Monday, April 28, 2008

Sunday Afternoon's Flood Images


I got out yesterday and took some more pictures. I had hoped to go to the baseball game, but it didn't work out. On a side note, the River Bandits have been turning in some really good attendance numbers, especially for this early in the season with chilly weather. Yesterday's game had almost 5,000 people at it, which may be higher than any game last year.

I should get some additional pictures this afternoon. Since I believe the crest is supposed to be in the middle of the night Monday night-Tuesday morning, this afternoon's may be the highest daylight images.


The temporary berm seems to be working fine so far. As I've said in other places, its cheaper to build a temporary wall every few years than spend $100 million+ on a permanent one that just causes further problems.

8 Comments:

At 4/28/2008 12:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has actually been a great way to showcase one of the areas the City is quite competent in. Kudos to them for getting done in time and doing it right.

This is also a big opportunity to hail the JOD renovations as doing exactly what we paid for them to do - KEEP IT DRY. There were a lot of people who laughed it off and said it was impossible and a waste of money - whos laughing now? It was a good investment, and the ballpark got record numbers to put the icing on the cake.

It sucks we have to endure this afterall, but it's being handled really well. This is indeed much cheaper and effective long-term than spending millions on a big ugly wall that may just break anyway. I'll take a week of this every 10 years or so anyday.

 
At 4/28/2008 2:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every ten years? Wasn't the last time less than five years ago? Flood protection need not be a big ugly wall. There are walls that lie flat and are lifted by hydraulics. There are posts with slots for walls every twelve or more feet, and there are earthen levies covered with green. No one spends millions of dollars on a levy the "breaks away" unless of course you're New Orleans. If it was such a great idea to build the berm/wall to protect the field, why is it not a great idea to protect businesses and other sports facilities in the Downtown?

 
At 4/28/2008 2:16 PM, Blogger QuadCityImages said...

Why is what we're doing now not working? The only things flooded downtown are a hotdog stand and a bathroom.

 
At 4/28/2008 2:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

QCI - Hot dog stand and bathroom? Have you forgotten
1) the stadium (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/04/28/news/local/doc4815f2df2068f568775286.txt?sPos=2),
2)the sports center (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/04/28/news/local/doc4815e7e5899af624096526.txt),
3) the IOC (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/04/28/news/local/doc48155b1671e04205559569.txt)
4) the skate park

 
At 4/28/2008 2:27 PM, Blogger QuadCityImages said...

As far as I know none of those are underwater, they're just surrounded by it.

 
At 4/28/2008 3:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's certainly a big difference between being surrounded by water, and being underneath it.

You make a fine point similiar to the one Boom did in the paper today that there are new alternatives that are helpful and cost effective to look at; however, a wall in any form that would actually do anything would be immense, and likely more costly than the cleanup of any flood that's managed simliar to this one.

Berming up the ballpark is one thing, a wall the lengh of the entire Riverfront is whole other matter in both ecological and $ terms.

The City has wisely been buying up Riverfront land and turning it in to managable flood-plain park for years just so we can continue implementing this style of flood management, instead of flood prevention. You mentioned New Orleans as being just one failed wall, but there are many other case studies of expensive levees breaking, and smacking a City then wholly unprepared for what to do next.

Even if we begin to flood more regularly, there are still a lot of options beyond a wall to continue managing floods even more effectively. Maybe a more technologically advanced and hidden wall is an option one day, but for the time being, I think we're doing pretty well considering our budget and ability to deal with it.

 
At 4/28/2008 3:29 PM, Blogger pioneer98 said...

The last time we had a flood this high was in 2001, seven years ago. I can't recall where I saw it, but I think this year's will be the 6th highest flood on record. So it's a big one, and all things considered, its being handled great.

The Corps of Engineers has decided on more than one occasion that a floodwall in Davenport simply isn't feasible. Even if we wanted it, its simply not going to happen. Period. People need to understand this. It would be a far bigger waste to build it than to not build it.

Knowing that one will never be built, the city actually put together a very wise strategy to require new structures in the flood plain to either be elevated or have their own flood wall. And it bought up old properties in the flood plain and turned them into greenspace.

I'm all in favor of investigating temporary floodwalls that would be more cost-efficient, but a permanent flood wall would not only be a waste, it would also take away the open riverfront that defines Davenport. Why even have a Centennial Park if we're going to build a wall in front of it?

 
At 4/28/2008 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Pioneer, and as I stated above, I couldn't agree with you more. For as much fun as it is to pick on the City, they've outdone themselves so far with the flood management.

This is best method we've got, so we might as well embrace it, and keep our beautiful riverfront that functions just fine the other 99% of the time. I'd also agree that there's no harm in investing more in better technology than the sandbags too.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home