically uses for daily beer shipments.
fair fething play, good for them.
I think the people of Houston would prefer the beer to more water!
MrDwhitey wrote: Did anyone catch the article on Forbes (that got deleted) saying we need more price gouging in relation to this?
Yeah, I read it. Even apart from the amorality of the piece, the economics of it were really stupid. The price spike happens because the supply chain has broken and new goods can't be drawn in even at higher prices.
Note: The Motiva refinery shut down. The Chevron refinery shut down due to mechanical failure and flooding. Get your gas now as the prices are spiking and will remain high for maybe 1-2 months, especially if they move directly to stoppage and changeover to winter formulations.
What really irritates me is when the media and the government use the terms "1000 year flood" or "100 year flood" - it simply gives people an unrealistic and overly optimistic view of reality.
"It flooded here 25 years ago? Well, then we are good for my lifetime!"
What people need to realize is it will flood the next time a hurricane or big storm drops a bunch of water, and that could be again next month.
It dumped months worth of water in mere hours, overwhelmed by many millions of tons of water dumped into systems unable to cope.
Levy can only last so long even with all the design in the world.
And port and refirnieris. Well yeah they gonna be a abit before back to full oporations. The port might be faster than a couple of mplex refinery complex.
Depends of ports vital power and other key systems where effected or just some damp goods to dispose of in the containers.
I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
If there's any blame for the response to Harvey, that would be, imo, the lack of evacuation plans for the most vulnerables. (ie, elderly, hospital patients, etc...). I know you cannot issue a blanket evacuation, as there's not enough cars and roads to get everyone out in 48 hrs.
As for blaming the urban sprawl... that's utter horse gak.
The city planners planned this for years. They started in the 60s/70s to build their freeways/neighborhood streets to act like canals in case of floods. (it's why you see so much deep waters in Houston's roads, they were purposely built that way).
It's just that when nature dumps more water than Lake Michigan in such short time, no amount of city planning/zoning laws would be able to mitigate that.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
MDSW wrote: What really irritates me is when the media and the government use the terms "1000 year flood" or "100 year flood" - it simply gives people an unrealistic and overly optimistic view of reality.
"It flooded here 25 years ago? Well, then we are good for my lifetime!"
What people need to realize is it will flood the next time a hurricane or big storm drops a bunch of water, and that could be again next month.
As I alluded to earlier, the reality is both. This is an unprecedented flood but will also be something that occurs with relative frequency going forward. This is because the climate change that Texans love to deny doesn't care wether they believe in it or not.
MDSW wrote: What really irritates me is when the media and the government use the terms "1000 year flood" or "100 year flood" - it simply gives people an unrealistic and overly optimistic view of reality.
"It flooded here 25 years ago? Well, then we are good for my lifetime!"
What people need to realize is it will flood the next time a hurricane or big storm drops a bunch of water, and that could be again next month.
As I alluded to earlier, the reality is both. This is an unprecedented flood but will also be something that occurs with relative frequency going forward. This is because the climate change that Texans love to deny doesn't care wether they believe in it or not.
...how 'bout we don't discuss climate change in this thread and invariably nuke this thread. Let's keep it more focused.
If you want to discuss Climate Alarmism/Denyism, fire up a separate thread and you'll know I'll tango .
MDSW wrote: What really irritates me is when the media and the government use the terms "1000 year flood" or "100 year flood" - it simply gives people an unrealistic and overly optimistic view of reality.
"It flooded here 25 years ago? Well, then we are good for my lifetime!"
What people need to realize is it will flood the next time a hurricane or big storm drops a bunch of water, and that could be again next month.
As I alluded to earlier, the reality is both. This is an unprecedented flood but will also be something that occurs with relative frequency going forward. This is because the climate change that Texans love to deny doesn't care wether they believe in it or not.
...how 'bout we don't discuss climate change in this thread and invariably nuke this thread. Let's keep it more focused.
Yeah, no. He's on topic replying directly to someone who made a comment.
If you want to discuss Climate Alarmism/Denyism, fire up a separate thread and you'll know I'll tango .
Nope. You're just going to do your typical deflection nonsense and drag that thread down to lock.
You're not a moderator. You have no authority trying to tell people what they can or cannot discuss, and your posting habits are well known to many at this point.
This storm is part of the effects of global warming and climate change.
End of story.
It sucks for Houston, but not much that can be done to enlighten people like yourself who outright deny these things exist and continually support a party that has a vested interest in continuing the denial thanks to their lobbyists.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's not just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
MDSW wrote: What really irritates me is when the media and the government use the terms "1000 year flood" or "100 year flood" - it simply gives people an unrealistic and overly optimistic view of reality.
"It flooded here 25 years ago? Well, then we are good for my lifetime!"
What people need to realize is it will flood the next time a hurricane or big storm drops a bunch of water, and that could be again next month.
As I alluded to earlier, the reality is both. This is an unprecedented flood but will also be something that occurs with relative frequency going forward. This is because the climate change that Texans love to deny doesn't care wether they believe in it or not.
...how 'bout we don't discuss climate change in this thread and invariably nuke this thread. Let's keep it more focused.
Yeah, no. He's on topic replying directly to someone who made a comment.
That was the 2nd time he brought up that topic on his own and threw in "Texans love to deny" spiel. So no... imo not on topic.
If you want to discuss Climate Alarmism/Denyism, fire up a separate thread and you'll know I'll tango .
Nope. You're just going to do your typical deflection nonsense and drag that thread down to lock.
Thats rich Kan... pick up a mirror bro.
You're not a moderator. You have no authority trying to tell people what they can or cannot discuss, and your posting habits are well known to many at this point. This storm is part of the effects of global warming and climate change. End of story.
It sucks for Houston, but not much that can be done to enlighten people like yourself who outright deny these things exist and continually support a party that has a vested interest in continuing the denial thanks to their lobbyists.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's not just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
That hits on my point; preparing for future floods requires acceptance that the climate has changed and that what we will see going forward is worse than what has occured in the past. The attitude of pushing the argument aside and just focusing on the current flood is what we've been doing since Katrina. It isn't working. Smaller changes and investment on the side could have worked to deal with floods in the 20th century, but we need to make major changes now, changes which require an accurate understanding of the situation to be enacted.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
Memorizes of Hurricane Rita... that largest massed evacuation in US history, where more people died because of that, than the storm itself.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
Memorizes of Hurricane Rita... that largest massed evacuation in US history, where more people died because of that, than the storm itself.
I wasn't thinking so much about evacuation, but more about water run off and drainage management.
After Floyd bought about the "Once a century flood" here back in '99, steps were taken by both the County and State to improve the drainage, bridge, and flooded highway situation. And that killed a lot of flooding potential since then, with reduced flooding (except near the lowest areas near swamps).
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.
Yeah, urban sprawl absolutely factors into Houston's horrific flooding problems. A lot of their storm water drainage systems are several decades old and therefore their capacity doesn't reflect the massive amount of building that been done over that time. Houston is much bigger than it was 70 years ago so it needs to have an upgraded and expanded storm drainage system. For every square foot of impermeable surface that gets built in Houston, sidewalks, roads, buildings, parking lots, etc. there's however many inches of rainfall that lands on it that has to go somewhere. It's crazy for Houston to rely on a drainage system that is so old and was created to deal with a much smaller city with significantly less impermeable surface.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
I wish these people would get their dicks stuck in a salad spinner.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
They didn't. Please explain any city on the planet that can take that level of rain.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
I wish these people would get their dicks stuck in a salad spinner.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
They didn't. Please explain any city on the planet that can take that level of rain.
Houston flooded, a lot, long before Harvey. It's a systemic problem that has only gotten worse, and pointing out that Harvey is a 500 year flood doesn't really counter that Houston was already unable to handle the floods they face every single year.
To be fair, there's a case to be made that there should be some changes to the way development is done. Its one thing to get 30 inches of rain, its another when that turns into 60 inches of standing water because your house was built on a floodplain or former wetlands and thats where it all flowed after it came down, particularly if you were unaware of that fact and the developers never thought about or or chose not to inform anyone.
Much like people in CA building houses out into tinderbox chaparral and then wondering why they have to evacuate and risk losing their homes once or twice every decade when it all goes up in flames
They didn't. Please explain any city on the planet that can take that level of rain.
