Milton

Hippocampus said:

Rereading Ted’s and Dhay’s post there’s an ethical dilemma. All to often where people live isn’t a choice.
I previously mentioned a prior crew who inherited a funeral home and house which his grandfather established near Atlantic City. He lost his house and business and was not made whole. House and business were not Sandy proof. Unreasonable to expect that. With each catastrophe I’m sure there’s similar. ?how to deal with this? It’s different than rebuilding on a coastal cliff

Click to expand...

"Play the hand you are dealt", "dance with one that brought you", ect... it would be unreasonable to expect individuals or entire communities to completely rebuild, retrofit, or relocate to mitigate all the current risks we know about. My concern is what happens after a disaster. If folks simply rebuild the same way they did before, that seems irresponsible.

Apparently, only a 1/4 of the Floridians in the areas affected by Milton and Helene have separate flood insurance. This is important because even those that have hurricane insurance may not be covered by the flooding from Helene and Milton. Hurricane insurance covers wind damage and if the wind damages the roof, then it would cover water damage from rain. In other words, hurricane insurance may cover water falling from the sky, but not sea water or fresh water coming from below.

Almost all flood insurance in the US is provided through the National Flood Insurance Program. If folks have this, it covers the building, HVAC, major appliances, carpeting, drapes, and debri removal. Unless an additional contents policy was purchased, flood insurance doesn't cover anything outside of the building, cars, boats, landscaping, or contents of the building.

If the costs to repair the building are more than 50% of the market value of the building (not the property) at the time of the event, then the cities or counties may declare the building "substantially damaged" and require the building to be rebuilt to current flood standards. If the person has flood insurance, then they can get up to an additional $30k to help with bringing the rebuilt/repaired building up to current standards. Keep in mind that the max policy limit for NFIP insurance is $250k for homes and $100k for contents (if you buy an additional contents policy).

So even if you do have flood insurance, which most of the folks in Florida don't have, you still may not get enough paid on your claim to be able to rebuild your house to meet the new standards. Let alone the cost of replacing cars, contents of the house, a place to live in the meantime, etc... FEMA does give grants to help for those in a nationally declared disaster, but the average grant for flooding is only $5,000 yet the average flood insurance payment is about $69k.

Bottom line, even insurance will only cover portion of costs. FEMA grants cover a tiny portion. However, there are other ways that these folks get help. Family, friends, churches, Red Cross, all are helpful. Long term, welfare may be the biggest taxpayer expense for these storms. If folks can't afford to rebuild/replace their homes, they lose a huge asset. This may put tip them over into a low enough income that they depend on Welfare to get buy. This may be the biggest and least obvious cost-sharing of these disasters.

O C Diver said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but FEMA isn't paying to replace people's homes. Most of what they're doing is disaster response, some temporary housing, search and rescue.

Click to expand...

FEMA owns the national flood insurance program, which I think is the only flood insurer in FL and many other places.

I haven't been paying much attention, but think they anticipate very high payouts for both recent hurricanes.

Hippocampus said:

Hurricanes were worse back in the 50's and 60's

Please offer a citation. P. To my knowledge this is not true. Compare twenty year epochs if you want and still not true. Of course weather isn’t climate. And climate has changed. 1880-1900 has you beat. Still this is a weather data point not climate.

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

Click to expand...

The bold is absolutely true but contradicts your earlier conclusions.
I go more by accumulated total energy to hit the us be even that is not accurate due to and extended hurricane season and hurricanes that did not hit the US. I will stand corrected according to the record for accumulated energy. The 50's and 60's accumulated energy was higher but certainly within the margin of error. The entire record of hurricanes is to short and dirty to infer anything.
I put a lot of credence in you opinion on trawlers and cruising but this is not the forum to discuss my views or yours on climate change.

Florida homeowners policies are very expensive. The only policy we could get was Citizens which is some sort of state sponsored corporation. $1000 for $30,000 named storm coverage of an old double wide manufactured home that would not come close to replacement value. IAN demolished the home 10 months after we sold it. I can’t imagine what the cost is for any beach block homes.

