Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The Trump administration is consciously choosing to reject climate science in its plan to rebuild from superstorms Harvey and Irma. And that means their reconstruction of Houston and Florida will squander billions of taxpayer dollars and put Americans who rebuild at risk in the future. In stunning remarks during Monday's White House press briefing, Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the administration does not take seriously the "cause" of climate change. "I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change -- not the cause of it, but the things that we observe," Bossert said. But the problem is that if you don't take seriously the cause -- human activity and carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels -- then your rebuilding plan will be blind to the reality that the change is only going to accelerate.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

So when Bossert says, "What President Trump remains committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to build things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see," he is saying that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is part of Homeland Security, is going to waste billions of dollars in rebuilding hurricane-ravaged communities in Texas and Florida by ignoring science.

After months of rejecting climate science and dismantling climate action, Trump officials have worked themselves into an intractable position regarding the reason Harvey and Irma were so intense and how they can help communities prepare for such events in the future. Climate change remains the single greatest preventable threat to the security of our homeland. The Trump administration's climate science denial is making all Americans less safe, less prepared, and less protected from future hazards.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

May every single politician and bureaucrat be held responsible if they agree to the rebuilding of the hurricane damage without regard to the likelihood of similar or worse storms coming in the future, and by not pressing needed changes to mitigate the inevitable future damage.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-12 07:54 PM | Reply

What a garbage article.

It's all rhetoric.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Trump administration is consciously choosing to reject climate science in its plan to rebuild from superstorms Harvey and Irma.

San just what do you expect them to do different?

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-13 12:33 PM | Reply

May every single politician and bureaucrat be held responsible if they agree to the rebuilding of the hurricane damage without regard to the likelihood of similar or worse storms coming in the future, and by not pressing needed changes to mitigate the inevitable future damage.

#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2017-09-12 07:54 PM | FLAG:

FEMA is already beginning the buyout process to end construction in Houston areas that have flooded repeatedly. Those are also areas populated by federally subsidized, below market rate flood insurance. Harris County is already forming plans to add a third reservoir, North of the existing pair, that would relieve a lot of draining into Addicks reservoir, in addition to further upgrades to the bayous where everything runs off into.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 12:51 PM | Reply

"FEMA is already beginning the buyout process to end construction in Houston areas that have flooded repeatedly."

Texans just love their handouts!

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 12:56 PM | Reply

"Those are also areas populated by federally subsidized, below market rate flood insurance."

Texans sure do love those handouts.

Am I right or am I right, Sitzkrieg!

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 12:58 PM | Reply

It's a blue city. What did you expect?

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 01:38 PM | Reply

I'd expect a blue city to have zoning laws, for starters.

Maybe it's because they are in such a red state.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 01:47 PM | Reply

Okay, so you're just uninformed then.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 02:00 PM | Reply

If I knew everything there would be no point in asking questions.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 02:05 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Okay, well, allow me to fill you in on how the most multicultural metroplex in the US works. The classic Sim City R-I-C zoning people are stuck on has absolutely no relevance to the Houston flooding what so ever. Many of the cities in the Houston metroplex have classic zoning laws people think would have helped mitigate flooding (they didn't). People aren't looking past the dog-whistle "zoning" to what regulations are in effect.

Floodplain Management Regulations are in effect for every county that comprises the Houston metro area, and have been for decades. Everything built is designed to drain into the bayous, which is best explained by Houston's topography. The real issue with Houston is that it's flat. This is all coastal plain. Not only is it flat, but it's mostly clay. Water just sits there. It is channeled to the bayous, and on the West side fed into the reservoirs. Those reservoirs feed Buffalo Bayou, which runs through the middle of the city West to East and dumps out into the Houston Ship Channel. Buffalo Bayou simply wasn't able to handle the amount of water coming down despite extensive renovations to the entire bayou system over the last decade. No draining system anywhere in the world could have handled the volume that came down.

All the rain that comes down West of Houston has to flow through the city to get to the ocean, so the new plans are build a third reservoir capable of handling a Harvey+ level of inflow, and expand Buffalo Bayou's capacity so they can be released more frequently and everything East of the reservoirs drains faster.

Now that won't quite fix downtown Houston. Much of it is underground, in a flood plain, and yes, it's stupid. It's so government employees, jurors, etc, can move around without impacting top side traffic. Prior to Harvey, post-Allison, that was significantly hardened against flooding through a variety of measures which did mitigate much potential damage to the infrastructure... but it's still underground.. in a flood plain...

