A $26-billion plan to save the Houston area from rising seas

Lawmakers are poised to decide the fate of this massive project.

Read the whole story

 

[dlux]

As the saying goes: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A Waffle A day Keeps Jim Carrey Away.

 

[Incognexus]

Biden should send Harris to Texas to campaign for this project, funded by a tax on oil/gas producers.

Force Texans to choose between losing a major city and supporting a project advocated by a black woman.

This is a woefully out-of-touch thing to say. For one thing, Houston's black population is something like 70% above the U.S. average, so I'm quite confident they have no issue with VP Harris. If your comment was intended to be a political jab at the state at large, I would remind you that more Texans voted for Biden/Harris than New Yorkers, so I'm also quite confident there would be many millions who would enthusiastically support her promotion of such a project.

True…but, that segment of the population is not in charge of the state, for all the reasons mentioned above in other posts.

True, but the poster I replied to did not say "force the Texas Legislature to decide," they said "force Texans to decide." That type of rhetoric reflects poorly on those who use it and demonstrates a lack of care for the people of Houston (and elsewhere), who, as has also been mentioned above, overwhelmingly support the progressive agenda. In hyperpolarized elections, being completely in control and completely out of power hinges on fractions of a percent of the electorate, so it's best not to paint with a broad brush. Being an incremental voter in a geography where elections have foregone conclusions in favor of your preferred agenda is not a badge of honor.

 

[Ushio]

It's Texas, so I assume they will expect the federal govt. to pay for it all.

Yup. No one sucks the federal welfare teat harder than rugged, bootstrap -pulling, go-it-alone tough guy Republicans/Red states*. And the rich. And corporations.

It's ok, the poor and shrinking middle-class will just have to tighten their belts more and work even harder. Those untaxed profits and free federal money won't socialize the costs themselves.

* Although the average moron Republican voters don't see much benefit beyond basic subsidizing from blue states.

Texas isn't that bad 13th for federal money per capita https://balancingeverything.com/most-fe ... nt-states/ plenty of blue states pull in a lot more.

 

[bobg2100]

Can the state veto this?

Or will they just sue to have it NOT happen, because climate change isn't real and certain areas of the state shouldn't have money spent on them to protect them from things that aren't real.

I can see one of these two things happening because even of the US federal government thinks it's a good idea, Texas will probably not want it to happen because Texas.

More likely that Texas will want it not to happen because Houston is solidly blue and the state legislature never hesitates to put partisan politics above the lives of its citizens. Like how Texas recently refused to award Houston a single dollar of federal funding for flood mitigation and instead diverted almost all of it to cities and towns that didn’t even see flooding during Hurricane Harvey

Or as the article states:

In 2014, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers partnered with the state to study Ike Dike-like alternatives for Galveston Bay. After many iterations, bills to establish a governing structure for the $26.2 billion barrier proposal, which the Corps developed alongside the Texas General Land Office, recently passed both the Texas House and Senate. In September, the Corps will deliver their recommendations to the U.S. Congress, which will need to approve funding for the project.

 

[ReedmanBassoon]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

 

[kat_travel]

Isn't highways part of the problem too? Already flood prone areas with massive sprawl and highways is a catastrophe no?

 

[Fatesrider]

Dikes and such won't work.

This is a predictable, and expensive, short-term solution to a much longer-term issue that is best addressed by expecting it to continue to disaster while hoping for less than disaster.

Sea level rise has the potential to reach 60 meters (locally, I don't know, but that's the global average). Even a third of that would put Houston under 60 or more feet of water. That 20 meters is expected and probably can't be stopped. Dikes and pumps will not fix that, especially as storms compromise power systems (with Texas being a special case because they don't get power from outside of their grid meaning much less redundancy of energy sources).

The only rational solution is to MOVE THE CITY. Houston is NOT the only city the U.S. (and thousands of places around the world) will have to move because their prior locations will be under water. Eventually, all of them will be under water to a greater or lesser extent if they remain in their current locations, REGARDLESS of the band-aids we apply in the meantime. That won't be done overnight, but it CAN be done within the time frame we have before those sites become uninhabitable. But to do that, we have to look at long-term costs and how to meet them.

Essentially, we have about 50-75 years before we face the ultimate crisis of regularly abandoning cities due to rising sea levels. If we start that process TODAY, moving cities above the 60 meter mark (by building up instead of moving, or moving to higher ground, or whatever other means does it), the cost and disruptions will be far less than if we are forced to do it in haste.

