NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/midwest_flooding_fema_vs_fargo

It sounds to me like the system worked perfectly: FEMA was preparing for a worst-case scenario and the local government, with a more fine-tuned understanding of the risks and rewards organized and succeeded. The fact that the debate turned heated actually fills me with a lot more confidence in this FEMA than the one from 2005.

Kudos to both Fargo and FEMA.

Actually, though I fully admit upfront that I am largely ignorant of the specific geography and environment of Fargo, it looks like this was a dumb-@#%& move on the part of the town that only barely managed to avoid a devestating disaster.

The flood waters topped out at 41 feet, only two feet belowe the 43 feet limit on the hastily constructed barriers, and if the flood had lasted only slightly longer (relatively speaking) the waters would have overwhelmed the barricades, flooded the town, and hailed the beginning of Waterworld! Or rather, drowned a whole lot of people.

Though these decisions should, admittedly, be in the hands of local officials with more knowledge of the area than Washington officials, the explanation given for not ordering an evacuation was that it costs a lot, would be a pain in the ass, and wouldn't fit the "spirit" of Fargo, so if they had evacuated and it turned out it wasn't needed everybody would be unhappy and embaressed. The reasons for evacuation are a bit simpler: If you don't evacuate and it turns out you needed to after all, people die. Cliched or not, "you can't put a price on life" is quite applicable.

Now, if there was some scientific backing for Fargo's belief that flood waters would stop at a certain level, if they had evidence saying an evacuation was unnecessary (Maybe they were taking water level readings further upriver and saw a lessening flow, or a meteorologist predicted a decreased rainfall, etc.), that'd be a different situation, but it seemed to be that they were hoping that the waters wouldn't rise far enough, and they placed faith in their "superior" barricade, without any sort of legitimate justification for their beliefs. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong, we've already seen that they weren't wrong and I'm very happy about that, but when faced with a potentially devestating loss of life, balanced against finncial cost and "hope," you err on the side of caution and get the hell out of Dodge.

Actually, screw Dodge, nobody's flooding near there, you get the hell out of Fargo.

Of course, I've got five bucks riding on the fact that in five minutes somebody else will post a link with "See, this scientist pointed this out, which convinced everyboddy that the flood would stop," and I'll blush and slink away, but until them I'm belligerent!

Cliched or not, "you can't put a price on life" is quite applicable.

Actually, you can put a price on life. Ever hire a hitman?

To be completely accurate, you're actually putting a price on a service being offered by a freelance employee, the completion of said services resulting in the death of a third party; his price isn't the price of a life, just the price of what it costs to take that life.

To be completely accurate, you're actually putting a price on a service being offered by a freelance employee, the completion of said services resulting in the death of a third party; his price isn't the price of a life, just the price of what it costs to take that life.

Never bribed God to revive someone then?

I've found that with the proper blackmail, bribery becomes largely unnecessary.

Actually, though I fully admit upfront that I am largely ignorant of the specific geography and environment of Fargo, it looks like this was a dumb-@#%& move on the part of the town that only barely managed to avoid a devestating disaster.

I live in the city. Basically, imagine complete flatness in all direction from the river. If the dikes were to break, pretty much most of Fargo, and a good portion of Moorhead would have been under some water. Although, even at the record 41 ft level, it would not have been nearly as bad as Grand Forks as in 97. Fargo did conduct *voluntary* evacuations of some areas, however it would be implausible, impossible, and simply useless to evacuate the entire city(As some areas wouldn't be affected at all).


The flood waters topped out at 41 feet, only two feet belowe the 43 feet limit on the hastily constructed barriers, and if the flood had lasted only slightly longer (relatively speaking) the waters would have overwhelmed the barricades, flooded the town, and hailed the beginning of Waterworld! Or rather, drowned a whole lot of people.

Um, actually, not quite. If the levees broke, most of the areas around the river would be under about three feet of water. Still extremely dangerous in this time of year around here(Hypothermia would set in faster than you would be able to walk yourself out of the affected area, pretty much. Also, your car would be gone, unless you got to it in less than ten seconds.

I would like to note, however, that the flood is not over. We're expecting another crest in a week or two. I've heard, again, that 41 feet is the possible crest.

The main problem with this year was that the crest pretty much snuck up on us. It was supposed to come in during mid April, not Mid-March. It was very early, very harsh, and we worked our asses off to keep the city alive.


Though these decisions should, admittedly, be in the hands of local officials with more knowledge of the area than Washington officials, the explanation given for not ordering an evacuation was that it costs a lot, would be a pain in the ass, and wouldn't fit the "spirit" of Fargo, so if they had evacuated and it turned out it wasn't needed everybody would be unhappy and embaressed. The reasons for evacuation are a bit simpler: If you don't evacuate and it turns out you needed to after all, people die. Cliched or not, "you can't put a price on life" is quite applicable.

Well, as I said, it would be impossible to implement. For starters, our streets can't handle thousands of people fleeing the city. Second, we were hit by massive snow and ice storms during the latter half of the week last week, which made travel outside of the city impossible. We were, almost quite literally, trapped in the city. By the time we knew exactly how bad it was going to be(The crest was only predicted to be 39 feet. We built dikes to 41. On late tuesday, we found out it was going to crest at 41 feet). It got bad at the very worst time: There was no possible way the city could be evacuated. That said, the city was shut down, and certain areas evacuated voluntarily, with a very heavy emphasis on some areas to the extent of "Get the hell out now."


Now, if there was some scientific backing for Fargo's belief that flood waters would stop at a certain level, if they had evidence saying an evacuation was unnecessary (Maybe they were taking water level readings further upriver and saw a lessening flow, or a meteorologist predicted a decreased rainfall, etc.), that'd be a different situation, but it seemed to be that they were hoping that the waters wouldn't rise far enough, and they placed faith in their "superior" barricade, without any sort of legitimate justification for their beliefs.

We were told by the National Weather Service that the river was supposed to crest two feet lower than it actually did. That was Monday. Basically, by Wednesday they upped to to 41 feet, and then later to 43 feet.

Also, like I said, if the dikes broke, much of the city, particularly the outer regions, would be unaffected. Others, admittedly, would be under a ton of water. Depends on the area of the city.


Now, that doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong, we've already seen that they weren't wrong and I'm very happy about that, but when faced with a potentially devestating loss of life, balanced against finncial cost and "hope," you err on the side of caution and get the hell out of Dodge.


I hope I made a good case as to why it wasn't that simple.


Actually, screw Dodge, nobody's flooding near there, you get the hell out of Fargo.


It is a shithole. Although, seeing the river right up to Main Avenue bridge is a sight.


Of course, I've got five bucks riding on the fact that in five minutes somebody else will post a link with "See, this scientist pointed this out, which convinced everyboddy that the flood would stop," and I'll blush and slink away, but until them I'm belligerent!

:D