Milton

ranger58sb said:

Et cetera...

Did the Netherlands build those barriers without causing individual home and business owners to somehow move out of the way? How was it all financed?

-Chris

Click to expand...

All water protection etc is always paid for by the government, that never is a private enterprise. We have a department of waterworks and they are responsible for everything that has to do with protection from the water (amongst other tasks).
And yes, quite a few home owners needed to be bought out by the government. Their location was deemed to be dangerous or required as an overflow area. A market conformal price was set and the owners moved, but to be honest, would you want to live in a place that you know has no protection against the water ? I think I would pass.
So, ultimately the tax payer pays, but it not in such a way that taxes get raised to finance it. They have a yearly budget and the government can shift money from one department into this apartment if it would be urgent. I guess it was one of the reasons why it was spread out over 30 years. Some of the defenses had to be invented, since we had the interests of fishermen, flora and fauna activists and our neighbor Belgium. We could not simply close off one of the 'sea arms, since the port of Antwerpen lies behind that. So along that stretch the dikes were heightened and strengthened.

Now with the rising of the sea level the Netherlands has to start planning to re-strengthen the dikes, create more overflow areas, perhaps even come up with new ideas to keep the water out.
This video gives a great insight in what was build in movable water protection. Obviously you cannot close off the port of Rotterdam, so that had to be something that will only close in case of an emergency. Same is for the other major movable barriers, they are only allowed to close under certain circumstances. It is a very expensive defense, especially if they don't get used at all, but just in case it goes wrong out on the North Sea (just like it did in 1953), we now have full protection and the whole country can sleep quietly.

The video has English subtitles, so even though they speak Dutch, the subtitles are pretty good.

AlaskaProf said:

To take one more swing at this flogged horse: Paul Simon was much younger then. His sunny Kodachromes are all faded to brown now. A message for us all I suppose.

Click to expand...

My Kodachrome slides from the early 70's have yet to fade.
Proper care and protection from extended light exposure also keep us from fading!

Jeff F said:

I understand that your country felt it needed to take this on for national survival.

The situation in the US is a bit different, in my view. Not to be flippant, but the country as a whole will survive just fine if Florida and the Carolinas has to shed its coastal population if it happens in an orderly fashion. It's a big country with a mobile population, and the majority of the population in those areas are relative newcomers. Easy come easy go.

I guess I'm saying that it's a regional challenge rather than a national challenge, so getting the national will and $$$ to take on a 30 year protection scheme seems highly unlikely.

I think there has been serious discussion since Sandy on protecting New York Harbor from storm surge. Not sure what's come of it, but that seems more likely to me than large scale projects farther south.

Click to expand...

It is true that Florida is most affected, but also Georgia and South Carolina are in the front line. There are major cities lying right behind a very low barrier (if you can even call it a barrier) and I have seen the devastation in Myrtle beach a couple of decades ago.
Obviously the barrier islands cannot be protected for a cost effective price, it is just a matter of time before the sea takes them back. Too bad for the multi million dollar houses there, but that is what is going to happen.
If Florida would have to pay for it alone that would not really present a problem. Just raise a special tax and the whole thing is funded. But since the US is a federal republic I think this is more a matter for the federal government, funded by all the tax payers of the US. National defense is also a matter of the federal government. Defense against the water is basically also a matter of national interest. Just take a look on the map to see how many states could be affected by rising sea water levels and heavy storms.
But ok, I am not an American, it is not for me to decide.

I am not a 'water defense' expert, but from what I have seen in my own country I know that there is basically a solution for everything and since the Dutch are known to hate spending a lot of money, we came up with the most cost effective way to build these defenses.
After Katrina Dutch specialists went over to New Orleans to help them create better defenses. I don't know to what extend all the advise was implemented, but from what I understand New Orleans now has some sort of protection.

Found this video of the history of the Dutch water defenses. If anyone wants to know what happened and what triggered the Dutch in 1953, here is a bit of back ground information. It is a nice video and shows what has been done over time.

