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

[GalvestonDuck]

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

Duckie giving a bear hug.

[Derek Ortt]

the hurricane coasts has the greatest liklihood of being destroyed and has the shortest return period. San Fransisco went 83 years between major earthquakes. The immediate hurricane coast, since the tidal surges of canes affect such a large area is as little as every 3 years in places.

Now, I only advocate not living in the immediate tidal surge flood plain, which does not extend that far inland, or not living on a barrier island. The return rates for destructive wind events from a major hurricane is much less and, IMO, is an acceptable risk

[oneness]

<snipped>

(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.

It was no "jab" for goodness sake, why on earth would I be jabbing you? You just seemed rather jadded when you made that incredibly dismissive "blah, blah, blah" remark, but you still didn't even attempt to engage the actual subject matter, nor even make the personal observation/admission that integrating surge mitigation into all coastal areas would be a very good thing for all people who are repeatedly affected by these devastating storms, and live in fear of them, when much of that oppressive fear of storms can be largely correspondingly mitigated as well.

You made an issue out of this:

(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 really don't know what you didn't understand in that comment, so I'll restate it (...as if this has anything to do with the topic). I have not been reading or taking part in the debate elsewhere, i.e. other than at STORM2K.

Ok?

I didn't think anyone would have a problem with that bit of incidental postscript.

However, I see you did not even attempt to answer the question I posed, i.e.

"... 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? ..."

Honestly, I have not told anyone they can not build a home, no matter how you twist my words and their intent. You’re just taking it to the familiar (and frankly irrelevant) emotive response once more, while entirely ignoring all valid points. I have actually taken the time to formulate considered, and lengthy, and hopefully civil posts (because the subject is important enough to bother). I can only presume you are not even interested in debating the merit of the discussion, nor to respond to point-counterpoint debate. Instead, you seem to be deeply offended at the temerity of suggesting that genuine surge mitigation should become a basic coastal community norm, at all planning, development and construction levels—instead of the current situation of just leaving it out and paying the mounting costs (costs which are a bit more substantial than emotions).

[GalvestonDuck]

Honestly, I have not told anyone they can not build a home, no matter how you twist my words and their intent. You’re just taking it to the familiar (and frankly irrelevant) emotive response once more, while entirely ignoring all valid points. I have actually taken the time to formulate considered, and lengthy, and hopefully civil posts (because the subject is important enough to bother). I can only presume you are not even interested in debating the merit of the discussion, nor to respond to point-counterpoint debate. Instead, you seem to be deeply offended at the temerity of suggesting that genuine surge mitigation should become a basic coastal community norm, at all planning, development and construction levels—instead of the current situation of just leaving it out and paying the mounting costs (costs which are a bit more substantial than emotions).

I'm not twisting anything. Are you not the one who said in your first post in this thread:

Why should such communities or local municipalities be endlessly bailed-out or the extravagant lifestyle-choices subsidised at fantastic expense after each surge inundation? Why should tax-payers in Nebraska be expected to pay the bills for barrier-Island lifestyles, post-disaster clean up, coastal community support leading to re-building within these very same vulnerable locations? Where is the Federal tax-payer's ‘freedom’ in this picture? Do they get a say in this cherished personal 'freedom' agenda, or must they just pay-up and not think it through or say anything?

and

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.

In short, you appear to be questioning the desire and resolve of those who wish to rebuild their homes in the communities that they have grown to love. No one is telling you, the taxpayer, that you have to pay for it. But why try to stop anyone from living on the coast, on a barrier island, in Florida, or wherever?

You call it a "vulnerable location" and I have asked repeatedly and in a number of different ways, "What makes the coast more vulnerable to natural disasters than any other place?" What's wrong with rebuilding? We did and it's proved to be safe for at least 105 years. Furthermore, you continue to talk about property. I'm talking about lives. At least in the cases of tropical storms and hurricanes (with the exception of Allison), we have a decent amount of warning. We have plenty of time to prepare, pack up, and evacuate. That can't be said for earthquakes, tornadoes, flash floods, mudslides, or fires (wildfires, maybe). Not to mention simple, one-family dwelling fires.

