General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Houston was left to drown under Harvey
From the article:
The outcry by advocates, experts and activists against the unplanned, for-profit development of cities like Houston has been consistently ignored by city officials, leaving millions--especially the poor and people of color--in the fourth-largest city in the U.S. in a death trap.
"Houston is the fourth-largest city, but it's the only city that does not have zoning," Dr. Robert Bullard, a Houston resident and a professor who studies environmental racism, told Democracy Now! on August 29. "[As a result], communities of color and poor communities have been unofficially zoned as compatible with pollution...We call that environmental injustice and environmental racism. It is that plain, and it's just that simple."
I bolded the one sentence.
To read more:
https://socialistworker.org/2017/08/30/how-houston-was-left-to-drown-under-hurricane-harvey
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Dr. Bullard talks of malls and residential buildings being built on former wetlands, and minimal regulation for siting petrochemical plants and pipelines.
All part of the Texas miracle that the GOP loves to talk about.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)flood control infrastructure does not help when the city is regularly flooded. As the article points out.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)did you read the entire article, or just the summary?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I would recommend looking at Post #10 for an interesting illustration of what has happened. And how this area of Texas has apparently ignored flood control infrastructure. Possibly because it imposes unwanted costs on developers?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But you did make a claim and were asked to elaborate.
Did you look at Post #10 while you were doing your research?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Do keep up, please. We were discussing the role of zoning boards in Texas.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And #10 has a huge bearing.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Was it a slip of the keyboard? Did a ninja cat sneak up and bold that sentence?
Do tell.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What function of zoning boards in Texas did you intend to highlight by bolding the section in post #1?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)to show how unregulated development can lead to situations where wetlands and other conditions are ignored in the zeal to allow development for the sake of development. And obviously profit as well.
What did you infer from the highlighted section?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's like you're walking up to this thread with a pile of dog shit in hand, saying "Look what I almost stepped in!"
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Do you take this post as a personal attack on you and other Texans?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The many other responses contain actual information and points of view, but this sub-thread has none of that. If you wish to respond substantively to the issues addressed in the post please let me know.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)RATHER, "TEXAS ATTITUDE."
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' ZONING, OR TELLIN' FOLKS WHERE THOSE CHEMICAL REFINERIES ARE LOCATED, OR BELIEVIN' IN SOME MADE-UP 'CLIMATE CHANGE'. WE'RE TEXAS!!"
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)When can I expect your plane to land? I'll air out the spare bedroom.
Oh, you mean all you've got in mind is snark over the internet?
Well bless your heart, ain't you special?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Other than to notice the quite obvious tone?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Why waste time on reflexive gibberish?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)do in the cities (other than Houston) that have them.
jpak
(41,758 posts)and all our ills.
yup
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they limit the amount of impervious materials covering the land. Wetlands, fields, farms, greenbelts, and even backyards absorb water. Houses, driveways, roadways, and parking lots do not.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)You zone for building where it never floods, you limit impervious surfaces to drainage capacity, etc.
You don't "fix" heavy rainfall, you expect it and plan accordingly.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Who (specifically) argued that it would in fact, fix everything rather than simply mitigating the problems and concerns?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Oh look, someone else who didn't notice the highlight in the OP.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Houston doesn't have the zoning regulations that could have mitigated the problem caused by the heavy rainfall.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-08-31/a-hard-rain-and-a-hard-lesson-for-houston
Harvey Wasnt Just Bad Weather. It Was Bad City Planning
Harvey is a devastating reminder to Houston that nature will have its due. The Category 4 hurricane that hung around as a stationary tropical storm punished greater Houston with rainfall measured in feet, not inches. No city could have withstood Harvey without serious harm, but Houston made itself more vulnerable than necessary. Paving over the saw-grass prairie reduced the grounds capacity to absorb rainfall. Flood-control reservoirs were too small. Building codes were inadequate. Roads became rivers, so while hospitals were open, it was almost impossible to reach them by car.
