The recent aquatic disaster in Louisiana

[EricKei]

...Not that the national media was exactly in a big hurry to talk about it or anything. I mean, it's only a city or three down there that got completely obliterated this past weekend -_- In the words of the Joker, "But I digress..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0b3bb4b088bcd

edit: Part of the local response: 6500 (yes, 3 tons+) pounds of free chicken being cooked o_O https://www.facebook.com/TheShedBBQ/...c_ref=NEWSFEED (warning - sound kicks in a around halfway through)

PPS Word is it that some folks are whining about POTUS not setting foot on the ground on there just yet. WHY do people give a fuck about that?!?

[Greenday]

Don't worry, I'm sure all the people who reach their handout for federal aid will just build in the same highly prone to flooding areas just to deal with it again in a few years.

At what point is the country as a whole no longer responsible for people rebuilding over and over in flood-prone, fire-prone, etc. areas?

[s_stabeler]

the thing is, last I remember, people tend to move more frequently than you would expect these days. People tend to move roughly one every 13 years. Hence, if the risk is of a flood is lower than 1 every 13 years, people may well figure that the chances are that they will move before a flood hits.

That, and to be frank? A truly devastating flood is actually quite rare. The truly devastating floods tend to occur less than once every 50 years in any one place. The ONLY reason floods are uninsurable is because insurers spread the risk over policyholders, not over the life of the policy. (basically, how a normal insurance policy is supposed to work is that the insurance company calculates that no more than 1% of policyholders will claim in any particular year, so if they set premiums as 2% of the average claim, they'll make a profit. For flood insurance, if claims come in, they may well reach 100% of policyholders claiming- hence, under current insurance strategy, they can't spread the risk enough. You'd need to spread the risk over the life of a policy- perhaps by maintaining reserves for each policy that cover the payout, topped up by premiums if they need to be drawn on- to be able to insure floods.)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

At what point is the country as a whole no longer responsible for people rebuilding over and over in flood-prone, fire-prone, etc. areas?

Yea but you could take that to the extreme and say none of us should be anywhere on NA since it's one of the larges super volcanos in the world. It's just being polemic.

In areas that are flood prone, people have been building on stilts forever. In earthquake prone areas (I'm looking at you Cali), since people don't plan on leaving we just get better at engineering.

The problem with floods is its a lot of planning for a one time event.

I think the issue about rebuilding is this: do you want the government to protect you from unforseeable natural disasters ever? If the answer is yes, then this is not a problem. Because floods, wildfires, and earthquakes are all natural disasters but they're just a risk percentage. And we cover that percentage, because while it doesn't represent a huge expendature to the government, it is financial-life-ending stuff to those affected.

The high risk percentages are given to poor people because that's what they can afford. So ultimately, in reality I'm subsidizing poor people because I have priced them out of the less risky areas. You see it in Dallas. You see it in New York. We saw it in the lower ninth ward.

Yea, I'm ok with paying for it.

[EricKei]

Well...that's the whole problem. The significant majority of the areas that flooded are NOT in a "flood zone" area at all. No hurricane, no tidal anything, not in the wetlands; just 25~30 inches of rain (depending on who you ask) dumped on the area in less than three days, due to a "500-year flood" in an area that has never flooded (as far as anyone knows). The term is being used because that's about how often one can reasonably expect to be flooded in that area. Not a one year in 13 event, nor one in 50, but one in five hundred.

As for flood insurance -- assuming it's even available there -- it falls under "Why should I get insurance for something that never happens here?," I suppose.

Then again, why do people keep building houses in areas where they can be destroyed by cyclones or tsunami or earthquakes or brush fires or landslides, or some other natural disaster?...Oh, wait. That's pretty much everywhere. Every settled zone on this planet is vulnerable to something, even if it just hasn't fallen victim to a major disaster yet. You live somewhere, it becomes home. If you rebuild, you accept those risks. As for these particular folks, many of them likely moved there, in part, because it doesn't flood there. They already did decide to move out of more dangerous areas -- and then they rolled a 1 on their collective Luck roll.

I'm sure all the people who reach their handout for federal aid will just build in the same highly prone to flooding areas just to deal with it again in a few years.

With regards to Federal assistance dollars -- Might you be suggesting that people shouldn't receive help at all? How about the folks up on the Atlantic Seaboard who got hit by hurricanes in the past few years? Should they not rebuild, knowing that they are in areas that can be hit by hurricanes? How about the people displaced from their homes in California because of the wildfires and earthquakes that happen -- by comparison -- all the freaking time rather than once every 30~40 years (the average time in between Camille/Katrina-class storms in that area)?? Do the wildfires ever completely go out? Do people not realize that a huge chunk of the state's population is living right on top of a major fault line? Why, it's irresponsible of them to live there, is it not? They should all evacuate to safer places right now! Where would you propose?

