Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado Flooding Worse Overnight (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I know you've seen many flood zone... (13+ / 0-)

    ...maps. Me, too. I lived in Boulder for a long time and there was a large contingent of us who argued for less development in the floodway and lower parts of the flood zone.

    But have you looked at a fault-zone map of California? If we follow your prescription, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco should be abandoned. And a whole lot of other places as well.

    I just think it's counterproductive to call people who live in some risky areas stupid and let others off the hook.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:14:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. (3+ / 0-)

      Add all of us who live near volcanoes as well.   Mt. Rainier...  Mt. Hood.  Volcanoes and near Tsnuami zones.  

      We all are at risk.  

      "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

      by Damnit Janet on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:34:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Abandon and rebuild are different things (0+ / 0-)

      Do I think the major cities of California should be abandoned?  No.  But when making a decision to rebuild, sustainability must be considered in each and every case.

      The West has major water issues.  There isn't enough, every drop is being fought over.  Given that, if a major earthquake tomorrow wiped out large parts of SF, LA or SD, should those areas be rebuilt as if nothing had happened, and never will happen again?

      I think people should be forced to take a long hard look at the geography, and maybe in many areas they should decide NOT to rebuild.  Because the risk of a repeat disaster is just too great.

      If my house gets hit by a tornado, the risk of a repeat event in my lifetime is very small.  I'll rebuild.  If my house was in a wetland and was flooded, the risk of a repeat flood is high.  If my house is on an active fault line, the risk of a repeat earthquake is high.

      Abandon no.  But we have to be much smarter about when and where we rebuild following disasters.  And we also have to be much smarter about where we allow zoning for new construction, so that we don't just set up the next disaster.

      •  I don't disagree about being careful... (4+ / 0-)

        ...and being smart about building. Check out all that East Coast ocean front housing literally built on sand dunes. In floodways. Etc.

        But there's a limit to what can be practically accomplished. If we were arriving on a habitable but uninhabited planet with 7 billion people in spaceships, we'd could terraform the place and avoid the catastrophe zones. We don't have that luxury, although climate change could very well reduce those numbers by a few dozen percentage points over several decades.

        My point is not to argue in favor of recklessness but rather to give people some slack about the impact on them of predictable natural disasters. We don't exactly live in a society that educates in favor of nature. Rather the contrary. Credentialed prophets, like Gilbert White in Boulder, are far and few between. Those who never hear what those prophets have to say should not get dissed for not having heard.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 09:46:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Science (25)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site