We went to a meeting in which the Army Corps of Engineers presented their progress on the storm and climate change program they’ve researched for protecting the Hudson River watershed from sea-rise storm surges and flooding. They’re proposing a variety of alternatives, but most dramatic is the closable sea wall in New York’s harbor, that would be meant to ward off ocean surges as the sea rises and storms get more violent. It was clear that environmental concerns were fairly low on their list of priorities, most of which were to protect human habitation and infrastructure.
They did read my comment: they should devise quantitative measures of environmental benefit and loss, not just storm damage for houses, etc. And, they agreed.
I’m sure there have been such measures constructed, already. Engineers may not consider them important.
To close off the River That Flows Both Ways (translation of the indigenous people’s name for the Hudson River) in any significant fashion does not seem like a good idea, environmentally, but also, probably, hydrologically. That’s why I also commented that Sea or River Walls that are fixed, would have much more negative impact on the Hudson.
The main, large (six miles across?) sea wall, would be mostly immovable as they’ve drawn it, although with two huge gates. Still, the fixed part would be a significant obstacle for the water—and fish, etc. that flow both ways.
Whales were seen up the Hudson, but with a partial barrier like that, they might not want to venture beyond it. Just an example of the changes it would cause, in the natural environment.
The Corps is also projecting a myriad of other movable dams, along the openings to tributaries, or bays, the idea being, to protect from sudden surges, or flooding. But flooding could, and often does, happen upstream, as well, and will with the increased intensity of the storms we get. So, we could have waters rushing downstream and storm surge rushing upstream, simultaneously, then, what do you do?
One of the Corps representatives did agree that one way to deal with both, was requiring houses to be built on stilts, or some such.
In Holland, they have floating houses, now, to adapt to the sea rise and storm surges.
One primary question should be: can we really hold the sea back? Or the floods?
Perhaps, we should adapt to the inevitable: build where we won’t be flooded, or surged, or, if we do build there, do as the Dutch do: build houses that can rise and fall with tide, flood or surge. Floating or flexible septic/sewer connections, water and power connections, as well. Might be difficult with our extreme low temperatures in winter.
Don’t try to hold the sea, or the floods back: adapt to them. Build roads, too, with floating bridges, wherever there is danger of flooding. On 209, the state just built an elevated section of it, to avoid a flooding Rondout Creek.
It’ll be expensive to build like that, but construction to adapt to the changing climate could be part of the Green New Deal.
I’m not sure that holding the sea back is so green. It could be an environmental nightmare: trapping and encouraging invasive species, for example, or causing worse flooding, because of the upstream-downstream flood/surge.
I’d opt for a building and construction program to adapt to expected climate change, and not build all those dams on the Hudson. Perhaps some high walls to protect human infrastructure, like houses, buildings, highways, not dams.
But leave the Hudson River’s flow of waters alone. If predictions for the warming climate are at least what the models now say—after continually under-estimating—we’d be crazy to think we could control the river basin!
Survivors adapt: they can’t hold back the flood.