Milton

[Mambo42]

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

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

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

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

 

[KnotYet]

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.

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

 

[Mambo42]

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.

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

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

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

 

[ranger58sb]

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

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

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

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

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

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


-Chris

 

[Hippocampus]

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

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

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

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

Mitigation isn’t a local problem but rather national. Key industries need to be dispersed so loss of one supplier doesn’t cripple the country. They also need to be sited in less vulnerable locations. If not feasible harden sites. Manipulation to harden the country will take multiple different incentives and policies which can only occur with involvement at a federal level and the will to do so. We can’t afford to lose another 4 years. So I will hold my nose when voting.