2008 Atlantic hurricane season

[jacksonvilleconfidential]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/barrier-island.htm

Civil, you are an Allah send.

[BridgeTroll]

First and most difficult... we would have to have a consensus about removing the developments.  This could best be done by attrition.  As they are destroyed... they are simply not replaced.  Next a study as you suggested of techniques used by the Dutch who have mastered this kind of thing over the years.  One of the interesting side effects of this would be (could be) tidal power generation plants supplying electricity to the mainland while protecting it from storm surges etc...

[BridgeTroll]

First and most difficult... we would have to have a consensus about removing the developments.  This could best be done by attrition.  As they are destroyed... they are simply not replaced.  Next a study as you suggested of techniques used by the Dutch who have mastered this kind of thing over the years.  One of the interesting side effects of this would be (could be) tidal power generation plants supplying electricity to the mainland while protecting it from storm surges etc...

brilliant, Bridge Troll.

How to start this process?  Its quite a political thing, I think.

We have discussed a similar idea (without the added tidal electricity plants), and I thought we would have to start with severely restricting the zoning to allow no further development or building permits to be issued.

Quite out of my league Im afraid... we cannot even decide on what to do with the homes being eroded into the ocean south of ponte vedra.  The folks of Galvaston would vehemently resist being told they cannot rebuild their houses(only to be destroyed again).  I told you the hard part would be the consensus thing...

[BridgeTroll]

Here is a Dutch site devoted to this type of thing...

http://www.deltawerken.com/en/10.html%3fsetlanguage=en

[BridgeTroll]

Its going to take leadership, as much as consensus.

Legislatively squashing the possibility of new development, and coupling that with buyout options would probably help a lot.

Of course, the land conservancy fund could be helping tremendously by snatching up the properties in foreclosure over the next few years.  There will be a lot of them.

Some Ike victims may not be allowed to rebuild

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/ike_beach_houses

[Jason]

Man, sad news for those that built there.  Should the government be responsible for bailing them out?  I don't think they should, but I'm also sitting pretty in a home built far from the ocean and will likely never see my home destroyed by storm surge.

Hell, half of Jacksonville or the state of Florida was either built on the coastline or on filled in wetlands.  Why should we be allowed to build where our homes could be consumed by floods, sink holes, hurricanes, or any other natural disaster?  True, the chances of a coastal home being destroyed and consumed by the ocean far exceeds the chances of a home being completely destroyed by a flood or sink hole.  At least a flooded home can be slavaged (typically).

I do agree that barrier islands are fantastic natural defences against storm surge and should not be developed.  But should those islands that already are developed be abandoned, or should we continue to throw money at them?

[Ocklawaha]

Man, sad news for those that built there.  Should the government be responsible for bailing them out?  I don't think they should, but I'm also sitting pretty in a home built far from the ocean and will likely never see my home destroyed by storm surge.

Hell, half of Jacksonville or the state of Florida was either built on the coastline or on filled in wetlands.  Why should we be allowed to build where our homes could be consumed by floods, sink holes, hurricanes, or any other natural disaster?  True, the chances of a coastal home being destroyed and consumed by the ocean far exceeds the chances of a home being completely destroyed by a flood or sink hole.  At least a flooded home can be slavaged (typically).

I do agree that barrier islands are fantastic natural defences against storm surge and should not be developed.  But should those islands that already are developed be abandoned, or should we continue to throw money at them?

It's a life long question, there are some homes on an island in Lake Monroe, near Enterprise/Deltona that are 6" off the surface of the lake. Any storm sends the water up well into the homes. Yet this is MILLION dollar properties! Not for me it isn't. Maybe we should offer a service to Yankees, "how not to buy a swamp". (but it's WAY more fun just to watch them sink!) I think most Floridians can tell that the presence of rocks, sand hills, sand pine, scrub oaks and mixed hardwoods , lots of sand, white or yellow...No standing water after a heavy rain - equals higher ground.

OF course the presence of venus fly traps, pitcher plants, slash, blackjack and yellow pine, heavy palmetto thickets, flat ground with ditches (standing water). Raised septic tank fields, "Nothing between me and the beach but sand..." slow drop-off into deep river channel, creeks that don't have any real flow to them.. This could all go in the book under places to "Watch Yankees sink".

