Some Experts Say It's Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)

[NC George]

The Difference between Louisiana and Holland:

Much comparison has been made recently between the levees of Louisiana holding back the Gulf of Mexico and the levees of Holland holding back the North Sea. Many have commented that if the Dutch can succeed in holding back their ocean, we can hold back our ocean, too.

There is a critical flaw in this argument, and in can be reduced to two words: population density. Quite simply there is a critical need to hold back the sea in Holland in order to have enough area to support the population. Thus is makes economic sense to spend to money to keep back to sea. The opposite is true in Louisiana. There is no need for the majority of the citizens to live there (especially the economically unproductive.) There is plenty of land available in the rest of the United States for the people to live, therefore, there is no great reason to rebuild the city to its former glory. Sure, a port should be there, along with enough housing to satisfy the requirements of the port. Anyone else who expects to live there should have to shoulder the burden of funding the levee. This simple requirement would limit New Orleans to its economically viable size. I don’t have a levee around my house, and I don’t think the government is going to pay for one (and yes, there has been flooding here from a hurricane within the past 7 years.)

[sunny]

Then we should make it a policy that anytime a city floods and/or has destruction as the result of a hurricane, that city should be permanently evacuated and the people forced to move their homes and their jobs elsewhere. But that would go for every city, not just certain cities.

[GalvestonDuck]

I don't know whether to laugh or pick up my jaw from the floor. It's hard to do both.

The Difference between Louisiana and Holland:

Apples and oranges....

Many have commented that if the Dutch can succeed in holding back their ocean, we can hold back our ocean, too.

It's our GULF, not our ocean. And it's on my coast, not yours. You can claim the Atlantic. We GOM'ers will claim the Gulf.

There is no need for the majority of the citizens to live there (especially the economically unproductive.)

You mean, handicapped? Disabled? Unemployed? Ouch...better get out your armor.

There is plenty of land available in the rest of the United States for the people to live...

Really? Where? You want to relocate people like they did in South Africa?

...there is no great reason to rebuild the city to its former glory.

Maybe it won't be the city it once was. But I dare you to ever come here and say that to the face of a Galvestonian...even when you're talking about New Orleans. I double-dare you to go to NOLA and say it there.

Anyone else who expects to live there should have to shoulder the burden of funding the levee. This simple requirement would limit New Orleans to its economically viable size.

Hmmm...forget Lousiana v. Holland. Let's compare New Orleans to Ayden.

NOLA:
The median income for a household in the city was $27,133. The per capita income for the city was $17,258. Out of the total population, 19.3% of those 65 and older were living below the poverty line.

AYDEN:
The median income for a household in the town is $24,004. The per capita income for the town is $14,505. Out of the total population, 34.1% of those 65 and older are living below the poverty line.

[Roxy]

There is plenty of land available in the rest of the United States for the people to live...

really? you gonna take it from the people who own it and give it to others? Or are you offering your land?

[quandary]

I don't agree with the whole "abandon everything and leave" plan, but if an area is very much prone to disaster, such as Mobile or Gulf Shores area, and especially those outermost barrier islands, the government really should not be responsible for flood insurance for those people who choose to live there. They would be getting an unfairly large share from the government, getting to live in a good location, but having their insurance and negative aspects paid for by general taxpayers.

In no sense should we abandon our coastal cities, but the NO example in the article is a good point. Why bother spending the money to build in NO when you could at least build something a little further inland or higher, so that next time Katrina rolls by, there won't be massive flooding. At least the government could discourage coastal development instead of encouraging it.

[Ixolib]

I don't know whether to laugh or pick up my jaw from the floor. It's hard to do both.

Wow -- Interesting response!! But in this particular circumstance, I find that simple laughter far outweighs the alternative. Jaws on the floor can cause permanent damage, a condition certainly not worthy to this situation...

[GalvestonDuck]

I don't agree with the whole "abandon everything and leave" plan, but if an area is very much prone to disaster, such as Mobile or Gulf Shores area, and especially those outermost barrier islands, the government really should not be responsible for flood insurance for those people who choose to live there. They would be getting an unfairly large share from the government, getting to live in a good location, but having their insurance and negative aspects paid for by general taxpayers.

In no sense should we abandon our coastal cities, but the NO example in the article is a good point. Why bother spending the money to build in NO when you could at least build something a little further inland or higher, so that next time Katrina rolls by, there won't be massive flooding. At least the government could discourage coastal development instead of encouraging it.

Here's another one citing that whole "prone to disaster" bit.

