• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It is high time the US starts building good flood protection

Should more money be reserved for building sea and river defenses?

  • Yes, at any reasonable cost even if it raises taxes

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Yes, at any reasonable cost, but through savings in defense/other government expenses

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, but how that has to be paid I do not know

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • No, it costs too much to do that even if it costs lives of floods towns

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • I do not know, I do not know enough about this issue

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I do not care, I do not live in a flood risk area, I am selfish but at least I am honest

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • Other ….................. (please explain)

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Total voters
    23
apdst said:
It's an all of the above proposition. Some places can be controlled and some places can't. Controll the ones you can and avoid the ones you can't.
Click to expand...

Yep, but Houston went to the other extreme - it has basically no zoning at all which is part of the problem and thus not part of the solution.
 
Peter King said:
Should more money be reserved for building sea and river defenses?


Looking at the horrible flooding in Texas it is high time that good sea and flood protections are built in the US. It is possible to protect your land from flooding. The US should be waging war on the seas in the Gulf of Mexico.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sea-change-how-the-dutch-confront-the-rise-of-the-oceans-2/
Click to expand...
I think we as tax payers should not reward people for building in disaster prone areas and not building to minimize the effects of those disasters. If you live in a flood prone area then maybe your home or business should be built on stilts or a mound above the flood level. If you live in wildfire prone area then maybe you should make sure all the brush,high grass is trimmed and that all the dead vegetation is cleaned up and use concrete to build your homes. If you live in a tornado or hurricane prone area then maybe you should build your homes out of reinforced concrete and brick. Don't build on a beach where erosion naturally occurs if you can afford to build a seawall.
 
apdst said:
You can't answer, because Holland doesn't deal with the same challenges that America does.

/thread
Click to expand...

The Dutch are also responsible for building sea defenses, and reclaiming land elsewhere, which for some reason you seem to ignore. They are responsible for many defenses and land reclamations in South East Asia, an area of the world prone to very frequent hurricanes and storms.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but Houston went to the other extreme - it has basically no zoning at all which is part of the problem and thus not part of the solution.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that was a mistake?
 
Carjosse said:
The Dutch are also responsible for building sea defenses, and reclaiming land elsewhere, which for some reason you seem to ignore. They are responsible for many defenses and land reclamations in South East Asia, an area of the world prone to very frequent hurricanes and storms.
Click to expand...

Show us where they've had to deal with a cat 4 hurricane, or stop comparing apples to oranges. And, stop with the hate America theme.
 
apdst said:
The Netherlands doesn't get storms of this proportion. Spare us your superiotity complex.
Click to expand...

Quite right, the Dutch just have to deal with the North Sea on a daily basis!
 
Rexedgar said:
Quite right, the Dutch just have to deal with the North Sea on a daily basis!
Click to expand...

Does the North Sea dump 11 trillion gallons of water inside Holland's flood walls in 50 odd hours?
 
Parrish said:
Several US coastal cities that now routinely flood due to typical thunderstorms are looking to the Netherlands as part of a solution.
Click to expand...

Smart planners have been consulting them for a while. Considered to be the world's authority on water control.
 
apdst said:
So, you do think we're all too stupid to figure it out. This is nothing but a hate America bait thread
Click to expand...

Since this is the third 'once in hundred years' flood in Houston in the last three or four years.....yes.

It seems that the people who deny global warming the most are the ones taking the brunt of it.
 
Moot said:
Since this is the third 'once in hundred years' flood in Houston in the last three or four years.....yes.

It seems that the people who deny global warming the most are the ones taking the brunt of it.
Click to expand...

The third? Link?

There hasn't been a major storm in the GOM in 12 years. Now you want to blame global warming?
 
apdst said:
Does the North Sea dump 11 trillion gallons of water inside Holland's flood walls in 50 odd hours?
Click to expand...

Is Holland a sea of pavement and concrete with no place for the water to go like Houston is?
 
apdst said:
The third? Link?

There hasn't been a major storm in the GOM in 12 years. Now you want to blame global warming?
Click to expand...

Forgive me...12 years and two of the 'once in a century flood' were just in the last two years.
 
We just need a bigger Cajun Navy!
29906170001_5096292811001_cajun-navy-stil.jpg

In reality, it's often better to just deal with the crisis as they randomly occur, than to spend 100x that on bolstering defense that would never be needed.
They said that's even how they determined mandatory vs non-mandatory evacuation. Mandatory would be (according to them), more costly, but more lives at risk, and strain rescue more than if it was voluntary. In areas that are known to be high risk, that's different obviously (NO).
 
Moot said:
Is Holland a sea of pavement and concrete with no place for the water to go like Houston is?
Click to expand...

You can answer my question, can you?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There is a yes and no for this.
The federal government should probably stop insuring homes built on beaches.
Instead letting those people eat the cost of living in hurricane prone areas.

We should probably declare some coastal wetlands as nature reserves.

There are some areas, where there is an argument for more flood prevention structures, but they should be financed locally.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with this. It is not like Houston and the state of Texas do not have the economic resources to finance flood control structures at the state and local level. Its easy for a state to brag about it's low taxes when it passes on the expense of major infrastructure projects to the federal government.
 
apdst said:
Would you agree that was a mistake?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but it is up the residents of that area to make their own laws. I would really like to see sensible changes made to FEMA and related federal flood insurance programs that would include more realistic risk assessments and more flexible use of the flood insurance funds which they control.

Local example: Half of a two lane road near me washed out in an October 2015 flood (it is now still a one lane road) and FEMA will not permit its insurance funds to be used by the city to "improve" the road (by adding a third drainage pipe under it to help prevent a future washout) - only to restore it to its pre-flood damaged state (keep only the two drainage pipes now under it). The FEMA deal is this: they will pay 100% (of the claim amount) to the city if they "restore" the road but only 50% of that claim amount if the road is "improved" in the repair process. The city is appealing that (moronic?) idea saying that it makes little sense to be forced to use it's city funds to rebuild a roadway to a condition known to pose a future flood risk - meanwhile we have to tolerate a one lane road and hope that it survives this latest flood.
 
apdst said:
Does the North Sea dump 11 trillion gallons of water inside Holland's flood walls in 50 odd hours?
Click to expand...

Not since the Dutch took steps to prevent it.
 
Kinfolks said, "Jed, move away from there!"
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Absolutely, but it is up the residents of that area to make their own laws. I would really like to see sensible changes made to FEMA and related federal flood insurance programs that would include more realistic risk assessments and more flexible use of the flood insurance funds which they control.

Local example: Half of a two lane road near me washed out in an October 2015 flood (it is now still a one lane road) and FEMA will not permit its insurance funds to be used by the city to "improve" the road (by adding a third drainage pipe under it to help prevent a future washout) - only to restore it to its pre-flood damaged state (keep only the two drainage pipes now under it). The FEMA deal is this: they will pay 100% (of the claim amount) to the city if they "restore" the road but only 50% of that claim amount if the road is "improved" in the repair process. The city is appealing that (moronic?) idea saying that it makes little sense to be forced to use it's city funds to rebuild a roadway to a condition known to pose a future flood risk - meanwhile we have to tolerate a one lane road and hope that it survives this latest flood.
Click to expand...

I agree. I live on a hill.
 
Rexedgar said:
No....they control the water. I recommend you brush up a little.
Click to expand...

So, they haven't had to deal with 11 trillion gallons of rain water falling in 50 hours, with more on the way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom