Balanced approach needed to protect region from storms
Buffer for upper Texas coast can be developed in responsible way
Last week’s flooding in Louisiana had nothing to do with hurricanes or tropical storms, but it was a sobering reminder of weather’s power, especially when a region is unprepared. And so far, that part about being unprepared for a hurricane still pretty much describes the upper Texas coast. But we finally seem to be making progress:
• Wenowhave the final report prepared by a group established by five local counties that evaluates the viability of projects to mitigate the effects of a future hurricane on the upper Texas coast. It’s available on the website of the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District (gccprd.com).
• The Corps of Engineers has started a $20 million study of options to protect the coast.
Shortly after Hurricane Ike ripped through our region, killing over 30 and leaving millions without power for days, then-Gov. Rick Perry convened a commission to study whether it was possible to blunt the effects of the next large storm to hit our area. I served on that commission.
One of the commission’s principal lessons was that the vast majority
of casualties and damage in a hurricane comes from the storm surge. Somewhat counterintuitively, our region was spared much of Ike’s potential storm devastation because its path came almost exactly up the middle of Galveston Bay. The worst surge is found in the east, or dirty, sides of hurricanes. In the case of Ike, the relatively sparsely populated area between Houston and Beaumont bore the brunt of the surge, thereby minimizing the casualties and damage.
The scientists ran a model for us that had Ike making landfall slightly to the west in the Freeport vicinity. It was not a pretty picture. That kind of storm would flood nearly all of Galveston County, about 20 percent of Harris County and huge chunks of Brazoria and Chambers. Even in a perfect evacuation, there would be mass casualties.
But then came along a Texas A&MUniversity at Galveston professor named Bill Merrell with a bunch of drawings illustrating how we could build a dike along the coast, much like the Dutch have done along their coast. His idea was immediately dubbed the “Ike Dike.” Perry quickly signed on to finding funding to study the idea. Unfortunately, there were many delays in getting a study organized and funded, but eventually it happened, resulting in this final report.
The report recom- mends a wide range of projects for the upper Texas coast with a total estimated cost of $11.6 billion. The group, using very conservative methodology, finds that the economic benefits from the projects will greatly exceed the costs.
So the economic case for taking action is clear. Getting the financing model right will be a challenge. From an equity and political perspective, the cost of the projects must be borne primarily by those receiving the benefits. Wedo not currently have a taxing mechanism that would allocate the costs based on benefits. Nor will it be easy to assess the relative benefits. But it is simply not fair to ask someone in Katy to pay for hurricane protection for someone who has a bay house in Galveston or for a company that owns a refinery on the Houston Ship Channel.
And the compelling economic case for a surge protection system does not erase serious environmental questions about potential long-term effects. These projects will represent a very significant intervention in sensitive ecologies that play a critical role in the overall environmental health of our region. One of the critical questions is the degree to which a gate structure across the Bolivar Roads strait would affect the exchange of fresh and sea water in Galveston Bay. As we go forward, these serious questions must be addressed.
But there is one alternative that has been advanced by some in the environmental community that needs to be thoroughly and completely rejected. It is euphemistically called a “strategic retreat from the coast.” It is the notion that simply moving everything out of the surge zone ultimately is a realistic alternative.
It is not. It is complete and utter nonsense. Some of the region’s most critical infrastructure is located in the surge zone. Things like the Johnson Space Center, major petrochemical complexes, dozens of hospitals, hundreds of schools and nursing homes and tens of thousands of other businesses.
The idea that we are simply going to abandon all of this investment at a cost of billions, if not trillions, of dollars is absurd. And the human cost also would be monumental. Can you imagine telling folks who have lived in Galveston for generations that they need to pick up and move inland?
It is frankly the kind of idea that gives environmentalists a bad name and frequently causes the public to ignore their legitimate concerns.
Also, some in the environmental community are ignoring some huge potential benefits from constructing a surge protection system. Aprincipal benefit is the prevention of the ecological catastrophe that would result from hundreds of polluted sites being overrun by flood waters. Jim Blackburn, probably our city’s most notable environmental advocate, supports moving forward with some kind of a solution that involves construction of a protective structure because the environmental damage from a major storm would be, in his words, “horrendous.” But there also are natural elements that could be included in a storm protection system, such as the reconstruction of oyster reefs, the reconstruction and nourishment of sand dunes and the replanting of wetland grasses, which would have collateral environmental benefits.
There is a way to protect our region from the next great hurricane that is both fiscally and environmentally responsible. This new report, while far from a finished plan, is one more major step toward that end. I would encourage everyone interested in this issue to read the report and become familiar with facts it presents.
This is a generational opportunity to leave our region with an incredible legacy. Weneed to do this, and we need to get it right.