Care to offer me proof that those areas are prone to disasters and inland areas (can you say "flooding?") aren't? Can you cite a source that shows that those areas rank in the top "prone to disaster" areas? Ever been the the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, North Carolina, or virtually any part of Florida?

[oneness]

I don't agree with the whole "abandon everything and leave" plan, but if an area is very much prone to disaster, such as Mobile or Gulf Shores area, and especially those outermost barrier islands, the government really should not be responsible for flood insurance for those people who choose to live there. They would be getting an unfairly large share from the government, getting to live in a good location, but having their insurance and negative aspects paid for by general taxpayers.

In no sense should we abandon our coastal cities ...<snip> ... At least the government could discourage coastal development instead of encouraging it.

Yes, well said!

Looking at the many over-reacting responses it's weird that people go all hyperbolic and act as though this were about moving 100 miles inland or abandoning FL and coastal cities (or something or other) when the suggestion is just to locate new homes, business services and infrastructure (sensibly) back from known severe surge inundation areas, i.e. away from barrier islands and low-laying sea front exposures. As well as this, to no longer encourage or subsidise people to continue to create this dangerous and irresponsible situation which is equivalent to placing a city within the bed of an ephemeral river, subject to regular destruction. People are being allowed to build expensive homes in the most vulnerable locations imaginable (because these are beautiful places) and hope it won't be smashed, which of course it will be. Then want and even expect permits and economic support to rebuild in the same dangerous and exposed location again.

Is it or isn't it true that the historical maximum of destruction and fatalities from cyclonic storms occurs within the surge zone? Hint: have a look at the gulf coast and the fatalities from Katrina and Rita (and please don’t rabbit-on about in-land flooding … which has its own specific mitigation methods and practices).

Cites and communities are destroyed regularly via a couple of types of natural disasters. That’s a fact. But there is a formal branch of study called disaster mitigation which has somehow (and strangely) become left out of the picture in hurricane prone coastal areas. Disaster mitigation is critical, particularly when even the NHC makes clear the region is in the midst of an active phase and that during an active phase storms tend to become more intense, as well as more frequent.

The situation today is that no matter what’s done in terms of belated policy redirections regarding surge in coastal areas, those mitigation outcomes would be slow to emerge over the next several decades. i.e. many more storms will smash the existing exposed areas, for decades to come, before the surge mitigation practices succeed in attenuating the damage levels, the disruption and costs of each storm. Essentially, the new exposed buildings will be destroyed by storms, causing massive damages for decades to come, even if a mitigation program is put in place immediately.

The ‘alternative’ is to keep building in extremely vulnerable locations and those communities will keep getting totalled on a regular and increasingly costly basis.

Is it really the end of the world to wise-up about basic hurricane damage mitigation? It sure won't be mitigated via complete inaction and resumption of familiar practices which produced this complete lack of surge mitigation.

To be blunt:

1. You’ve got an excellent hurricane warning service staffed by dedicated experienced professionals, directed by first-class people.

2. You have excellent formal emergency services staffed by dedicated, experienced professionals and first-rate leaders.

3. You have excellent hurricane emergency organisations, staffed by dedicated, experienced community people.

4. You have FEMA with a floating budget of tens of billions of dollars and dedicated people but with let’s say inadequate leadership.

5. You have profoundly irresponsible local government administrations, throughout coastal regions, who apparently have almost unanimously failed to put in place basic intelligent long-term surge disaster mitigation policies and practices. Such could and would greatly assist 1, 2, 3, and 4, to do their jobs much more effectively, with minimised stress and danger, plus greatly assist the very communities themselves, which they represent. But instead of admitting that there is a major threat which can be mitigated they do nothing. Well, not nothing exactly, because on the contrary, they have actually strongly encouraged the sorts of genuinely foolish development and building practices which will maximise the destruction incurred, amplify the chaos of the aftermath, and actually greatly increase the expense of each storm, for individuals, for families, for the community, and for the country.

They themselves have created massive disasters waiting to yet occur and their lame ‘mitigation effort’, is apparently a mixture of contraflow and fatalism.

The very opposite of disaster mitigation.

Clever!

But why is this so? To be frank, #5 occurs because people in these communities immediately condemn the very suggestion that an actual intelligent hurricane mitigation program could be or should be instituted!

So, it’s apparent local (and state) branches of government have become dysfunctional in this critical area and have severely failed their duty-of-care and are not self-correcting either.