PS you’ve described ascertainment bias and you’re right this commonly occurs but is usually recognized as such. Classic examples are increased diagnoses of MS, small strokes (lacuna), leukoencephalopathies with the advent of MRI. Or incidence of rogue waves with advances in satellite generated weather data.

Still our antecedents weren’t dumb bunnies. We’re fortunate detailed and likely accurate records of these events once on land do go back quite aways and were preserved at multiple sites. Given they are fairly congruent reliability seems likely high. I have a son in law who is an engineer mostly working in hydrology as it applies to government contracts and planning as well as large commercial project permitting. We’ve had many long discussions about using historical data in the efforts of understanding risk to ground water, water and sewage systems. He makes a very strong argument for the reliability of this data.

Pierre please read the IPCC reports then come back to this forum. MMCC is not an opinion.
Yes there’s a variance of opinions about what we should do about it. Feel free to disagree with mine.

dhays said:

"Play the hand you are dealt", "dance with one that brought you", ect... it would be unreasonable to expect individuals or entire communities to completely rebuild, retrofit, or relocate to mitigate all the current risks we know about. My concern is what happens after a disaster. If folks simply rebuild the same way they did before, that seems irresponsible.

Apparently, only a 1/4 of the Floridians in the areas affected by Milton and Helene have separate flood insurance. This is important because even those that have hurricane insurance may not be covered by the flooding from Helene and Milton. Hurricane insurance covers wind damage and if the wind damages the roof, then it would cover water damage from rain. In other words, hurricane insurance may cover water falling from the sky, but not sea water or fresh water coming from below.

Almost all flood insurance in the US is provided through the National Flood Insurance Program. If folks have this, it covers the building, HVAC, major appliances, carpeting, drapes, and debri removal. Unless an additional contents policy was purchased, flood insurance doesn't cover anything outside of the building, cars, boats, landscaping, or contents of the building.

If the costs to repair the building are more than 50% of the market value of the building (not the property) at the time of the event, then the cities or counties may declare the building "substantially damaged" and require the building to be rebuilt to current flood standards. If the person has flood insurance, then they can get up to an additional $30k to help with bringing the rebuilt/repaired building up to current standards. Keep in mind that the max policy limit for NFIP insurance is $250k for homes and $100k for contents (if you buy an additional contents policy).

So even if you do have flood insurance, which most of the folks in Florida don't have, you still may not get enough paid on your claim to be able to rebuild your house to meet the new standards. Let alone the cost of replacing cars, contents of the house, a place to live in the meantime, etc... FEMA does give grants to help for those in a nationally declared disaster, but the average grant for flooding is only $5,000 yet the average flood insurance payment is about $69k.

Bottom line, even insurance will only cover portion of costs. FEMA grants cover a tiny portion. However, there are other ways that these folks get help. Family, friends, churches, Red Cross, all are helpful. Long term, welfare may be the biggest taxpayer expense for these storms. If folks can't afford to rebuild/replace their homes, they lose a huge asset. This may put tip them over into a low enough income that they depend on Welfare to get buy. This may be the biggest and least obvious cost-sharing of these disasters.

Click to expand...

This is a good post and lays out insurance pretty well. The WSJ has an interesting article about how insurance has gotten much pickier about exclusions. I don't know if it's true, but I heard someone say their mom was denied a claim for newr total loss because her house wasn't up to code. I'm sure there's more to it then that, but you get the idea.

In Zone A areas, if damage exceeds 50% of the value of the structure, FEMA regulations require it be brought up to modern codes which includes raising above a certain flood stage. In short, the home is a total loss. There are numerous ways to side step this with multiple contracts but that's the rule.

As far as increased frequency of hurricanes, I did a Google search and fully expected to find an increase. Instead I found graphs like the one attached if you squint hard enough, perhaps there is an increase over the 80-years. If you clip the data and start at 1975 or so, there is a marked increase. But if you go further back, seems to be a bit more difficult to detect a trend. But that's just one quick Google search.

Peter

Hippocampus said:

Pierre please read the IPCC reports then come back to this forum. MMCC is not an opinion.
Yes there’s a variance of opinions about what we should do about it. Feel free to disagree with mine.

Click to expand...