Mambo42 said:

And yes, quite a few home owners needed to be bought out by the government. Their location was deemed to be dangerous or required as an overflow area. A market conformal price was set and the owners moved, but to be honest, would you want to live in a place that you know has no protection against the water ? I think I would pass.
So, ultimately the tax payer pays, but it not in such a way that taxes get raised to finance it. They have a yearly budget and the government can shift money from one department into this apartment if it would be urgent. I guess it was one of the reasons why it was spread out over 30 years.

Click to expand...

Mambo42 said:

If Florida would have to pay for it alone that would not really present a problem. Just raise a special tax and the whole thing is funded. But since the US is a federal republic I think this is more a matter for the federal government, funded by all the tax payers of the US. National defense is also a matter of the federal government. Defense against the water is basically also a matter of national interest. Just take a look on the map to see how many states could be affected by rising sea water levels and heavy storms.

Click to expand...

Good points. The high water issue extends to other coastal States, not just FL, GA, SC, etc. Even here where we are, there's already a remediation project underway, since the Annapolis City Dock area routinely floods even with heavy rain. (For those who might be interested: Homepage 2024 - Access Annapolis)

OTOH, look at your same map and see how many States are NOT (usually) affected by high water. The heavy lift (for this particular kind of issue) would be about getting votes from Wyoming, or Minnesota, etc.

I can make a decent argument for taxation that supports infrastructure, even some kind of stepped payment where constant users pay more, occasional users pay less, users-by-proxy (who benefit from having that infrastructure in place, even if they rarely use it directly) still contribute something...

But then the problem is selling that to enough of the 50 States to make it happen. Especially when folks in those various areas have their own problems to fund.


-Chris

Agree with post#180. It’s our geography that’s in the way. Over time you just don’t know exactly where a ‘cane or northeaster will hit. It’s not financially practical to protect the entire coast.

But you do know the exceptionally high risk areas that contain key areas for high economic value to the country as a whole not just the involved people in the region. This maybe more practical and possible.

In my view this isn’t a political issue. Mitigation needs to occur to keep our country strong and economically viable.

At present multiple key industries are either offshore and vulnerable to geopolitics. But with nearly every storm domestic key industry is affected. Western NC contains a major producer of I.V. Fluids. They are offline for the indefinite future. The impact of that is felt far away. Elective surgeries will be curtailed in Boston (know this is planned for MGH). If other sources aren’t found preventable deaths will occur.

Mitigation isn’t a local problem but rather national. Key industries need to be dispersed so loss of one supplier doesn’t cripple the country. They also need to be sited in less vulnerable locations. If not feasible harden sites. Manipulation to harden the country will take multiple different incentives and policies which can only occur with involvement at a federal level.

The Netherlands is in a bit of a unique situation. I think about 1/2 of its 13,000sq miles of land area has been reclaimed from the North Sea over the past several hundred years. 18 Million people live on that 13,000 sq mil. It also only has about 300mi of coastline. The entire history of the Netherlands has been keeping the sea at bay. It is how it was created and its very survival depends on it.

Florida has a population of about 21 Million, spread out over 54,000 sq miles of land area. Its got about 1,400 miles of coastline. So Florida's population density is about 3/4 that of Netherlands. Another way to look at it is that Netherlands has about 60k people per mile of coastline. Florida has about 15k people per mile of coastline. The GDP per capita is close between the two, Netherlands ~$57,000 and Florida ~$53,000.

My point is that while it is amazing what Netherlands has accomplished, they have done it because their survival as a nation depends on it and they have the resources to do it. Even Florida isn't in that situation. Undertaking such a large scale project, even in a single state, is simply not possible in the US for geographic, political, cultural, and economic reasons. The biggest obstacle Florida, or the US as whole, faces in addressing these large issues is our culture. The Netherlands has been fighting the North Sea for hundreds of years and it is part of who they are as a people. Florida is not a homogeneous culture with a sense of common purpose (homophobia and racism not withstanding). Getting US citizens to agree to do anything on a large scale is beyond us at this point.

dhays said:

The Netherlands is in a bit of a unique situation. I think about 1/2 of its 13,000sq miles of land area has been reclaimed from the North Sea over the past several hundred years. 18 Million people live on that 13,000 sq mil. It also only has about 300mi of coastline. The entire history of the Netherlands has been keeping the sea at bay. It is how it was created and its very survival depends on it.

