![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasSo, a lot of you outside of New England are seeing pretty scary-looking photos of the floods around here.
And we've had a lot of rain -- ten inches, twelve, in one area, eighteen -- in an area of the country that tends to get forty-six inches PER YEAR. In the past week, we've had a quarter of the rain we'd get in a year.
But the damage, while expensive and FUCKING annoying, isn't catastrophic.
We've got something like 3,000 people who have been evacuated, across New England -- almost entirely precautionary. The vast, vast majority of those houses are habitable, or will be as soon as the water recedes. There are thousands upon thousands of flooded basements -- every sump pump in Massachusetts and New Hampshire is running full-out, and not all of them are keeping up -- and some basements have FEET of water in them.
There are some houses, built on slabs, that are having water in the living areas, but that's relatively rare.
Peabody has been absolutely slammed, especially in the downtown area. A lot of businesses are going to have a hell of a time cleaning up. But, well, on average, businesses are better insured than homeowners. The worst flooding is in business districts -- it's going to absolutely SUCK for some owners, especially small business owners, but I think that insurance is going to enable the great majority of them to rebuild.
Highways and other major roads are underwater. And some bridges are washed out.
There are major sewer breaks, which is a big problem. But our rivers are, generally, healthy, so the acute insult of hundreds of gallons of raw sewage pouring into our major rivers is likely to be absorbed -- the acute condition can be healed. We don't have many chronic pollution problems which would damage our ecosystems to the point that they would be truly damaged by this acute problem.
And, so far, those sewage problems haven't appeared to affect the drinking water supply.
So: major, widespread property damage to homeowners, but rarely making homes uninhabitable. Even more major, but less widespread, damage to businesses -- which is going to be the biggest problem all in all, but will be rebuilt quickly, I think. People being displaced, but only temporarily. Massive transit disruptions, which is shutting down a lot of the economy for a couple days -- like happens in major blizzards, so we know how to deal with that. An ecological problem that is temporary and which our ecosystem is healthy enough to weather.
In short, a lot of property damage, and almost no loss of life.
So -- why are we doing so, relatively, well? We've gotten an amount of rainfall which is basically unprecedented, and every single town around here has a pond, a lake, a river, or a stream in it -- our settled areas are all settled based on access to fresh water. All of those ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams are overflowing -- yet the damage is contained, and, although this isn't much comfort to everyone who is pumping out their basements, relatively minor. Why?
Wetlands protection and watershed zoning restrictions.
We drove past the lake in Wakefield, and were amazed at how high the water was. The water was going well up the park around the lake, flooded part of the playground, and, in some parts, was nearly to the sidewalk.
That's because there is a park around it, a playground, a lawn with a gazebo for outside concerts.
We went down the hill to the flooded-out areas of Melrose. The soccer field is underwater, as are the municipal tennis courts, the high school's football field, and much of the park around Ell Pond.
That's because there is a soccer field there, a football field, a park, and tennis courts.
My parents live right next to the Sudbury river. Their sump pump is keeping up with the water. Because the hundred yards from their backyard to the river is protected wetlands. So the river can spread out over those hundred yards before causing significant damage.
This is why environmental protection is important. I remember one year, a few years back, when I noticed that the same amount of extra-high rainfall had fallen in New England, and somewhere in the Midwest. We were totally fine, no damage, nothing on the news -- our rivers and lakes were high, but not dangerously so -- and the towns in the Midwest were underwater, far worse damaged than we are NOW.
Because in those states, they used systems of levees, dikes, and flood control dams.
Now, here in Massachusetts, we use flood control dams, too. And many of them are being strained to their limit, and could well be overtopped. Most of the evacuations are in areas where that is the worry.
Yet that's not our only tool. We control millions upon millions of gallons of water through the simple -- if expensive -- expedient of putting state parks around major watersheds. It helps the environment, we can have more habitat for animals, it gives us trails for hiking and recreation.
And, when it floods, it floods the homes of those animals before it floods the homes of people living in Boston or Cambridge.
I'm a liberal. I believe that government can be a force for good. I believe in environmentalism, and I believe that the State can regulate construction for the good of the community as a whole. And I want to point out that the relative lack of damage that we're undergoing is vindication of these beliefs.
And we've had a lot of rain -- ten inches, twelve, in one area, eighteen -- in an area of the country that tends to get forty-six inches PER YEAR. In the past week, we've had a quarter of the rain we'd get in a year.
But the damage, while expensive and FUCKING annoying, isn't catastrophic.
We've got something like 3,000 people who have been evacuated, across New England -- almost entirely precautionary. The vast, vast majority of those houses are habitable, or will be as soon as the water recedes. There are thousands upon thousands of flooded basements -- every sump pump in Massachusetts and New Hampshire is running full-out, and not all of them are keeping up -- and some basements have FEET of water in them.
There are some houses, built on slabs, that are having water in the living areas, but that's relatively rare.
Peabody has been absolutely slammed, especially in the downtown area. A lot of businesses are going to have a hell of a time cleaning up. But, well, on average, businesses are better insured than homeowners. The worst flooding is in business districts -- it's going to absolutely SUCK for some owners, especially small business owners, but I think that insurance is going to enable the great majority of them to rebuild.
Highways and other major roads are underwater. And some bridges are washed out.