This therefore leaves just the Federal government level to firstly clean up the resulting mess of each unmitigated disaster (yes, this is what the term actually means), and secondly, for Federal government to develop instruments of policy to place economically enforceable stipulations, guidance and expectations upon the lower levels of coastal government, to rectify this chronic mitigation failure and the inability to responsibly self-regulate in this important area, because their failure to do so has now become a nationally significant issue of concern.

[GalvestonDuck]

Again, oneness, you're saying the same thing as others -- don't build homes in "the most vulnerable locations." I'd like to see proof that those places are more vulnerable to disaster than other places. And you try to quantify your response by saying "new" homes? Isn't that what most homes in New Orleans will be, given the saturation and devastation of the old homes due to the flooding from Katrina? So, in short, you're also advocating not rebuilding New Orleans.

I don't believe anyone, especially those from Louisiana, is "overreacting" to ridiculous statements telling them not to rebuild their homes.

[oneness]

Again, oneness, you're saying the same thing as others -- don't build homes in "the most vulnerable locations." I'd like to see proof that those places are more vulnerable to disaster than other places. And you try to quantify your response by saying "new" homes? Isn't that what most homes in New Orleans will be, given the saturation and devastation of the old homes due to the flooding from Katrina? So, in short, you're also advocating not rebuilding New Orleans.


I don't believe anyone, especially those from Louisiana, is "overreacting" to ridiculous statements telling them not to rebuild their homes.

Can you point out where New Orleans was mentioned anywhere in those posts? You're reading into this what suits you because you don't like the implications of surge mitigation. What was actually said was this.

"... when the suggestion is just to locate new homes, business services and infrastructure (sensibly) back from known severe surge inundation areas, i.e. away from barrier islands and low-laying sea front exposures. ..."

[GalvestonDuck]

Again, oneness, you're saying the same thing as others -- don't build homes in "the most vulnerable locations." I'd like to see proof that those places are more vulnerable to disaster than other places. And you try to quantify your response by saying "new" homes? Isn't that what most homes in New Orleans will be, given the saturation and devastation of the old homes due to the flooding from Katrina? So, in short, you're also advocating not rebuilding New Orleans.


I don't believe anyone, especially those from Louisiana, is "overreacting" to ridiculous statements telling them not to rebuild their homes.

Can you point out where New Orleans was mentioned anywhere in those posts? You're reading into this what suits you because you don't like the implications of surge mitigation. What was actually said was this.

"... when the suggestion is just to locate new homes, business services and infrastructure (sensibly) back from known severe surge inundation areas, i.e. away from barrier islands and low-laying sea front exposures. ..."

Um, gee...New Orleans has been mentioned since the beginning of the thread. You even said "Gulf coast" and "Katrina." Kinda spot on, isn't it?

[jasons2k]

Is it or isn't it true that the historical maximum of destruction and fatalities from cyclonic storms occurs within the surge zone? Hint: have a look at the gulf coast and the fatalities from Katrina and Rita (and please don’t rabbit-on about in-land flooding … which has its own specific mitigation methods and practices).

Destruction, yes, fatalities, no. Most fatalities from tropical cyclones are caused by inland flooding due to excessive rainfall.

[jax]

Is it or isn't it true that the historical maximum of destruction and fatalities from cyclonic storms occurs within the surge zone? Hint: have a look at the gulf coast and the fatalities from Katrina and Rita (and please don’t rabbit-on about in-land flooding … which has its own specific mitigation methods and practices).

Destruction, yes, fatalities, no. Most fatalities from tropical cyclones are caused by inland flooding due to excessive rainfall.

that's not the case with Katrina...

[jasons2k]

Is it or isn't it true that the historical maximum of destruction and fatalities from cyclonic storms occurs within the surge zone? Hint: have a look at the gulf coast and the fatalities from Katrina and Rita (and please don’t rabbit-on about in-land flooding … which has its own specific mitigation methods and practices).

Destruction, yes, fatalities, no. Most fatalities from tropical cyclones are caused by inland flooding due to excessive rainfall.

that's not the case with Katrina...

And your point is....??

[oneness]

Again, oneness, you're saying the same thing as others -- don't build homes in "the most vulnerable locations." I'd like to see proof that those places are more vulnerable to disaster than other places. And you try to quantify your response by saying "new" homes? Isn't that what most homes in New Orleans will be, given the saturation and devastation of the old homes due to the flooding from Katrina? So, in short, you're also advocating not rebuilding New Orleans.


I don't believe anyone, especially those from Louisiana, is "overreacting" to ridiculous statements telling them not to rebuild their homes.

Can you point out where New Orleans was mentioned anywhere in those posts? You're reading into this what suits you because you don't like the implications of surge mitigation. What was actually said was this.