It's not a case of "this flood would not have happened", it's a case of "this flood would not have been so catastrophic". This city cannot handle the amount of rain is is expected to get, let alone the massive deluge it is currently experiencing.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.
Yeah, urban sprawl absolutely factors into Houston's horrific flooding problems. A lot of their storm water drainage systems are several decades old and therefore their capacity doesn't reflect the massive amount of building that been done over that time. Houston is much bigger than it was 70 years ago so it needs to have an upgraded and expanded storm drainage system. For every square foot of impermeable surface that gets built in Houston, sidewalks, roads, buildings, parking lots, etc. there's however many inches of rainfall that lands on it that has to go somewhere. It's crazy for Houston to rely on a drainage system that is so old and was created to deal with a much smaller city with significantly less impermeable surface.
Even if they were updated and completely modern, the flooding would be just as bad. Nothing can handle 3-4 feet of water in the span of 24 hours.
Updated and modern drainage helps with typical rainfall. It doesn't do much of anything when you've got a catastrophic storm.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
We can talk about what cities like Houston can do to improve their ability to handle floods without talking about the increase in floods that are expected by many models. What they are facing NOW is already too much, and it's just a case of "Harvey is an outlier". Houston is still recovering from their many annual floods that are increasing before Harvey ever entered the picture.
This. I understand that budgets and politics come into play when it comes to municipal projects and planning. But, as you pointed out, the people running the city have known about local flooding potential for ages now. At some point, somebody was sure to have thought that a major tropical system could dump a ton of water on the city, thus mucking things up more than the usual yearly flooding. And, over time, planned accordingly.
We know what New Orleans's excuse was back on '05. Anybody care to enlighten me on why Houston dropped the ball here?
They didn't. Please explain any city on the planet that can take that level of rain.
Nobody is arguing that the city of Houston should have had the infrastructure in place to handle over 4 feet of rain with no flooding whatsoever. The fact that Houston got 51 inches of rain is irrelevant to the fact that over the last 70 years they have allowed their city to grow tremendously with a massive increase in the amount of impermeable surface in the city whose location means it gets hit with tropical storms and hurricanes that cause flooding on a regular basis. Houston hasn't build any new reservoirs to hold back flood waters in 70 years. Is Houston the same size city it was 70 years ago? No, Houston is much larger and all the rain water that falls on those newer parts of the city has to go somewhere and the 2 70 year old earthen dam reservoirs can't handle it all. It's not like Houston's storm drainage system is new or recently updated/upgraded. They've had massive flood issues/damage in the past. Tropical Storm Frances dumped 21 inches of rain on Houston in 1998, Tropical Storm Allison hit Houston with 40 inches of rain in 2001 so it would be reasonable to believe that in the intervening years the city and state would have taken steps to increase the ability of the storm water infrastructure to handle massive rainfall but they didn't. Last year, in April of 2016 Houston got 17 inches of rain and had widespread flooding issues. Houston had two storms within a span of 3 years dump over 20 inches of rain on the city and 15 years later their drainage system still couldn't handle a foot and a half of rainfall. Yes, 4 feet of rain is going to flood any city but it's not like Houston was prepared for 3 feet of rain or 2 feet of rain and just got overwhelmed, Houston was underprepared for getting a third of the rain that fell and that's simply inexcusable given the history of floods in the city in recent years.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't true. An appropriate system would make the situation less severe.
Again. 3 to 4 FEET of rain. Not 3-4 feet of flood water.
You can get massive and severe flooding with only a few inches of rain. When you get rain measured in feet, no system is going to prevent catastrophic flooding in an urban area.
It might technically be less severe, but lets be honest. There is no practical difference between someone's house being in 4 feet of water vs being in 6 feet of water. The damage is going to be roughly the same. Only for a few hilly areas will damage be appreciably lower in terms of damage.
Huston was massively screwed, and a more modern system wouldn't have made a huge difference.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.
Yeah, urban sprawl absolutely factors into Houston's horrific flooding problems. A lot of their storm water drainage systems are several decades old and therefore their capacity doesn't reflect the massive amount of building that been done over that time. Houston is much bigger than it was 70 years ago so it needs to have an upgraded and expanded storm drainage system. For every square foot of impermeable surface that gets built in Houston, sidewalks, roads, buildings, parking lots, etc. there's however many inches of rainfall that lands on it that has to go somewhere. It's crazy for Houston to rely on a drainage system that is so old and was created to deal with a much smaller city with significantly less impermeable surface.
Even if they were updated and completely modern, the flooding would be just as bad. Nothing can handle 3-4 feet of water in the span of 24 hours.
Updated and modern drainage helps with typical rainfall. It doesn't do much of anything when you've got a catastrophic storm.
If Houston had a system in place to handle 1.5-2 feet of rain, which it has gotten multiple times in the past, then the severity of the flooding of getting 4 feet of water would be a lot less. When you build a city in an area prone to flooding, do nothing to mitigate the increase in storm run off from the massive growth and development of the city for decades to the point where even getting a foot of rain causes flooding then getting hit with 4 feet of rain is many times worse than it would have been if the city had been built to withstand the typical tropical storm/hurricane that has been hitting that same location fairly regularly for centuries. The flooding in Houston is more severe and lethal than it would have been if the last 70 years of urban development had been undertaken with reasonable precautions and updates to storm water drainage systems.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't true. An appropriate system would make the situation less severe.
Again. 3 to 4 FEET of rain. Not 3-4 feet of flood water.
You can get massive and severe flooding with only a few inches of rain. When you get rain measured in feet, no system is going to prevent catastrophic flooding in an urban area.
It might technically be less severe, but lets be honest. There is no practical difference between someone's house being in 4 feet of water vs being in 6 feet of water. The damage is going to be roughly the same. Only for a few hilly areas will damage be appreciably lower in terms of damage.
Huston was massively screwed, and a more modern system wouldn't have made a huge difference.
There is a huge practical difference between 4 and 6 feet of water. Just the fact that people could walk instead of swimming would have a tremendous impact before going into the many other reasons that 6 feet is far worse than 4. What you are saying just. Isn't. True.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't true. An appropriate system would make the situation less severe.
Again. 3 to 4 FEET of rain. Not 3-4 feet of flood water.
You can get massive and severe flooding with only a few inches of rain. When you get rain measured in feet, no system is going to prevent catastrophic flooding in an urban area.
It might technically be less severe, but lets be honest. There is no practical difference between someone's house being in 4 feet of water vs being in 6 feet of water. The damage is going to be roughly the same. Only for a few hilly areas will damage be appreciably lower in terms of damage.
Huston was massively screwed, and a more modern system wouldn't have made a huge difference.
The difference between 4 feet of floodwater and 6 feet of floodwater can mean that dozens or hundreds of buildings don't get flooded at all because a decent modern drainage system reduced the impact of the flooding. Yes, once your house/building gets flooded with standing water you're going to have serious problems resolving that problem but urban planning can greatly reduce the number of buildings that get flooded by avoiding building in flood prone areas and designing drainage systems to cope with heavy rainfall. You can design drainage systems to deal with getting deluged with feet of rainfall, Houston chose not to do so even though they have gotten hit by storms that severe multiple times in the past.
Again, terrible storms are not a surprise to Houston. They got over 20 inches of rain in 1998 and over 40 inches of rain in 2001 and the city still couldn't handle 17 inches of rain in 2016 without widespread flooding. That's an insane level of willful disregard for the known threat of flooding.
While it seems like some repairs to the infrastructure and drainage system would have mitigated the flood from "catastrophe" to maybe a "disaster", there was really no way it could have averted it. Something else would have gone wrong. That is not to say such things shouldn't have been done, but it's not entirely the fault of the city for ignoring it. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can dwell on what should or could have been done, but the thing that really matters is that it has happened. The only thing we can really do is take away from this the things that could have prevented it and move forward, ensuring that these modifications are done to the city during the rebuilding and to other susceptible places.
