Question Non-Fishing

[chambug]

My question is: Why do those on the shorelines of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico insist on rebuilding on the same spots that have been devistated numerous times by hurricanes.

Wouldn't it be logical to move inland to rebuild, save the beaches and tidal areas for wildlife sanctuaries and public parks and recreation areas, and rebuild the homes in neighborhoods on elevated lands beyond the reach of the storm surges and coastal floods that have destroyed thousands of homes and businesses time and time again.

New Orleans is a prime example: How many times has it been destroyed in the areas that are actually 5 to 12 feet below sea level, while hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on dikes, levees, and pumps that have failed to solve the problem. The storm surge in Katrina in 2005 varied from 22 feet in LA to 27 feet in MS (12 feet in New Orleans). That and the combination of straddling the Mississippi River resulted in....

1,836 people died in Katrina and over 700 are still unaccounted for

80% of the city was flooded

Damage amounted to 101 Billion dollars

275,000 homes were destroyed

Later that same year Hurricane Rita struck and 60% of the recovery effort was nullified

It has happened many time and it is just a matter of time until it happens again, and New Orleans is just one example.

When will we learn?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Actually, by now you can predict that a general area will have tornados, earthquakes, and wildfires. They have them every year. And a lot more frequently than off-shore hurricanes.

Any excuse to pick a fight and bash the coasts.....

There is a difference in predicting something happening and predicting where. We know that hurricanes will hit the coast, but no one knows where a tornado will hit. I don't think it was about bashing the coast, but about people building where they know eventually a hurricane will occur and the damage will be severe. Beachfront is no different then riverfront and no one believes we should bail out those people.

We tell people they are on their own if they build in a flood zone on the big rivers, even though some of those flood zones were created by the COE trying to protect areas with more pull.

[eric1978]

Let's try earthquakes then. Should Californians be denied insurance or federal aid because they live near the San Andreas Fault? Should WE be denied insurance or federal aid because we CHOOSE to live here near the New Madrid Fault? After all, it's not a question of IF there will be a devastating earthquake, it's only a question of WHEN. We should all be packing up and heading (where is it again we should be heading where natural disasters don't exist?)...somewhere...yet we stupidly stay right here where we were born and raised. Idiots we are gambling like that.

[Feathers and Fins]

Let's try earthquakes then. Should Californians be denied insurance or federal aid because they live near the San Andreas Fault? Should WE be denied insurance or federal aid because we CHOOSE to live here near the New Madrid Fault? After all, it's not a question of IF there will be a devastating earthquake, it's only a question of WHEN. We should all be packing up and heading (where is it again we should be heading where natural disasters don't exist?)...somewhere...yet we stupidly stay right here where we were born and raised. Idiots we are gambling like that.

California residents have insurance just like the rest of us should. They also have some of the strictest building codes in the Nation if not World that force the structures to be built to withstand the Earthquakes. That said there is a big difference between people who live in an area where a risk is present vs people who live in an area they KNOW beyond doubt ( high risk ) that a disaster will happen and does frequently.

NJ has had 106 hurricanes impact them in one form or another since record keeping in 1804 that's 1 every 2 years basically. Its not Rocker Science Eric, its common since NOT to build in a flood zone. Earthquake are also a more or less localized disaster similar to a tornado where a Hurricane is a Massive Scale event that can cover thousands of miles. It is not hard to understand a storm producing inches of rain for up to 2 days is going to cause flooding.

We can build infrastructure to try and protect against mother nature and water but 30 years this may in construction as taught me one thing water will ALWAYS find a way to get into someplace. All it takes is one man made lock, or spillway or levee to fail and water will find you. Comparing any disaster to water is like comparing and Cherry to a Watermelon. Of all the disasters I have worked water is always the biggest destroyer. Even a house fire unless its a total burn down the most damage is done by the water the fire fighters use.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Eric I don't see how the New Madrid can be compared to a sand spit or island where people build huge houses for the view. The noise that I see that is the loudest is coming from people who lived on the beach, and they should know the danger to their property and either insure, or if that isn't possible, eat the loss. If more hurricanes are going to be the norm, then they should probably tell people who live in areas guaranteed to have damage and life threatening that they are on thir own. They owe it to the greater population that is living where they must and will also need help.

The rebuilding of the inland damages will take time, whether people like it or not. The infrastructure should have a different priority. Personal property should be on a realistic need basis.

[E Green]

nice little story in the may issue of MO conservationist called After the Storm: A joplin Update FYI

[Chief Grey Bear]

Is it because Joplin is a success story where people came together and did what had to be done maybe? Sorry just bothers me to hear these big cities cry like babies with all the gubberment money given to them and then drive through Joplin and see one house and one business after another back up and people working hard and not complaining.

Don't know how much of a success Joplin would have been with out the millions and millions of tax payer dollars that are still coming in from the state and fed level. Not mention the thousands and thousands of volunteers from all over the United States that went there.

Only heard of one small Joplin group going out to help at a disaster last year. Nice job Joplin. You proved to the world what every other town in this area thinks about you.

[Al Agnew]

The problem is, when a flood or storm surge disaster happens (or any disaster, for that matter, but we're talking water damage here), it's normal for the victims to get a lot of sympathy. Whether or not they were stupid for building or buying a place that was going to get flooded, our first impulse is to "make it right" for them. And they themselves are usually stuck where they are. Maybe you realize you were stupid to build or buy in a flood plain after the water wipes out your place, but at that point, you have the albatross around your neck with this piece of property that you probably paid top dollar for, and now can't sell because all of a sudden everybody else knows it's in a danger zone, so the only thing you can do is hope for somebody else (the government/the taxpayers) to help you rebuild where you are. I shake my head when, after every flood, somebody is interviewed that says, "Well, we'll just rebuild because we can't imagine living anywhere else." Translation: "We can't dump this place and we can't afford to buy something somewhere safer."

Arguably, if as a society we took all the money that we WILL spend on bailing people and businesses out of their own bad decisions on where to build, and used it to buy up all that land and relocate them one time, and then told everybody they were completely on their own if they chose to build in stupid places, we'd come out way ahead after a given period of time. But we as a society don't have that kind of longer view.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Sandy aside, a lot homes on the big rivers here were safe except for historical floods. The COE has built enough levees to change all that. The levees have raised the flood levels in unprotected areas quite a bit and it's hard to say that a town, even only 5 or 6 decades old, was built in an area prone to flooding now was a mistake.

[Smalliebigs]

Eric, we are denied earthquake insurance right now here in Missouri by several companies if you have brick construction or your house was built before 1950 or the type of soil your house is on. It's called underwriting and I think it's still legal in this stupified and dumbed down society we live in now.

Let's try earthquakes then. Should Californians be denied insurance or federal aid because they live near the San Andreas Fault? Should WE be denied insurance or federal aid because we CHOOSE to live here near the New Madrid Fault? After all, it's not a question of IF there will be a devastating earthquake, it's only a question of WHEN. We should all be packing up and heading (where is it again we should be heading where natural disasters don't exist?)...somewhere...yet we stupidly stay right here where we were born and raised. Idiots we are gambling like that.