Natural disasters are going to happen and they can happen anywhere. At least here, we're prepared. It didn't take 9/11 for folks here to have emergency supplies and preparedness kits. We were ready long before then.

[jasons2k]

I've been reading through this and I have kept out of it because I see both sides. As a coastal resident for a good part of my life, emotionally, I side with GalvestonDuck on this. But purely from a practical standpoint, I side with Oneness.

There are 2 points I'd like to interject:

1) To answer the question posed "What makes the coast more vulnerable to natural disasters than any other place?", as Derek has pointed out, it is frequency. Some places on the coast have been frequently hit (e.g., Pensacola as a recent example). Look at Indianola; they didn't rebuild, they relocated. Furthermore, the major difference between hurricanes and other disasters is their sheer size (scope) and resulting losses. Aside from earthquakes (maybe) hurricanes affect a much larger area than other disasters. So, that begs the question, why are there virtually zero surge-mitigating practices in place?

2) In response to "No one is telling you, the taxpayer, that you have to pay for it.", this is not true. As taxpayers, we in fact, do pay for it. We have no choice. The $100 BILLION federal Katrina package comes from the Federal Treasury, paid for by the U.S. Taxpayer. We have no choice in this matter, so in effect, the Government is saying we have to pay for it. In addition, we are hit in the pocketbook again through increased insurance premiums. Premiums are not only selectively increased for people on the immediate coast (although they do pay higher rates); they are increased for everyone. Look at what has happened in the State of Florida; everyone is now paying astronomical rates to cover the losses mainly along the coast. To add insult to injury, high-dollar coastal properties (resorts, hotels, waterfront mansions) in the surge zone have a disproportionate claims-loss ratio after the storm has passed. Again, we ALL pay for that whether we like it or not through higher premiums. Not only that, particularly high-risk properties in Florida that cannot get covered by private insurance get covered by the State pool created after Andrew. And guess who pays for that too -- the taxpayers.

I think there are lessons to be learned from both sides. I'm not advocating abandoning the coast like they did in Indianola. But I think we can develop smarter to help mitigate the risks and the ensuing losses. If we continue with the current policies in place, we will all just pay more in the long run. Point & Case - how much of NOLA could have been saved, at a far less cost than rebuilding, by having an ironclad levee system that worked?

[oneness]

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.

In short, you appear to be questioning the desire and resolve of those who wish to rebuild their homes in the communities that they have grown to love. No one is telling you, the taxpayer, that you have to pay for it. But why try to stop anyone from living on the coast, on a barrier island, in Florida, or wherever?

Oh please! Nowhere have I (nor anyone else ... well, except those making hyperbolic responses that is) suggested the evacuation of Florida, and you definitely are twisting my words completely out of context, content and intent if you insist on misconstruing and misrepresenting them in that way. It has been explained to you (a couple of times) what is being referred to, but you insist on spinning satirical cheap-shots out of it.

No, I'm not "questioning" this, I'm laying it out very plainly and directly that the practice of permitting, supporting and encouraging people to live on barrier islands and low-laying flat exposed shorelines prone to major surges should never have been contemplated, let alone permitted or encouraged in the way it has, because it's a major disaster waiting to happen and diametrically opposed to a wise and necessary hurricane surge mitigation strategy. Local government levels involved should be ashamed of themselves for going down this dangerous and self-destructive path, and state governments for not putting a halt to it decades ago.

I have now said this clearly in several different ways, and I don't step away from it in the least—just the reverse.

As for the 'love' word you used, what you really mean is that they have derived great pleasure from living in these beautiful locations, and want to sustain this irresponsible pleasure-seeking, at other's expense. Some people also love to excessively speed on public roads for their selfish pleasure, but that's an obvious, known and unnecessary disaster, just waiting to happen, and is thus mitigated by law enforcement practice, which is integrated into the very fabric of the community. Not all agree with it, but that’s too bad, it’s for the greater good of all on the roads. Some people also love to derive pleasure from taking drugs, at everyone else's expense and then defend their 'right' to do this, but this does not mean they should be encouraged or supported to do it because again, it's a known and unnecessary disaster just waiting to happen.

