Flooding in the Midwest

[UGAalum94]

I've got to work on how I'm linking stuff.

I was just linking that last one to show the criticism yesterday. I think Peppy's article was the best one about FEMA.

I agree that buying the land most likely to flood and using in for parks is a great idea and when you are rebuilding after a devastating natural disaster is a great time to consider where it makes sense to rebuild. (This does kind of lead to ugly redevelopment on the coasts after hurricanes sometimes, but there's got to be some kind of reality check on what's logically insurable.)

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

I'm sure there could be levee improvements and top notch city planning, but considering the relatively low loss of human life, I'm not throwing in that this one was a governmental failure just yet, which was the tone that Byrd was developing and that I expect to see dominate some coverage.

Has anyone seen any coverage that ties in ethanol production further affecting crop supply? ETA: apparently I was looking at this backwards. I was assuming that maybe there'd be less stored corn grain or whatever because ethanol production was up, but apparently the issue is corn prices are just making ethanol production less profitable. http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1213360..._us_whats_news

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

It wouldn't make sense, at least in most of the cities, for FEMA to buy out the 100- or 500-year plain. That would completely wipe out our downtown and a good chunk of private property. It would also take out half the University of Iowa campus. In those areas, it's better to build up levees and refine emergency plans in the event another flood like this does occur.

As far as farmland goes, it's a hard call. Farmers know there's always risk in their occupation. They at least get some assistance through insurance and the ever-hated subsidies when faced with massive crop loss such as this. With the current demand and price for commodity crops, though, they would be insane to let their land lay fallow. There are some environmental practices they can use to help with drainage, but those are minimal in a catastrophic flood event.

The titles 100-year and 500-year floodplain are somewhat misleading, too (IMO). 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1% potential to flood in any given year. 500-year floodplain is the area that has a .2% chance to flood in any given year. Generally speaking, when given odds such as those, you're not going to let your land sit.

As in 1993, the heavily flooded areas received an extreme amount of precipitation from April-June (really, since January) due to a stagnant Jet stream stuck right over Iowa/Wisconsin and a constant rotation of very moist high/low pressure systems. That created the massive thunderstorms we've had in May and June. The ground was already saturated from a wet spring and streams and rivers were extremely swollen due to snow melts. The combination of all those factors led to the severe flooding.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

I think that's the very reason why no one has suggested doing anything at all with 100- or 500-year floodplains (and really, the reason why we label them as such) - it's unpredictable and sometimes will go completely apeshit. No one is saying to clear out the 500-year floodplain, just the areas that are consistently in danger and would be cost-effective to purchase.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm sure there could be levee improvements and top notch city planning, but considering the relatively low loss of human life, I'm not throwing in that this one was a governmental failure just yet, which was the tone that Byrd was developing and that I expect to see dominate some coverage.

At least from what I've seen and read, anyone who takes that tone is likely being disingenuous based on a preconceived agenda. The WV Representative that blamed this on Bush did so with absolutely no understanding of the situation.

I haven't heard a single person involved claim that governmental agencies did anything wrong, which is the most telling part. Unless further information comes to light, you have to simply think this was a once-in-500-years occurrence, and you can't plan for that sort of thing.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think that's the very reason why no one has suggested doing anything at all with 100- or 500-year floodplains (and really, the reason why we label them as such) - it's unpredictable and sometimes will go completely apeshit. No one is saying to clear out the 500-year floodplain, just the areas that are consistently in danger and would be cost-effective to purchase.



At least from what I've seen and read, anyone who takes that tone is likely being disingenuous based on a preconceived agenda. The WV Representative that blamed this on Bush did so with absolutely no understanding of the situation.

I haven't heard a single person involved claim that governmental agencies did anything wrong, which is the most telling part. Unless further information comes to light, you have to simply think this was a once-in-500-years occurrence, and you can't plan for that sort of thing.

That's completely how I see it, but I'm still expecting spin to emerge that will allow people to advocate for whatever it is that they want to advocate for anyway.

As long as it remains a bad-stuff-even-happens-with-good-government story or a look-at-what-can-be-accomplished-with-relatively-minimal-federal-government-action story, there's not going to be a good agenda and story match-up for many media outlets or so says my little black media hating heart.

On a slightly different note, what's going to happen with the flooding hits the Mississippi outside of New Orleans. Is the river delta down there just so big we can assume it's going to be okay?

[bluefish81]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

As some of the other posters have pointed out, buying all that land wouldn't be feasible. A 100 year flood plain basically means that there's a 1% chance every year that the area is going to flood (according to FEMA). 500 year flood plain means that there's a .2 percent chance of flood every year.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

On a slightly different note, what's going to happen with the flooding hits the Mississippi outside of New Orleans. Is the river delta down there just so big we can assume it's going to be okay?

I think that's a good question as far as what will happen when the flooding hits down there. I have no idea. Hopefully they're potentially prepping for it if necessary.

[UGAalum94]

I wanted to make clear that I wasn't really advocating for a massive buyout. My point was more about the limits of what governments can do to protect us from nature. Sorry for not bring clear.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I wanted to make clear that I wasn't really advocating for a massive buyout. My point was more about the limits of what governments can do to protect us from nature. Sorry for not bring clear.

There's a pretty good article in today's paper about the potential for buyouts.

Link

So it's a possibility in some areas.

Also, I guess a new courthouse had been on the list for funding for a few years but it wasn't expected to come through until 2010 or later. Our senators are trying to see if that can be pushed through earlier.

[DaemonSeid]

Ok...so one of my co workers was ranting about the news is 'unfairly' covering this because you don't hear any reports of looting or robbing...

I sat her down and kindly showed her some of the pics you guys...


With all that water....there is nothing worth stealing....unless you got scuba gear...give it a rest

ETA: Midwest residents unsettled by FEMA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/...s_no_insurance