Personally, knowing human-kind, I expect there will be a lot of forced haste.

Still, pointing out the realities of what's coming NOW at least alerts some folks to the looming crisis, and maybe humanity will get a fucking clue for once and begin the process of relocation while we have the time and ability to do so. It may be a pipe-dream to think that the powers that be today have any shits to give about addressing what's coming before it arrives. But it's a pipe-dream that needs to be discussed much more seriously and much more often than it has been so far.

 

[JohnDeL]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

The problem is made worse by the feds with the National Flood Insurance program subsidizing stupidity (among other factors). But the root cause of the problem is people refusing to move out of known danger zones and that was the case before the feds got involved (see: 1900 Galveston hurricane).

 

[bobg2100]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

The problem is made worse by the feds with the National Flood Insurance program subsidizing stupidity (among other factors). But the root cause of the problem is people refusing to move out of known danger zones and that was the case before the feds got involved (see: 1900 Galveston hurricane).

The difference is that now the feds are subsidizing/encouraging this stupidity with taxpayer's money.

 

[Ushio]

Dikes and such won't work.

This is a predictable, and expensive, short-term solution to a much longer-term issue that is best addressed by expecting it to continue to disaster while hoping for less than disaster.

Sea level rise has the potential to reach 60 meters (locally, I don't know, but that's the global average). Even a third of that would put Houston under 60 or more feet of water. That 20 meters is expected and probably can't be stopped. Dikes and pumps will not fix that, especially as storms compromise power systems (with Texas being a special case because they don't get power from outside of their grid meaning much less redundancy of energy sources).

The only rational solution is to MOVE THE CITY. Houston is NOT the only city the U.S. (and thousands of places around the world) will have to move because their prior locations will be under water. Eventually, all of them will be under water to a greater or lesser extent if they remain in their current locations, REGARDLESS of the band-aids we apply in the meantime. That won't be done overnight, but it CAN be done within the time frame we have before those sites become uninhabitable. But to do that, we have to look at long-term costs and how to meet them.

Essentially, we have about 50-75 years before we face the ultimate crisis of regularly abandoning cities due to rising sea levels. If we start that process TODAY, moving cities above the 60 meter mark (by building up instead of moving, or moving to higher ground, or whatever other means does it), the cost and disruptions will be far less than if we are forced to do it in haste.

Personally, knowing human-kind, I expect there will be a lot of forced haste.

Still, pointing out the realities of what's coming NOW at least alerts some folks to the looming crisis, and maybe humanity will get a fucking clue for once and begin the process of relocation while we have the time and ability to do so. It may be a pipe-dream to think that the powers that be today have any shits to give about addressing what's coming before it arrives. But it's a pipe-dream that needs to be discussed much more seriously and much more often than it has been so far.

It's not 60 metres it's 0.6m by 2100-2150 up to 2m very worst case.

 

[orwelldesign]

Can the state veto this?

Or will they just sue to have it NOT happen, because climate change isn't real and certain areas of the state shouldn't have money spent on them to protect them from things that aren't real.

I can see one of these two things happening because even of the US federal government thinks it's a good idea, Texas will probably not want it to happen because Texas.

More likely that Texas will want it not to happen because Houston is solidly blue and the state legislature never hesitates to put partisan politics above the lives of its citizens. Like how Texas recently refused to award Houston a single dollar of federal funding for flood mitigation and instead diverted almost all of it to cities and towns that didn’t even see flooding during Hurricane Harvey

Shit like this is why, as Texas becomes slowly but surely more liberal due to, gasp, people coming into contact with people of other races via living in the cities, among other things, once things flip, despite all the zealous conservatives moving to Texas from California and the voter suppression law probably to be enacted soon, I hope vengeance is enacted. Gerrymander the shit out of Texas and cut off all these backwater hick cities. Like the one between my hometown and Dallas that gave me a speeding ticket whose city hall was in a double-wide mobile home.

Tit-for-tat, motherfuckers. Why yes, I feel strongly about this matter. How could you tell?

Between everything you said, and the fact that Houston has more than 4 times the amount of people as the smallest population state (Wyoming), I wonder how long it will be until Houston residents decide to just become their own state? Same with the I35 corridor (I lived in San Antonio and made plenty of trips to Austin and Waco over the course of five years). At a certain point, the parts of the state that actually make money and want to invest in their infrastructure, protect minority rights, and exotic shit like join the national power grid so they can keep the power on need to stand up, join together, and make their own state. Let the parts of the state that don't feel like paying for anything and want muh freedom to live with their choice to do so.

