Just to clarify what a "500 year flood" is, as well as a "100 year flood", the odds are that any given year there is a 1% chance of a flood that affects locations in the "100 year flood plain" occurring, and any given year there is between a .2% and 1% chance of a flood that affects locations in the "500 year flood plain" occurring. That means that on average, they will happen every 100 years or so (or every 500 years or so), but they can happen more or less frequently. Just because we had a 500 year flood this year, doesn't mean we can't have one again next year. The odds are very slim, though.
The fact is that Iowans who live along certain river basins have seen floods reaching the alleged "500 year" levels twice in 15 years. So, you know, they don't live in a 500 year flood plain as far as reality goes. They live in a 15 year flood plain.
The odds aren't 0.2% for them.
This isn't directed at David, who seemed to be merely correcting the odds from sound bites to actual fractions, but I just wish the media, the DNR, and scientists would stop talking about the odds and the clearly bogus "500 year" flood plains. The data isn't reliable. And past calculations are only based on data that's a few decades old.
I suppose my point is "Don't Be Stupid" about where you put critical infrastructure and buildings.
Which leads me to this story in the Cedar Rapids Gazette where Tom Harkin, Dave Loebsack, and White House deficit director Jim Nussle want $146 million earmarked lickity-split for the long-delayed Federal Courthouse replacement in Cedar Rapids. The current Federal Courthouse is located right next to the Cedar River, as will be the proposed new building, just a few blocks downstream:
So Harkin and 2nd District Rep. Dave Loebsack lobbied Bush and his budget director, former U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, to immediately replace the 77-year-old flood-damaged courthouse on the banks of the Cedar River at First and Second streets SE.This is incredibly irresponsible.
That would be a better use of taxpayer money than repairing the current courthouse and then constructing a new one later to meet the needs of the federal court for the Northern District of Iowa.
"We told the president — it was pointed to him on the flight, the helicopter flight — if you put millions into this courthouse, it's a waste of money," Harkin said. "So we need to move up this courthouse."
It's stupid.
Where are the newspaper political columnists to hector Harkin, Loebsack, Nussle, and all these other crass dimwits who want to build a $146 million Federal Courthouse right next to a river which just severely flooded?
Last I saw, there was a dead mall in Cedar Rapids for sale at the bargain price of $18.5 million. Buy that and convert it. It's got acres of parking. Room to grow. Close to Highway 30 and a few minutes away from I-380 and the airport. Lots of shopping and restaurants around it.
Oh yeah, AND NO RIVER NEXT DOOR THAT WILL FLOOD EVERY 15 YEARS!!!!!!!
No, no, no. There's no way that government would be that smart.
Why can't we be smart in the future about this?
We can only tame the rivers so much.
I'm not saying turn downtown Cedar Rapids or the space near the Iowa Memorial Union into wetlands.
Just don't allow government to put all your eggs in the same wet basket.
I would like to also point out that it might possibly just be bad luck that this happened this year. Firstly, in '93, the cedar river didn't have anything approaching the level of flooding we saw this year.
ReplyDeleteThe previous 10 highest crests were all 20 feet or less, going back to 1851. The cedar river was actually higher in 1961, 1929 and 1851 than it was in 1993. 1993 was less than 1 foot higher than crests in 1933, 1965, 1999, 2004 and just over 1 foot higher than 1947. All of the flooding seen on the Cedar River at Cedar Rapids was within 2 feet of the 20 ft mark. This flood was 31.12 ft. That is a whole different ballgame.
The point being that in the last 150 or so years that we have data for the river, we haven't seen a flood within 11 feet of this one. It's certainly reasonable that this might well be the worst flood in the last 500 years or so, and that would make it a 500 year flood, and would verify the statistics that say that if you live in the 500 year floodplain, you have anywhere between a .2% and 1% chance of being flooded any given year.
The flood of '93, as far as the cedar river in Cedar Rapids is concerned, was no more than a "normal" flood, which one might expect every 20-30 years and would potentially affect people living in the 100 year floodplain (defined as having a 1% chance in any given year of experiencing river flooding). The '08 flood is an order of magnitude greater than any food we have witnessed in the recorded history of the cedar river at Cedar Rapids.
Also, note that the flooding wasn't nearly as bad upstream or downstream from Cedar Rapids. While it was the record crest for the river at Waterloo, it was only 4 feet higher than the previous record.
What I would contend, from this information, is that the floods of '93 in Cedar Rapids weren't at all historic, and this flood clearly is.