"... when the suggestion is just to locate new homes, business services and infrastructure (sensibly) back from known severe surge inundation areas, i.e. away from barrier islands and low-laying sea front exposures. ..."

Um, gee...New Orleans has been mentioned since the beginning of the thread. You even said "Gulf coast" and "Katrina." Kinda spot on, isn't it?

You've made that connection, not me. "Katrina" affected a lot more than NO, i.e. the "Gulf Coast", ok? I did not focus on a particular location but referred generally to the major problem of ever increasing coastal encroachment of dwellings and businesses in areas where they should not be built.

i.e.

"5. You have profoundly irresponsible local government administrations, throughout coastal regions, who apparently have almost unanimously failed to put in place basic intelligent long-term surge disaster mitigation policies and practices."

You insist on focusing on New Orleans but even the article at the beginning of the thread likewise refers to coastal encroachment of construction at locations which will routinely be devastated by storm surge, combined with an almost complete lack of surge mitigation—just the reverse in fact. This applies wherever tropical cyclonic storms make landfall. This isn't about one or two limited urban centers or historical heritage, it’s about wising-up and mitigating the threat, rather than doing nothing and inviting worse surge disasters in future.

Some seem quite unwilling to acknowledge that basic mitigation steps would overtime drastically reduce surge damage levels, death toll, economic damage and community disruption. Building in such places should not only be halted and discouraged, it also should never have been contemplated, let alone encouraged.

Rita at one point was forecast to reach Cat 3, immediately before passing almost directly over the FL Keys. At the actual time of nearest approach it was estimated that ~50% of Keys residents evacuated and ~50% did not. Rita took longer to get organised and stayed much further south, but the potential was there for Rita to get organised earlier, and to be spectacularly bombing as she passed close to the Keys, rather than near Dry Tortugas. If that earlier forecast had eventuated there may be a lot more people today prepared to grasp the nettle of actual surge mitigation. But instead, statements like this are put about, "I'd like to see proof that those places are more vulnerable to disaster than other places.".

What "proof" would suffice? It's a no-brainer that a city or town situated on a barrier island or exposed low coastline is unquestionably more vulnerable to surge than one largely situated above the major surge level. To not fairly quickly recognise that obvious basic fact or to deny the validity of it, is to hold common sense in contempt.

[GalvestonDuck]

You keep placing the emphasis on surge alone. I don't understand why.

My question is, and will always be, why focus on hurricanes only? Why do people insist are arguing against building (or rebuilding) in coastal areas, barrier islands, New Orleans, etc. ad nauseum, blah blah blah. That seems to be the main focus of that article and most arguments about it (not just the ones on this board).

What if I said that I don't think people should be allowed to rebuild in earthquake regions, in flood plains, on mountains, in valleys, in areas where tornadoes can occur, near volcanoes, anywhere temps reach above 105 or below 10, in forests, or on scenic cliffs.

We're not asking for special rights...just equal rights.

[oneness]

You keep placing the emphasis on surge alone. I don't understand why.

My question is, and will always be, why focus on hurricanes only? Why do people insist are arguing against building (or rebuilding) in coastal areas, barrier islands, New Orleans, etc. ad nauseum, blah blah blah. That seems to be the main focus of that article and most arguments about it (not just the ones on this board).

What if I said that I don't think people should be allowed to rebuild in earthquake regions, in flood plains, on mountains, in valleys, in areas where tornadoes can occur, near volcanoes, anywhere temps reach above 105 or below 10, in forests, or on scenic cliffs.

We're not asking for special rights...just equal rights.

Actually Duck that has not been my only focus at all. I can point you to several recent threads where my emphasis has been upon the mitigation of wind effects via the use of better structural materials and by minimising (if not eliminating) the use of certain intrinsically low-strength materials from structural applications in hurricane prone areas.

My focus is on hurricanes in this thread because this is a tropical weather thread in a hurricane aftermath forum—no other reason. But for one thing, engineers have been hardening against earthquakes up to a certain energy release in time x at distance y. The quake mitigation is only up to upper moderate strength quakes because after this it becomes uneconomic to pursue earthquake mitigation as the law of diminishing returns means it is actually cheaper to rebuild the structure after it fails during a major shallow-depth earthquake. The situation is similar in the sense that materials engineers and designers know they can't economically construct structures that will survive the more energetic events.

So it is with hurricanes. However, you can mitigate and practically eliminate the destructive impact of smaller events, plus significantly mitigate the effects of moderate events. Again, it’s the same with hurricane surge and wind effects, but to mitigate surge is in most part a relatively simple matter of not building, or building as little as possible in a surge prone area. Things like shipping and fishing ports etc., can not avoid exposure to sea level but most businesses and residential domiciles can, and can be built (economically) to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, with little or no structural damage. That’s a matter of policy and long-term priorities.

You asked, "...Why do people insist are arguing against building (or rebuilding) in coastal areas, barrier islands, New Orleans, etc. ...?". It's because this is what’s actually required for effective surge mitigation and correspondingly to greatly reduce the destruction, economic disruption and the horrendous chaotic aftermath and suffering to more manageable (less overwhelming) levels.

What I would like to hear explained is an actually concise, rational reasoning (which does not merely resort to pressing people's emotional buttons, but makes actual sound arguments with intrinsic merit) for why anyone thinks it's an error to fully integrate professional surge mitigation efforts into communities, and secondly, why they apparently think the very same errors should be repeated ad-nauseam, yet never learned from, nor intelligently acted upon?

Let's get this clear:

There is a seriously undertaken earthquake mitigation and engineering effort within new constructions in earthquake prone regions in the US.

There is major flood mitigation engineering effort in the USA, involving many thousands of dams and channels.

There are serious slope stability studies and major mud, rockslide and avalanche mitigation efforts within the USA.

The energy gradient of a Tornado is not possible to build for so warnings and shelters are the proper response and that is more or less true for many larger volcanic eruptions, with the inclusion of mass evacuations, but smaller events are mitigated via engineering and the use of buffer zones i.e. you can not build a city on a dormant but recently active volcano’s flanks.

There’s almost but not entirely no major surge mitigation effort in the US, but there is a dangerous disregard for it and a quite irrational if not neurotic resistance to it being naturally integrated into development planning in government, civil, domestic or commercial enterprise levels.

I hear the view you’re iterating Duck and I hope you understand why I disagree with it almost completely, because unfortunately hurricanes aren't interested in people's equal rights. The destruction they bring is always an open opportunity to get things 'right' for the next storm. Sorry to be emphatic about it, but it's a pity you've found this to be a lot of "blah, blah, blah" (as you put it) because that basically means you've not learned from recent and historical results (which reinforces the view that people always learn the hardest way with these storms before they realise their mistakes).

Prevention is always better than cure.

(btw, I have not been reading or taking part in the debate elsewhere, don't have the time for that, so I'm probably not as jaded as you have become)

[GalvestonDuck]

My question is, and will always be, why focus on hurricanes only? Why do people insist are arguing against building (or rebuilding) in coastal areas, barrier islands, New Orleans, etc. ad nauseum, blah blah blah.

I hear the view you’re iterating Duck and I hope you understand why I disagree with it almost completely, because unfortunately hurricanes aren't interested in people's equal rights. The destruction they bring is always an open opportunity to get things 'right' for the next storm. Sorry to be emphatic about it, but it's a pity you've found this to be a lot of "blah, blah, blah" (as you put it) because that basically means you've not learned from recent and historical results (which reinforces the view that people always learn the hardest way with these storms before they realise their mistakes).

I haven't learned? Good gosh, I live on Galveston Island. If anyone has learned from their own history, in addition to recent events, it'd be us. Did we not evacuate over 90% of our population when Rita was targeting our island?

Pity you haven't learned from our history. We rebuilt. There's no reason why other places can't also. That's all I'm saying.

You claim you hear my view, but I don't think you're really listening.

Furthermore, although you claim that you don't want answers that "press people's emotional buttons," I'm not sure if you're aware that you're doing the same thing. There are people on this board who have been directly affected by Katrina, Rita, and other storms. They have said time and time again how emotionally devastating this whole ordeal has been. And then, to hear people tell them not to rebuild their homes? Of course, it's emotional. I believe they're going to build them better and stronger than before. And they're going to live wherever they choose to live.

(btw, I have not been reading or taking part in the debate elsewhere, don't have the time for that, so I'm probably not as jaded as you have become).

I can point you to several recent threads where my emphasis has been upon the mitigation of wind effects via the use of better structural materials and by minimising (if not eliminating) the use of certain intrinsically low-strength materials from structural applications in hurricane prone areas.

So, which is it -- you have or haven't been debating this?

I'll ignore the "jaded" jab...for now.

[Ixolib]

From both an emotional and intellectual point of view, I for one am immensely enjoying the discussion presently taking place in this thread. If nothing else, the diverse viewpoints certainly give reason for consideration on both sides of the issue.

[Lindaloo]

Duckie is such an inspiration and my good buddy! Love ya girl!!