Florida has a population of about 21 Million, spread out over 54,000 sq miles of land area. Its got about 1,400 miles of coastline. So Florida's population density is about 3/4 that of Netherlands. Another way to look at it is that Netherlands has about 60k people per mile of coastline. Florida has about 15k people per mile of coastline. The GDP per capita is close between the two, Netherlands ~$57,000 and Florida ~$53,000.

My point is that while it is amazing what Netherlands has accomplished, they have done it because their survival as a nation depends on it and they have the resources to do it. Even Florida isn't in that situation. Undertaking such a large scale project, even in a single state, is simply not possible in the US for geographic, political, cultural, and economic reasons. The biggest obstacle Florida, or the US as whole, faces in addressing these large issues is our culture. The Netherlands has been fighting the North Sea for hundreds of years and it is part of who they are as a people. Florida is not a homogeneous culture with a sense of common purpose (homophobia and racism not withstanding). Getting US citizens to agree to do anything on a large scale is beyond us at this point.

Click to expand...

It is true that the coast line of the Netherlands is much smaller than Florida, but we also have 10.000 nm of water barriers in the country, along the rivers, canals, lakes etc. We have close to 140 shipping locks (in comparison Florida has 5 shipping locks) and over 5000 pumping stations that pump water out of the low lying land. And with the climate change we also need to find a solution for the water levels in the rivers and canals as well, which basically means we have to address the complete shore line as well as the 10.000 nm inner dikes again.
It is true that the survival of the nation depends on keeping the water out, but as I stated before, we don't pay extra taxes for that (at least not now). The department of water works is just another department like economy, finance, defense, state, agriculture etc, so funding just fits in the budget of the government every year.
And you are right, we have been dealing with water for centuries. In fact half the Netherlands consists of land which we took back from the sea. When you see the maps of the area in e.g. 1500 and you compare that to now, you will see that the part where now 2/3 of the population lives was underwater at some time.

I do recognize that it will be difficult to get everyone in the low lying US states to start thinking about a solution. In New Orleans it took Katrina to start thinking differently and I hope that also in Florida and the other states it will take one or more hurricanes (with major flooding and damage) to start thinking about a change.
At least I hope so, because a lot of the damage is avoidable.

Actually, a lot of the Mississippi River had decades of flood control measures long before Katrina. Not that failures and underestimation didn't take a toll.

Remember geologic time. For about 10-20 million years the East Atlantic Coastal areas from Venezuela going north have seen hurricane weather. These weather patterns slowly worked their way north as the last ice age retreated.

About 25,000 years ago the last ice left Chicago, which at one time had about one mile on top of that area.This glacial ending warms the Gulf Current up continually creating more opportune moments for hurricane formation.

At the same time the warming Gulf Current has turned Norway into the world’s best fishery. Sadly boating and living in FL will remain in the bulls eye. Always has been and always will be.

Also remember since the onset of the industrial age the trend lines have not been favorable. Much of Florida and cape cod is a low lying sand pit. With both coastal plains and fresh water aquifers vulnerable.
Although a most excellent thread there’s another element of the change in these events not brought up. Yes salt water flooding is very important but so is fresh water flooding due to the high rainfall associated with these storms. NC found that out. For Florida this did contribute to sewage over flow and contamination.
Multiple aspects of infrastructure need to be hardened beyond man made barriers and increasing pumping capacity.

Mambo42 said:

I do recognize that it will be difficult to get everyone in the low lying US states to start thinking about a solution. In New Orleans it took Katrina to start thinking differently and I hope that also in Florida and the other states it will take one or more hurricanes (with major flooding and damage) to start thinking about a change.

Click to expand...

I've spent quite a bit of time cruising around Louisiana. Katrina took out New Orleans and most of coastal MS, then Rita hit the state hard shortly after. It wasn't a kind year.

