Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Out of sight

December 29, 2013

According to 200 years of record keeping, the Susquehanna River floods about every 15 years....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(20)

eriklatranyi

Dec-29-13 4:12 PM

Mr. Reeder said:

"You know with the non-existent global warming you can expect more frequent damaging weather events."

Tell that to the "global warming" crew stuck in the unusually thick Antartica summer ice for more than a week!

PS: 5 rescue ice-breakers abandoned efforts to reach them because the ice is so thick.

The "global warming" crew was trying to show the effects of rapidly melting ice and production of carbon dioxide.

Proof that God has a sense or humor!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

twinder

Dec-29-13 1:19 PM

"Why does this have to be so difficult?" Silly Ritty...because the US Government got involved, that's why.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Dec-29-13 11:04 AM

Why does this need to be so complicated? Why can't water damage just be included in a homeowner's policy? Premiums are based on many factors: What materials are used in the home, how close is the nearest fire hydrant, how close is the nearest fire engine, is the garage connected to the house, how often does a tornado occur in your area, etc. Why can't the risk of water damage (flooding) just be included in that equation and adjust the homeowners' premiums accordingly?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Alsever

Dec-29-13 10:59 AM

$5,000 in '72 is a great example of what we do not want repeated over and over. You could buy TWO brand new pick up trucks for 45,000 back then; plus children of families flooded back then got tuition breaks at Penn State. Guess who paid for that--me with my taxes. And I did not even make $5,000 a year in '72!

Also as an engineer, I can guarantee that ALL levees will fail. Lot of discussions in Engineering magazines about making people protected by Levees buy flood insurance.

And it is NOT a 100 year Flood: It's a flood with a 1% chance of occurring each year.

Don't like flood maps--change them!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-29-13 10:03 AM

When I was younger we lived int he East End of Williampsort. During the 1972 Agnes Flood, there was 12-18" of water moving through the area around the corner of Grove and Sheriden streets. Nearly every home in the area had water in there basements.

Again, this is an area where an underground stream flows. This is an area where most people don't connect to flooding, but it does happen.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-29-13 9:57 AM

Cap, I don't know your specific situation but here is an example.

My Mom and step Dad own a home on Cherry St. in Montoursville just up the street from the Police Barracks. In that area is an underground stream and you can see where it empties by the old Sylvania plant. During severe rainfall, that underground stream moves above ground and floods the basements of the homes in those areas. Are they now in flood zones? Homeowners insurance doesn't cover the cost of this type of flooding.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-29-13 9:51 AM

"more frequent damaging weather events." is a subjective measure at best. As the values of our structures increase along with population density increases along our coastal and flood prone areas, it's just a matter of basic objective reasoning that storms will become "more damaging".

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-29-13 9:41 AM

Gavin, I live north of Grampian in the city and I am now considered high risk. Any idea why, and if I'm now high risk, wouldn't all those that live south of me closer to the river and creeks also be high risk? You don't get much more north within the city than where I am so that would include much of Williamsport.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Dec-29-13 8:39 AM

Just think of all the forest cut down for the gas industry.

You know with the non-existent global warming you can expect more frequent damaging weather events.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-29-13 8:32 AM

Going off the top of my head about a conversation I had with a company on Runville Rd just outside of Milesburg, the deforestation of 1 acre and building of a home can create thousands of gallons of additional water runoff into the streams that would have traditionaly been absorbed into the ground.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-29-13 8:26 AM

Just a thought, but building and construction upstream increase runoff just as flood protection measures upstream increase flood levels downstream.

I would suspect that many houses that have had little flooding in the past are now part of a flood zone due to one of these two reasons.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Dec-29-13 7:57 AM

agree Cap

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-29-13 7:33 AM

Spike, I would like to see the model FEMA uses to perform the risk analysis on the millions of properties effected nationwide. Part of this Act included the requirement for FEMA to conduct a study on the feasibility to turn this entire program over to the private sector. I doubt we ever see the result of that study.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Dec-29-13 7:17 AM

erik, nonsense would suffice. I'm lumped with the liberals and I absolutely agree with you as to waterfront and low-lying properties. Those who have only flooded once in 100 years or had minimal water damage such as basement flooding should be reconsidered. I don't know enough about how the increases are distributed and if the increase is lower for some than others. If a home floods once every 10 years Those who's homes flood frequently should pay more, once in 100 seems a risk that could apply to any casualty.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Dec-29-13 7:17 AM

erik, nonsense would suffice. I'm lumped with the liberals and I absolutely agree with you as to waterfront and low-lying properties. Those who have only flooded once in 100 years or had minimal water damage such as basement flooding should be reconsidered. I don't know enough about how the increases are distributed and if the increase is lower for some than others. If a home floods once every 10 years Those who's homes flood frequently should pay more, once in 100 seems a risk that could apply to any casualty.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-29-13 6:27 AM

Roger, I read the same information and I totally agree. Those calling people stupid for living in "flood zones" better not speak so soon because they may already be considered high risk and don't know it, or soon will be. And that includes much of Williamsport. I know because I live on a "high risk" property which I never knew because the house has been here over 100 years and has never had any type of flooding.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RogerMurdock

Dec-29-13 5:25 AM

I spent a few minutes on the fema site last night and they have quite a bit of space devoted to the dangers of levees being breached. It smacks of fear mongering, but I seem to recall that the serious flooding in Wilkes Barre in 1972 was caused by the levees giving way, likewise with New Orleans in 2005 and Millington, Tennessee in 1973. Anyone care to lay odds that anyone living behind a levee (dike) and below the 100 year flood level will at some time in the future be required to purchase flood insurance? After all, "levees should be viewed as a way to reduce risks from hurricanes and storm surges, not as measures that completely eliminate risk." I sense a train wreck coming down those tracks.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Dec-29-13 4:53 AM

Insurance is not to "spread the risk".

What utter liberal nonsense and stupidity!

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RogerMurdock

Dec-29-13 4:45 AM

In other words, you're suggesting that we have the flood insurance version of Obama Care?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromtheport

Dec-29-13 2:54 AM

I hope you people go broke and lose your homes before something worse happens, like requiring flood insurance all property. Its your stupidity for buying or building in such a bad location. Lets be forward thinkers and not let this happen!

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web