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 02:30 PM | Reply

The problem in Houston is the unbridled development which has eliminated over 200,000 acres of greenspace that would have helped absorb the rainwater.

And yes, that's a direct result of there being no regulation in place to stop the paving over of these grounds for the many developments at the heart of Houston's sprawling growth. This was fully articulated in multiple articles during and in the immediate aftermath of Harvey.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-13 03:50 PM | Reply

And yes, that's a direct result of there being no regulation in place to stop the paving over of these grounds for the many developments at the heart of Houston's sprawling growth.

Exactly what regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2017-09-13 09:32 PM | Reply

#12 | Posted by tonyroma
The problem was they got 50 inches of rain in four days!
Please tell me where in this country with "Your approved zoning laws" would have mattered?

#14 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 09:38 PM | Reply

Also Tony most people did not lose power or access to their homes. I have family in Houston and not one of them were flooded. One had to leave their home for two days but had no damage. The road was closed.

#15 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 09:46 PM | Reply

"The classic Sim City R-I-C zoning people are stuck on has absolutely no relevance to the Houston flooding what so ever."

R, I, and C don't include "wetlands you don't get to pave over."
So zoning has everything to do with it.
You're not this dumb.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Exactly what regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?

The kind that took into consideration what the loss of the water-absorbing land would do when severe weather events inevitably hit the Houston area.

Houston is experiencing its third ‘500-year' flood in 3 years

The same thing they need to do now before rebuilding everything the same way, in the same places, as though such events aren't likely to happen again.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-13 10:05 PM | Reply

"Exactly what regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?"

How about "No Paving?"
Too obvious?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The problem was they got 50 inches of rain in four days!
Please tell me where in this country with "Your approved zoning laws" would have mattered?

The entire Houston area -- made up of several counties -- lost wetlands that could detain 4 billion gallons of stormwater.... Sure, the rain from Harvey totaled in the trillions of gallons, but the wetlands loss has rippled into other problems.

Instead of water being absorbed by these wetlands, it flows into the pair of bayous Houston relies on for drainage, along with two reservoirs, according to a December 2016 ProPublica report. But those, too, get overflowed and spill into area homes.... Some 4,000 new structures have been built within that 100-year floodplain in Harris County since 2010, according to a Washington Post analysis.

Overdevelopment in flood zones has incised some after Harvey dumped several feet of rain on Houston. The La Vita Bella nursing home, located outside of Houston, where seniors were photographed up to their waists in water, was built near the floodplain.

"That should never have been built," John Jacob, chief of Texas A&M's Texas Coastal Watershed Program, told the Washington Post. "We're putting people in harm's way."

www.nydailynews.com

No one has ever implied that better planning would have mitigated the entirety of Harvey's damage. The point is it would have made it less damaging than it was and perhaps would have saved lives and billions of dollars.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-13 10:14 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by tonyroma
It may have helped but it may not of. That is the point. You do not Know. Know one knows! Go read the book chaos and get back to me.
Or maybe you think we should follow the late George Carlin's theory.
Where do you live?

#20 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-09-13 10:30 PM | Reply

"Go read the book chaos and get back to me."

Chaos by James Gleick?
I missed the part on flooding. What was it?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:32 PM | Reply

It may have helped but it may not of. That is the point. You do not Know. Know one knows!

Good lord.... Yes we know, because empirical data tells us so. We know that at minimum 4 billion gallons of water would have been absorbed into the ground that wasn't. If you want to surmise that wouldn't have made a difference, then I can't help you any further. By that logic, if the entirety of Houston was paved over you might claim that the flooding would have been no worse.

I try not to deal in idiocy and you're reeking of it.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-13 10:43 PM | Reply

The kind that took into consideration what the loss of the water-absorbing land would do when severe weather events inevitably hit the Houston area.

Thanks for nothing. You made a specific claim. I asked a specific question. You give me a worthless platitude.

What regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?

And you don't need to tell me about floods in Houston, Harris and surrounding counties. I lived through the last three and every other in this area for the last 35 years.

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2017-09-13 10:45 PM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2017-09-13 10:43 PM | FLAG:

You're a partisan fool. 4 billion gallons in a storm of at least 26 trillion gallons is irrelevant. It's a 0.0001 difference. This has zero meaningful impact on any flooding. There's nothing to absorb water, it's a clay basin.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-13 10:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?"

