Harvey

MaeZe said:

How is it high ground could not have been mapped out?

Click to expand...

I really think you don't comprehend how flat that city is. Or how big it is geographically. Houston is a city in which flooding is a pretty common occurrence, just with severe thunderstorms. Obviously this was far worse than anything ever seen before. Where are most of the people? In their homes, even as they have flooded, on upper floors if they have them. A lot of people suffer it out, without requiring rescue. And some people did leave, voluntarily.

The major positive point is that there have been relatively few fatalities. That is the major difference between this event and Katrina 12 years ago. But it is going to be a hell of a mess to clean up, and it will change some things about Houston forever. I know the city very well, having traveled there dozens of times for business and family visits. I don't really know how you could adequately protect the place against flooding, and certainly not against what happened this week.

But the idea that people could just have gone to "high ground" if they only knew where it was located is both ludicrous and simplistic.

caw

MaeZe said:

If you watch the news, you'd think there was no high ground. But if you look at the data, tens of thousands (40K?) are in shelters. Where are the rest of the 6 million people?

I'm not there. I've flown in and out of Houston but never stayed more than a plane change. I've looked at the topo maps, none of those I've seen are detailed enough.

But where are the rest of the six million people? How many are in shelters? How many houses are flooded? A couple hundred thousand or six million?

I'm not trying to downplay the scale of this disaster, please don't think that. I just don't accept this had to happen or that the next disaster cannot be prevented. It has nothing to do with officials not issuing a mass evacuation order. That was clearly not an option.

But other options were not taken.

Click to expand...

cornflake said:

Isn't Houston kind of... huge? I think the 6 mil includes all the burbs and shit, which is some massive chunk of land. It's not a city like NY is a city.

Also, even if the land is flat, it doesn't flood like if you poured water onto a baking sheet. Water flows along waterways, and runs into storm drains and sewers and some places have much more grassland, some places have concrete, etc., etc. All that informs what floods and what doesn't, in addition to the surrounding areas, and what water comes from where because of the waterways, dams, bayous, etc., three cities over.

Also also, from the video I've seen, there's a decent area with apartments and such.

Click to expand...

The population of the city of Houston is approximately 2,000,000; so, when you're talking 6,000,000 people you're talking Greater Houston. Greater Houston is spread out over something like eight or nine counties, with a total land mass about the size of the state of New Jersey. Montgomery—where my brother lives—is approx. 56 miles to the north of the city of Houston. The Neches River overflowed there and large sections are flooded, including the subdivision where my brother lives. A mandatory evacuation order was issued yesterday for the Neches River Corridor in . . . JASPER County.

Also, again, there is no high ground—certainly not the way we usually mean "high ground". It's just not there.

ETA: I've flown in and out of Houston twice. I lived there for nine years. just sayin'

ETAA: Well, looky there: Nine counties, slightly smaller than Massachusetts and a little larger than New Jersey. Much of the land mass is swamp, marsh, prairie, etc. and flat.

In theory, the idea of using high ground maps sounds great, but there's high ground, and then there's "high" ground.

I live on "high" ground. A flood map would show as much, and I have the lower insurance premiums to prove it. In New Orleans, that means my house is 3 feet above sea level (which is quite high for the city). However, it doesn't mean the neighborhood won't flood. It just means that the water's unlikely to rise high enough to enter the raised houses.

I grew up in the desert. When I first moved here, I had no experience of flooding and no idea what to expect. Katrina hit the next month. As the storm was bearing down on us and I was trying to decide whether to evacuate or not, I asked my elderly neighbor whether the neighborhood we lived in was likely to flood. She responded "Oh no. It doesn't flood here. The water hardly ever gets more than knee-deep."

I thought to myself, "Well, shoot, that sure as heck SOUNDS like flooding."

I weathered the storm at a friend's house, and after it had passed, I waded through three blocks of ever-deepening water to check on that neighbor. Upon arriving, I noted that the thigh-high water was lapping the top step of the porch, four inches shy of the house itself, and I understood.

Now, after 12 years, I'd likely give the same response if a new neighbor asked about whether my street would flood. "Here? No, we don't flood. The water hardly ever gets more than knee-deep."

High ground is secure and dry. "High" ground means your car will still be ruined if it's parked on the street, but your house will probably survive. It also makes a lousy evacuation spot, because you're stranded until the water goes back down, deliveries of supplies would have to be made by boat, and an extra few inches of water (or a dickhead going a bit too fast down the street in a motorboat) marks the difference between high-and-dry, and water sloshing around your cot.

Houston has plenty of "high" ground, but it doesn't have a lick of proper high ground.

ETA: That's not to say there aren't preventative measures the city could take. The discussion of changes to building codes is back on the table. They could even, theoretically, build all new public structures with the intention of having them double as shelters. Adding more greenery to help absorb water, etc. etc. It's just not as simple as telling people, "go to this area and you'll be safe." I'm not saying it will continue to be that way. You seem to be under the impression that everyone's just throwing their hands up and crying, "there's nothing we can do, so we'll do nothing." That's not the case at all. It's just that, for this storm, with the city as it exists now, there was no good option. I'd imagine when they start rebuilding, they'll do so with an eye to preventing a recurrance of this mess.

blacbird said:

I really think you don't comprehend how flat that city is. Or how big it is geographically. Houston is a city in which flooding is a pretty common occurrence, just with severe thunderstorms. Obviously this was far worse than anything ever seen before. Where are most of the people? In their homes, even as they have flooded, on upper floors if they have them. A lot of people suffer it out, without requiring rescue. And some people did leave, voluntarily.

Click to expand...

This.

While not every home flooded, lots of neighborhoods were still inundated with water. I follow my old neighborhood on FB, and a few houses there took on a few feet of water on the lower level. However, all the residents were trapped there until just yesterday. All the streets flooded. The neighborhood is off I-10, and the highway itself was underwater at the exit. All other avenues out of the neighborhood were underwater. This was way out on the west side of Houston. I have friends who live way on the south side and their neighborhood was the same. Houses stayed dry, but the streets were flooded.

[h=1]Fires Reported at Harvey-Flooded Chemical Facility in Texas[/h]

Tazlima said:

You seem to be under the impression that everyone's just throwing their hands up and crying, "there's nothing we can do, so we'll do nothing." That's not the case at all. It's just that, for this storm, with the city as it exists now, there was no good option. I'd imagine when they start rebuilding, they'll do so with an eye to preventing a recurrance of this mess.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And I sincerely hope this does have a huge impact on finally convincing people that development regulations are actually a really good thing.

MaeZe said:

This sub-forum is about activism. I have a gut level response to accidents and disasters, my ideology leans heavily toward prevention. I understand the reaction in this thread by people who know Houston, who think I'm naysaying or downplaying the situation. I'm not.

Click to expand...

To me, it sounds like you're assuming you're a lot smarter than the people who were affected by the storm, so in spite of not being familiar with the logistics of the situation, you're playing Captain Hindsight and judging the city for not doing what you think they should have done. Which is why I keep having a defensive reaction to your posts.

Also, not mentioned (that I have seen) in this thread is another reason people don't evacuate: Looting. You head out of town to, say, Austin, to wait it out, your house may remain undamaged by flooding, but when you get back, all your valuable stuff is gone.

caw

cornflake said:

Isn't Houston kind of... huge? I think the 6 mil includes all the burbs and shit, which is some massive chunk of land. It's not a city like NY is a city.

Also, even if the land is flat, it doesn't flood like if you poured water onto a baking sheet. Water flows along waterways, and runs into storm drains and sewers and some places have much more grassland, some places have concrete, etc., etc. All that informs what floods and what doesn't, in addition to the surrounding areas, and what water comes from where because of the waterways, dams, bayous, etc., three cities over.

Also also, from the video I've seen, there's a decent area with apartments and such.

Click to expand...

I think this is correct.

Houston is the fourth largest city in the US, but it is a very spread out, suburban kind of city, as most our cities are here in CA.

I've little doubt there are some things the city planners and officials could have done better in terms of long-term planning for this kind of weather event, especially in light of climate change. I've also little doubt that state politics have led to some denial, and Texas's penchant for not regulating things like chemical plants as strictly as many other states, have led to some issues.

However, none of us should do the smug, superior dance and assume that Texas's political priorities are entirely to blame. I just red this article about my own blue state of CA. We are at sever risk for flooding too, not from hurricanes, but from those occasional torrential rain storms that could become more common with climate change. We need to spend billions to protect people from flooding over the next 30 years. At least California has the ability to come up with the billions to spend, assuming we have the political will.

But the fact is, when mother nature delivers a whammy that is unprecedented in the recorded history of an area, there's only so much people can do to cope in the days leading up to the disaster (when there's some warning) and in the days after. Hindsight is always 20-20. I do hope that these disasters can, at least, be a wake up call to the rest of us so we'll be more prepared when it happens to us. If it's possible to be.

I live in the so-called "river city," and it could be us on national television, up to our necks in water, if we get another rainy season like we did last year. What saved us last winter was the overall emptiness of our reservoirs and the drought-parched soil sucking up much of the torrential rain. Even so, things got pretty scary for some in our area.

One down side of early warnings and mobilization is that our ability to predict severe storms and their effects are still imperfect. Harvey delivered as promised, but some storms had a lot of hype followed by less drastic flooding than predicted. Sometimes the evacuations lead to more deaths than might have happened had people stayed put.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/harvey-flooding-mayor-evacuation.html?mcubz=1

Out west, it's not uncommon for a rainstorm that's predicted to dump several inches to blow through faster than expected, or to dissipate, or otherwise turn out to be more ordinary. It's important to be prepared for the worst, just in case, but each time this happens, people get more nonchalant and disinclined to evacuate or take the need for preparations seriously when another "storm of the century" is predicted.

Again, people, and I'm talking to regs who damn well know better:

• If you have a problem with a poster, don't deal with it yourself; report the post or PM me.
• If you catch yourself starting a sentence with "You" consider simply dropping the "you" and making your statement and including your citations; in other words, make it about the post and not the poster.
• Otherwise, you end up creating a lot more work for me.
• This makes me grumpy. Given my generally sunny disposition [sic], the thought of me being grumpy should not fill you with joie de vivre.
• You've got a
  
  button. Use it.
• Here's how to use the Ignore feature.

Here's a post worth re-reading. And here's another.

AW Admin said:

Charity Navigator has a list of approved charities for Harvey.

Click to expand...