Town Square

Post a New Topic

Local agencies launch efforts to combat sea level rise

Original post made on Mar 9, 2014

Given the slow pace of public agencies and the accelerated speed of sea level rise, the question must be asked: Can Bay Area counties respond quickly enough to mitigate damage to communities, to infrastructure, to homes and businesses imperiled by future levels of ocean and bay waters?

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, March 9, 2014, 8:35 AM

Comments (5)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tax-and-Spend--That's-the-Ticket!
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2014 at 12:25 pm

> Paying for the massive project ..


Ha! That didn't take long for them to tell us that MORE TAXES are going to be needed. The San Francisquito Creek refurbishment was supposed to have cost at least $100M--when it was last estimated, about 20 years ago. None of the affected cities seemed interested in ponying up their share of that kind of money, so a bunch of smaller projects have been proposed, each of which is in the $5M-$10M. Interestingly, no one is talking about the $100M (likely higher now) price tag.

And now we are being told that sea rise is a problem that we need to spend vast sums on to stop, or mitigate.

One solution might be to simply buy the property that might be in danger, and declare that that property is no longer inhabitable--becoming a new flood plain.

It's hard to believe that any government agency would look for the simple solution--when they can create a new bureaucracy, which can opaque itself in secrecy, and demand ever-greater budgets year after year--with little to show for their efforts.

It's really getting to the point that living is not worth the money, or the effort.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

Why should the government buy the low lying properties? If you buy in a flood zone, then you should expect that you're going to get flooded. Government should not bail out ignorant property purchase decisions. We already have flood insurance that is partially subsidized by the government (including our home). That's enough.

If the ocean and/or storm water rises to the point that I can't live in my home any longer, that's my problem to solve...not Uncle Sam's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve Case
a resident of another community
on Mar 9, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Renee Batti reports that National Geographic predicted sea level to surge 30 inches through 2100.

Simple arithmetic tells us that comes to almost 9 mm/yr of sea level rise every year over the next 86 years.

The nearest tide gauge in San Fracisco
Web Link
has records going back to 1855 with an all time rate of 1.4 mm/yr. The current rate is a negative -0.1 mm/yr having dropped from a 30 year rate of 3.2 mm/yr since 1983. See the table below.

San Francisco
Sea Level Rise ... Rate ........ Time Frame
AllTime .......... 1.4 mm/yr ... 1855-2011
Highest .......... 4.4 mm/yr ... 1856-1886
Lowest .......... -1.8 mm/yr ... 1876-1906
Recent High ...... 3.2 mm/yr ... 1953-1983
Current ......... -0.1 mm/yr ... 1981-2011

It appears that an acceleration to 9 mm/yr isn't likely to happen now nor any time in the future.

Anyone with some curiosity and modest Excel ability can verify these numbers.

Steve Case - Milwaukee, WI


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tax-and-Spend--That's-the-Ticket!
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm

> Renee Batti reports that National Geographic

National Geographic is not now, nor has it even been, a source of information that can be considered accurate--at least about future earth conditions. Certainly NG has done us no favors by not predicting when earth quakes are going to occur, and when. Same for their failing to warn us about volcanic eruptions. So--please don't claim this organization that has been dedicated to make pretty picture books is now the oracle that we have to bow down to about future oceanic events!

> Why should the gov't buy property in a flood plain.

It's a fair question, as long as you are willing to talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars that the gov't has shelled out paying for flood damage in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future. Buying the property in the flood plains would clearly reduce the yearly outlay for flood damage.

It might be an interesting thought to suggest that the Feds step in an ban local gov'ts from allowing any future occupation in flood plains.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 9, 2014 at 3:34 pm

> If you buy in a flood zone, then you should expect that you're going to get flooded.

Tell it to the Dutch.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 6 comments | 3,405 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 20 comments | 2,604 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,933 views

Politics: Empty appeals to "innovation"
By Douglas Moran | 9 comments | 1,323 views

It's Dog-O-Ween this Saturday!
By Cathy Kirkman | 2 comments | 333 views