I have read all of them. What I cannot find is the justification for CO2 as the cause for Bill Santor's change to AR2 from inconclusive to highly likely.

The discussions about how the flood insurance works in Florida is enlightening. I did not realize that it had caps and that damage beyond 50% was arbitrarily determined. That would seem to apply whether the property was insured or not. The cap of $250k seems very low for flood area A

Jeff F said:

FEMA owns the national flood insurance program, which I think is the only flood insurer in FL and many other places.

I haven't been paying much attention, but think they anticipate very high payouts for both recent hurricanes.

Click to expand...

Ok, the question then becomes how many millions or billions did they collect in premiums? I had a house in Maryland for 8 years that the lending bank required flood insurance coverage.

So, after some internet surfing, there are roughly 5 million policies (mostly required for mortgages) written in the USA each year. Approximately 1/3 are written by non government insurance companies. 1/3 have premiums between $0 and $1,000. 1/3 are between $1,000 and $2,000. Apparently, the government didn't consult an actuary when determining premiums.

Ted

O C Diver said:

Apparently, the government didn't consult an actuary when determining premiums.

Click to expand...

Right. They're providing a subsidy to policyholders to shield them from market rates. Same thing has been happening in the state through Citizens.

The feds and state are only in the insurance business to the extent they are because private insurers aren't able or willing to provide coverage at "affordable" rates. It's a big political, economic and social challenge.

Jeff F said:

The feds and state are only in the insurance business to the extent they are because private insurers aren't able or willing to provide coverage at "affordable" rates. It's a big political, economic and social challenge.

Click to expand...

And that, in a nutshell, explains Florida hurricane and flood insurance. Everyone knows living on a barrier island means getting whacked from time to time. But everyone wants to live there. No one wants to pay the risk premium so the politicians enter the fray to "solve" the problem (as if that ever works).

Peter

PierreR said:

The discussions about how the flood insurance works in Florida is enlightening. I did not realize that it had caps and that damage beyond 50% was arbitrarily determined. That would seem to apply whether the property was insured or not. The cap of $250k seems very low for flood area A

Click to expand...

As was mentioned earlier most of the flood insurance in the US is through the NFIP that is run through FEMA. I think it is sort of a public/private arrangement between FEMA and private insurers but I am not sure. It isn't just Florida. Flood insurance works the same way all across the US.

Another twist with Helene and Milton is that insurers are primarily considering Helene a flood event. Milton is both a wind event and flood event. So if you have hurricane insurance, likely it won't pay out much for Helene. Flood insurance would, for the 25% that have it. Milton is a separate event so claims will be judged based on the value of the building when Milton hit. For many folks, the condition of their home, and therefore the value, was much reduced after the Helene flooding. So even if it was damaged in Milton, the amount of the loss would be based on that reduced value. So if you have a $400k house (not property, only the house) that got flooded by Helene which does $150k of damage to the house, and you don't have flood insurance, you are on the hook for the full amount. Then when Milton hit you and say tore off the roof, the value of that house before Milton did the damage was only $250k not $400k.

SteveK said:

Is there hurricane proof house construction? Guess not. It was sad to see one woman on TV lost it all as insurance was too steep to buy

Click to expand...

Yes, in Bermuda. Every structure is made of stone or concrete with, I kid you not, a solid limestone roof. I arrived there on a cruise the day after Ernesto hit them dead on. Like nothing happened.

Interesting discussion and coming from a country that has been fighting against water, the Netherlands, I cannot help but wondering why so many people want to live near the sea without any protection against that same sea.
As you all know the Netherlands is a low lying country, which means that in the past we used to have lots of flooding. Any good storm would bring the water in and houses would be flooded. Then we had our major flooding back in 1953 and it was decided that enough was enough, we started the deltaworks program, which meant building storm and flood barriers all over the Netherlands.
Now, we always had our dunes to give us protection from the sea, but with the Deltaworks the dikes were raised, flood barriers installed, designated flooding areas were created, where water could overflow in case of s sudden surge and since that time we have been safe. No more flooding, no matter what the winds bring us.