Isn't that... messing with Texas?

A little birdie told me "Don't mess with Texas." I seem to recall that sentiment being a big thing over there.

/s?maybe? /(.5)s?

 

[walter_white]

It's clear that global warming is going to result in massive population migrations. I think the wall we need is not against the sea (did we learn nothing from King Canute?) but from the masses of migrating, mostly brown people (did we learn nothing from DJT?).

A wall built on the Texas-Oklahoma border would help prevent them overrunning the rest of the country. I'll bet the cost of a wall on dry ground is a lot cheaper and more effective than a wall built to keep out the sea.

The governor in Texas has the right idea, just the wrong border.

Edit: turn on and your sarcasm detectors, folks...

 

[a nonny moose]

Ike Dike-like

beth, you still have it, babes.



what's that?

 

[The Real Blastdoor]

Biden should send Harris to Texas to campaign for this project, funded by a tax on oil/gas producers.

Force Texans to choose between losing a major city and supporting a project advocated by a black woman.

This is a woefully out-of-touch thing to say. For one thing, Houston's black population is something like 70% above the U.S. average, so I'm quite confident they have no issue with VP Harris. If your comment was intended to be a political jab at the state at large, I would remind you that more Texans voted for Biden/Harris than New Yorkers, so I'm also quite confident there would be many millions who would enthusiastically support her promotion of such a project.

You’re living in a dream world. Texas is a state run by anti-American, anti-democratic white supremacists. Yes, there are many people in the state who are not part of that ruling class — that’s always the case. You can’t have oppressors without oppressed.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Lee? Kidding re the PNW. I have been many places in the world and with nothing significant keeping me in Oregon I always ask "would I like this place better?" So far the answer has always been no. Move here if you like. Maybe we can overwhelm the rednecks with enough progressive votes.

 

[Mal Adapted]

Unless the US also decides to invest heavily in limiting or even reversing climate change and concomitant sea level rises in the next century, then why even bother? Why not start moving communities and cities away from coastal areas altogether?

I also wonder what would prevent the sea from doing an 'end run' around these coastal defenses.

Every estimate I'm aware of for trying to engineer a way out of the consequences of carbon-based industrialisation (and usually rewarding the same capitalists responsible for inaction) dwarfs the cost of preventing climate change in the first place. An article like the above is completely missing the larger point.

Climate change can't be prevented it's been happening every day for billions of years.

Humanity influenced climate change also can't be prevented at least in the near term. Even if humanity disappeared tomorrow the next couple of centuries of climate change and warming is already baked in at this point. If we halve global CO2 in the next 20 years that will be good for those alive in 2250 onwards but for tomorrow it's spitting into the wind.

This is alarmism. Yes, even if the whole world ceased transferring fossil carbon to the atmosphere today, there could be as much as a degree of additional warming, due to slow feedbacks. What Ushio doesn't realize is that it's never too late to prevent still greater warming, within the lifetimes of people already born. Depending on how fast the global economy decarbonizes, the eventual warming could be 2º, 3º, 4ºC or higher: In any case, the longer the US and the world delay building out the net-zero economy, the hotter it will get. Meanwhile, Houston must adapt to the warming that's already occurred. Whether its citizens build a seawall, move neighborhoods en masse or merely desert the city one by one, is a matter of politics, not science.

 

[jasonmicron]

I would actualliy prefer to abandon Houston...I've been here all my life, but I don't think it will be livable long-term. I've been through Alicia, Ike, Harvey, you name it. I just don't think living in a swamp while the seas are rising is a good idea.

Same. This summer is my 43rd gulf coast hurricane season, and it feels like it's getting harder and harder each year. I don't know how many more of these I have left in me. Having to spend every August and September thinking that at any moment you're 3-4 days away from a sudden storm that might take away your home and everything in it that you own and also possibly kill you and your family is just really, really trying.

I feel like once my parents pass, I'm leaving this humid never-ending-summer swamp city for good and going somewhere cold. I hear Colorado is nice.

Heh, it's funny. I know plenty* of people that have left Texas (specifically Houston) for Colorado. I may also end up being one of them.

