Fate of Flooded Homes (Houston, Plano: rental, neighborhood, buyer)

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

So every home that has ever flooded, even just once, is a lost cause?

It is if we don't start re-examining how and where we build this stuff, and soon.

[gwarnecke]

I think there’s widespread agreement that new construction must be kept out of vulnerable areas and must mitigate the runoff that it causes. I’d also agree with requiring all new construction in previously-flooded areas to be elevated.

But it’s not realistic to expect huge swaths of Houston and Katy that flooded for the first time ever, despite not being in any floodplain, to be written off. If the City, County, or whatever relevant governing body wanted to do this, they missed their chance. Homes have been rebuilt, and in some cases sold to new buyers.

[jfre81]

You can forget "flood plain" and historical data of rainfall and its effects once that entire area, and later the surroundings, are developed and all their streets flow into the same overloaded reservoir.

Harvey wasn't as bad as it could be. Harvey was only a warning shot. There have been three so-called "500-year floods" since 2015. We've at the very least witnessed that historical average drop significantly. Any one could be the last show for that tired old dam, and you don't want to be anywhere along Buffalo Bayou when it does.

The number one priority for this region right now is finding where to put another large reservoir (or expand the existing ones) and giving that water a wider berth in general. Right now, more political gain seems to be had out of building a wall on a border instead of a reservoir or repairing a dam to ensure the safety of one of the country's largest population centers.

At least we still have the Astrodome.

[houston-nomad]

Originally Posted by jfre81

You can forget "flood plain" and historical data of rainfall and its effects once that entire area, and later the surroundings, are developed and all their streets flow into the same overloaded reservoir.

Harvey wasn't as bad as it could be. Harvey was only a warning shot. There have been three so-called "500-year floods" since 2015. We've at the very least witnessed that historical average drop significantly. Any one could be the last show for that tired old dam, and you don't want to be anywhere along Buffalo Bayou when it does.

The number one priority for this region right now is finding where to put another large reservoir (or expand the existing ones) and giving that water a wider berth in general. Right now, more political gain seems to be had out of building a wall on a border instead of a reservoir or repairing a dam to ensure the safety of one of the country's largest population centers.

At least we still have the Astrodome.

This is the scary truth that people don't want to think about. A storm like Harvey that made landfall as a hurricane at Galveston, and pushed storm surge up the ship channel, and then rained like hell for a few days... wow.

That's why I made a video record of all the contents of my Clear Lake office. Buh-bye, Clear Lake, in that scenario.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

I think there’s widespread agreement that new construction must be kept out of vulnerable areas and must mitigate the runoff that it causes. I’d also agree with requiring all new construction in previously-flooded areas to be elevated.

You are assuming that politicians in Houston care more about our city than about making money.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by houston-nomad

This is the scary truth that people don't want to think about. A storm like Harvey that made landfall as a hurricane at Galveston, and pushed storm surge up the ship channel, and then rained like hell for a few days... wow.

That's why I made a video record of all the contents of my Clear Lake office. Buh-bye, Clear Lake, in that scenario.

If Harvey made landfall at Galveston, the "wet side" would have been east of Houston. Harvey actually hit at the worst location possible under the worst pressure systems possible for maximum rainfall over Houston and took a track unlike any other known major hurricane, essentially stalling in place.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

If Harvey made landfall at Galveston, the "wet side" would have been east of Houston. Harvey actually hit at the worst location possible under the worst pressure systems possible for maximum rainfall over Houston and took a track unlike any other known major hurricane, essentially stalling in place.

Here's what could have happened.

When Harvey went back into the Gulf off Galveston, it could have tracked northward before eastward and make a second hurricane landfall over an already flooded urban area.

Folks, we don't have historical models for a scenario like that. We have storm surge models for the immediate coastal area, bay shore and bayous that drain directly into the bay. Storm surge is just surface water being pushed by wind. A second landfall over a city sitting in four feet of water would be a sort of an inland storm surge event. It might have been enough to trigger a full-on failure of the dams and reservoirs.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

As such - it's not really correct to say that there's no point in expanding the bayous to handle more flow

That's exactly what I'm saying we should do. That, and we don't have to keep building houses right up against the reservoirs that are documented to be inadequate for the water retention needs of the region.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Here's what could have happened.

When Harvey went back into the Gulf off Galveston, it could have tracked northward before eastward and make a second hurricane landfall over an already flooded urban area.

We don't have historical models because we don't have any historical record of that. Here's what else could have happened: an asteroid could have slammed into the Gulf of Mexico and sent a 1000 foot wall of water that petered out around Dallas. We do have a historical record of that.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

We don't have historical models because we don't have any historical record of that. Here's what else could have happened: an asteroid could have slammed into the Gulf of Mexico and sent a 1000 foot wall of water that petered out around Dallas. We do have a historical record of that.

And I bet I would have stayed up all night if that did happen, like I did that night when it looked like the scenario I put forth was distinctly possible.

We can either learn from this or not. It's pretty clear which one we're choosing.

It's a major factor as to why I have no plans to remain here. I'll just "evacuate" now, since last August I had to explain to people in Michigan why nine million people can't just pick up and leave when a massive blob of rain stalls over an area the size of Indiana.