When I look at the American coast line I don't see any defenses. I have travelled a lot along the East Coast of the US and sometimes there is a bit of protection from some low lying dunes, but e.g. Myrtle beach (and other places) have zero protection. During a storm surge the water will just rush in and houses will be flooded. In many of these locations the houses need to be built on poles, where you cannot create any living areas.
Areas like all the openings of the ICW are completely unprotected, there are no storm surge barriers. Inland dikes are basically non existent and dunes are way too low. There is no need to build protection in uninhabited areas or lightly inhabited areas or areas where construction is not possible (e.g. everglades).
And yes, it may also mean that no houses can be build on the beach anymore
So what wonders me (already for many decades) is that hurricanes are not going to go away, so why not start building protection from the sea in those areas where you need them the most ? The current cost of Helene and Milton is around 50 billion USD, imagine what could have been built for 50 billion USD ? Yes, it is going to be an investment, but it will be well worth it.
On top of that, we know sea levels are going to rise, so even without hurricanes flooding will become more and more a problem in the future.

When protection against the water is finished you will be left with the problem of wind damage and that means building wind resistant houses. It can be done, they do exist and first and foremost is means no longer building wooden houses. So build houses made of stone, have a concrete roof and the window / door openings must be able to close off completely.

I.o.w. there is so much that can be done to limit the damage hurricanes can cause. I am wondering why in 2024 nothing gets done in that area ? And I have been asking that question since I witnessed my first hurricane in 1989 in the Caribbean. Katrina caused some water works around New Orleans, but after that it became quiet again.
Instead we get a discussion about insurance premiums and that sounds to me as being the wrong discussion.

In summary, according to current knowledge, the best estimate for the underreporting bias in the hurricane record seems to be about one tropical cyclone per year on average over the period 1920-1965 and between one and three tropical cyclones per year before 1920. With only a few years of data available, the influence of Quikscat analyses after 2002 as discussed by Landsea, is difficult to as yet meaningfully estimate.

During the same time periods, if entire hurricanes may have been missed.... only the ones that struck areas where there were people with the talent and equipment to measure anything accurately and record the scientific data and general destruction/body count, etc do we have "accurate" hurricane analysis.

Time before forecasting storm tracks was even possible, and much larger areas of the tropics that were sparsely populated.... just how many came ashore with no scientific measurements taken and few substantial "anecdotal" reports to save for history?

I know some people doubt even today's science estimating whether weather is getting worse or not... but the reality is that natural disasters have been happening for centuries and seem to be cyclic in their nature (now we call many of them by name...like La Nina/El Nino) and how as a civilization there is a split of people that don't seem to be "stuck" in very susceptible places, yet others are for many pretty solid reasons.

So the debate of whether disasters are climate changed or not, seems silly to me in the context of where people should/shouldn't live.... to me it's if they ARE going to live in these places.... how do we keep'em alive and their homes/belongings safer?

psneeld said:

So the debate of whether disasters are climate changed or not, seems silly to me in the context of where people should/shouldn't live.... to me it's if they ARE going to live in these places.... how do we keep'em alive and their homes/belongings safer?

Click to expand...

In the Netherlands you will simply not get a building permit outside the sea barriers. You can get a temporary permit for e.g. a summer beach bar, but by the end of the season it has to be completely removed. Building a house on the beach is not allowed.
Everyone, by law, has to live behind the sea barriers and to me that sounds like a good idea.
Translate this to the US coastal areas ?
You would need to build sea barriers along the coast to protect cities that are in a danger area. Everything that is on the beach will not be able to get insurance and once the building is gone you won't get a permit anymore to rebuild it. In some cases it means that dikes will be built behind the houses, leaving them stranded on the beach with limited access (no longer by car) or they will get a dam right in front of their building when there is enough space between the houses and the sea.
Does that mean these houses will lose their value ? Yep, that is one of the conclusions, but in the end the larger cities will be living behind a sea barrier that will keep the city safe during hurricanes or even rising sea levels.
Marinas on the coast will have to get access to the sea via a storm barrier. E.g. Tampa St Petersburg area will get a barrier that can be closed off in case of an emergency. Everything behind the barrier will be safe from a storm surge. We have done the same in the Netherlands, even the port of Rotterdam (largest port in Europe) can be closed off completely. Other areas have doors that can be raised in order to close off the land behind the barrier. And again in other areas large dams have been built, which give access to the sea via a lock. The lock obviously does not work in times of storms etc.