Finding someone to take responsibility would certainly raise morale and make some people feel better, but if the rain has stopped, then the hardest part starts now as we start sorting out the survivors and rebuilding. When the Alberta fires happened here in canada it wasn't the evacuation that was the issue, it was the logistics of moving people to homes that they can stay and get on with their lives while finding ways to rebuild the lost homes and properties. During that time I met one of the refugees from Alberta and the guy noted how in the coming months he had a lot to worry about; all the insurance paperwork he's gonna have to do, finding a place for his children to go to school for the time being, hoping his job is still there when he returned (and the prospect of finding a new job) and rebuilding their house and replacing the stuff that was destroyed.
Again, terrible storms are not a surprise to Houston. They got over 20 inches of rain in 1998 and over 40 inches of rain in 2001 and the city still couldn't handle 17 inches of rain in 2016 without widespread flooding. That's an insane level of willful disregard for the known threat of flooding.
Reminds me of New Orleans where everyone was shocked, shocked I say, when the levees broke despite the levees breaking several times between Katarina and the Army Corp of Engineers (over 20 years ealier) telling the city that it's levee's were inadequate.
There comes a point when leadership has been, dare I say, criminally negligent.
The argument is horse gak. There is historic flooding from corpus to Austin t o Louisiana. That's an area larger than a whole slew of European countries.
That's like arguing that you shouldn't get a flu shot because cancer is lethal.
Nothing could have prevented this, much could have been done to lessen the severity of it. Houston can't handle a 5 year flood, and that's the problem.
Frazzled wrote: The argument is horse gak. There is historic flooding from corpus to Austin t o Louisiana. That's an area larger than a whole slew of European countries.
Yes so if you're building a major city in that area you should include storm water infrastructure to cope with the seasonal storms that are a regular occurrence. The last major drainage projects in Houston were done 70 years ago. Since then the city has been hit by storms dropping feet of water on the city multiple times including twice within 3 years just 15 years ago. No significant improvements were made and several square miles of development were constructed without making the additions and improvements to the storm water systems required to accommodate the growth. There is smart civic planning and then there is ignoring known dangers to capitalize on development money.
No, I'm not ready to talk about it. Still have a few days of helping neighbors throw away their household belongings and sorting out where to find short term work now that my part time employer's building has flooded out.
Scrabb wrote: Yes, Houston has a flood management problem.
No, I'm not ready to talk about it. Still have a few days of helping neighbors throw away their household belongings and sorting out where to find short term work now that my part time employer's building has flooded out.
Just want to echo this sentiment. I made it through the storm with no damage or loss and feel extraordinarily blessed (with some survivor's guilt mixed in), but I am surrounded by extended family, friends, colleagues from work, etc. who have lost so much that likely will take months of hard work and sacrifice to rebuild their lives.
I would respectfully ask that you consider sharing your time, talent, treasure and prayers in ways that can help those impacted by Harvey, not just in Houston, but in all the areas impacted as Harvey's effects were very widespread and catastrophic and still unfolding. As I write this I am reminded of the acute need by the noise (and vibration) from circling helicopters that are waiting to land at a nearby staging area where supplies and first responders are being picked up.
Is it okay to be angry, to be frustrated, scared, confused, etc. Yes it absolutely is. However, there will be a time when emotions and the shock will have lessened and we can look at this event and think more productively (and critically) of what can be done to protect life and property better, but for me and others, this is not yet the time.
If you are looking for a place to donate; I would respectively suggest first donating to local organizations or the local branches of national organizations as they are most up to date on immediate needs and best positioned to provide aid directly where needed, then national organizations focused on disaster relief. Please consider avoiding any organization that does not make disaster relief their mission as though while possibly well intentioned, they maybe only able to write a check themselves and it will only increase the amount of time it takes for aid to reach those in need.
The following website offers a good list of places organized by focus or mission
NinthMusketeer wrote: That isn't true. An appropriate system would make the situation less severe.
Again. 3 to 4 FEET of rain. Not 3-4 feet of flood water.
You can get massive and severe flooding with only a few inches of rain. When you get rain measured in feet, no system is going to prevent catastrophic flooding in an urban area.
It might technically be less severe, but lets be honest. There is no practical difference between someone's house being in 4 feet of water vs being in 6 feet of water. The damage is going to be roughly the same. Only for a few hilly areas will damage be appreciably lower in terms of damage.
Huston was massively screwed, and a more modern system wouldn't have made a huge difference.
There is a huge practical difference between 4 and 6 feet of water. Just the fact that people could walk instead of swimming would have a tremendous impact before going into the many other reasons that 6 feet is far worse than 4. What you are saying just. Isn't. True.
You cannot walk in 4 feet of moving water.
Now I am not saying that a more modern system isn't a good idea to handle regular storms. But crying for one at this moment saying it would have averted disaster is not helpful at best and counter-productive at worst.
Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
Actually, I believe most cities in Texas have BETTER water run-off rules than CA. Having lived in both states, I cannot ever recall a huge parking lot in CA having to devote space to a 'green area' for water run-off. Here in Texas I see plenty. A big parking lot has a lot of run-off, so the water has to go somewhere. I think the person who wrote the article needs to go back, check facts, do their homework, and find some other scapegoat.
And, I recall the Sepulveda Dam having severe flood issues when they got 8" of rain in a short period. If any city in CA got 49" in 30 hours, Hollywood would just float away.
Of course, this is not to say all of the building in Houston was not a contributing factor to remove large spots of green area. Let me know of any city that gets 4' of water flood-proof from flooding, and I will show you a natural run-off by nature that has nothing to do with city planning/building.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
Not in their house no, but you should not be staying in a building that has 4 feet of water in it, much less any more. Which means you'd need to leave, which means you'll be dealing with the moving water outside.
And yes, there are people who have brought up that a better drainage system would have avoided the flooding. Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.
The comment about the difference between 4 ft or 6 ft of water in your home was directed at how much damage is done to the structure. Yes, it would relatively the same - the house is destroyed.
But, equating this to be the same as the amount of rain is NOT the same. Keep in mind it is the low lying areas that get the bulk of the water. It flows from the high areas. Therefore, if spaces high and low are equal in area, 4 ft of water becomes zero ft in high areas and 8 ft deep in the low areas.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
Not in their house no, but you should not be staying in a building that has 4 feet of water in it, much less any more. Which means you'd need to leave, which means you'll be dealing with the moving water outside.
And yes, there are people who have brought up that a better drainage system would have avoided the flooding. Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.
No one in this thread said that a better drainage system would have prevented any flooding. Nobody here is making the same argument as the one you read in the CNN article.
Houston periodically gets hit with massive rainfall from storms. They got hit with 22 inches of rain from a storm in 1998, they got hit with 41 inches of rain from a storm in 2001 and they got hit with 17 inches of rain from a storm in 2016.
Did the people in charge of Houston make any significant improvements to their storm water drainage system in the 16 years between getting hit by 41 inches of rain and getting hit by 51 inches of rain? No. The Addicks and Barker reservoirs are over capacity and flooding out more homes because they have to release water. Both of those reservoirs are 70 years old. Maybe over the course of the last 70 years the people in charge of Houston could have added additional reservoirs or upgraded the existing ones since the city has certainly grown during that time. Maybe upgrading 70 year old dirt canals, improving their gradient to help carry away storm water away, strengthening them with concrete etc. would have been a good idea since it's a known fact that the city is in a location that periodically gets FEET of rainfall dumped on it by storms.
Isn't this one of the primary reasons why we have government in the first place? To safeguard our community and its citizenry? Yes, 51 inches of rain was going to cause a massive disaster but it's not ok to just absolve the people who have been running Houston for the past 15 years because hey, 51 inches of rain right? Whatcha gonna do? There are things that could have been done, hundreds of thousands of people in Houston are suffering life altering consequences now and it Harvey didn't have to have an impact this severe, but due to the decisions not to take steps to mitigate the known threat of massive rainfall from tropical storms that have been hitting the city for centuries Harvey is a disaster of this magnitude. The people in charge have to be held accountable for those decisions, that level of inaction can't be consequence free. We can't let the people we elect to government office get away with shirking the responsibility to the hard work of actually governing.
Up here in North Texas, the fuel shortage panic has started. And now that the local news is running with it, it's only getting worse. Prices up anywhere from $0.40 to $0.75 since just yesterday, and lots of pumps already empty. I hope the lines and shortages don't lead to anything worse like accidents or road rage like violence.