Anyone can resort to using emotive words like ‘love’ and ‘pleasure’, in order to prop-up a bogus verbal tangential argument, thus effectively ignoring or side-stepping valid points and merits of a debate. This ‘love-of-place’ angle is not a valid argument at all for supporting grossly irresponsible development activities which will inevitably devastate that community, unnecessarily.

You call it a "vulnerable location" and I have asked repeatedly and in a number of different ways, "What makes the coast more vulnerable to natural disasters than any other place?" What's wrong with rebuilding? We did and it's proved to be safe for at least 105 years.

And a few people have pointed out why the coast is in fact more vulnerable, and that this vulnerability is far more unpredictable, in time, and in space. There are countless examples of this and it is hardly up for dispute.

For whatever purposes, you refuse to accept these realities.

Furthermore, you continue to talk about property. I'm talking about lives. At least in the cases of tropical storms and hurricanes (with the exception of Allison), we have a decent amount of warning. We have plenty of time to prepare, pack up, and evacuate. That can't be said for earthquakes, tornadoes, flash floods, mudslides, or fires (wildfires, maybe). Not to mention simple, one-family dwelling fires.

Nope, several times I have mentioned the effect on lives and implications in detail so I really don’t know where you’re coming from with those sorts of remarks. I have also pointed out how good the NHC warning system is but what does the warning have to do with the fact that the surge destruction will occur, regardless of whether advance warning were given, or not?

Do you realise that if people were not situated in inappropriate and dangerously exposed locations then they would not even need to evacuate for the majority of storms which they are warned about?

It’s because there is almost no surge mitigation (in conjunction with the use of inferior building materials) that mass evacuations, massive disruption and the incredible recurring expense of all this has now become a structurally unavoidable necessity for these communities now regularly in peril of sudden surge. This terrible mass-evacuation mess in itself is a mini economic disaster for the community and for individuals and families, even when a storm thankfully misses their area (not to mention the many people killed during the recent chaotic Rita evacuation).

The resulting in-built structural need to evacuate greatly affects the lives of millions of people, in detrimental ways, due to the progressive general move into areas of greatest surge danger. But more importantly, many of these people are now placed at serious risk of a horrible death simply because many can not actually evacuate at all, for a range of predictable reasons.

What about their lives? Don’t their lives matter? Would not sensible surge mitigation practices have greatly ameliorated this horrific situation?

That’s not all either because property actually does matter! If you have no roof over you and no bed, not even a pillow, no plumbing, no clean underwear, not even a tooth brush, no personal space left for your family and probably little security. You think this loss of property is not so bad, or doesn’t really matter as much? See how you feel about it once you also have no money remaining, no job, and perhaps some of your family members are no more as well, like a family with out a father to work and replace the essential property and you are left unnecessarily and avoidably destitute.

Property very much matters to people’s lives, some of it is life-support, and to deliberately or via implication of residential and commercial zonation, to place this property in areas exposed to surge levels, greatly exacerbates and amplifies the extreme misery most people feel in the aftermath of a major storm and surge—even if they have evacuated. I’m sure all people would much prefer their property and vital necessities of an agreeable level of comfort and security, which they previously had in abundance, to have remained in tact, rather than to be unnecessarily smashed-up and washed away.

Natural disasters are going to happen and they can happen anywhere. At least here, we're prepared. It didn't take 9/11 for folks here to have emergency supplies and preparedness kits. We were ready long before then.

You are not prepared for surge, you think you are, but you are not. If Rita had hit your area you would know this now.

Supplies and preparedness kits are commendable and absolutely necessary (of course) in any hurricane prone area but these don’t help you if they are also washed away. Or, as in the case of New Orleans, people scrambled for their lives into ceiling crawl-spaces so they could continue to breathe and live, but the storm kit was left submerged and many suffered terribly and slowly died. If you evacuate and (of course) take your storm kit with you it will last a couple of days to a week, at best. It takes many months and usually years to rebuild so what is your meagre storm-kit preparedness going to actually accomplish, other than to sustain you for a few initial days?

It is certainly no adequate 'answer', not an answer at all to the enormity of a storm surge, so I don't see what this even has to do with the discussion.

If you’re wealthy you may be buffered or insulated from the dire calamity because you can afford to re-establish elsewhere and to return at will, where and when you choose to. The poorer majority who have just lost everything (and many of whom did not or could not evacuate and may have lost family members) are left completely miserable and overwhelmed. Some will just collapse into a long-term funk of helplessness or mental illness and broken spirits. This is not a joke, nor something to take so lightly, this is what really happens. Some will even give up altogether and take their life as a result.

You say I’m not concerned with lives? I’m a lot more concerned about the lives than you seem to be.

Most of these terrible outcomes can be mitigated.

Why are you personally against this? You still have not even acknowledged that basic surge mitigation steps might be a very good idea.

Lastly, what on earth does “9/11” have to do with this discussion? Mentioning this event is entirely irrelevant, and once again seeks to press emotive buttons rather than grappling with the subject matter. A subject which you seem unwilling to even countenance addressing. I too can simplistically use emotive words and instances to press buttons and taint a discussion but I’ll stick to the merit of surge mitigation instead.

Don't you Texan’s have a saying which goes something like, "when you're in a hole, firstly, stop digging"?

This saying very much applies to the tragic lack of effective surge mitigation policies and practices in coastal regions. Evacuation does not cut it, as a first-line of ‘defense’. That very evacuation process is the actual unavoidable “retreat from the coast”, which is happening on a painfully regular basis—is it not? These evacuations are not the answer, they represent the tacit admission of the complete failure to effectively mitigate against hurricane surge. That approach is a short-term fatalistic chaotic catch-up, not a long-term intelligent planned response. Whether people like it or not, "retreat from the coast" will occur, one way or another. The choice is which is the best way? To manage it in an orderly manner, or to dig your heels in and refuse to manage it, then suffer from much avoidable and self-inflicted chaos. Pick one.

[GalvestonDuck]

...but what does the warning have to do with the fact that the surge destruction will occur, regardless of whether advance warning were given, or not?

Obviously, you are not getting my point. You're stuck on arguing about the effects of hurricanes and surge on the coast and I'm talking about how destruction from natural disasters can happen anywhere. I am saying that we, on the coast, accept the risks and prepare for them. But just in the same way as my home could have been demolished by surge from Hurricane Rita, someone else's home (God forbid) could be destroyed by a flood, a fire, or an earthquake tomorrow.

You think this loss of property is not so bad, or doesn’t really matter as much? See how you feel about it once you also have no money remaining, no job, and perhaps some of your family members are no more as well, like a family with out a father to work and replace the essential property and you are left unnecessarily and avoidably destitute.

I never said it didn't matter and definitely never said it's not so bad...but I did put lives above property. What I said was that with hurricanes, we get advanced warning and lives can be saved. You failed to acknowledge where I pointed out that other natural disasters can't be predicted as easily as hurricanes. As for no money, no job, no family, and being destitute...been there, done that, and it wasn't a hurricane. I know it's a hardship. But we really ought to give people credit for their strength and resiliency. We have a handful of members here who have been through it and are continuing to get through it. I'm sure they'd rather have their lives back to how they were before the storms. But many are thankful to have survived with their families and friends. I've heard their stories and prayers. Like Lester said in "American Beauty," "It's just a couch!" Material possessions can be replaced. Lives can't.

I’m sure all people would much prefer their property and vital necessities of an agreeable level of comfort and security, which they previously had in abundance, to have remained in tact, rather than to be unnecessarily smashed-up and washed away.

