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.

That isn't true. An appropriate system would make the situation less severe.

 Frazzled wrote:



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.

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.

But a more modern system could make a huge difference in controlling where the flood waters go and where they'll stay once the rain had stopped.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

"If you can't prevent it completely, then don't do anything to improve it" is a mindset that gets people killed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

I don't think there's any city in the world that wouldn't have the same thing happen with that much rain that fast.

Prestor Jon wrote:


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.

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.

At least one Texan predicted such a thing:

 whembly wrote:
Hey... that 'city' in Waterworld could have!

Spoiler:

Technically, the set in Waterworld got destroyed by a storm, rebuilt and destroyed again, so...

Well, Harvey is done with Houston, and is now on its way to Kentucky.

The recovery is just beginning.

Harvey deserves retirement.

Explosions reported at Crosby chemical plant.

Beaumont water pumps are down- no potable water in Beaumont.

more Addicks communities being evacuated.

 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

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/ways-can-help-people-hurricane-harvey/

Thank you DakkaDakka for your support.

Glad to hear that you/yours are pulling through alright.

Best of luck with it all

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.

Just water proof the foundation. It'll be fine.

 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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 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.