There are major sewer breaks, which is a big problem. But our rivers are, generally, healthy, so the acute insult of hundreds of gallons of raw sewage pouring into our major rivers is likely to be absorbed -- the acute condition can be healed. We don't have many chronic pollution problems which would damage our ecosystems to the point that they would be truly damaged by this acute problem.
And, so far, those sewage problems haven't appeared to affect the drinking water supply.
So: major, widespread property damage to homeowners, but rarely making homes uninhabitable. Even more major, but less widespread, damage to businesses -- which is going to be the biggest problem all in all, but will be rebuilt quickly, I think. People being displaced, but only temporarily. Massive transit disruptions, which is shutting down a lot of the economy for a couple days -- like happens in major blizzards, so we know how to deal with that. An ecological problem that is temporary and which our ecosystem is healthy enough to weather.
In short, a lot of property damage, and almost no loss of life.
So -- why are we doing so, relatively, well? We've gotten an amount of rainfall which is basically unprecedented, and every single town around here has a pond, a lake, a river, or a stream in it -- our settled areas are all settled based on access to fresh water. All of those ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams are overflowing -- yet the damage is contained, and, although this isn't much comfort to everyone who is pumping out their basements, relatively minor. Why?
Wetlands protection and watershed zoning restrictions.
We drove past the lake in Wakefield, and were amazed at how high the water was. The water was going well up the park around the lake, flooded part of the playground, and, in some parts, was nearly to the sidewalk.
That's because there is a park around it, a playground, a lawn with a gazebo for outside concerts.
We went down the hill to the flooded-out areas of Melrose. The soccer field is underwater, as are the municipal tennis courts, the high school's football field, and much of the park around Ell Pond.
That's because there is a soccer field there, a football field, a park, and tennis courts.
My parents live right next to the Sudbury river. Their sump pump is keeping up with the water. Because the hundred yards from their backyard to the river is protected wetlands. So the river can spread out over those hundred yards before causing significant damage.
This is why environmental protection is important. I remember one year, a few years back, when I noticed that the same amount of extra-high rainfall had fallen in New England, and somewhere in the Midwest. We were totally fine, no damage, nothing on the news -- our rivers and lakes were high, but not dangerously so -- and the towns in the Midwest were underwater, far worse damaged than we are NOW.
Because in those states, they used systems of levees, dikes, and flood control dams.
Now, here in Massachusetts, we use flood control dams, too. And many of them are being strained to their limit, and could well be overtopped. Most of the evacuations are in areas where that is the worry.
Yet that's not our only tool. We control millions upon millions of gallons of water through the simple -- if expensive -- expedient of putting state parks around major watersheds. It helps the environment, we can have more habitat for animals, it gives us trails for hiking and recreation.
And, when it floods, it floods the homes of those animals before it floods the homes of people living in Boston or Cambridge.
I'm a liberal. I believe that government can be a force for good. I believe in environmentalism, and I believe that the State can regulate construction for the good of the community as a whole. And I want to point out that the relative lack of damage that we're undergoing is vindication of these beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 02:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 02:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 03:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 02:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 02:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 03:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 03:13 pm (UTC)I will point out one other problematic thing with the Midwest - where much of New England is around rivers, there's also a lot of glacial valley action (even if it's very weathered by this point.) Since the water tends to be at the bottom, while some things may flood, there's still some natural direction for water flow, so you don't get stuff pooling.
In Minnesota (the bit of the midwest I'm obviously familiar with), people built around the water sources, the same way. But there's very little in the way of hills between the water sources, so it's quite easy for overflow to a) not have an obvious direction to go and b) for overflow from multiple sources to converge (even if that's just 'rain coming down on flat surface' and 'slightly overflowed river/lake')
Plus, being the land of 11,000 some odd lakes, it's really hard to go very far without hitting a lake, and of course, those can flood too, given enough rain. If there was no building around any water source to the degree that Massachusetts managed to do sanely, you'd have to cut out large swaths of suburbs, and a chunk of part of Minneapolis.
That said, outside the urban areas, I think giving lots of space around the river is very sane. And even in the Twin Cities, the river cuts *very* deep - 30+ foot cliffs almost all the way through - so you'd have to have really really major flooding before it hit most of the city. The one place that isn't true, they sensibly put the small municipal airport, and if that floods, it's not the end of the world - they can move the planes, easily enough, etc.
It's just a little trickier if you don't have much in the way of hills, and have tons of lakes to avoid.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 03:22 pm (UTC)Yay for wetlands and watersheds and those who strive to protect them!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 04:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 07:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 07:33 pm (UTC)Second, this is a wonderful post, and I second the person would said you should edit it a little and send it to the papers.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-16 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 12:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 12:29 am (UTC)It might be that there were problems because the storm drains are tied to the sewer lines, so if there's a huge flood the sewer system gets overwhelmed.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 02:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 05:25 am (UTC)I stumbled on you through another post...on another blog...somewhere.
Errr, I've actually lost track of how I found you. Anyways, I was reading through your stuff and I've friended you. I hope that's okay.
I still feel kinda odd adding perfect strangers to friends lists but...that's livejournal, I guess! Weird little world sometimes. :)
Moggy
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 11:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-17 05:59 am (UTC)