More to the point, there's money in the budget set aside for this purpose. Perhaps not much as compared to something like pork barrel projects or the military or even the absurdly low amounts of money the educational and welfare systems get -- but some. I find that, regardless of one's political leanings, one tends to be glad to accept government assistance in case of disaster (foreseen or otherwise), for one simple reason: People expect the government to help them out in these situations. Whether that's good or bad is another matter for another thread, perhaps.

Just for comparison -- and I lived there when Katrina (a once-in-100-years storm), and evacuated, at the time: While you wouldn't have heard this from the National media -- the debacle of the handling of people before/during/after Katrina was overwhelmingly the local and state's government's fault. Yes, the Feds had some fuckups -- but I did find it interesting that the media DID seem to be complaining at the top of their voices when Federal troops/aid were NOT in the area within ten seconds of the storm landing. Unlike the local news, they kinda left out the part where sending troops and materiel into still-flooded areas would just have put THEM into danger, potentially destroying their vehicles and placing troops' lives at risk for no reason when there was no way to get in or out anyway; and they had plenty of rescue choppers in once the skies were clear. Note that the Feds had troops at the ready, and a national disaster declared, the day before landfall.

It still infuriates me that the national media's favorite memetastic term to use was "New Orleans dodged a bullet." Yes, we dodged one -- the eye of the storm. Problem is, the rest of the clip hit us full-force, as the western side of that eye is the worst place to be! We're talking about a storm that covered a huge chunk of the Gulf of Mexico, and whose eye alone was quite massive. Remember, Lousiana was affected far more by flooding caused by Gulf water pushed up the river outlets and other waterways than actual rain.

[protege]

In areas that are flood prone, people have been building on stilts forever.

Not necessarily. I know that in Pittsburgh's Hays neighborhood, the homes are right on the ground...next to a stream that overflows its banks every time it rains. Streets Run usually gets pretty bad several times a year. Often enough, that the borough and city don't even bother moving the barriers they use to close the road due to high water.

After one particularly bad flood--where several scrap cars floated out of a salvage yard--the city drew up plans to deal with the flooding. They were going to raise Streets Run Rd several feet, building some sort of channel for the stream, and buy out most of the homeowners in the area. They were going to build a wide "canal" through the area, which would handle the excess runoff. Even though those homeowners were to get more than their homes were worth, they cried that it wasn't enough...and the deal fell through. Now, these same people bitch and moan about the flooding every year

[EricKei]

Speaking of stilts -- That IS a good thing that came out of Katrina. New laws were passed and/or older ones actually started getting enforced (remember, part of why some levees were messed up is because the local politicians basically prevented the inspections from happening in any serious manner; I can elaborate upon request)...Many houses in urban areas were raised to the minimum height required by law, and new ones have to take this into account. I will grant this: Not that it makes a difference when you have flood waters up to the roof line of a 2-storey house; even a stilt home would get water damage from that. In the wetlands areas and in the "living right on the river" areas in other rural and semi-rural areas, many houses were already built on stilts already.

[s_stabeler]

there's one other point about FEMA aid- which is the primary aid for flood victims- it is almost always in the form of loans, not grants. (which is why insurance that covers any relatively common natural disasters wherever you live is a good idea. ( earthquake insurance in California, Tornado Insurance in Tornado Alley, Hurricane Insurance- and Flood insurance- in areas subject to frequent flooding) since federal aid won't necessarily help as much as you would think. If nothing else, get enough flood insurance to pay off any mortgage you have on your home- then you can either use FEMA money to rebuild, or get a loan to buy somewhere else. (if you still had the mortgage, you could struggle to pay both that and the FEMA loans.))

Speaking of stilts -- That IS a good thing that came out of Katrina. New laws were passed and/or older ones actually started getting enforced (remember, part of why some levees were messed up is because the local politicians basically prevented the inspections from happening in any serious manner; I can elaborate upon request)...Many houses in urban areas were raised to the minimum height required by law, and new ones have to take this into account. I will grant this: Not that it makes a difference when you have flood waters up to the roof line of a 2-storey house; even a stilt home would get water damage from that. In the wetlands areas and in the "living right on the river" areas in other rural and semi-rural areas, many houses were already built on stilts already.

To be fair, even if the levees were intact, they would not have contained the floodwater. They weren't actually designed to cope with the floodwater from that bad a flood. Also, while having a house on stilts wouldn't prevent flood damage, I think the idea is that there will be at least one floor of the house above the floodwater- where you can put your possessions so that they don't get water damage. That, and if the flood waters are high enough to reach the roof of a 2-storey house, I am not 100% sure there's a great deal that you can do to avoid that huse getting wrecked. Stilts might not actually help at that point, since floodwater often has quite a lot of force- it could conceivably tip over stilts that were too long.

[XCashier]

PPS Word is it that some folks are whining about POTUS not setting foot on the ground on there just yet.