Again, this is where you're not acknowledging what I'm saying about other natural disasters. A person could live in Grand Cayman for 80 years, surviving storm after storm after storm and then turn around and move to Wisconsin, only to lose their home to a fire tomorrow. So, why segregate coastal and island residents as the only ones who run the risk of losing their property to a disaster? People can not live in fear day after day.

It takes many months and usually years to rebuild so what is your meagre storm-kit preparedness going to actually accomplish, other than to sustain you for a few initial days?

See above. People have rebuilt in other areas besides the coast after destructive events. The coast isn't the only area to experience destruction and it's not the only area where people have pulled together and survived.

Why are you personally against this? You still have not even acknowledged that basic surge mitigation steps might be a very good idea.

Who said I'm personally against any basic steps to protect against surge? Galvestonians rebuilt their city after the 1900 Storm by raising the grade of the island behind a 17-foot high seawall. So far, it's protected us from hurricane surge since then. What I am against is telling people not to rebuild...telling them where they can and cannot live. That was my point in including Florida in that list. Why tell anyone where they can't live, be it an island, a coast, or a state?

Lastly, what on earth does “9/11” have to do with this discussion?

Plenty, because my point was about preparedness. After 9/11, we were hearing all about emergency preparedness on the national news. Families were being told to make plans for disasters and to establish communications networks if they got separated. People were stocking up on duck tape and plastic sheeting. When I went up north for Christmas, someone from Kentucky asked me if I was ready in case something happened in Texas. I was able to say that I'd been ready long before, thanks to hurricane preparedness.

Don't you Texan’s have a saying which goes something like, "when you're in a hole, firstly, stop digging"?

Yeah, then we fill it up and rebuild on top of it. And we rebuild everything bigger.

[Ixolib]

And if I could sneak in this discussion for just a second...

As for barrier islands being used for residential existence, I agree that is and has been a very bad idea. Take west Dauphin Island, for instance. Seven weeks ago, those folks who live in that exclusive and extremely high-cost area had relative dry land beneath their homes. However, because they have (or had) the means and "choose" to build on a barrier island, they are now seeing the results of surge from a storm whose center was about 100 miles to their west. Not only did their homes completely wash away, the supposed "dry land" upon which they were built no longer exists.

What was once sand and low vegetation upon which million-dollar homes were built is now a navigable waterway! And now they want federal assistance so they can build again.

And so it goes with barrier islands. Storms will come and go, and those islands will be consistently rebuilding themselves. Why is "beach restoration" such a big issue in Gulf Shores, P'Cola, and other areas - to include Dauphin Island? It's because the sand has shifted north, and for the "playground" to continue, new sand must be brought in. All, of course, at a HUGE expense to the taxpayer... It happened last year with Ivan and it happened this year with Katrina. What will happen next year and next, and so on...

For further justification of this relevant topic, read this link. The Federal Government is mentioned throughout...

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/12735460.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

[oneness]

Thank you for providing a less dismissive post Duck, as it serves as a bit of a circuit-breaker (one which was becoming needed).

Again, this is where you're not acknowledging what I'm saying about other natural disasters. A person could live in Grand Cayman for 80 years, surviving storm after storm after storm and then turn around and move to Wisconsin, only to lose their home to a fire tomorrow. So, why segregate coastal and island residents as the only ones who run the risk of losing their property to a disaster? People can not live in fear day after day.

But I most certainly do acknowledge all types of hazards!

And no, people can't (and don't) live in constant fear of natural hazards, but when you suddenly hear a cyclone warning and realise it's for your specific area … well, most here know this feeling.

i.e.

1. You live above the known major surge levels and have a well built home constructed of strong materials. You may feel trepidation but realise your home and family will probably be ok, if the worst eventuates.

or else,

2. You live on a beachfront, or a barrier island and suddenly all bets are off. Your mouth goes dry, you attempt to swallow, you’re heart races, your stomach’s contents want out, your skin prickles and your scalp tingles … if the storm keeps coming … you stand a real potential of loosing all and your family will suffer greatly if that occurs. You contemplate homelessness and an extended period of intense stress, severe discomfort, relative poverty and on-going deprivation.

