netmouse | (no subject)

I am confused as to why the Federal Government is not being more pro-active about encouraging innovation in preventative measure re: flood damage and options for collecting and redirecting rain water, especially in agricultural areas experiencing a drought. This isn't rocket science. I know we're short on fresh steel, nationally, but there's plenty in the factory buildings that are closed.

Here in York we have plenty of blighted buildings that could be torn down for parts to build reservoirs and canals to prevent road washouts and bridge destruction and make sure we have plenty of clean water.

This approach could also help address issues in towns suffering from ground water poisoning and lead pipes.

Yet I don't see it being discussed at all. Meanwhile we keep letting Nestle pump water out of California and sell it to people in bottles. Do the bottling companies all have our legislators in their back pockets? What is going on!?

The City of York keeps suffering rain damage, almost annually, and nothing seems to change. Where is the push for our civil engineers to address this problem pro-actively?

Are there even plans to identify risk areas? I am really concerned about directing millions of dollars to infrastructure construction that does not support resiliency on the whole, including plans for reservoirs and planting trees and native plants to protect roadways and agricultural areas from the devastation of unchecked runoff.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I would have to guess that it's a side effect of denying climate change for all these years, and lack of federal funding for any sort of preventative maintenance whatsoever. Or state-level funding, probably.

-Skippy

I expect it may also be related to how we train engineers, as well as to how slow and fractured by municipal authority the regulatory process is.

Each township around here seems to have different rules and restrictions about construction, and some of them mainly require how many parking spots are provided per level of building capacity, and little else.

Managed Aquifer Recharge is a big thing. Now that it's been shown that cropland can be used for recharge, the big problem is going to be allocating the floodwater to all the farmers that want it.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1037370430/water-is-scarce-in-california-but-farmers-have-found-ways-to-store-it-undergroun

https://water.ca.gov/programs/all-programs/flood-mar

https://www.ppic.org/blog/allocating-floodwaters-to-replenish-groundwater-basins/

Santa Clara Valley, where I live, has several ponds built to put water back into the aquifer.

https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes/groundwater/groundwater-supply

Ooo. Those look like good options! One of York's main backup supplies of fresh water is managed as a lake, which also provides habitat for waterfowl, fish, turtles, insects, etc.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for innovation and hardly any for basic maintenance, in the tech field where I work. I was happy that Biden got *some* funding for infrastructure. I think a lot of people are in denial about how bad the water shortage will be.

That, and perhaps also in denial about how bad flood damage can be.

We had a couple roads destroyed from major buckling as they were undercut by flood waters here in PA not long ago, and I know a region in Vancouver was left with no outside road access at all due to flooding recently - they had to airlift in food and medical supplies. And of course mudslides can carry houses with them and destroy fields as well as other infrastructure. Local closed loop hydroponic installations are a Good Idea(tm) for building regional resilience, but I only see them being discussed for their commercial viability thus far.

Yeah, flood damage too. Weather's going to get more violent.