SNIP
Houstons clay soil doesnt absorb water quickly, so when a hard rain comes, much of it runs off to pool elsewhere. Authorities have made matters worse by allowing developers to pave over much of Harris County and beyond; its spent its flood-control budget on culverts, canals, drains, levees, berms, pumps, and other gray (as in concrete) infrastructure to flush the water awaybut that hasnt been enough. It builds new roads with curbs and gutters designed to channel water away from buildings. Roads make good sluices in an ordinary storm, but in Harvey they couldnt shed their water fast enough and became rivers.
Samuel Brody, a resident of the west side of Houston who says the flood waters crept up into the freak-out zone of his house, argues that Houston and the region should make better use of green solutions, such as preserving wetlands and digging more detention ponds, which are normally dry but fill up in storms. New buildingsand even old onesshould be elevated on piles so water flows under them, not into them, says Brody, who has a doctorate in city and regional planning and teaches at Texas A&M Universitys Galveston campus. And, he says, builders should be prohibited from raising the heights of building lots with fill, which merely diverts more water onto their neighbors property.
The acreage of metro Houston that cant soak up rainfall increased by 32 percent from 2001 to 2011, according to U.S. Geological Survey data.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/us/houston-harvey-flooding-urban-planning/index.html
Throughout the Houston metro area, decades of virtually unplanned growth has resulted in thousands of square miles of paved streets, parking lots and other hard surfaces covering the ground. According to the city's website, its metro area measures nearly 9,000 square miles -- an area larger than New Jersey.
All this concrete makes it harder for stormwater to be absorbed naturally into the ground. And Houston is more spread out than many other cities, said Bruce Stiftel, who chairs Georgia Tech's School of Regional and City Planning.
"When you have a less dense urban fabric, you're going to have more impervious surface and you're going to have more runoff," Stiftel said. "That's clearly an important consideration in Houston."
SNIP
"Houston is somewhat legendary for having no real zoning," said Chad Berginnis, executive director of the Association of State Floodplain Managers. "That's important because zoning allows local agencies to say, 'look these are inappropriate uses for building in these areas.'"
kcr
(15,317 posts)Yeah, who needs stupid zoning laws. Come on, now. You're here for a reason. You can do this. Edit just saw the whole exchange above and realize I'm wasting my time. Nevermind.
Warpy
(111,282 posts)30-50 inches of rain can't be controlled by zoning or anything else. When something like that is on the way, flood prone areas need somewhere to evacuate to and in a timely manner, any multi story reinforced concrete building will do.
Then again, Japan had designated tsunami shelters. The ones closest to the coastline were often leveled with everything else.
Still, thinking about vertical evacuation could have helped the situation tremendously.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And not repairing the dams?
Warpy
(111,282 posts)This country is crammed full of marginal earthen dams that are waiting for one huge rainstorm to fail. Sadly, most of them will be allowed to fail because cheapskates in government won't spend the money to repair them.
As for building on wetlands, while that isn't allowed in most areas, we had our own little scandal over it, zoning laws and all. Some years ago, a developer wanted to cram as many houses as possible onto a parcel of land, so he filled in the arroyos and built houses on top of the fill. He got lucky for a couple of years, we were hit hard by drought and the monsoons fizzled and we didn't get more than a few flakes of snow. When the skies finally did open up, a few of those houses were destroyed. Cue big drama, some of which is still being fought over.
Mass. had the right idea for coastal properties, at least. Once beach erosion plus a big storm had destroyed a house, that was it. People couldn't rebuild on the same property. If they wanted to rebuild, they could take their insurance money and do it elsewhere. That should really be extended to wetlands and known frequent flood plains.
Still, there wasn't much to be done about this one, but it would have been nice had they thought more about evacuation strategy.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)where profits always take precedence over anything else.
How exactly does anyone evacuate that many people? Even if every resident possessed a motor vehicle, the roads would have been impassable.
Is there light rail and/or bus service that is readily accessible?
Warpy
(111,282 posts)or many others around the country. You have to consider vertical evacuation to the higher floors of the stronger buildings in the area.
Look at any rush hour from any city to burbs. It's gridlock on bright, sunny days with no clouds in the sky.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)to accommodate the density, and GOP controlled states show little desire to invest in transportation except for roadways.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Power sources would also have to be above the reach of water, and in some areas the ground is unsuitable for the foundations required. And even if all of the inhabitants were able to relocate higher in their buildings, there could be problems with access to food and water and medical care.
Warpy
(111,282 posts)What we're talking about is a week or so for water to recede enough that an orderly lateral evacuation can be accomplished, if necessary.
People need at least 4 days of water. After that, supplies will come in. Sanitation will be a problem as toilets will not flush, but that's more of a cleanup problem than anything else. What people need is a space where they will not drown. That's what vertical evacuation is all about.
This is not about a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It's about survival, not amenities.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Homes that are under water for days and longer will be filled with mold and possibly be contaminated with runoff containing a variety of chemicals.
But what should also be done is to restore the wetlands and allow the water to be absorbed naturally. The map in post #10 vividly illustrates how the metropolitan area has been essentially paved over, with the result being that water takes much longer to drain. But restoring wetlands means less available land for developers.
Warpy
(111,282 posts)and claim those properties under eminent domain, something that will keep people from financial disaster if they didn't have flood insurance. Shady developers need to be prevented from filling in wetlands so they can cram in more houses. Other states protect wetlands. Texas seems to have to learn everything the hard way.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and the inhabitants made aware of the evacuation.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)a block away at 3am last Sunday morning, while I was outside. Many public schools were open and ready to accept people & pets.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)But wetlands, swamps, bayous, marshes... Those things are invaluable in flood and storm mitigation. A healthy wetland ecosystem is arguably better flood control than most of those earthen dams.
Texas also has, probably, the most lax environmental laws of any state. Combine that with the rapid overbuilding, the view by many that swamps are useless at best and a nuisance at worst, the zoning based on developer's needs and not safety.
I'm not necessarily agreeing with you: when a storm like that comes along, you might as well be listening to "Ozymandius" on audiobook while you run like hell, because there's no decision that a human being could make that's going to stop the rain. I just ask that you keep an open mind and read up a little on the subject of wetlands and storm/flood mitigation.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Filling in wetlands. Old dams in need of repair.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)HIGH and dry.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And a big part of the problem.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Igel
(35,320 posts)What isn't, these days? It was already politicized before Trump did so. It was politicized before Harvey became a category 1 storm.
There are regulations in Texas on building. New construction has to incorporate drainage, water retention, and be elevated above a certain flood elevattion. That's not retroactive. When they went from fuses to circuit breakers in (D) Maryland, they didn't require every homeowner to retrofit. When California put in new earthquake regs, retrofitting wasn't required for every house and building. It's not a (D) or (R) thing, that; it's a practical thing. (But if you buy a house in certain parts of Houston, you *will* raise it to the right level. It's made some people who owned houses really upset, because that additional amount is the amount their houses lost value by.)
That handles one of the issues. But it doesn't handle it by means of zoning. Some things zoning accomplishes in some places, Texas does in other ways. Some things zoning does in other places Texas ignores. (That's true for lots of things. A friend from NJ moved to Oregon and was stunned to find that there was such an absence of firearm regulations and rules. Nobody would think of Oregon, even in the '80s and '90s, as a place with no regulations and rules.)
But the real point--Warpy's dead on with this--is that you don't have zoning regulations for 40" of rain in a couple of days. This wasn't a 500-year flood. It's more extreme than that. The dams only ever had release of water once before, and that was recently; they only overtopped once, yesterday, and that was with water release for the previous day or two. The houses in the adjacent neighborhoods were considered way outside of floodplains but flooded because of exceptional circumstances. Areas outside of 500-year floodplains flooded. Word is the meteorologists when they ran their predictions and got 40-50" for the storm double checked their numbers because they were so outrageous.
