Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 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.

... i think I was offered that as a drink option in a Starbucks one time....


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/348348-anheuser-busch-sends-water-cans-to-harvey-victims

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.

 reds8n wrote:


http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/348348-anheuser-busch-sends-water-cans-to-harvey-victims

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.

AB isn't almost water anyway, so it's an easy switch.

Following the emergency medical corps I'm part of to see if we might do some deployments there.

 reds8n wrote:

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!

The sun has broken out in Houston.

 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.

Port Arthur is underwater.

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.

This is a massive storm.

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.

This story from CBC talks about Houston's obsolete drainage system.

There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.

 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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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 .

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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.

Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 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.

You want thread lock? This is how you get it...

Be like the current non-political gun-thread. That's all I'm saying.

EDIT: thanks D!

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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?

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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.

 whembly wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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).

 feeder wrote:

 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.

This story from CBC talks about Houston's obsolete drainage system.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 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.

This story from CBC talks about Houston's obsolete drainage system.

There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.

Thats not sane. They had 50 inches of rain. Can you even conceive of how much water that is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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.

The amount of rain Harvey dumped is mind-boggling... I heard this on CNN just now...

The amount of rain can supply enough water for the Niagra Falls for fifteen days!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

They didn't. Please explain any city on the planet that can take that level of rain.

Hey... that 'city' in Waterworld could have!

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 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.

This story from CBC talks about Houston's obsolete drainage system.

There's no denying the fact that the nature of Houston's development has contributed heavily to the severity of the flood.

Thats not sane. They had 50 inches of rain. Can you even conceive of how much water that is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Here is one of our many climate threads, nothing discussed there will have changed:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/677111.page

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

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 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.

This story from CBC talks about Houston's obsolete drainage system.

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.