All because people forgot to read the Guide's cover: Don't Panic.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Up here in North Texas, the fuel shortage panic has started. And now that the local news is running with it, it's only getting worse. Prices up anywhere from $0.40 to $0.75 since just yesterday, and lots of pumps already empty. I hope the lines and shortages don't lead to anything worse like accidents or road rage like violence.
All because people forgot to read the Guide's cover: Don't Panic.
I suspect that one is hard to follow, as most towels will have floated away.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
Not in their house no, but you should not be staying in a building that has 4 feet of water in it, much less any more. Which means you'd need to leave, which means you'll be dealing with the moving water outside.
And yes, there are people who have brought up that a better drainage system would have avoided the flooding. Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.
No one in this thread said that a better drainage system would have prevented any flooding. Nobody here is making the same argument as the one you read in the CNN article.
Houston periodically gets hit with massive rainfall from storms. They got hit with 22 inches of rain from a storm in 1998, they got hit with 41 inches of rain from a storm in 2001 and they got hit with 17 inches of rain from a storm in 2016.
Did the people in charge of Houston make any significant improvements to their storm water drainage system in the 16 years between getting hit by 41 inches of rain and getting hit by 51 inches of rain? No. The Addicks and Barker reservoirs are over capacity and flooding out more homes because they have to release water. Both of those reservoirs are 70 years old. Maybe over the course of the last 70 years the people in charge of Houston could have added additional reservoirs or upgraded the existing ones since the city has certainly grown during that time. Maybe upgrading 70 year old dirt canals, improving their gradient to help carry away storm water away, strengthening them with concrete etc. would have been a good idea since it's a known fact that the city is in a location that periodically gets FEET of rainfall dumped on it by storms.
Isn't this one of the primary reasons why we have government in the first place? To safeguard our community and its citizenry? Yes, 51 inches of rain was going to cause a massive disaster but it's not ok to just absolve the people who have been running Houston for the past 15 years because hey, 51 inches of rain right? Whatcha gonna do? There are things that could have been done, hundreds of thousands of people in Houston are suffering life altering consequences now and it Harvey didn't have to have an impact this severe, but due to the decisions not to take steps to mitigate the known threat of massive rainfall from tropical storms that have been hitting the city for centuries Harvey is a disaster of this magnitude. The people in charge have to be held accountable for those decisions, that level of inaction can't be consequence free. We can't let the people we elect to government office get away with shirking the responsibility to the hard work of actually governing.
the whole republican party in texas should be held criminally negligent. They voted to defund fema, the national weather service and any government service that could help them now. they voted against helping jersey after their hurricane, they're only solution seems to be to pretend climate isn't real and hold a day of prayer. Ya that should help when the next hurricane hits. They keep advocating for a "free market" solution, then are shocked to see what that entails, $50 for water. They're even refusing offers to help, Mexico offers help and no one accepts their offer. so when I see charities being set up to help, all I can think is texas doesn't want any help, they'll pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Then pretend the problem is gone and be shocked when the next one hit and nothing has been done to mitigate the damage.
It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.
so for the victims in texas, let me quote the president here "good luck", you're going to need it. and I'm selling bootstraps at $10,000 a pair.
Grey Templar wrote: I saw a stupid article about how this flood was somehow caused by unregulated urban sprawl in the area and that if only Texas had laws like California limiting development the water would have been absorbed into the soil.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter how much hard top or soil is exposed. When you get 3+ feet of water it will flood no matter where you are.
Actually, I believe most cities in Texas have BETTER water run-off rules than CA. Having lived in both states, I cannot ever recall a huge parking lot in CA having to devote space to a 'green area' for water run-off. Here in Texas I see plenty. A big parking lot has a lot of run-off, so the water has to go somewhere. I think the person who wrote the article needs to go back, check facts, do their homework, and find some other scapegoat.
And, I recall the Sepulveda Dam having severe flood issues when they got 8" of rain in a short period. If any city in CA got 49" in 30 hours, Hollywood would just float away.
Of course, this is not to say all of the building in Houston was not a contributing factor to remove large spots of green area. Let me know of any city that gets 4' of water flood-proof from flooding, and I will show you a natural run-off by nature that has nothing to do with city planning/building.
Honestly California simply isn't a good comparion because the geography and levels of rainfall are so different. California, overall, has a relatively steep incline going up from the coast and that alone drains off water much more rapidly over large areas. Besides, we are more into figuring out how keep water from going into the sea than the opposite.
Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.
They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.
They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.
This is truly an outlier event.
Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).
Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.
whembly wrote: Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.
They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.
They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.
This is truly an outlier event.
Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).
Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.
No. There was a miscommunication if that's the impression you got. The entire purpose of storm water infrastructure is to divert water and mitigate flooding. The only way the storm water system couldnt mitigate the flooding would be if it didn't exist. Houston has two storm water reservoirs, Addicks and Barker, they were constructed 70 years ago, all of the water that was diverted into those reservoirs would be in the city of the reservoirs and canals that led to them didn't exist. If the city of Houston had built more canals and reservoirs in the last 70 years as the city grew and got hit by multiple storms that dyumped feet of rain on the city then even more rain (though certainly not all of it) would have been diverted and less would be in the city causing horrific damage to lives and property. However many inches of rainfall you can divert into reservoirs you can subtract from the inches of rainfall flooding the city which lessens the impact of the disaster.
whembly wrote: Just off the phone with my brother and his fiancée... They're 50 miles north of Houston metro area, so they're pretty much unscathed.
They see all sort of help going through their town to help out down south.
They're both engineers who has worked on water work projects, damns and bridges throughout the country. They stressed that no amount of planning could mitigate the flooding that we've seen. Not enough room for large enough reservoirs to handle a Lake Michigan sized amount of water in that area.
This is truly an outlier event.
Now the cleanup begins... and, the city will need to decide how to upgrade their waterwork systems. (surprisingly, there's a lot of different options to attack this, and big business engineer companies will be making proposal for such projects).
Houston will be a "happening place" for the general construction employment/business.
No. There was a miscommunication if that's the impression you got. The entire purpose of storm water infrastructure is to divert water and mitigate flooding. The only way the storm water system couldnt mitigate the flooding would be if it didn't exist. Houston has two storm water reservoirs, Addicks and Barker, they were constructed 70 years ago, all of the water that was diverted into those reservoirs would be in the city of the reservoirs and canals that led to them didn't exist. If the city of Houston had built more canals and reservoirs in the last 70 years as the city grew and got hit by multiple storms that dyumped feet of rain on the city then even more rain (though certainly not all of it) would have been diverted and less would be in the city causing horrific damage to lives and property. However many inches of rainfall you can divert into reservoirs you can subtract from the inches of rainfall flooding the city which lessens the impact of the disaster.
No, their point was that even if Houston has the best mitigation strategy in the world, its debatable that the scope of the damage would be different.
Afterall... that was the most rainfall on US continental ground in 24 hr period EVER on record.
By definition, that's an outlier.
The "canals" as you said were the highways and most residential streets. They started that project back in the 60s/70s whenever they rebuild/resurface the area roads.
Your point does stand regarding the reservoirs, as it was built for the early 20th century Houston population/infrastructures.
Although, now that you say that, not sure "where" the highways/streets 'Water Canals' are supposed to go? I assumed it would be dumped back into the sea, but the elevation map doesn't really lend to that...
This is why I say this discussion is important. Already people are excusing the lack of flood preperation and setting themselves up for it to happen again. But hey it it's their homes being flooded, hope they enjoy. I feel no obligation to sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves.
Grey Templar wrote: Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.
It's titled "How Houston's layout may have made its flooding worse". Oh, so there in the title it's clearly saying it could have reduced the problem, not eliminated it entirely. But hey, titles are written by sub-editors, and the article itself might talk about how planning could have eliminated the problem, so lets check with the article.
"No amount of planning can completely prevent a disaster like Harvey"
"experts in floodplain and storm water management say its damage could have been lessened if authorities in Houston"
Oh. So the article also clearly says planning could have lessened the severity, not prevented it entirely. So it looks like Grey Templar just misread the article, and accidentally interpreted it to be a farcical strawman version of what it actually said. What a total and complete accident that was.
