scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fuax
I do live in Fl.
Not to argue with you Scubadoo but just a breif explaination of why I beleive it was done. The Fl Everglades is Fl's only true water shed area not to mention it is the only habitat like it in the world. With out the maintance that you described the state would not be able to drain the surrounding areas into the everglades run off areas which inturn would cause So. Fl to flood (no where near the extent of New Orleans) but because most of So. Fl is only 10 to 15 feet above sea level.
Oh and btw I agree with you fully that this problem was forseen along time ago and should have been taken care of 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Now with that being said it has happened and now we must deal with the situation at hand.
I fully support the project regarding the Everglades...but priorities need to be set and politics removed. Some federal spending should be based on national interest, protection of assets vital to the economy, etc. Governemnt likes to use the term investing now instead of spending. Investing sevral billions decades ago would have prevented SPENDING 10-20 fold today. While some may feel we should not look at the past. and quit Monday Morning QBing...the past can teach us all a valuable lesson...and prevent tomorrows catastrophe.
Risk assessment is never a govermnet priority...until there is a body count and/or major catatrophe. Too much a reaction and not enough proactivity.
Goverment should not be in the insurance business...but has done so and encourages folks to live in flood plains, coast lines, etc. Most federal programs are failures from an efficiency standpoint. Most usually fall short of projections and end up costing more then originally anticpated and communicated.
Many programs encourage rather then discourage...and increases risk rather then decrase risk. This can hardly be called "investing"...but it can be called SPENDING.
JMO
I do live in Fl.
Not to argue with you Scubadoo but just a breif explaination of why I beleive it was done. The Fl Everglades is Fl's only true water shed area not to mention it is the only habitat like it in the world. With out the maintance that you described the state would not be able to drain the surrounding areas into the everglades run off areas which inturn would cause So. Fl to flood (no where near the extent of New Orleans) but because most of So. Fl is only 10 to 15 feet above sea level.
Oh and btw I agree with you fully that this problem was forseen along time ago and should have been taken care of 10, 20, or even 30 years ago. Now with that being said it has happened and now we must deal with the situation at hand.
I fully support the project regarding the Everglades...but priorities need to be set and politics removed. Some federal spending should be based on national interest, protection of assets vital to the economy, etc. Governemnt likes to use the term investing now instead of spending. Investing sevral billions decades ago would have prevented SPENDING 10-20 fold today. While some may feel we should not look at the past. and quit Monday Morning QBing...the past can teach us all a valuable lesson...and prevent tomorrows catastrophe.
Risk assessment is never a govermnet priority...until there is a body count and/or major catatrophe. Too much a reaction and not enough proactivity.
Goverment should not be in the insurance business...but has done so and encourages folks to live in flood plains, coast lines, etc. Most federal programs are failures from an efficiency standpoint. Most usually fall short of projections and end up costing more then originally anticpated and communicated.
Many programs encourage rather then discourage...and increases risk rather then decrase risk. This can hardly be called "investing"...but it can be called SPENDING.
JMO