The Governor of Louisiana specifically asked the President not to visit just yet.

He added that while the President can visit whenever he’d like, he’d prefer him to wait “a week or two” because such visits require local police and first responders to help block roads and provide security.

[EricKei]

To both of ye - True on all counts. The levee system was designed for 40-year-storms (Camille, Betsy, etc), not 100-year storms like Katrina and the like. As with most disaster plans, that's all one normally needs. It's kinda like how a store or home could have 95% security camera coverage for $X, or 99% coverage for $Y, where Y = 10 times X...You hedge your bets based on what is most likely to be effective, at a cost you can afford.

On POTUS -- While it was mainly people outside of LA, there were vocal folks (the internet tends to do that ) complaining that he wasn't there right away. I agree with the governor -- his being there takes up resources (cops, military), restricts transportation, etc, that are needed for other things. Ditto Trump and his grandstanding (handing out goods to people from the back of a truck) the day or two before Obama got there.

On an awkward side note -- It seems people are annoyed, or at least confused, about the Red Cross again. Given how many people they royally pissed off with some other disasters in the past (9/11 I believe; possibly Katrina), where they used the disaster to advertise for donations, but didn't actually earmark those funds for those specific disasters, I'm not surprised they're under the microscope. That being said, I will double down on what they have to say -- Financial donations are MUCH more useful to them than actual physical clothing, food, etc. Local charities and such that can put those to direct use ask for them; the RC uses money to help fund those groups, so physical item donations just end up in a warehouse for the time being.

edit:

I came across a rather practical reason why people weren't happy to have POTUS in town so soon (at least, before all rescue ops were completed).

edit deux:

Some folks don't believe in waiting for the government machine to creak to life. Sadly, there are some in government who want to interfere in that process...Meet the Cajun Navy ^_^

[BlaqueKatt]

Given how many people they royally pissed off with some other disasters in the past (9/11 I believe; possibly Katrina), where they used the disaster to advertise for donations, but didn't actually earmark those funds for those specific disasters, I'm not surprised they're under the microscope.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that, but people don't think about it.

If you have an emergency situation, they roll out, they don't wait for the donations to reach the point where they've covered the expense of it, they borrow from a general fund to get there as soon as possible, then they repay that fund with the donations. They give themselves a loan in expectataion that the donations will cover what they've already spent and the money in that general fund will be there for the next disaster. The red cross is usually mobilized and on scene with most of the initial needed supplies within hours, which is BEFORE a single penny has come in for that disaster*. Then the OMG they misallocated funds people ONLY look at what was spent during the recovery effort, completely neglecting that the supplies they showed up with also had to be purchased and stored, so the starting figure isn't zero, they're already in the negative when they arrive.


*a schoolmate of mine had their house burn to the ground in the middle of the night. The parent's didn't even escape with "the clothes on their backs" the fire department gave them blankets. The local red cross chapter was there before the fire department left(FD called them), with clothing for the parents and kids and a voucher for a hotel. This was before the family had notified anyone of the fire. That's what they do on a small and large scale.

[wolfie]

A few FEET of rain in 3 days? Don't you wish you could have sent most of it to California? I'm sure they'd have appreciated what a heavy rain would do in regards the wildfires.

People in California routinely having to fix things as a result of earthquake damage? It's not their fault - it's San Andreas fault.

[EricKei]

BK - Fair enough.

wolfie - Don't make me come over there. 8p

[Rusty Shackleford]

*a schoolmate of mine had their house burn to the ground in the middle of the night. The parent's didn't even escape with "the clothes on their backs" the fire department gave them blankets. The local red cross chapter was there before the fire department left(FD called them), with clothing for the parents and kids and a voucher for a hotel. This was before the family had notified anyone of the fire. That's what they do on a small and large scale.

The Red Cross did a similar thing for my mom when her house got struck by lightning. I was called at 803am by my mom about the fire (FD was not on scene yet), I got there by 900am (I live the next county north). The Red Cross had either just got there or was just pulling up a few minutes later. By 11am she had a check for basic needs (clothes, toiletries, etc). I was pretty impressed.

[jackfaire]

At what point is the country as a whole no longer responsible for people rebuilding over and over in flood-prone, fire-prone, etc. areas?

When we decide the country as a whole doesn't get that help? Every time I make the "why don't they move to....(insert other part of country)" I am then shown the same things in those other parts with different natural disasters to the point where I don't know any part of the continental United States where something might happen.

But the way I look at it is this. 2004 destroyed New Orleans. I have not heard about New Orleans specifically being hit that hard again since. And maybe that's how to look at it.

Yes if a person lives in 1 town and that same town gets destroyed over and over and over and over again. Then you're stupid. But usually it's "different place same area destroyed by the kind of natural disasters that occur in that part of the world"

So if people are supposed to move from where they live on the basis that their town could be next? Well shit the whole country might as well go nomadic.