--

With regard to the Wisconsin example, such hazards are not actually directly quantifiable in time and space, and thus remain relative risks. Their non-stoichiometric occurrence makes accurate prediction naturally impossible, beyond the prosaic statistical probabilities for return period ‘y’ for category ‘x’ in a particular coastal area. Such probabilities are themselves misleading, due to both the scarcity of long-term data and the very nature of probabilities for non-stoichiometric seasonal systems.

Basically, the probability of occurrence is ‘reset’ each year so the probability is not actually contiguous or cumulative, year to year. However, I can say this to entirely dispense with the sort of misleading argument regarding the relative vulnerability in each situation:

A. The guy in Wisconsin is certainly subject to fire hazard, but will definitely never face the sudden development of a storm surge from a land-falling hurricane in his area.

B. The same fellow transplanted to Grand Cayman is now subject to both a ubiquitous fire hazard, but in addition, is also now subject to the very real potential for the sudden development of a storm surge from a powerful tropical hurricane.

Now, which is relatively more vulnerable? It’s such a no-brainer that I’m left to wonder why you are resorting to this pointless nonsense? I think you need to take some time to seriously look carefully at your views, positions and blind-spots with regard to this subject because all you have said so far been either extremely poorly thought-out, or else just bunk. Sorry to be blunt but this is a very important issue, and it deserves to be treated more seriously and relevantly.

[wxmann_91]

Perhaps the best solution is to limit the amount of people living along the coast, which is in between the extremes of completely moving away and allowing the population to continue to expand along the coast.

[GalvestonDuck]

With regard to the Wisconsin example, such hazards are not actually directly quantifiable in time and space, and thus remain relative risks. Their non-stoichiometric occurrence makes accurate prediction naturally impossible, beyond the prosaic statistical probabilities for return period ‘y’ for category ‘x’ in a particular coastal area. Such probabilities are themselves misleading, due to both the scarcity of long-term data and the very nature of probabilities for non-stoichiometric seasonal systems.

Basically, the probability of occurrence is ‘reset’ each year so the probability is not actually contiguous or cumulative, year to year. However, I can say this to entirely dispense with the sort of misleading argument regarding the relative vulnerability in each situation:

A. The guy in Wisconsin is certainly subject to fire hazard, but will definitely never face the sudden development of a storm surge from a land-falling hurricane in his area.

B. The same fellow transplanted to Grand Cayman is now subject to both a ubiquitous fire hazard, but in addition, is also now subject to the very real potential for the sudden development of a storm surge from a powerful tropical hurricane.

Now, which is relatively more vulnerable? It’s such a no-brainer that I’m left to wonder why you are resorting to this pointless nonsense? I think you need to take some time to seriously look carefully at your views, positions and blind-spots with regard to this subject because all you have said so far been either extremely poorly thought-out, or else just bunk. Sorry to be blunt but this is a very important issue, and it deserves to be treated more seriously and relevantly.

Talk about bunk. Explain to me two things -

1) What does stoichiometry have to do with natural disasters? Unless I missed a lesson here at S2k, I'm pretty sure they're all non-stoichiometric, so what's the point of attributing that descriptive to them? That's like saying non-reflective tree bark. As far as I know, tree bark tends to be non-reflective anyway. No point being ostentatious about tree bark, unless you're a squirrel.

2) Did you just take a stats class or something? Are you trying to explain away the greater probability of a person experiencing a single-family dwelling fire as opposed to the slim chances of losing his home to a hurricane? I don't buy it. Red Cross Disaster Response and Damage Assessment teams respond to more single-family dwelling fires than any other natural disaster per year. A blaze is reported to firefighters somewhere in the US every 1 1/2 minutes and a person dies in a fire every 2 1/2 hours.

And finally, since when is storm surge development "sudden?"