Now, as for filling in wetlands, that seems confusing in this context so I had to do some additional scrambling.
For most of the country when you say "wetlands" you mean places that are wet. Marshes, swamps, that sort of thing. Or wet a significant portion of the year. They change the meaning here without telling you they're changing the meaning; that's *always* a bad thing. They're not stupid--they know what most people think the word means, they know their usage is different, and they let the confusion happen because it suits them for whatever reason--maybe it's too hard to explain, maybe they want the misunderstanding, maybe something else. But floodplains that may not be different from non-floodplains for a year or two in the absence of a flood are "wetlands." The area that I've seen covered with water twice in 6 years as I drive to work is a "wetland". Prairie and scrubland that may not have standing water on them except for for a few hours a couple of times a year and only after a very large storm are "wetlands." My house was apparently built on wetlands but, you know, that wetland was covered with normal grass and had a lot of mice in it and scrub oak with lots of lizards because it was pretty much dry. We're 27 feet above the bayous flood stage and at the top of the watershed. It's "wetland" because it's flat and didn't drain real quickly. They really mean "areas that soak up water." And when you build on them, there's no filling in. Just "loss." They destroyed "wetland" here by digging a retention basin that holds water most of the year--you look on the "wetland loss" map usually used and there's the little red spot for the non-wetland retention pond that replaced the pretty-much-always-dry wetland. Even local reporters screw this up fairly regularly because the wetlands they learn about in college aren't the wetlands that are destroyed in Texas, even if they are often inhabited by loons.
They can describe it better, and the Harris County Flood Control guy that was frequently on air did so succinctly: We built on land that used to soak up water so more flows into the bayous. But, he needed to continue, in this case it made a truly horrible situation only slightly worse.
Texas regulates the usual kind of wetland pretty much in the usual ways. It's a federal thing.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)When you say "take", I mean that there would be vastly less flooding. Much of Florida probably would "survive" much better, albeit not flood free. Not, mind you, because of alot of effort on the part of government. It's more of the reality of the nature of the place. But none the less there has been a tremendous amount of work done in the state to "protect" wetlands and to ensure that water flow can be handled. Way less than perfect but probably better than Houston. Unfortunately, right now, we have Rick Scott who is undermining decades of work.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if unregulated, for-profit developers are allowed to do as they wish, this type of disaster will occur even more often.
FSogol
(45,491 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)what are your qualifications for dismissing the source as a crap source? Do you have personal or professional knowledge to bring to this discussion?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So...................
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)even today the two dams are controlled releasing water and flooding out homes built in the flood bowl. Those people knew there would be a chance of flood out in worse case. Most have lived there for 30 years and never flooded. They'll never rebuild.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)water has always gone just about guarantees flooding. I also wonder about people who build on cliffs over the ocean and then find out about erosion, or people who build on sand spits. In the Southwest, people build in washes. They're called washed for a reason. Anyway, I feel city planning and zoning help, even if imperfect.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)we are in a minority at present.
meadowlander
(4,399 posts)the problem is that most communities don't want to pay the costs that that would entail in terms of land reserved for stormwater detention and physical engineering works and permanent "no-build" areas.
Every community tries to strike a balance between acceptable levels of risk and the levels of protection they can afford and are willing to spend on.
The problem in Houston is that they didn't want to spend the money on stormwater infrastructure, caved to developers looking to make a quick buck and were willing to transfer the risk to predominantly poor and minority communities.
malaise
(269,065 posts)On the other hand way too many professionals of all races are so dying to get their big house and backyard pool that they don't examine the history of where they are buying property.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Developers are also to blame for paving over everything that is flat and building on it.
HAB911
(8,904 posts)I want to read this discussion later
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)presidency. It used to be a shit-show here until then. We have regs and zoning laws up the wazoo.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And GOP voters ignore the severe consequences of such a wide open model.