I know that working in this way will cause a lot of people to be upset, but it must be clear to more people that you cannot continue living on or near the coast with zero protection against the sea. Buying a house on the beach, in an area that can be hit by hurricanes, is pretty close to insanity. I would never spend a single dime on a house in those locations.

There are laws in the USA that don't just allow our Gov't to prevent people from using their legally owned properly (there are some limits and the US is now sorta rebelling against more and more gov't control).

Cities ARE building structures from similar ones found all over the world to that have proven successful. The big drawback there is opposition from some to authorize tax dollars often subsidizing the few/wealthy. Which is a main part of this whole discussion.

Building on stilts along the coast has been around for decades. Watch the videos out of the N. Carolina outer banks of one or more falling into the ocean every storm. One has to understand the dynamics of barrier island creation/destruction before obsessing over the why on this topic.

To the topic of people being upset? The USA is already there.... we are becoming like rats eating one another in the hold of a sinking ship trying to figure out how to fix us. In general the opinions are my way or the highway and we know how that works in a civilization that is run buy committee that is unequally supported/lobbied by extreme interest groups. But we will stumble along and get there...we have figured out and corrected some pretty major issue in the past. The road through life was never promised to be flat and free of potholes....for anyone.

All too often, some don't seem to understand that and hit most of those potholes or take the road with the steepest uphill grade... even worse....the road with both.

SeaDogAK said:

But Paul Simon said Kodachrome makes you think all the world’s a sunny day. I guess a song about Ektachrome wouldn’t have sounded as good.

Click to expand...

I don’t think the song was meant to describe Kodachrome literally.
Fun fact:: Paul Simon recorded that song at a studio in Muscle Shoals, Alabama and never paid his bill for the recording session.
The Rolling Stones actually paid it when they recorded there at a later time.
( that was one of the sties told during a studio tour)

Florida has 8500 miles of coastline. I doubt seawalls are practical. Personally, I'd advocate ceasing subsidization/regulation of insurance thereby exposing risk and letting people decide whether it makes sense for them. People are smart and generally good arbiters of self preservation when left to naked decision.

In theory, the barrier islands are, well, barriers. For centuries most people avoided living on them. Sensibilities have changed.

You can't fool Mother Nature

Peter

Mambo42 said:

Interesting discussion and coming from a country that has been fighting against water, the Netherlands, I cannot help but wondering why so many people want to live near the sea without any protection against that same sea.
As you all know the Netherlands is a low lying country, which means that in the past we used to have lots of flooding. Any good storm would bring the water in and houses would be flooded. Then we had our major flooding back in 1953 and it was decided that enough was enough, we started the deltaworks program, which meant building storm and flood barriers all over the Netherlands.
Now, we always had our dunes to give us protection from the sea, but with the Deltaworks the dikes were raised, flood barriers installed, designated flooding areas were created, where water could overflow in case of s sudden surge and since that time we have been safe. No more flooding, no matter what the winds bring us.

When I look at the American coast line I don't see any defenses. I have travelled a lot along the East Coast of the US and sometimes there is a bit of protection from some low lying dunes, but e.g. Myrtle beach (and other places) have zero protection. During a storm surge the water will just rush in and houses will be flooded. In many of these locations the houses need to be built on poles, where you cannot create any living areas.
Areas like all the openings of the ICW are completely unprotected, there are no storm surge barriers. Inland dikes are basically non existent and dunes are way too low. There is no need to build protection in uninhabited areas or lightly inhabited areas or areas where construction is not possible (e.g. everglades).
And yes, it may also mean that no houses can be build on the beach anymore
So what wonders me (already for many decades) is that hurricanes are not going to go away, so why not start building protection from the sea in those areas where you need them the most ? The current cost of Helene and Milton is around 50 billion USD, imagine what could have been built for 50 billion USD ? Yes, it is going to be an investment, but it will be well worth it.
On top of that, we know sea levels are going to rise, so even without hurricanes flooding will become more and more a problem in the future.