The change was to fortify the city of New Orleans, and the rest of the state was largely untouched. Coming into NO from the west on the GICW you pass through a series of small old Cajun communities, then you pass through a massive control structure with the world's largest pumping station. It's truly impressive.

If those pumps turn on the surrounding communities get their output. Fortress New Orleans. Doesn't do much for those outside the gates though.

And as psneed pointed out, intensive efforts to manage the Mississippi River have been ongoing for 150+ years. A flood in 1927 was among the country's worst disasters. The river is entirely managed for 1000 miles above New Orleans. Bit off topic, but managing river and inland waterways is a pretty big deal in a big chunk of the US.

From the NY Times this morning... parts left out for bevity....

"America has a flooding problem. When Hurricane Milton hit Florida, the images of inundation seemed shocking — but also weirdly normal: For what felt like the umpteenth time this year, entire communities were underwater. Since the 1990s, the cost of flood damage has roughly doubled each decade, according to one estimate. The federal government issued two disaster declarations for floods in 2000. So far this year, it has issued 66.

.....................

The first strategy is to fight the water: Build walls to keep it out of your city, along with giant pumps and drains to remove whatever water gets in. Think of Holland, much of which would be underwater without a massive network of barriers, or Venice, which now relies on sea walls during high tide.

But thanks to climate change, this approach means ever-more-epic fortifications. After Hurricane Katrina, the federal government built a $14 billion, 350-mile defensive ring around New Orleans. The United States is also looking at building 12 movable sea barriers to protect New York Harbor from a storm surge, at an initial cost of $52 billion.

Even the beneficiaries aren’t always thrilled. A plan to build a six-mile-long, 20-foot-high sea wall around the coast of Miami prompted outrage: It would, after all, ruin the view. The plan was abandoned."

"A plan to build a six-mile-long, 20-foot-high sea wall around the coast of Miami prompted outrage: It would, after all, ruin the view. The plan was abandoned."

The US Constitution and SCOTUS has well established that property rights must be protected as ardently as all constitutional civil rights to maintain a free citizenry. Therefore if any government in the US takes or lessens the value of private property in a "taking" for public good, the lost value must be paid to the property owner. A 20' wall closing off Miami would likely greatly affect property values.

Perhaps the original 'plan' did not include this large public cost in the proposed budget? NYT often leaves out critical information they find, 'frustrating' to print so replace ending with glib quip.

JayB said:

"A plan to build a six-mile-long, 20-foot-high sea wall around the coast of Miami prompted outrage: It would, after all, ruin the view. The plan was abandoned."

The US Constitution and SCOTUS has well established that property rights must be protected as ardently as all constitutional civil rights to maintain a free citizenry. Therefore if any government in the US takes or lessens the value of private property in a "taking" for public good, the lost value must be paid to the property owner. A 20' wall closing off Miami would likely greatly affect property values.

Perhaps the original 'plan' did not include this large public cost in the proposed budget? NYT often leaves out critical information they find, 'frustrating' to print so replace ending with glib quip.

Click to expand...

I might see more of your point if it was an isolated case...but the restoration of sand dunes to protect property has been shot down for years and years by people complaining about their "view" and then complain about the ocean in their house at a later point. The last opposition I knew about was the residents along the Jersey shore fighting the mandatory sand dune rebuild after Hurricane Sandy.

Americans are famous for the "not in my backyard" mentality if it affects them in a way they don't like...even if its for the good of the nation and even funnier when it's for their own good. One can argue that the wall may "increase the value" if it allows uninsurable property to become insurable again and safer on several levels. Based on current events, I would say that argument when related to coastal flooding in many parts of the East Coast may become much weaker with time.

I know the media has an agenda..... but then again in the USA it's the rare person or organization that doesn't.

I agree with you the news repeats residents explanation of "view" or simplified reasons rather than the more complex legal or underlying reasons that often exist. Complex reasons don't fit news articles well.

psneeld, I very much appreciate your more detailed explanations on issues related to boating than what was reported by news due to your knowledge gained from experience.