If coastal residents can't rebuild because a storm took out the property or altered the shore line, then do Oklahoma-Texas-Kansas-Nebraska-Iowa-Missouri-Arkansas farmers abandon the property if it's hit by an F-2 +? What about an F-5?

Does Nebraska and Wyoming and Colorado give up development if Yellowstone blows it's volcanic top and covers everything in 2' of ash? What about Mono Lake, or Mammoth Lake California? What about Amboy?

If "The Palmdale buldge is not all San Andres Fault..." (smile) then whose fault is it? Do we abandon Los Angeles? Rebuild it in Tennessee or Kentucky? No, fact is an even bigger quake is waiting to wiggle everything from Chicago to Atlanta and Indiana to Texas into a great smoking heap. So will someone please tell me where we can build to escape all of these dangers - suck it up and DRIVE ON FOLKS!

OCKLAWAHA

[BridgeTroll]

I was/we were talking specifically about the barrier islands and their role in protecting the mainland... not lakes, swamps, volcanos, or fault lines.

[Jason]

Yeah you're right BT.  Didn't mean to swerve the thread.  My point (and I think Ock's as well) is that if those folks that lost their homes to the hurricane aren't allowed to rebuild where they sit (assuming the dirt is there) then why should anyone else be able to rebuild after their home is lost to any of the aformentioned natural disasters?

I don't think there is a single square foot of this planet that isn't subject to some sort of routine natural devestation.  Its just the way it is.  So maybe these folks should be able to rebuild, but IMO, without any help from the feds.

[BridgeTroll]

My original point was that development on those barrier islands reduces their effectiveness in protecting the coastline on the mainland.  In addition these islands could be reinforced to provide even greater protection against storm surge and could concievably be used for electric power generation via tidal power plants.

[Jason]

And I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[BridgeTroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

[Jason]

I wonder what ocean currents could to for us?  The Gulf stream isn't that far away, expecially in South Florida.

[gatorback]

You guys and this hurricane season sure has challenged my understanding of the storm process.  As far as rebuilding I would have to look at a couple of things that govern situations like this including local laws and what a  reasonable person would do.   Those  local laws in Texas look pretty cut and dry and seem reasonable. Then there is the The reasonableness rule. If some guy in Ponte Vedra moved a sand done and water flooded your house, you'd have a good case.  There are two other rules regarding flooding, The "common enemy" rule, and the  The "civil law" rule.  So I now feel if you build on those areas and don't take action to protect your property or your neighbors you could cause a lot of problems and be liable.

[Ocklawaha]

I was/we were talking specifically about the barrier islands and their role in protecting the mainland... not lakes, swamps, volcanos, or fault lines.

My point too, frankly laid bare in the next post or two. If we are going to ding Texans for their homes and land in a natural disaster area, then what of Florida? Oklahoma? California? and other sitting ducks? We all have some sort of loaded gun pointed at our head by the clock of mother nature. I just don't see the benefit in chasing the people and the $$ away. So sorry, didn't know I wasn't allowed to play here.

I remember back about 20-30 years ago, some hurricane cut a new channel right across these islands? or perhaps it was a peninsular? Anyway, what had once been land, was now very deep water and an inlet to the sea. Certainly you couldn't rebuild on that ground. A survey would have found it to be sea bottom.

Barrier Islands are also found off the Coast of California, some are natural and others are man-made. Both types are either shpping terminals or oil refinerys/wells/storage. Solar energy, wind energy or even drill rigs could go in and boost the islands overall bulk.

Close to the California mainland, yet worlds apart, Channel Islands National Park encompasses five remarkable islands (Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel, and Santa Barbara) and their ocean environment, preserving and protecting a wealth of natural and cultural resources. Isolation over thousands of years has created unique animals, plants, and archeological resources found nowhere else on Earth and helped preserve a place where visitors can experience coastal southern California as it once was.

Doesn't matter where they are, or who put them in place, doesn't even matter what kind of disaster overtakes them, the question remains the same, does this give big government the right to seize land, homes etc?

OCKLAWAHA