When protection against the water is finished you will be left with the problem of wind damage and that means building wind resistant houses. It can be done, they do exist and first and foremost is means no longer building wooden houses. So build houses made of stone, have a concrete roof and the window / door openings must be able to close off completely.

I.o.w. there is so much that can be done to limit the damage hurricanes can cause. I am wondering why in 2024 nothing gets done in that area ? And I have been asking that question since I witnessed my first hurricane in 1989 in the Caribbean. Katrina caused some water works around New Orleans, but after that it became quiet again.
Instead we get a discussion about insurance premiums and that sounds to me as being the wrong discussion.

Click to expand...

Have had opportunity to investigate Rotterdam by water and land several times on family visits to Belgium A incredible piece of engineering. Nothing as expansive in the US to protect a harbor. But I think Rotterdam is the major port so strong economic incentive exists. However decades ago New Bedford MA install deployable barriers and Hoboken has spent big money and made great strides.

So we do have the knowledge and skills to mitigate damage. Unfortunately there isn’t the economic drive to spend the huge money involved by possible funding entities. The east coast geography is against us. Yes for relatively small areas which contribute big economic numbers like Rotterdam it makes sense. Big return on investment. But in the low lying plains and barrier islands along the AICW and for Florida the math is different. So don’t see public works in our future as likely to occur.

Appreciate many of the posts here. Gained a lot of knowledge. Has changed my view of things. There’s a host of drivers operating I didn’t fully appreciate. Yes, fine tuning is necessary to prevent gaming the system by the rich. Yes, there’s incredible pain felt by vulnerable people. Yes, given the money invested in Floridian communities by millions of Americans and the money developers can make with further expansion of that population it’s hard to expect people to just say “oh well” and leave coastal Florida.
Hopefully over time due to economic drivers, appreciation of risk and cost of living population densities will shift in multiple areas of our country. Be it coastal flood plains, fire risk areas, or mud slide risk areas. In association with mitigation strategies both public works and rebuilding in accordance to local risk we will get past this. But this is predicated on addressing the underlying shift in climate. Worry for my children.

psneeld said:

RealClimate: Tropical cyclone history – part I: How reliable are past hurricane records?

RealClimate: Guest Commentary from Urs Neu When discussing the influence of anthropogenic global warming on hurricane or tropical cyclone (TC) frequency and intensity (see e.g. here, here, and here), it is important to examine observed past trends. As with all climate variables, the hurricane...

www.realclimate.org

In summary, according to current knowledge, the best estimate for the underreporting bias in the hurricane record seems to be about one tropical cyclone per year on average over the period 1920-1965 and between one and three tropical cyclones per year before 1920. With only a few years of data available, the influence of Quikscat analyses after 2002 as discussed by Landsea, is difficult to as yet meaningfully estimate.

During the same time periods, if entire hurricanes may have been missed.... only the ones that struck areas where there were people with the talent and equipment to measure anything accurately and record the scientific data and general destruction/body count, etc do we have "accurate" hurricane analysis.

Time before forecasting storm tracks was even possible, and much larger areas of the tropics that were sparsely populated.... just how many came ashore with no scientific measurements taken and few substantial "anecdotal" reports to save for history?

I know some people doubt even today's science estimating whether weather is getting worse or not... but the reality is that natural disasters have been happening for centuries and seem to be cyclic in their nature (now we call many of them by name...like La Nina/El Nino) and how as a civilization there is a split of people that don't seem to be "stuck" in very susceptible places, yet others are for many pretty solid reasons.

So the debate of whether disasters are climate changed or not, seems silly to me in the context of where people should/shouldn't live.... to me it's if they ARE going to live in these places.... how do we keep'em alive and their homes/belongings safer?

Click to expand...

Here’s Landsea and the other side of the argument. But agree ascertainment bias exists. Probably higher for non landfall events. Still feel my son in law is correct with the caveat his analysis pertains to areas with a certain density of habitation.

