Hurricane Harvey

[Clueless Morgan]

18,000 Pounds Of Sandbags Weren't Enough To Protect This Houston Home:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...uston-home

They needed to actually cover the whole house.... then, it might have worked.

Wait, are they saying that the 4.5 feet of water in the house came in over the top of the wrap or through the gaps in the sand bags at the bottom? I mean, they implied that the street flooded 9 feet and the house was at a slightly lower elevation than the rest of the houses on the street... I hate when news stories are vague...

In any case, my original point stands that retrofitting flood protection like this is not likely to be that effective. Water is an insidious bastard.

[brewer]

Should have used ample amounts of Rain X, maybe Flex Seal.

[pocaracas]

18,000 Pounds Of Sandbags Weren't Enough To Protect This Houston Home:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...uston-home

They needed to actually cover the whole house.... then, it might have worked.

Wait, are they saying that the 4.5 feet of water  in the house came in over the top of the wrap or through the gaps in the sand bags at the bottom? I mean, they implied that the street flooded 9 feet and the house was at a slightly lower elevation than the rest of the houses on the street... I hate when news stories are vague...

I asked myself the same thing... From the height of the water in the pictures (which seems different on the outside and the inside), I'd say it went over.

In any case, my original point stands that retrofitting flood protection like this is not likely to be that effective. Water is an insidious bastard.

The person in that house did say her home had flooded twice in the few years she'd been there.... so...
The best option is for city planners to not allow building in flood prone areas. While you're at it, also disallow building in tornado prone areas.
[I can hear the politicians laughing at this suggestion]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

After the Missouri River went amok a few years ago the state banned private residences on flood plains in our area.

Then they built a airport on the grounds.

[Clueless Morgan]

From the height of the water in the pictures (which seems different on the outside and the inside), I'd say it went over.

If that's the case her protection might have been somewhat effective if there hadn't been 9 feet of water. She still might have gotten water infiltration through the gaps in the bottom but it wouldn't have been as much because the water would have taken longer to seep in between the gaps.

The best option is for city planners to not allow building in flood prone areas. While you're at it, also disallow building in tornado prone areas.
[I can hear the politicians laughing at this suggestion]

Politicians? I'm laughing at that suggestion. You just suggested relocation the population of the entire Midwest and huge portions of the Eastern and southern seaboards. While your at it, why not throw in earthquake zones which encompasses the entire western seaboard, areas prone to bad snow storms which take out the rockies states and all of the most northern states, all states that get hit by Hurricanes and you wipe out the rest of the Eastern seaboard... So where are you suggesting these hundreds of millions of people move? Portugal?

(And before you say yes, think of what 300 million people moving to Portugal would do it.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

England has tornadoes.

[pocaracas]

From the height of the water in the pictures (which seems different on the outside and the inside), I'd say it went over.

If that's the case her protection might have been somewhat effective if there hadn't been 9 feet of water. She still might have gotten water infiltration through the gaps in the bottom but it wouldn't have been as much because the water would have taken longer to seep in between the gaps.

The best option is for city planners to not allow building in flood prone areas. While you're at it, also disallow building in tornado prone areas.

Politicians? [i]I'm laughing at that suggestion. You just suggested relocation the population of the entire Midwest and huge portions of the Eastern and southern seaboards. While your at it, why not throw in earthquake zones which encompasses the entire western seaboard, areas prone to bad snow storms which take out the rockies states and all of the most northern states, all states that get hit by Hurricanes and you wipe out the rest of the Eastern seaboard... So where are you suggesting these hundreds of millions of people move? Portugal?

(And before you say yes, think of what 300 million people moving to Portugal would do it.)
[/i]

LOL! 300 million people in Portugal would make it sink!



Btw, Portugal is also prone to earthquakes... it just so happens that the last one that did any kind of destruction was some 250 years ago.

But... areas that get hit and need to rebuild every 5 years or so should be no-build zones.

And I didn't suggest relocating anyone.... just stop building new stuff there... let the old buildings decay and the people leave of their own accord.
I'm pretty sure not all the Midwest and southern seaboards get flooded every 5 years or so...

[Clueless Morgan]

LOL! 300 million people in Portugal would make it sink!

And I didn't suggest relocating anyone.... just stop building new stuff there... let the old buildings decay and the people leave of their own accord.
I'm pretty sure not all the Midwest and southern seaboards get flooded every 5 years or so...

point is : if you let buildings and infrastructure crumble to the point where people move... They still need to move somewhere. So do the hurricane prone people move to tornado alley? Do the tornado alley people move to an earthquake zone? Do the earthquake people move to the hurricane coasts?

Everywhere you go has some natural disaster to weather phenomenon to contend with. The answer isn't get everyone to move it's let the people willing to put up with it stay and the people who want to get outta dodge leave to somewhere where they're willing to put up with the weather.

And in the meantime, maybe consider changing building codes to respond to increasing weather phenomena in certain areas.

[pocaracas]

And I didn't suggest relocating anyone.... just stop building new stuff there... let the old buildings decay and the people leave of their own accord.
I'm pretty sure not all the Midwest and southern seaboards get flooded every 5 years or so...

point is : if you let buildings and infrastructure crumble to the point where people move... They still need to move somewhere. So do the hurricane prone people move to tornado alley? Do the tornado alley people move to an earthquake zone? Do the earthquake people move to the hurricane coasts?

It can't be that bad... How often have you personally had to rebuild your home?
Or how many people do you know that have had to do that?

Everywhere you go has some natural disaster to weather phenomenon to contend with.

That's where frequency of said natural disasters enters the picture.
if you get your home destroyed every 300 years, it's a legit gamble.... if it's every 5 years, why even rebuild there?

The answer isn't get everyone to move it's let the people willing to put up with it stay and the people who want to get outta dodge leave to somewhere where they're willing to put up with the weather.

That ends up not being what happens.
Areas marked as prone to being hit are devalued and become places where poorer people live. Which then become poorer still when they have to rebuild their homes every once in a while.
It's not what people want... it's what they can afford.

And in the meantime, maybe consider changing building codes to respond to increasing weather phenomena in certain areas.

Building codes usually require some catastrophe to be considered for change... but it's better late than never, I guess.