(edit - plenty* - I had people written there... derp)

 

[karolus]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

Excuse the pun, but this appears to be an excellent example of the sunk cost fallacy. Collectively, we're probably going to have to do a serious reevaluation of limited disaster relief funds in the near future. Coastal defense is going to become much more challenging, and thus a larger drag upon the economy. When will the tipping point be reached?

 

[jdale]

Doesn't Houston also have exceedingly poor drainage / storm drain systems even for normal rain? Maybe they should do something about that too.

There's no lack of smaller-scale alternatives, most of them based on measures that are far cheaper and quicker, such as flood-proofing businesses and raising homes.

That would be an excellent way to ensure that only businesses and rich people get protected, while the poor and minorities can keep suffering the way they always have.

 

[Honoredguests]

"In September, the Corps will deliver their recommendations to the U.S. Congress, which will need to approve funding for the project".
And here it is: The new national template will soon be set to tax the rest of us into oblivion to save every sinking city. I can already hear Miami. "You paid for theirs so you have to pay for ours"!
Not going to end well.

 

[dlux]

A little birdie told me "Don't mess with Texas."

Remember the Alamo Draft House!

and other mis-interpreted catchphrases.

 

[C.M. Allen]

Wanna know how you pay for this? Send the bill to owners of Exxon, Chevron, BP, and all the other refinery operators and oil extractors operating in TX and the Gulf. They made this mess. They can bloody-well pay to take care of it.

Isn't that what we teach *children*? Personal responsibility??

 

[JohnDeL]

Doesn't Houston also have exceedingly poor drainage / storm drain systems even for normal rain? Maybe they should do something about that too.

They used to. But after Allison, they revamped the system to reduce (but not eliminate) the susceptibility to flooding.

The problem now is that developers are insisting on building in flood zones (see: "That's my investment" above) and realtors don't want to let people know that homes are in flood zones, which puts people in harm's way. The other problem is the paradox of safety; by improving flood control, the city became more attractive for developers which increases the potential for damage in later floods. This will only be made worse if an Ike-dike gets built.

If I were able to make one change, it would be to allow new flood insurance only on properties that are at least 10 ft above the flood zone and to pay out on existing policies only if the property owners agree to move out of the flood zone.

 

[Oldmanalex]

Wanna know how you pay for this? Send the bill to owners of Exxon, Chevron, BP, and all the other refinery operators and oil extractors operating in TX and the Gulf. They made this mess. They can bloody-well pay to take care of it.

Isn't that what we teach *children*? Personal responsibility??

Isn't that only for poors? I think "I got mine" is what the rest are taught.

 

[dmoan]

Problem here is people building in flood plains because they knew they are being subsidized by the government.

 

[PHDave]

Galviston, pop 60,000. Cost per person >$400,000. Perhaps offer a check for $200,000 for everyone to move (or move the house) and cut the project cost in half. The remaining houses and businesses can be used for tourists until nature takes it's course. Require business continuity and flood insurance for those that remain and sign a waiver that they know there is no further bailout. Extra bonus, the economy booms from all the new jobs building new houses and businesses and we get a nature preserve with great beaches.

 

[LocalYokel]

The moral to the myth about American “space pens” and Soviet pencils just might apply here. Engineers want to build.

Depending on your point of view, the Corps’ estimate of $26B and 20 years is either optimistic or opportunistic. It gets their foot in the door, and how can you leave it half finished and useless after they blow through all the time and money?

 

[DarthSlack]

For the people who ask why pay for someone else's problems, it's because you'll need help soon enough. I don't think global warming is going to spare anyone. So the only way to do it is to muddle through it together.

Might want to have a word with Ted Cruz (R-Cancun). He voted against the relief bill when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York.

 

[C.M. Allen]

For the people who ask why pay for someone else's problems, it's because you'll need help soon enough. I don't think global warming is going to spare anyone. So the only way to do it is to muddle through it together.

Might want to have a word with Ted Cruz (R-Cancun). He voted against the relief bill when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York.

But was the first one to call for help when big bad things happen in TX. Yes, Republicans are f***ing hypocrites. What else is new?

 

[bubbasnmp]

"An Air Force Reserve pararescueman from the 920th Rescue Wing scans the landscape of Nederland, Texas ..." - well done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
Dutch: Nederland

 

[zepi]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

This.

Without such programs you couldn’t even get a mortgage to build into a place that is very susceptible of flooding.

First you cause a program by giving subsidies for insuring coastal properties (effectively incentivicing buildup of flood prone areas) and then you spend insane money to flood-proof them.

 

[flunk]

If you live near sea level, move now before your property value falls to zero. There are still a lot of people in denial about this, when that changes all low lying land is going to be worthless. All of Florida and half of Texas will be underwater before I need to worry about it.

 

[Rainywolf]

"President Joe Biden’s new $2 trillion national infrastructure initiative specifically calls for projects on the country’s embattled coasts."

This part is already out of date. Biden has abandoned his $2 trillion dollar plan for the "compromise" bill that is 50% smaller and only half of which is actually new spending, the rest just being already allocated spending and no new tax either. So in short his $2 trillion dollar plan has shrunk 75% and lets face it still wont pass congress.

 

[tscharf]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

This.

Without such programs you couldn’t even get a mortgage to build into a place that is very susceptible of flooding.

First you cause a program by giving subsidies for insuring coastal properties (effectively incentivicing buildup of flood prone areas) and then you spend insane money to flood-proof them.

Florida has the toughest building codes in the US for hurricane defense. You cannot substantially remodel your home in Florida without bringing it up to code. Insurance is expensive relative to non-coastal communities but building a structure that can withstand a Cat3 hurricane with minimal damage is not that difficult. Your tax dollars at work:

FEMA - Home Builder's Guide to Coastal Construction
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/file ... dition.pdf

I completely agree there shouldn't be any subsidizing of flood insurance.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

The federal government's attempt to "solve" problems, mostly causes bigger new ones. Look at college tuition and student loans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncoo ... de45652b63

It is amazing that people blindly think federal spending solves problems.

If you want to see blindness, look in a mirror.

Oh wait, you can't.

 

[Greho]

Houston could then pump groundwater out and allow the city to sink. They could have a sinking war with New Orleans. The city that subsides the most that year gets bragging rights.

Except… New Orleans is honest with itself, as is all of South Louisiana, about the loss of the bayous and wetlands and the need for better storm mitigation. That process actually began after Katrina, but more needs to be done.

 

[Veritas super omens]

The feds need to fix this because it is a problem caused by the feds. The National Flood Insurance program is prevented by Congress from charging rates that are proportional to risk.

============

Brian Harmon had just finished spending over $300,000 to fix his home in Kingwood, Texas,
when Hurricane Harvey sent floodwaters “completely over the roof.”

The six-bedroom house, which has an indoor swimming pool, sits along
the San Jacinto River. It has flooded 22 times since 1979.

Between 1979 and 2015, government records show the federal
flood insurance program paid out more than $1.8 million to
rebuild the house—a property that Mr. Harmon figured was
worth $600,000 to $800,000 before Harvey hit late last month.

“It’s my investment,” the 49-year-old said this summer,
before the hurricane. “I can’t just throw it away.”

Homes and other properties with repetitive
flood losses account for just 2% of the roughly
1.5 million properties that currently have flood insurance,
according to government estimates. But such properties have
accounted for about 30% of flood claims paid over the program’s history.

=============

And, in case you are going to rant about politics and geography:

New York and New Jersey EACH have more
properties with repetitive flood insurance claims
than Florida (note that Florida has passed New York
to become the third most populous US state.)

This.

Without such programs you couldn’t even get a mortgage to build into a place that is very susceptible of flooding.

First you cause a program by giving subsidies for insuring coastal properties (effectively incentivicing buildup of flood prone areas) and then you spend insane money to flood-proof them.

Florida has the toughest building codes in the US for hurricane defense. You cannot substantially remodel your home in Florida without bringing it up to code. Insurance is expensive relative to non-coastal communities but building a structure that can withstand a Cat3 hurricane with minimal damage is not that difficult. Your tax dollars at work:

FEMA - Home Builder's Guide to Coastal Construction
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/file ... dition.pdf

I completely agree there shouldn't be any subsidizing of flood insurance.

They are built to withstand hurricanes.....but not gravity.....

 

[Veritas super omens]

Houston could then pump groundwater out and allow the city to sink. They could have a sinking war with New Orleans. The city that subsides the most that year gets bragging rights.

Except… New Orleans is honest with itself, as is all of South Louisiana, about the loss of the bayous and wetlands and the need for better storm mitigation. That process actually began after Katrina, but more needs to be done.

No, if they were honest with themselves they'd abandon a town that is 8 feet below sea level and has one of the largest and most flood prone rivers in the world running right next to it.