[oneness]

2) Did you just take a stats class or something? Are you trying to explain away the greater probability of a person experiencing a single-family dwelling fire as opposed to the slim chances of losing his home to a hurricane? I don't buy it. Red Cross Disaster Response and Damage Assessment teams respond to more single-family dwelling fires than any other natural disaster per year. A blaze is reported to firefighters somewhere in the US every 1 1/2 minutes and a person dies in a fire every 2 1/2 hours.

And finally, since when is storm surge development "sudden?"

Err … is it your view that houses on the MS coast historically burn down more often than they’re inundated by storm surge? You act as though you believe all disasters (and their geographical distribution) are events of equal and directly comparable risk, but you always ignore or refuse to acknowledge any valid points regarding the merits of surge mitigation.

But let’s assume, for the sake of your argument, that your example is a valid one (which of course it obviously isn’t), how on earth would this in any way excuse the total failure to mitigate storm surge?! You act as though people don’t mitigate fire hazards, via design, materials, smoke alarms, fire escapes and fire extinguishers. A single-family dwelling fire is not even a natural disaster category, so what are you talking about this for, or rather, what straw-man are you trying to conjure, to avoid facing or addressing the topic in a relevant way?

As for “sudden”, it’s very sudden when you awake to find you have a small cat 3 within 100 nm of your home. This actually happened to me in the mid 90’s. I went to bed with not even a tropical storm watch but awoke to a small and explosively intensifying cat 3 at 10 AM, less than 100 nm SE of my home. It formed and deepened faster than any previous storm in this region. That's a shockingly sudden surge threat development in my book.

But let’s get to the nitty-gritty:

You apparently believe there’s not a particularly serious surge risk and thus actual surge mitigation practices can be almost entirely dispensed with and should not be integral to a community’s development in coastal areas within the surge zone. And apparently you believe an exposed seawall will save your home and community from most surges potential (even though most of the surge inundation threat in your own location comes from the bay-side), and that everyone should pay to rebuild in the same places. Plus that it doesn’t matter if whole communities, which are always still occupied by many people who can’t evacuate for various reasons, are submerged and destroyed. And also it’s not very important that after the brief storm, the real disaster of the months and even years of largely avoidable suffering which people go through does not really count for much either.

Is that about the core of your view then? To just tough it out and do nothing decisive or proactive to circumvent the risk and minimise effects in an intelligent way?

If that’s your view then I got it … and I think it’s quite brainless, irresponsible and the same outmoded thinking which created this failure to seriously mitigate against surge.

[Valkhorn]

What would be so wrong with making 1000 yards or maybe even 1000 feet inland from the shore a national park/public beach?

What would be so wrong with upgrading the bridges and roads nearby so that they are much stronger against high/raging water?

What would be so wrong with living with nature rather than against it? (and yes that goes for every area which is prone to a specific kind of natural disaster).

In the upper midwest people have tornado shelters or safe rooms in the spring and summer and they live with the harsh snow and cold during the winter by learning to live with it. Does everyone's pipes burst up there every year? Do they get stranded and helpless whenever there is a moderate snow?

The problem is, is that we know Hurricanes will happen. We know they are frequent. We know they are widespread. So why don't we learn to live with them instead of against them?

Something else that makes me mad is how people in MS are so against building the casinos inland. Our state depends so much on the money they bring in, and yet we cannot find a safer place to put them?

Anyways, back to the point, what would be so wrong with living just 1000 yards from the shore. You could still watch the ocean, it would be undisturbed and open to the public, and it would be pretty, and when the next hurricane comes you would feel safer that your house and property still might be there.

[GalvestonDuck]

Check the numbers, oneness. My example is completely valid. Choose your battles wisely. Don't call someone brainless and then attempt to tell them that an undisputable fact they cite is "obviously" invalid.

Once again, you're attempting to tell me what I believe about surge mitigation. Not once did I say I have a problem with basic preventive measures. Now, you even try to dismiss our Seawall, something many Galvestonians would not take to very kindly.

What I have a problem with...and I've said it time and time again...is the practice of telling people not to live where they want to live.

[sunny]

I can't believe this thread is still open.

[Lindaloo]

I agree sunny.