Can you see why this guy had to plonk me or what? ;)

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 10:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You're a partisan fool.

No, I might be a fool, but I've not mentioned a single thing entrenched in one political party or another. Flooding happens to everyone, not just partisans. If you view anything you oppose as partisan, then that is your yoke, not mine.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-09-13 11:01 PM | Reply

"4 billion gallons in a storm of at least 26 trillion gallons is irrelevant. It's a 0.0001 difference."

Well if there are in fact 380,562 single family homes in Houston, and just 1 in 38 homes gets flooded, it would be one less flooded home!

Do y'all know of a thing called the Tragedy Of The Commons in Texas? Is that lesson hard to inculcate when the land is so seemingly open and limitless?

And flat, and prone to flooding?

Was the original intent just to let floods wash stuff away every now and again, and just rebuild?

Did they not know what wetlands are?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-13 11:02 PM | Reply

No, I might be a fool...

#26 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Might? ;-)

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-09-13 11:06 PM | Reply

There's nothing to absorb water, it's a clay basin.

Well then it seems like a pretty dumb place to over develop then, doesn't it?

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-09-13 11:55 PM | Reply

Well if there are in fact 380,562 single family homes in Houston, and just 1 in 38 homes gets flooded, it would be one less flooded home!

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-09-13 11:02 PM | REPLY

A fraction of a millimeter difference in level is irrelevant.

Now lets pretend we can just carve out chunks of Houston and turn it into a green space. PhD'd city planners that focus on environmentally friendly, sustainable building and living have already gone over this idea several times. The problem is that you are removing density instead of increasing it. By relocating the people out and putting green spaces in, it's simply increasing the urban sprawl, which results in a net increase in paved over areas. If you're trying to preserve unpaved areas, then the goal has to be to mitigate the sprawl and increase density.

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 07:15 AM | Reply

Wow, Tony...you're on a roll today.

May every single politician and bureaucrat be held responsible if they agree to the rebuilding of the hurricane damage without regard to the likelihood of similar or worse storms coming in the future, and by not pressing needed changes to mitigate the inevitable future damage.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma

You mean like the New Orleans 9th Ward? Are you saying we shouldn't have rebuilt the 9th Ward? Between you and Snoofy, you're painting a pretty clear case against living in NYC, Norfolk, Charleston, almost all of Florida, Louisiana and the Texas gulf coast. While you're at it, throw in everyone living in the flood plain of the Mississippi River, anywhere in the earthquake zones of California, living in the shadow of volcanoes in the Pacific Northwest, or living in tornado alley. Personally, I AGREE. If you play with the bull, you get the horns.

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-14 08:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Then maybe they should have a rainy day fund to pay for the inevitable damage? Or is this more of privatize profits and subsidize losses?

#32 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-09-14 09:33 AM | Reply

#32 It's more of a "don't be stupid". If you want to build at or below sea level on the Gulf of Mexico, I support your decision, but just like people who ride motorcycles without helmets, the damage associated with that decision needs to be on you. That applies to corporations who build skyscrapers in liquefaction zones on the San Andreas Fault, celebrities who build beachfront mansions on sandstone cliffs in Malibu, or flat-roofed buildings in Buffalo, or anyone who starts or continues smoking.

#33 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-14 09:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#33 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Sounds like we agree.

#34 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-09-14 10:18 AM | Reply

I'd expect a blue city to have zoning laws, for starters.

Maybe it's because they are in such a red state.

#8 | Posted by snoofy

What does a red state have to do with zoning laws in a blue city? Most zoning laws are city and county.

#35 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Between you and Snoofy, you're painting a pretty clear case against living in NYC, Norfolk, Charleston, almost all of Florida, Louisiana and the Texas gulf coast. "

My case can safely be viewed as limited to not living in a place where there's a "500 year flood" every year.

You haven't offered any solution for Houston's flooding.
So I'm forced do ask, is it even a problem?
As a follow up, is it a problem that anything can be done about?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 12:39 PM | Reply

"What does a red state have to do with zoning laws in a blue city? Most zoning laws are city and county."

So it's just because Houston is run by stupid Democrats then?
Which kind of has me wondering why so many right-wingers are defending it.
What's up with that? Just because it's part of stupid Texas?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 12:40 PM | Reply

#36 It's not a problem. It's something that happens. If it was a once every 500 year flood, what did they call the Labor Day hurricane that destroyed Galveston (and, by extension, Houston). They built cities on swampy river deltas in a hurricane zone. No amount of wetland preservation is going to make 20 trillion gallons of water drain faster from an area with the geographical variation of a billiards table.

