Jump to content

-


Timoric

Recommended Posts

I had read that the Brays Bayou project in progress actually did prevent/reduce flooding...where it was completed. The big problem with the flooding was that recent infrastructure improvements HAVE curbed the floods, it's the older stuff that didn't. I certainly don't think mass demolition is the answer, at least not on the scale Kinkaid is suggesting. I would propose requirements on detention ponds in new development, as well as converting existing long-vacant spots (like the Main Street McDonald's site mentioned) into drainage areas with permeable asphalt lots.

 

By the way, Google Maps updated to show Houston as of 8/30 with lots of flooding, including the Sam Houston Tollway near CityCentre turned into a rather lovely looking canal, until you know it's not supposed to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the last 17 years we've had a 500 year flood, a 1000 year flood, and the most destructive drought in the city's history. Climate change + over development of sensitive and flood prone land is 100% the cause of our woes. 

 

Asphalt lots, detention ponds, and converting a few pod sites isn't going to cut it no matter how hard you try to ignore the overwhelming evidence. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

in the last 17 years we've had a 500 year flood, a 1000 year flood, and the most destructive drought in the city's history. Climate change + over development of sensitive and flood prone land is 100% the cause of our woes. 

 

Asphalt lots, detention ponds, and converting a few pod sites isn't going to cut it no matter how hard you try to ignore the overwhelming evidence.

The floodplains need to be redrawn, that's for sure. Can't have a 500 year flood and a 1000 year flood in a city less than 200 years old. So obviously, more of the city is in a floodplain than thought. Mass demolition is not going to be the answer to the city's woes. It would be different if the city was shrinking, so demolishing existing homes is going to just push out sprawl even further at best. Houston is not SimCity, and you can't just give yourself carpal tunnel with the bulldozer tool, and your 17 years is an awfully arbitrary number just to get the most disasters in and account for Allison, even if there were no major floods or other significant natural disasters in the 1980s and 1990s (I don't know enough about Houston history to say that for sure).

 

One thing I agree on is the sprawl problem, though not in the way you're thinking. Most developments have not included proper retention ponds, but it's also the infrastructure itself, a lot of the city was built fairly fast fairly cheaply in the 1970s and 1980s and that's been a problem. I know for a fact that roads like Long Point Road will easily flood just during a brief but hard rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "X year flood" is starting to make me a bit stabby.  A "100 year flood" means there is a 1% chance of flooding in a given year, a "50 year flood" means 2%, and so on - it doesn't mean that it will be another 100 years (OK, 84 years at this point) until another Allison level event. 

 

Likewise, no two storms are the same.  At Mollusk Manor the water didn't come up as high as it did during Allison, but it came up twice (on successive evenings) rather than once.  Meyerland did fine during Allison but now routinely gets clobbered.  The Theater District hardened itself against an Allison level flood, and got socked when the water came up higher than it did during Allison.  OTOH, the submarine doors did their job and the bulk of the downtown tunnel system did not get dunked, as it did during Allison.

 

The bottom line is that we do need to modify the flood maps and our building practices, as occurred after Allison.  Areas that are at risk of repeated flooding need to be returned to a more natural state, as occurred in Friendswood after Allison.  We can't remove all risk, because we're not clairvoyant, but we can perform the equivalent of "Doc, it hurts when I do this (hits head with hammer)"  "well, don't hit yourself in the head with a hammer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one thing is for sure, the government needs to step up and buyout the homes they've condemned between hw6 and bw8 that are still flooded as part of the draining of the reservoirs. Turn that area into parkland and never develop again.

 

It's not the government (our) fault that people decided to develop along those waterways, but it is the government's fault for not buying up this property in the first place, and we need to take it on the chin to buy those properties out so that developers can't put unsuspecting people there in the future. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, samagon said:

I think one thing is for sure, the government needs to step up and buyout the homes they've condemned between hw6 and bw8 that are still flooded as part of the draining of the reservoirs. Turn that area into parkland and never develop again.

 

It's not the government (our) fault that people decided to develop along those waterways, but it is the government's fault for not buying up this property in the first place, and we need to take it on the chin to buy those properties out so that developers can't put unsuspecting people there in the future. 

 

 

Have any home in this area been officially "condemned"??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Have any home in this area been officially "condemned"??????

 

There's a lawsuit against the government on behalf of the people living in the homes that are still flooded as a result of the reservoir releases.

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/houston-residents-blame-city-dam-related-flooding/

 

My understanding is they are claiming inverse condemnation. Which I really don't understand the technical bits, but the 30,000 ft view of it makes sense: the government took an action to save countless lives and billions of dollars, this action resulted in the flooding of a number of homes (thus condemning them), and the government should be on the hook to pay for the damages it caused.

 

Or as they say in star trek: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...