Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Restore the Meadowlands to their original state.... there's no reason to build a mega mall in a wetland , let alone a Stadium complex or hotel space. Sandy's water rose up to 8ft in Hackensack , Little Ferry , Secaucus....the Water had no place to go due to all the crap that has been built and allowed in the wetlands.
Restore the Meadowlands to their original state.... there's no reason to build a mega mall in a wetland , let alone a Stadium complex or hotel space. Sandy's water rose up to 8ft in Hackensack , Little Ferry , Secaucus....the Water had no place to go due to all the crap that has been built and allowed in the wetlands.
*sigh*
Don't allow anyone ignorant of basic geophysics make decisions.
Sandy wasn't a case of flooding from rain. The built environment can make small stream flooding from rain worse by increasing the rate of runoff. However, you cannot flood the Meadowlands that way; the Meadowlands are far too well drained; this is why despite being surrounded by swamp and barely above sea level, Secaucus doesn't flood constantly. What flooded those towns was a huge surge of water being blown FROM the ocean up the Hackensack. Stuff being built in the wetlands doesn't affect that (except by being flooded itself)
Also, building more stuff doesn't cause the water table to rise. Just the opposite -- by causing more water to be drained into rivers and streams rather than sink into the ground, it depletes the water table.
Don't allow anyone ignorant of basic geophysics make decisions.
Sandy wasn't a case of flooding from rain. The built environment can make small stream flooding from rain worse by increasing the rate of runoff. However, you cannot flood the Meadowlands that way; the Meadowlands are far too well drained; this is why despite being surrounded by swamp and barely above sea level, Secaucus doesn't flood constantly. What flooded those towns was a huge surge of water being blown FROM the ocean up the Hackensack. Stuff being built in the wetlands doesn't affect that (except by being flooded itself)
Also, building more stuff doesn't cause the water table to rise. Just the opposite -- by causing more water to be drained into rivers and streams rather than sink into the ground, it depletes the water table.
Those towns do flood everytime theres a heavy rail left alone a Hurricane or Nor'Easter.... Building on the Wetlands destories the natural barrier and absorption system mother nature set up. Little Ferry , Secaucus , Hackensack always flood....Sandy just made it worse....
On the Shore, I'd be in favor of extremely strict building codes and regulations on dune size + how far back new construction must be from the edge. The point of the area is the beach, and it's a significant part of the economy.
In other areas, I'd be in favor of buyout programs and otherwise working to get as many people as possible out of those areas, as well as banning new construction.
But what do you do when over development of surrounding neighborhoods, which may or may not be in your own municipality, leads to flooding which is worse than the previous building codes covered? Most of the houses in these areas are decades old some are over a century old. So they survived for decades before the NFIP.
IMO, the biggest problem here was over development and planning boards who didn't even bother to check how the next strip mall or making 23 a major freeway would affect local water runoff. Just like stubborn refusal to build a protective dune system led to the worst of Sandy's destruction down the shore.
It boils down to selfish NIMBYism. Towns loathe the idea of building a flood reservoir instead of a revenue generating property, and beachfront homeowners hate sand dunes.
This is why it needs to be done at the state level with the input of engineers. The best solution for the routinely flooding areas should be determined and then enacted, via eminent domain if need be. Same story down the shore. You can have your house on the beach, but it needs to be built to specific codes and that will include dunes.
The issue is how to compel the behavior and on that point nybbler had the right idea. No NFIP for areas that don't meet the enhanced building codes or for structures built in identified flood prone areas that the owners refuse to sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerm277
On the Shore, I'd be in favor of extremely strict building codes and regulations on dune size + how far back new construction must be from the edge. The point of the area is the beach, and it's a significant part of the economy.
In other areas, I'd be in favor of buyout programs and otherwise working to get as many people as possible out of those areas, as well as banning new construction.
This pretty much captures my thoughts succinctly. As to actual implementation, that's something I really don't know how it would potentially work. All I know is that something needs to be done, simply rebuilding "the way we've always done" just isn't smart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