NinthMusketeer wrote: This is why I say this discussion is important. Already people are excusing the lack of flood preperation and setting themselves up for it to happen again. But hey it it's their homes being flooded, hope they enjoy. I feel no obligation to sympathy for people who can't be arsed to help themselves.
yes I am sure the family of six that drowned trying to escape should have none of your sympathy.
Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.
sirlynchmob wrote: It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.
Harris County, which includes Houston, voted 54% for Clinton. Got swamped by most of the rest of Texas, of course, but by itself it was more blue than the national average. Not that that really matters, people in need should be helped, even if they voted differently to yourself. That's the difference between a government for the people, and a banana republic.
Of course the help for everyone harmed by Harvey and the political support that aid packages have gotten should be contrasted against Sandy, where around 200 Republican congressmen voted against aid, including around 20 Republican congressmen, including both their senators. Their hypocrisy should be noted and acted on, but not by withholding aid for people affected by Harvey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.
I am confident that you contacted Senator Cruz with that exact message when he voted against the aid package for victims of Hurriance Sandy.
We're dancing dangerously close to this becoming a proper political discussion (at least by Dakka's OT standards). Let's get back to the topic of the hurricane thanks
sirlynchmob wrote: It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.
Harris County, which includes Houston, voted 54% for Clinton. Got swamped by most of the rest of Texas, of course, but by itself it was more blue than the national average. Not that that really matters, people in need should be helped, even if they voted differently to yourself. That's the difference between a government for the people, and a banana republic.
Of course the help for everyone harmed by Harvey and the political support that aid packages have gotten should be contrasted against Sandy, where around 200 Republican congressmen voted against aid, including around 20 Republican congressmen, including both their senators. Their hypocrisy should be noted and acted on, but not by withholding aid for people affected by Harvey.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wow if you experience the same thing then I guess none of us should give a gak for you and should laugh at your mom's tears too.
I am confident that you contacted Senator Cruz with that exact message when he voted against the aid package for victims of Hurriance Sandy.
So both of Americas neighbors have offered to help and were told "no thanks" Aid is being offered and not withheld by any means, the aid is just being outright rejected.
I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.
sirlynchmob wrote: I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.
Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.
Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.
sirlynchmob wrote: I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.
Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.
Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.
I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.
sirlynchmob wrote: I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.
Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.
Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.
I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.
It's less "America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone" but rather a certain political party which we cannot name has to be seen as "America first!" to their constituents.
When Katrina happened, Cuba was still basically an "antagonistic foreign power" for all intents and purposes. There is a significant Cuban refugee/immigrant population in Miami Florida that votes for whoever is against Cuba.
With regards to Canada? We have a certain individual supposedly leading our country right now who has claimed that Canada is undermining us with NAFTA and other stuff. That's likely why Canadian aid was turned back--to stroke the ego of a schmuck who thinks that Canada not falling in line is them undermining us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: We're dancing dangerously close to this becoming a proper political discussion (at least by Dakka's OT standards). Let's get back to the topic of the hurricane thanks
It's kind of difficult to separate discussing the response to the hurricane's effects and politics.
Politics plays a big part of why this event and its response is being looked at so critically.
Efforts continue. After work last night, my family spent several hours helping a family friend clean out their house that was flooded head of the remediation professionals arriving today. Our friend has flood insurance, though this will be the first time since the house was built 43 years ago that they will have need of it. It was just another reminder how different this storm was compared to other flood events. They are in good spirits, but the uncertainty about how long their home would be torn up is already weighing on them. Fortunately, they did not lose too many irreplaceable items such as photos, heirlooms, etc. as they moved a lot of that type of stuff to the second floor of their home.
My wife and kids have also spent the last couple of days working shifts at a shelter and both kids will be out today helping with more clean up in the local area while wife and I are both back at work.
Despite all the devastation and the emotional toll, it is so uplifting to see so many of my neighbors helping each other.
sirlynchmob wrote: I do agree though, we should help those in need, but when help is offered and then rejected, there's nothing you can do to help.
Yeah that's fair enough. Weird that the US would knock back aid from Canada. Perhaps about the perception after not taking Mexican aid? Getting close to politics with that though.
Still, it isn't as though the aid isn't needed elsewhere. The death toll in the flooding in India and Bangladesh is now over 1,000.
I think that America doesn't like to be seen getting aid from anyone. After Katrina, the US government turned down an offer from Cuba to send over doctors trained and experienced in natural disaster relief, many of whom had previous experience from helping in the aftermath of the Sri Lankan tsunami.
Mexico sent troops and relief efforts to help after Katrina
By the time their mission in San Antonio ended Sept. 25, the Mexicans had served 170,000 meals, helped distribute more than 184,000 tons of supplies and conducted more than 500 medical consultations.
Mexican sailors also assisted with clearing downed branches and other storm debris in Biloxi, Miss., where they posed for photos with President George W. Bush, who thanked them for their help.
piece was written in 2015
Because hurricane season is again upon us. And you never know when you are going to need a friendly neighbor, and a hot meal.
I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
Frazzled wrote: Gas stations in San Antonio are going down to. It's my understanding the Colonial pipeline went down. The East is about to feel our pain.
Gas Prices are up .30 cents in the last two days alone, and I'm just outside Philly. But if thats the worst I personally experience (plus an increased workload, as the Houston branch of my job is out of commission from what I'm told), then I consider myself lucky. A bunch of my coworkers are actually getting a 24 foot trailer of supplies for the people affected.
I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
The U.S. has had only four Cat 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970... FOUR. But in the same number of years preceding 1970, there were fourteenCat 4+ strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, that famous Cat 4 hurricane hit Galveston, TX in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history in terms of loss of life.
And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
I think the whole descriptor of "unprecedented" regarding Harvey's impact to Houston is in terms of overall damage and number of people affected, in a relatively concentrated area... rather than this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
Had Harvey not stalled like it did, it wouldn't have dumped all that water in one spot... a spot that's 4th or 5th in population size of the US.
Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of 'umies.
Be it caused by natural cycles, Jeebus's divine will, or the consensus of the international scientific community, global temperatures are rising. This will affect the severity of weather systems, and we all better plan for hotter summers and more severe storms.
I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.
When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.
When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.
Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?
I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.
I 'member the great floods in the St. Louis area in the early 2000... and that ain't gak compared to Harvey!
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
The U.S. has had only four Cat 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970... FOUR. But in the same number of years preceding 1970, there were fourteenCat 4+ strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.
Going back even earlier, that famous Cat 4 hurricane hit Galveston, TX in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history in terms of loss of life.
And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.
I think the whole descriptor of "unprecedented" regarding Harvey's impact to Houston is in terms of overall damage and number of people affected, in a relatively concentrated area... rather than this was an unprecedented meteorological event.
Had Harvey not stalled like it did, it wouldn't have dumped all that water in one spot... a spot that's 4th or 5th in population size of the US.
Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of 'umies.
Let me tell you, you paint a beautiful picture of horsegak. You are using a fact to hide a lie here. I will point out the issue.
"And don’t forget, we just went through a big pause of almost 12 years without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S." This is a 100% true factual statement, but at the same time it is horsegak because we have had major hurricanes that have caused incredible amounts of damage in the past 12 years. They were just not a Cat 3 when they made landfall in the U.S. You are discounting Hurricane Sandy, which was a Cat 2 when it made landfall. This was another area that was not prepared for the amount of flooding it received. These things happen more often than you are letting on here. Remember the catastrophic flooding in New York?
"Estimates as of 2015 assessed damage to have been about $75 billion (2012 USD), a total surpassed only by Hurricane Katrina.[6] At least 233 people were killed along the path of the storm in eight countries."
One of the most damaging and expensive hurricanes of all time was a Cat 2 that hit major urban centers. A Category 2 Hurricane.
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.
When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.
Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?
I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.
Indeed.
In new news. More areas being evaced near Addicks reservoir.
As I understand the conversation here, there are two problems.
#1 poor development planning, leading to worse storm events than necessary.
#2 climate change denial, which has exasperated/accelerated the number of high intensity storms.
Unless the number of cat 2 storms has been increasing over the same time period your counterpoint to whembly's assertions doesn't really counter his point.
