Cry me a crested raging river, Iowa

The BBQ Pit
1

You know I always feel bad when I see the news about towns being flooded. I think about the irreplaceable things that families lose, the money, the wedding pictures, the recipes from great grandma, stuffed animals…pets, everything.

And I say, “It’s nice that the government has money to help these people…EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE”

And then I read that by simply constructing a river wall, some, if not all of this flood damage could be prevented.

The above article asks “HOW MANY TIMES WILL AMERICAN TAX PAYERS BE ASKED TO REPAIR THIS DAMAGE?”. I, who am already cranky from sending all my money to the IRS last week, say NEVER AGAIN. Rock Island built the wall and they’re getting through the flood…you didn’t build it, so we have to bail you out. FUCK YOU.

BUT NO, they don’t want a river wall. It detracts from the aesthetics of the city, and discourages tourism. I’ve got to tell you, pal. I’m not comin’ to your town if it’s under water or covered in mold, either.

WGN news this morning reported that many of the residents of this town in Iowa don’t even buy flood insurance because $300 a year is too steep and they’d rather “rely on the short term loans that the government can give them”.

SOMEDAY, my friend, the government won’t be able to give them to you…because you’ll have spent it all. EITHER GET OUT OF THE FLOODLANDS, or PUT UP A WALL, you freak. I pay for enough people’s shit against my will without having to send you thirty million pounds of sand every fucking spring.

jarbaby

2

Winnipeg built the Red River Floodway, a.k.a. Duff’s Ditch, which is notorious for being the only project in Manitoba’s history which was on time AND under budget.

3

I agree, jarbaby! I saw a report on the news the other night, interviewing some putz whose farm was flooded out. The reporter asked him, “Do you have flood insurance”. He sheepishly answered, “No.”. The reporter then asked, “Why not?”, answer: “I don’t know; we just don’t.”

Too freakin’ bad then. You live on the gosh darn MISSISSIPPI RIVER, for heaven’s sake! Didn’t you think it just might flood at some point. It’s not like they don’t have a huge history to look at.

Idiots.

4

I saw a nice old guy on the news last night, sitting in a boat next to his house. He said, “Hey, nobody forces us to live here. I just let the house flood, then clean it out when it’s all over.”

He’s got the right idea.

5

Can we include the folks who insist on building so close to the ocean that a simple nor’easter can wash out their foundation? Or the others who build in mudslide areas? Or… or… grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

We can’t control where the hurricanes and tornadoes and “storms of the century” go, but we sure as hell can control where we go. <sigh>

6

In southern Alabama, surrounded on three sides by a bend of the Pea River, is a little town named Elba. It’s become legendary for flooding. The powers that be have built a substandard river wall around the city, complete with two underpowered pumps to empty water from the city should it flood. Well, several times in the past, the Pea River crested higher than the flood wall. What do you think happened? That’s right, Lake Elba.

The property damage was staggering, and FEMA’s given up on them, but they keep rebuilding right in the floodplain, even though there’s not an insurance provider alive that would give them flood insurance.

Several cost/benefit analyses I’ve read posit that it would be less expensive to pick up the whole town and move it out of the floodplain than to sustain another flood.

7

I’m afraid the real answer to this one might be, “Well, the insurance agent laughed a whole lot when I brought it up. Then he slapped me around and took my lunch money.”

Look buddy. Use the flood. You know, like farmers have been doing for thousands of years. Keep your fields in the floodplain. Keep your buildings out of it. Spring floods are a good thing for farms.

8

Actually Ogre, I don’t have the transcript, but the exact words on the WGN News this morning were that flood insurance WAS available to these people…at a very high cost, of course. Many residents don’t want to pay it “instead relying on the relief money and short term loans that the goverment provides when the town is flooded”

Oh, you know what? Then I’m not going to buy car insurance anymore, or health insurance, and when I get in a big accident, I’m going to have a fundraiser to pay for it.

God forbid I take responsibility for my own life.

jarbaby

9

I’m there w/ya on this one.

RE: flood insurance - one of my employees has it. His house is close to a river. He’s lived there for 20+ years and never had a flood. However, in order to get his house re-financed, he had to take out the insurance. How the hell can these folks not have it???

Do we want to talk fault lines, too?

10

Another person in TOTAL agreement. Why do these people think their land is called a “flood plain?”

11

Preach it, jarbabyj.

Part of the problem is that the government keeps bailing these people out. If you live in a flood plain it will, understandably, be expensive to get flood insurance. So you should have to calculate this cost into your decision whether to buy the house.

But people know that the government will give them low interest loans in case of a flood. Therefore, they don’t have to buy flood insurance and factor that cost into ownership. They’re using the government as an insurance provider.

12

If I understand things correctly, flood insurance is provided by the government. (as in it’s only available in certain ways, and is underwritten by the government)

13

I live in the city of St. Louis, which, since most of it is protected by bluffs, got through the 1993 flood with few problems, with the exception of those living near a diversion channel, the River Des Peres, which did cause some flooding in area homes.

Not so the tony suburb of Chesterfield, some 15 miles west on I-64/Highway 40. Much of outlying Chesterfield is in the Missouri River floodplain and in 1993 a number of businesses, restaurants, and a small airport flooded. One of the restaurants there has a mark inscribed in their wall about 8 feet up showing how high the water came into the buildings.

Now, in 1993 there wasn’t much out there–the airport, the restaurant, a few shops, and a lot of empty land. Since then, with the increased flight from the city, the ENTIRE floodplain is now built up–scores of shops, restaurants, an ice complex for the Blues to practice in, some housing with more to come. The argument seems to be that 1993 was a 500-year flood, so there’s no need to worry about future flooding. There is no flood wall at all.

But that flood WILL come, and taxpayers like me will be forced to pay the hundreds of millions that will be lost because these idiots decided they wanted to build their businneses and $300k homes on a flood plain out in the sticks. God forbid they actually rebuild the city, where they might have to live next to someone of a different race or ethnicity.

These people know EXACTLY what they’re getting into. There ought to be a way to make them responsible for their foolish actions when they get them into trouble, but I don’t think there is. I’m not a big one for government interference, but it seems the Army Corps of Engineers should have forcefully told these morons that there are large flat areas by large rivers for a reason.

14

I guess I didn’t phrase it too clearly. What I meant was that those who don’t even purchase insurance in the first place are, in essence, using the low-interest loans in lieu of an insurance policy.

The reason an insurance policy would be expensive is because it’s a high-risk proposition to live in a flood plain. The high cost of insurance should be part of the cost/benefit analysis. But a lot of people eliminate this factor by not getting insurance and relying on low-interest loans which are, presumably, cheaper than buying an actual insurance policy.

15

I don’t argue with the gripes of the OP and those which followed. AND I agree with chastising people who insist on building near the ocean. But for my money, the people who insist on building new oceanfront contruction deserve a much huger slap upside the head than a community which was built near the river for a good goddamn reason over a century ago.

Maybe they’re all idiots, but I think the people who build by the ocean are so much worse it’s an insult to have 'em in this same thread.

16

Guess who had the good luck to go to Iowa for grad school during the summer of '93?

They don’t call me ‘Chance’ for nothing. Sometimes it’s bad, sometimes it’s good.

But lemme tell you. When the water rises that high that fast there ain’t NOTHING gonna keep it out, children. Both the Iowa river and the Cedar river went so far over their banks it was hopeless. And the damn land is so flat that once it starts spreading it spreads forever.

Ugh. What did I learn in grad school? Throwing sandbags. Thank god our apartment was second story.

17

I realize of course that insurance would theoretically be available to them…you’d just need higher premiums to cover the increased risk. It should, however (if everything works the way it’s supposed to, which it doesn’t) make the cost of building in a flood plain, along an active fault line, or on the beach prohibitive. I totally agree that relief payments are way too forthcoming, but that’s a fast way for the federal government to get good PR.

18

I live in Davenport, the city referred to in the CNN piece.

To put things in a bit of perspective, thanks to the Corps of Engineers and the farming practices of our neighbors to the north, what used to be a “century” flood has now become quite a bit more frequent. There was a major flood in 1965 (not as high as this though) …and then not another major flood of this magnitude until 1993. There was another smaller flood in 1997.

The last major discussion of a flood wall occurred after the flood of 1993.

That CNN bit saying:

"But at least some of Yerington’s constituency may be ready to forgo the view after the city’s second major flood in less than 10 years. An informal poll on the Quad City Times Web site was running 4 to 1 in favor of a flood wall. "

is a piece of shit bit at best…Leaving alone the dubious nature (and screening ability) of web based polls (who says all the voters live in Davenport, asshole?)…the last legitimate poll and city council vote on this notion occurred in 1993…with a resounding “NO” to the idea of a floodwall.

Of course, times have now changed thanks to our northern friends and the corps…what was once a 30 year or century flood is now a 4 year flood. So it’s legitimate to ask the question again.

local coverage is here http://www.qctimes.com/flood/story98.html

and here http://www.qctimes.com/flood/story95.html

However, standing on the lawn of the White House and making that kind of statement in the midst of people busting their asses to save their friends and neighbors is the height of hubris though. A rational analysis of the problem (and a comparison to other areas repeatedly affected by natural disasters: Carolina coasts, San Andreas fault, hurricane alley etc…) at a time somewhat AFTER the fucking flood leaves us would seem to make more sense.

The issue of flood insurance is somewhat more complicated than the media would care to portray. In reality, most…if not all, flood insurance will NOT cover many of the kinds of flooding that occurs in some of the homes here. If the water, for example, seeps in through the foundation or basement…flooding the basement upwards, that kind of flood damage is not covered.

In days gone by, there used to be a healthy period between a major news story and the subsequent “analysis” of that news story. That healthy period of time allowed for a more complete reflection of the past events and sober look at future implications. I think the shrinking of the “news cycle” has created such a rush to analyze news stories, that often the full story is not told… in order to create a buzz worthy news bite. This might be an example of that kind of coverage.

19

Testify, brother Beagledave.

Don’t count on flood insurance to pull you through. The losses that would be incurred in the aftermath of the 1993 floods would kill whatever laughably inaccurate surplus there might actually be.

You think maybe, if they all paid their premiums, the federal government would have just sat on the dough until needed? Uh-uh. They’d have spent it. At least this way they’ll be paying the entire cost of the loan plus interest.

20

Is all well? Can Clancy SWIM? :slight_smile:

I have a serious question though, for you and Johnathan. If I lived in a town where every four or ten years or so a flood came along that was big enough to do thousands of dollars worth of damage to my home, I would move. I would deem that it was NOT A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE, regardless of whether my roots where there or past or friends or whathaveyou. Why do you stay, Dave? If it’s such a costly nightmare?

I’m not trying to be snippy, I’m seriously curious.

jarbaby