Interestingly neither analysis addresses possible changes in surge or rainfall. My impression is for attributable deaths throughout history water not wind leads for that and physical destruction. Unfortunately I can’t find literature that one would feel accurately addresses that distinction in early times. Perhaps you can help. Gross numbers of economic costs and death rates are polluted by changes in population density.

jleonard said:

I don’t think the song was meant to describe Kodachrome literally.
Fun fact:: Paul Simon recorded that song at a studio in Muscle Shoals, Alabama and never paid his bill for the recording session.
The Rolling Stones actually paid it when they recorded there at a later time.
( that was one of the sties told during a studio tour)

Click to expand...

When Paul Simon originally wrote the song, it said “Going home,” but at some point he substituted the word Kodachrome, which fit nicely. Ektachrome wouldn’t have worked at all.

A lot of people on this forum have asked if it’s possible to build hurricane proof houses. Yes it is. A house built to current Miami/Dade County code is pretty well wind proof. My house which was built almost seventy five years ago has survived many hurricanes including at least one category five. I’m a couple of miles inland and eight feet above sea level. Never been flooded. I wish it was a couple of feet higher but I pay about $1000 a year for flood insurance. Windstorm insurance is about $7000 per year. The greatest danger to my house I think is having a large tree fall on it.

Mambo42 said:

I.o.w. there is so much that can be done to limit the damage hurricanes can cause. I am wondering why in 2024 nothing gets done in that area ? And I have been asking that question since I witnessed my first hurricane in 1989 in the Caribbean. Katrina caused some water works around New Orleans, but after that it became quiet again.
Instead we get a discussion about insurance premiums and that sounds to me as being the wrong discussion.

Click to expand...

Winston Churchill allegedly once said that you can always count on the American people to do the right thing, but not until they've tried everything else first. Maybe he said it, or maybe he didn't, but if he didn't say it he should have, because it's the truth.

Another old saying often applied in politics is that "there's no education in the second kick of a mule." But when it comes to human development versus the forces of nature, evidently we as a society haven't yet been collectively kicked enough times, or hard enough, to wise up.

SeaDogAK said:

But Paul Simon said Kodachrome makes you think all the world’s a sunny day. I guess a song about Ektachrome wouldn’t have sounded as good.

Click to expand...

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.

Hippocampus said:

Have had opportunity to investigate Rotterdam by water and land several times on family visits to Belgium A incredible piece of engineering. Nothing as expansive in the US to protect a harbor. But I think Rotterdam is the major port so strong economic incentive exists. However decades ago New Bedford MA install deployable barriers and Hoboken has spent big money and made great strides.

So we do have the knowledge and skills to mitigate damage. Unfortunately there isn’t the economic drive to spend the huge money involved by possible funding entities. The east coast geography is against us. Yes for relatively small areas which contribute big economic numbers like Rotterdam it makes sense. Big return on investment. But in the low lying plains and barrier islands along the AICW and for Florida the math is different. So don’t see public works in our future as likely to occur.

Appreciate many of the posts here. Gained a lot of knowledge. Has changed my view of things. There’s a host of drivers operating I didn’t fully appreciate. Yes, fine tuning is necessary to prevent gaming the system by the rich. Yes, there’s incredible pain felt by vulnerable people. Yes, given the money invested in Floridian communities by millions of Americans and the money developers can make with further expansion of that population it’s hard to expect people to just say “oh well” and leave coastal Florida.
Hopefully over time due to economic drivers, appreciation of risk and cost of living population densities will shift in multiple areas of our country. Be it coastal flood plains, fire risk areas, or mud slide risk areas. In association with mitigation strategies both public works and rebuilding in accordance to local risk we will get past this. But this is predicated on addressing the underlying shift in climate. Worry for my children.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2007EO180001

Here’s Landsea and the other side of the argument. But agree ascertainment bias exists. Probably higher for non landfall events. Still feel my son in law is correct with the caveat his analysis pertains to areas with a certain density of habitation.

Interestingly neither analysis addresses possible changes in surge or rainfall. My impression is for attributable deaths throughout history water not wind leads for that and physical destruction. Unfortunately I can’t find literature that one would feel accurately addresses that distinction in early times. Perhaps you can help. Gross numbers of economic costs and death rates are polluted by changes in population density.

Click to expand...

The Netherlands is not only threatened from the sea, also from rivers which come through the country. A large part of the country is below sea level, which means that if somewhere a dike breaks the country will flood. It has also been part of our defenses for several hundred years to simply flood the country and make it impossible for invading armies to continue.
The one thing we did in the Netherlands is reinforce the outer barriers and those parts that are exposed to the rivers and canals. Once you build a barrier in there you don't have to build high dikes in other places. After all, the water cannot pass by those defenses.
In Florida it would mean building barriers / dikes around the major cities (Miami, FLL, Tampa, St Petersburg etc), basically turning them into islands. Parts like the everglades you don't need to protect, the storm surge will disperse over a large area, but won't come near a major city.
The Florida keys however will most likely have to suffer as well, there is no way they can be protected and there is also no need, so be prepared to sacrifice them
Protecting yourself against the water requires a different mindset, you will need to realize that something will have to go. You cannot live right on the beach and have full protection, it is just not possible.
And I do understand that some people will not be willing to give up their 'freedom', their seaview and their house, but when storms will intensify in the future and more disasters happen certain cities, villages will become deserted. People who cannot afford to pay the insurance premium will leave and once a storm hits those houses won't be build back. That means that eventually the people who don't want defenses will live by themselves in a city, all the others have left and that will also drive down the value of a house.

The way I see it is that all this damage is unnecessary, it is preventable, it is just a matter of will. Since everything has its price it is just a question how high the price has to become for everyone to accept the inevitable. Just a pity that so many people will have to lose everything before others will recognize something needs to be done.
In the Netherlands that turning point came in 1953 and it took over 30 years before the storm protection was finished. I still remember that, in the sixties and seventies, during winter storms, the inner city of the city where I lived, would get flooded. That happened a few times a year. When I talk to the new generation in that city they have never heard of it, they have lived their whole life under the umbrella of the finished Deltaworks. For them flooding of the city is something incomprehensible. As a result insurance premiums for flooding cost next to nothing, in fact home insurance doesn't cost anything, perhaps a few hundred euros per year. In the past you could not insure your house in the inner city against flooding. In other words, building a defense against flooding will make life much cheaper for many many people.

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...

That was his message.

Mambo42 said:

The one thing we did in the Netherlands is reinforce the outer barriers and those parts that are exposed to the rivers and canals. Once you build a barrier in there you don't have to build high dikes in other places. After all, the water cannot pass by those defenses.
In Florida it would mean building barriers / dikes around the major cities (Miami, FLL, Tampa, St Petersburg etc), basically turning them into islands. Parts like the everglades you don't need to protect, the storm surge will disperse over a large area, but won't come near a major city.

Protecting yourself against the water requires a different mindset, you will need to realize that something will have to go. You cannot live right on the beach and have full protection, it is just not possible.

Click to expand...

Mambo42 said:

And I do understand that some people will not be willing to give up their 'freedom', their seaview and their house, but when storms will intensify in the future and more disasters happen certain cities, villages will become deserted. People who cannot afford to pay the insurance premium will leave and once a storm hits those houses won't be build back. That means that eventually the people who don't want defenses will live by themselves in a city, all the others have left and that will also drive down the value of a house.


The way I see it is that all this damage is unnecessary, it is preventable, it is just a matter of will. Since everything has its price it is just a question how high the price has to become for everyone to accept the inevitable. Just a pity that so many people will have to lose everything before others will recognize something needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Barrier protection sounds nifty. But...

Major hurdle is about exit strategy. Times a bazillion individuals who might want one.

X bought a house on a barrier island. Fulfilled a lifelong dream. Can X find and afford a Plan B?

Sell to somebody else? (Now they have the same problem.) Walk away? (How many can afford that?) Donate to somebody? (Who? And maybe now they have the same problem.) Government intervention? (So maybe some guy in Kansas -- who likely has his own fish to fry -- is now paying a portion to solve X's problem?)

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

Mambo42 said:

In the Netherlands that turning point came in 1953 and it took over 30 years before the storm protection was finished.

Click to expand...

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.