As I understand the conversation here, there are two problems.
#1 poor development planning, leading to worse storm events than necessary.
#2 climate change denial, which has exasperated/accelerated the number of high intensity storms.
Unless the number of cat 2 storms has been increasing over the same time period your counterpoint to whembly's assertions doesn't really counter his point.
Do you consider Hurricane Sandy to be a major hurricane?
As I understand the conversation here, there are two problems.
#1 poor development planning, leading to worse storm events than necessary. #2 climate change denial, which has exasperated/accelerated the number of high intensity storms.
Unless the number of cat 2 storms has been increasing over the same time period your counterpoint to whembly's assertions doesn't really counter his point.
Do you consider Hurricane Sandy to be a major hurricane?
Category 3+ hurricanes are considered "major". It's just a ranking based on the probable estimates for significant loss of life and damage. Its in no way inferring that a Cat 2, ala Sandy, wasn't dangerous.
Do you consider Hurricane Sandy to be a major hurricane?
Oh I see what this is about. Whembly did that official classification line. Because yeah, I think Sandy was a major hurricane. Apparently I am technically incorrect.
That was his huge deception? Clarifying his use of an official term to substantiate the point that we haven't been seeing huge and unprecedented storm strengths at an unprecedented rate. Lock him up!
Or, if we're going to be pithy and deflective I'll change my reply to: "Do you consider category 2 or category 3 storms to be more major?"
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.
When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.
Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?
I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.
If it wasn't for people like Whembly there would be less, if not zero, people dead, less property damage, and less tragedy. Letting the deflection happen is what led to this, and will lead to it again. What I'm doing might not help, what he's doing will do harm. That you see me as the bad guy is exactly what the problem is.
But like I've said before, it isn't my home underwater so I will let people hang themselves if they are so set on it. We've passed the point where natural disasters like this earn my sympathy because we know they are coming and have been getting warnings about this for decades. Could all the damage have been avoided? Of course not, but it didn't have to be a complete disaster. So much of this tragedy is caused because people stood in the freeway and insisted the headlights getting closer weren't a car.
If/when a major earthquake hits California, feel free to not lend us any sympathy if it becomes a disaster like this one.
It's only going to get worse. Increasing global temperatures will serve to make these kinds of storms more frequent and potentially even more destructive.
There's no empirical evidence that would support that assertion.
There's a lot of folks with their homes underwater who will be glad to hear this, especially as it's been said by the right after every major hurricane, each worse than the last.
When you do finally have to admit you were wrong, I hope you at least have the spine to stand up and say you supported a viewpoint that ruined and ended a lot of people's lives.
Is anything in whembly's post above incorrect?
I also want to sardonically thank you for helping us realize we have a water management problem at this time. Again, Houston is handling flood prevention poorly and wouldn't have to handle as much post flood recovery if they did flood prevention better.
Thank you for taking time out of your day to belabor that while there are so many in need of emotional, physical and financial support. Truly.
If it wasn't for people like Whembly there would be less, if not zero, people dead, less property damage, and less tragedy. Letting the deflection happen is what led to this, and will lead to it again. What I'm doing might not help, what he's doing will do harm. That you see me as the bad guy is exactly what the problem is.
Ya see... here's the problem...
You're viewing this event through a political-prism to assign blame. Yes, the ongoing debate over mankind's influence over Climate is rather heated.
However, when an entire frick'n community is in the most literal sense, drowning, no one gives a hot damn about a political take. No one cares who could’ve done what differently, or who voted or didn’t vote for President or piece of legislation.
At this point, the survivors of this event is just hoping and praying to have a home tomorrow and for those who’ve lost, how to rebuild.
'Tis why I'm trying really, really hard not to get sucked into a Climate Change Alarmist™/Denial® debate in this thread. I think there's some interest for that, but lets do that in a separate thread if OT US Politics is allowed again.
As to the OP, some good news...
Harris County Flood Control District meteorologist Jeff Lindner tweeted that "water is falling...if you have not flooded you will not flood."
You're viewing this event through a political-prism to assign blame. Yes, the ongoing debate over mankind's influence over Climate is rather heated.
However, when an entire frick'n community is in the most literal sense, drowning, no one gives a hot damn about a political take. No one cares who could’ve done what differently, or who voted or didn’t vote for President or piece of legislation.
At this point, the survivors of this event is just hoping and praying to have a home tomorrow and for those who’ve lost, how to rebuild.
'Tis why I'm trying really, really hard not to get sucked into a Climate Change Alarmist™/Denial® debate in this thread. I think there's some interest for that, but lets do that in a separate thread if OT US Politics is allowed again.
Lots of people care about "the political take" because when this exact same situation happened twice in relatively recent years(Sandy and Katrina), the people who are hand-wringing and talking about "let's not assign blame here" now were the same ones who talked about how the bill introduced to give aid and relief to the affected areas included stuff that basically added "welfare" or "pork" to the bills(such as repairs to the Smithsonian which was damaged during Sandy's wind & rain).
Now when the shoe is on the other foot, it's nothing but "political points scoring" when the "obstructionists" on the other side bring up the past, eh?
As to the OP, some good news...
Harris County Flood Control District meteorologist Jeff Lindner tweeted that "water is falling...if you have not flooded you will not flood."
Not really much good news for those who already were affected.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Literally no one is saying a modern drainage system would have avoided flooding. That's a straw man you keep throwing up to make your argument seem remotely logical.
And I'm sure that 4 feet of water is moving very rapidly inside one's house.
Not in their house no, but you should not be staying in a building that has 4 feet of water in it, much less any more. Which means you'd need to leave, which means you'll be dealing with the moving water outside.
And yes, there are people who have brought up that a better drainage system would have avoided the flooding. Its why I brought it up in the first place because a stupid article on CNN was talking about how the flooding would have been eliminated by better drainage and more permeable surfaces. And it put a political spin on it of course putting blame on conservatives. Utter horse gak.
No one in this thread said that a better drainage system would have prevented any flooding. Nobody here is making the same argument as the one you read in the CNN article.
Houston periodically gets hit with massive rainfall from storms. They got hit with 22 inches of rain from a storm in 1998, they got hit with 41 inches of rain from a storm in 2001 and they got hit with 17 inches of rain from a storm in 2016.
Did the people in charge of Houston make any significant improvements to their storm water drainage system in the 16 years between getting hit by 41 inches of rain and getting hit by 51 inches of rain? No. The Addicks and Barker reservoirs are over capacity and flooding out more homes because they have to release water. Both of those reservoirs are 70 years old. Maybe over the course of the last 70 years the people in charge of Houston could have added additional reservoirs or upgraded the existing ones since the city has certainly grown during that time. Maybe upgrading 70 year old dirt canals, improving their gradient to help carry away storm water away, strengthening them with concrete etc. would have been a good idea since it's a known fact that the city is in a location that periodically gets FEET of rainfall dumped on it by storms.
Isn't this one of the primary reasons why we have government in the first place? To safeguard our community and its citizenry? Yes, 51 inches of rain was going to cause a massive disaster but it's not ok to just absolve the people who have been running Houston for the past 15 years because hey, 51 inches of rain right? Whatcha gonna do? There are things that could have been done, hundreds of thousands of people in Houston are suffering life altering consequences now and it Harvey didn't have to have an impact this severe, but due to the decisions not to take steps to mitigate the known threat of massive rainfall from tropical storms that have been hitting the city for centuries Harvey is a disaster of this magnitude. The people in charge have to be held accountable for those decisions, that level of inaction can't be consequence free. We can't let the people we elect to government office get away with shirking the responsibility to the hard work of actually governing.
the whole republican party in texas should be held criminally negligent. They voted to defund fema, the national weather service and any government service that could help them now. they voted against helping jersey after their hurricane, they're only solution seems to be to pretend climate isn't real and hold a day of prayer. Ya that should help when the next hurricane hits. They keep advocating for a "free market" solution, then are shocked to see what that entails, $50 for water. They're even refusing offers to help, Mexico offers help and no one accepts their offer. so when I see charities being set up to help, all I can think is texas doesn't want any help, they'll pull themselves up from their bootstraps. Then pretend the problem is gone and be shocked when the next one hit and nothing has been done to mitigate the damage.
It's hard to feel bad for the victims, when they continue to vote for leaders who can't lead and have no idea how to fix any problems. If texas wants help they should help themselves and get rid of ted cruz and the rest of his party, before they help end all government entities designed to help after disasters.
so for the victims in texas, let me quote the president here "good luck", you're going to need it. and I'm selling bootstraps at $10,000 a pair.
The precincts flooded in Houston voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Going by percentage against population, the state of new jersey had less voters for Hillary than Houston. Fact is, this is a bunch of Democrats getting hit by the hurricane, yet somehow, we still need to push this 3rd grade notion that everyone south of new york city is some Republican red neck or something.
Who voted for who is entirely irrelevant in a disaster. People need to be saved, and I'm not sure what good it does to figuratively divide the floating corpses by political party is going to accomplish.
Do you consider Hurricane Sandy to be a major hurricane?
Oh I see what this is about. Whembly did that official classification line. Because yeah, I think Sandy was a major hurricane. Apparently I am technically incorrect.
That was his huge deception? Clarifying his use of an official term to substantiate the point that we haven't been seeing huge and unprecedented storm strengths at an unprecedented rate. Lock him up!
Or, if we're going to be pithy and deflective I'll change my reply to: "Do you consider category 2 or category 3 storms to be more major?"
It is a big deal, category 2 hurricanes are very destructive and we have been seeing an increase in them lately. Officially, all Hurricanes are Major Hurricanes. What this comes down to is words have meanings and we should use them correctly. He was painting a picture that only Cat 3+ are major hurricanes and that is simply not the case and it is unsafe to spread that across type of thinking.
Edit: Just to be clear, I am sure Whembly didn't intentionally downplay Sandy and other Cat 2 Hurricanes. Their destructive power has been documented. I was just pointing out that having a having a Cat3+ only reference as "major hurricanes" is wrong and could lead some people to believe that a Cat 1/2 is not a big deal or they can ride through it. That is what lands people in these situations, where they ignore mandatory evacuation orders and put themselves, their families, and rescuers in danger.
Dreadwinter wrote: Their destructive power has been documented. I was just pointing out that having a having a Cat3+ only reference as "major hurricanes" is wrong and could lead some people to believe that a Cat 1/2 is not a big deal or they can ride through it. That is what lands people in these situations, where they ignore mandatory evacuation orders and put themselves, their families, and rescuers in danger.
This, quite frankly. Any hurricane coming your way is too much hurricane.
Dreadwinter wrote: Their destructive power has been documented. I was just pointing out that having a having a Cat3+ only reference as "major hurricanes" is wrong and could lead some people to believe that a Cat 1/2 is not a big deal or they can ride through it. That is what lands people in these situations, where they ignore mandatory evacuation orders and put themselves, their families, and rescuers in danger.
This, quite frankly. Any hurricane coming your way is too much hurricane.
Dreadwinter wrote: Their destructive power has been documented. I was just pointing out that having a having a Cat3+ only reference as "major hurricanes" is wrong and could lead some people to believe that a Cat 1/2 is not a big deal or they can ride through it. That is what lands people in these situations, where they ignore mandatory evacuation orders and put themselves, their families, and rescuers in danger.
This, quite frankly. Any hurricane coming your way is too much hurricane.
I have driven through Cat 1s before.
I have driven through thunderstorms and chased tornadoes. Doesn't mean it was smart or safe.
It is a big deal, category 2 hurricanes are very destructive and we have been seeing an increase in them lately. Officially, all Hurricanes are Major Hurricanes. What this comes down to is words have meanings and we should use them correctly. He was painting a picture that only Cat 3+ are major hurricanes and that is simply not the case and it is unsafe to spread that across type of thinking.
Edit: Just to be clear, I am sure Whembly didn't intentionally downplay Sandy and other Cat 2 Hurricanes. Their destructive power has been documented. I was just pointing out that having a having a Cat3+ only reference as "major hurricanes" is wrong and could lead some people to believe that a Cat 1/2 is not a big deal or they can ride through it. That is what lands people in these situations, where they ignore mandatory evacuation orders and put themselves, their families, and rescuers in danger.
Awesome. I stand corrected. Unfortunate to have to report that both categories below (2) and above (4 & 5) are increasing.
and hurricanes are just 1/2 the issue, typhoons are the other half.
and as if just to prove whembly wrong, here comes Irma, expected to be cat 5 by weds. That lul between sandy and henry was nice, but it's only getting worse. even if you deny it, you can either plan for the worst and hope for the best, or do as the republicans and do absolutely nothing, not even approve a infrastructure bill. That's bad enough, but R's are actually trying to make the situation worse, by defunding all the programs in place to help disaster victims, just so trump can build a wall.
My destroyer went between 2 typhoons, it's not fun.
My best well wishes to all affected by Harvey. Unfortunately, I can't donate to Harvey ATM as my own state decided to burn up in flames quite literally. Something like 20+ major active fires and over 600,000 acres burned to date here in Montana. Even have a state wide air quality warning in effect. Been extremely frustrating with the lack of help we have even gotten from our own governor. Especially in the Eastern part of the state.
Two decades ago, Harris County planners predicted with chilling accuracy just how devastating a storm like Hurricane Harvey would be to the Houston area. Far lesser storms, they determined, could wreck a large swath of the city and its western suburbs.
In a report dated May 1996, engineers for the Harris County Flood Control District concluded the area's reservoir system was severely insufficient and imperiled thousands of properties. The report's authors proposed a $400 million fix: constructing a massive underground conduit that would carry water out of the reservoirs and into the Houston Ship Channel more quickly.
Had the report's recommendations been heeded, the catastrophic flooding that struck Houston a week ago might have been greatly diminished, sparing thousands of homes from floodwaters.
Instead, the report got filed away and was all but forgotten. Government leaders ignored its advice.
Today, the report reads like a prophesy of the flooding that swamped west Houston and surrounding areas. Its authors knew which neighborhoods would flood and why, and in which places the flooding would be especially damaging because the water could pool for weeks.
"The primary flood threat facing the citizens of west Harris County and west Houston comes from the inability to drain the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in an efficient manner," the report said.
When built in the 1940s, the area's reservoir system was adequate, the report said. But because of changes made to the system, and given the pace of urban development 50 years later, "the project's original design parameters and assumptions are severely outdated and invalid."
In addition to the report's main proposal of a conduit, its authors raised other alternatives, such as digging the reservoirs deeper, buying out properties at risk and creating new regulations on development.
And then there was a final, stark alternative: "Do nothing and accept risk of flooding."
That report was written and submitted in 1996. In 1998 Houston got hit with 22 inches of rain, in 2001 Houston got hit with 41 inches of rain, in 2016 Houston got hit with 17 inches of rain and in 2017 Houston got hit with 53 inches of rain. Every one of those storms overwhelmed the antiquated storm water system and caused widespread flooding and damage.
Prestor Jon wrote: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/harvey/2017/09/05/houston-grew-officials-ignored-lifetime-chance-spare-thousands-flooding
Two decades ago, Harris County planners predicted with chilling accuracy just how devastating a storm like Hurricane Harvey would be to the Houston area. Far lesser storms, they determined, could wreck a large swath of the city and its western suburbs.
In a report dated May 1996, engineers for the Harris County Flood Control District concluded the area's reservoir system was severely insufficient and imperiled thousands of properties. The report's authors proposed a $400 million fix: constructing a massive underground conduit that would carry water out of the reservoirs and into the Houston Ship Channel more quickly.
Had the report's recommendations been heeded, the catastrophic flooding that struck Houston a week ago might have been greatly diminished, sparing thousands of homes from floodwaters.
Instead, the report got filed away and was all but forgotten. Government leaders ignored its advice.
Today, the report reads like a prophesy of the flooding that swamped west Houston and surrounding areas. Its authors knew which neighborhoods would flood and why, and in which places the flooding would be especially damaging because the water could pool for weeks.
"The primary flood threat facing the citizens of west Harris County and west Houston comes from the inability to drain the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in an efficient manner," the report said.
When built in the 1940s, the area's reservoir system was adequate, the report said. But because of changes made to the system, and given the pace of urban development 50 years later, "the project's original design parameters and assumptions are severely outdated and invalid."
In addition to the report's main proposal of a conduit, its authors raised other alternatives, such as digging the reservoirs deeper, buying out properties at risk and creating new regulations on development.
And then there was a final, stark alternative: "Do nothing and accept risk of flooding."
That report was written and submitted in 1996. In 1998 Houston got hit with 22 inches of rain, in 2001 Houston got hit with 41 inches of rain, in 2016 Houston got hit with 17 inches of rain and in 2017 Houston got hit with 53 inches of rain. Every one of those storms overwhelmed the antiquated storm water system and caused widespread flooding and damage.
So you are saying that Houston has always had a flooding problem.
So, can we start looking at what Houston is going to do to solve it in the future, becuase I am pretty sure it will rain17+ inches of rain in Houston again.
Fact: Houston cannot handle any significant flooding of any kind.
Having lived through Allison, please cite something official with 41 inches. Our place was 19 and the largest I remember being reported was 22 inches. I am not being critical, only that whatever your citing appears extremely off and may be referring to a month's worth of rain and not a storm..
I learned two valuable lessons in Allison: !) After a major rain event, if you are parked underground, take the stairs and not the elevator or you might die; 2) Never ever drink coffee within two and a half hours of planning to take a bus. If the bus takes five hours to get to the parking lot and you drank a gallon of coffee right before you panic and run for a bus, you will end up peeing in the parking lot and not give a Interestingly, Allison was NOT the storm where I was hit by a flying construction barrel while waiting for a bus. Nothing says "oh come on!" like getting hit by a construction barrel...
I don't know, maybe some dude's raingauge in the back yard, maybe some total over a whole week that includes another storm besides Allison?
Of course you are now arguing in favor of the fact that Houston cannot handle any flooding by pointing out that it doesn't take 41 inches for the system to be overloaded, but only 19-22 inches.
d-usa wrote: I don't know, maybe some dude's raingauge in the back yard, maybe some total over a whole week that includes another storm besides Allison?
Of course you are now arguing in favor of the fact that Houston cannot handle any flooding by pointing out that it doesn't take 41 inches for the system to be overloaded, but only 19-22 inches.
So, your statement is incorrect then.
Please find me a metropolitan area that can take 15 inches in a 24 period and not have significant flooding. it sure as hell aint any place in Oklahoma.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: The Beaumont area is what got the 40+ inches from Allison, for clarification.
Thanks Tanny. Beaumont is not Houston, however. There'es something about the whole Sabine Pass area that Dog seems to hate and wants to run storms through.
d-usa wrote: I don't know, maybe some dude's raingauge in the back yard, maybe some total over a whole week that includes another storm besides Allison?
Of course you are now arguing in favor of the fact that Houston cannot handle any flooding by pointing out that it doesn't take 41 inches for the system to be overloaded, but only 19-22 inches.
So, your statement is incorrect then.
It wasn't my statement, just pointing out that Google is a thing and that stuff happened in 2001.
Please find me a metropolitan area that can take 15 inches in a 24 period and not have significant flooding.
Please find me a soldier that can survive a .50 cal to the head, and then explain to me why we are wasting money giving them all body armor that cover their chest?
So here it is in baby steps:
1) If you get overwhelmed by a 10-year flood, you are going to get a lot of damage from a 10-year flood. 2) If you cannot handle the 10-year flood, you are going to get even more damage from a 50-year flood 3) If you cannot handle a 50-year flood, you are going to get even more damage from a 100-year flood. 4) If you cannot handle a 100-year flood, you are going to get even more damage from a 500-year flood. 5) By increasing your ability to handle increasingly more severe flooding, you are decreasing the damage caused by flooding that is greater than what your system is designed to handle. 6) If your design can only handle 5 inches of rain, then 50 inches is 45 inches too much. If your system can only handle 15 inches of rain, then that you are getting 35 more than you can handle. If your system can handle 30 inches of rain, then you are getting 20 more inches than you can handle. 7) Decreasing your flooding by even 6 inches decreases the amount of property destruction and infrastructure disturbance by a ton.
Or, in bullet talk because you are from Texas:
1) A soldier without any armor or helmet can become deader from small bullets. 2) A soldier with some armor can become less deader from small bullets but more deader from big bullets. 3) Just because soldier sometimes gets hit by big bullets and becomes more deader doesn't mean we shouldn't give him the tools to be less deader from the smaller bullets.
it sure as hell aint any place in Oklahoma.
If we get any of the historical high rainfalls that Houston gets I'll get back to you about Oklahoma's ability to handle rainfall amounts that don't affect us much.
If you want me to bitch about something comparable I'll be free to admit that it's ridiculous that we keep on rebuilding the same buildings the same way after we dig out the dead bodies from the rubble after every tornado and that we still don't require basements or shelters in any new buildings, including schools.
Fact: Houston cannot handle any significant flooding of any kind.
Having lived through Allison, please cite something official with 41 inches. Our place was 19 and the largest I remember being reported was 22 inches. I am not being critical, only that whatever your citing appears extremely off and may be referring to a month's worth of rain and not a storm..
I learned two valuable lessons in Allison: !) After a major rain event, if you are parked underground, take the stairs and not the elevator or you might die; 2) Never ever drink coffee within two and a half hours of planning to take a bus. If the bus takes five hours to get to the parking lot and you drank a gallon of coffee right before you panic and run for a bus, you will end up peeing in the parking lot and not give a Interestingly, Allison was NOT the storm where I was hit by a flying construction barrel while waiting for a bus. Nothing says "oh come on!" like getting hit by a construction barrel...
I stand corrected. The worst hit parts of Texas got over 40 inches of rain from Allison while Houston was only deluged with 38.6 inches of rain.
The point stands that the local govt in Houston was officially notified in 1996 that their stormestwr infrastructure was grossly inadequate, then experienced multiple torrential rains and still chose to make no improvements.
The storm dropped heavy rainfall along its path, peaking at over 40 inches (1,000 mm) in Texas. The worst flooding occurred in Houston, where most of Allison's damage occurred: 30,000 became homeless after the storm flooded over 70,000 houses and destroyed 2,744 homes. Downtown Houston was inundated with flooding, causing severe damage to hospitals and businesses. Twenty-three people died in Texas. Along its entire path, Allison caused $9 billion (2001 USD) in damage and 41 deaths. Aside from Texas, the places worst hit were Louisiana and southeastern Pennsylvania.
Tropical Storm Allison was a major flood disaster throughout its path from Texas to the Mid-Atlantic. The worst of the flooding occurred in Houston, Texas, where over 35 inches (890 mm) of rain fell. Allison caused over $9 billion in damage (2001 USD, $12 billion 2014 USD), making it the costliest tropical storm on record in the United States. The storm also killed 41 people directly, including 27 who drowned. This ties Allison with a tropical storm in 1917 as the second-deadliest tropical storm to impact the US; only surpassed by the 1925 Florida tropical storm which killed 73 people.[2]
Flash flooding continued for days,[10] with rainfall amounts across the state peaking at just over 40 inches (1,033 mm) in northwestern Jefferson County. In the Port of Houston, a total of 36.99 inches (940 mm) was reported.[9] Houston experienced torrential rainfall in a short amount of time. The six-day rainfall in Houston amounted to 38.6 inches (980 mm).[28] Houston Hobby Airport received 20.84 inches of rain from June 5 to 10, 2001, while Bush Intercontinental Airport received 16.48 inches. [29] The deluge of rainfall flooded 95,000 automobiles and 73,000 houses throughout Harris County.[1] Tropical Storm Allison destroyed 2,744 homes, leaving 30,000 homeless with residential damages totaling to $1.76 billion (2001 USD, $2.29 billion 2012 USD).[28]
I think the citizens of Houston should be raising some very serious questions with the mayor. Hopefully this will have given them the wake-up call nessisary to motivate that. It's surprisingly easy to assume that city officials have this stuff generally figured out and prioritised right but let's be honest; how many people have their own problems and priorities figured out? Sometimes we have to take a break from those to look at the larger picture, lest we wind up with problems we really can't solve for ourselves.
That came out more philisophical than it sounded in my head
.