#38 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-09-14 01:08 PM | Reply

My case can safely be viewed as limited to not living in a place where there's a "500 year flood" every year.

You haven't offered any solution for Houston's flooding.
So I'm forced do ask, is it even a problem?
As a follow up, is it a problem that anything can be done about?

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-09-14 12:39 PM | REPLY

Not addressed to me, but here's what's going on.. not sure Sniper even lives in Houston.

Major floods in 1935, 1994, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2015, 2016, 2017. Other storms hit, but those are the actual floods. 3 of those 8 are 500 year or above flood events. So, ditching the hyperbole, there were major improvements that kicked into high gear between 2001 to 2017 to the entire drainage system. If there hadn't been all of the flooding damage would have been far, far worse. The next upgrades are already being planned. A few places will get buyouts, the bayous are getting dredged for more depth, the third reservoir will be built on the NW side, and the existing two reservoirs are getting infrastructure upgrades. The engineers know what they're doing, it's just a question of will enough money will be allocated or will Houston keep spending on pork projects like Light Rail & sports stadiums instead?

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 02:31 PM | Reply

Rather, addressed to Mustang. Also not sure if that person lives in Houston.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 02:33 PM | Reply

#12 | Posted by tonyroma
The problem was they got 50 inches of rain in four days!
Please tell me where in this country with "Your approved zoning laws" would have mattered?

#14 | Posted by Federalist

You think you will get a real answer? Not a chance.

#41 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 02:34 PM | Reply

"Exactly what regulation would you propose that would have stopped the paving over of these grounds?"

How about "No Paving?"
Too obvious?

#18 | Posted by snoofy

Look at this one. Dirt roads in the 4th largest city in the US.

#42 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 02:36 PM | Reply

or will Houston keep spending on pork projects like Light Rail & sports stadiums instead?

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg

We all know the answer to that question. That is where they have spent their tax money for the last 30 years. Gotta have stadiums and light rail and golf courses.

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 02:43 PM | Reply

The engineers know what they're doing, it's just a question of will enough money will be allocated or will Houston keep spending on pork projects like Light Rail & sports stadiums instead?
#39 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2017-09-14 02:31 PM | REPLY

I'm assuming you live in Houston since you're posting a lot about it...did you see the article on the proposed underground drainage pipes from Addicks/Barker Cypress to the Ship Channel? They were proposed in 1996, never implemented of course. I wonder if that's a solution they're looking at now? Whatever they do, they're going to need to spend 100's of millions on infrastructure upgrades to avoid this kind of flooding in the future, despite it being a "1000 year" flood.

#44 | Posted by bartimus at 2017-09-14 03:42 PM | Reply

"Dirt roads in the 4th largest city in the US"

If you'd like to take a break from wallowing in your stupidity, you can try these links:

en.wikipedia.org
www.hardscapemagazine.com
www.washingtonpost.com
"The environmental benefits are so profound that Montgomery County has started offering rebates of up to $1,200 to homeowners who rip out standard paving and switch to one of the four kinds of pervious paving: a special kind of concrete, porous asphalt, permeable concrete pavers and grid systems filled with sod or gravel."

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-09-14 05:15 PM | Reply

en.wikipedia.org
www.hardscapemagazine.com
www.washingtonpost.com
"The environmental benefits are so profound that Montgomery County has started offering rebates of up to $1,200 to homeowners who rip out standard paving and switch to one of the four kinds of pervious paving: a special kind of concrete, porous asphalt, permeable concrete pavers and grid systems filled with sod or gravel."

#45 | Posted by snoofy

They are still sitting on a huge pile of clay and nothing they do will change that. In case you don't know, clay does not absorb water very well. Place is run by a bunch of dumb dems that think pavement is the problem. Man has been lining ponds with clay for many years so they hold water. If you can find time in your busy lib life, look up clay pond liners.

#46 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-09-14 06:18 PM | Reply

#44 afaik only person here in houston longer than myself is et so. I have lived around both reservoirs a long time and 2 previous residences both flooded.

the pipes probably won't happen. much cheaper to enlarge buffalo bayou and build a reservoir north northwest of addicks comparatively.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 08:26 PM | Reply

et al. autocorrected on my phone.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-09-14 08:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort