There's a proposal on the table in Pennsylvania to spend $100 million on flood protection, something that's stirring a bit of a debate in the central part of the state.
Essentially, none of the projects that would be funded are in central PA because "Harrisburg-area officials decided years ago they preferred to go with nonstructural flood-protection measures...such as the flood forecast and warning system, instead of levees, floodwalls or channels," according to the article. Other places in the state -- mostly western and northern parts -- will get funding for those types of structural protection measures.
When the Susquehanna does flood, it takes a lot of water. The Patriot-News reported that the river, which is normally about 4 to 5 feet deep, has to rise to 21 to 22 feet to breach its banks and flood the town of Shipoke. And "Most Shipoke residents wouldn't want a floodwall blocking their beautiful view of the river."
"Conventional wisdom today says that floodwalls only move the flood somewhere else. 'Based on what happened with the levees in New Orleans, I'm not seeing that it's worth looking at.'"
It raises an interesting debate, much like the one in Southeast Louisiana. The government has an obligation to protect its people, but they're choosing to live in places that are prone to disaster. (I know I'm ignoring the socioeconomic circumstances that only allow the poorest parts of society to live in the lowest, most disaster-prone areas. This is just for argument's sake.)
The difference between PA and LA is that the Pennsylvanians living in the low areas don't want structural flood protection, while the Louisianans in comparable situations are demanding that the levees be raised. Maybe it can be explained by the fact that the structural "protections" are already in place in Louisiana, so the people there have gotten used to the idea.
I don't really know.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment