Horrible article. When you begin with a false premise everything after becomes suspect. You really should try Current Flood Mitigation technologies. There are a number of ways to MITIGATE flooding. 1. when water levels are low clean out the trash and trench that river at least a 8 feet wide by 10 feet deep. a) holds more water decreasing bank overflow. b) slows the speed of the runoff. Very important for those being caught in a flash flood. 2. widen banks and support with available rocks wrapped in chicken wire. a) stops erosion b) slows down the current. 3. the most important is to plant trees. Start at river banks and place wherever water settles after a rain and or flood. The average size tree drinks and respires up to 300 gallons of water a day. Spending Billions on an electrical observation seems plausible. But if electricity goes out (storms have a history of doing that) people die. But spending $100,000 per city should eliminate 100 year flooding, clean the air of offending city smog, increase shade for a cooler local environment, and if you're smart start a new industry like pecans or other fruit of nuts. Forests and new parks is also a good idea. Just one mans opinion.
Published by Guy McGowen, President/CEO/Chief Science Officer
Horrible article. When you begin with a false premise everything after becomes suspect. You really should try Current Flood Mitigation technologies. There are a number of ways to MITIGATE flooding. 1. when water levels are low clean out the trash and trench that river at least a 8 feet wide by 10 feet deep. a) holds more water decreasing bank overflow. b) slows the speed of the runoff. Very important for those being caught in a flash flood. 2. widen banks and support with available rocks wrapped in chicken wire. a) stops erosion b) slows down the current. 3. the most important is to plant trees. Start at river banks and place wherever water settles after a rain and or flood. The average size tree drinks and respires up to 300 gallons of water a day. Spending Billions on an electrical observation seems plausible. But if electricity goes out (storms have a history of doing that) people die. But spending $100,000 per city should eliminate 100 year flooding, clean the air of offending city smog, increase shade for a cooler local environment, and if you're smart start a new industry like pecans or other fruit of nuts. Forests and new parks is also a good idea. Just one mans opinion.