http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/01/no-flooding-in-houston-was-not-caused-by Sure - sprawl made things worse. Impermeable land made things worse. Perverse flood insurance incentives made things worse. But Houston got more rain in three days than Seattle gets in a year and that's simply beyond the scope of civil engineering.
According to one estimate, Houston's paving over of wetlands cost it the ability to absorb four billion gallons of water. Hurricane Harvey dumped 19 trillion gallons of water on the city.
Having worked in Houston, spot on. The place is flatter than Kansas, bigger than four states, and they sunk the freeways for "100 year" flood drainage. I was there for Allison, which was an order of mag less than Harvey, and the place still flooded simply due to the geography. As much as I fucking HATE Houston and love it when people bash it, this article was all about posting a narrative that Texas=Bad. Of course it is the Guardian. When Irma hits Florida next week, with about the same water content, let's see if they say the same things about Miami, a "blue" city with no real long range planning built on a swamp. And Folks in Florida? Watch the weather, please.
I understand your point and agree that there is only so much you can plan for and prevent against. But I'm kind of gonna have to go against you and francopoli here, for a minute. In a nutshell, if a warehouse catches on fire, that's a tragedy. If a warehouse catches on fire and people die because the main and secondary fire exits were inexplicably locked, the sprinkler system malfunctioned, and the building hasn't been brought up to code for the past fifteen years, that's a disaster that could have been mitigated if the people in charge were being responsible, and if it turns out they were being negligent, they deserve every fine and every word of scorn that comes their way. This isn't the only article that I've read that has discussed this, in regards to Harvey. I read similar articles when Katrina happened. Hell, there's Haiti and the earthquakes. Chances are, the discussion will come again Irma hits Florida. You've shared maps of Louisana's disappearing coastline and I'm almost certain there have been conversations on here about how the disappearance of marshland has a negative impact in buffering against the weather. These conversations need to happen, more on the local level than the national level, but they still need to happen. Because where I'm sitting from, this is just more about people in control kicking the can down the road and trying to get away with what their predecessors got away with because "Hey, those plans were in the works well before I took office. It's not my problem bro."
If Godzilla stomps on a warehouse with 100 exits, and one of them was blocked because the party planner stacked some chairs in front of it, The Guardian would blame the party planner, not Godzilla. I am not a fan of sprawl. I am a fan of zoning. I am a fan of environmental laws, of alternative energy, of all that happy 350.org shit. But 27 trillion gallons of water fell on Houston. The Texas Tribune and ProPublica predicted exactly this consequence fifteen months ago. Scientific American did the same thing 5 years before Katrina. You can argue that lots of shit could have been done better to prevent the damages from Katrina, and you can argue that lots of shit could have been done better to prevent the damages from Harvey. But it'll still be 27 trillion gallons of water. Fukushima was designed for a 5.7m tsunami. It experienced a 39m tsunami. Go ahead and try to design anything coastal to withstand 120 feet of sea level rise - you will fail. Tragedy? Yes. Foreseeable? Yes. Preventable? no. 27 trillion gallons, d00d. Should Houston have better urban planning? Prolly. Are US flood insurance incentives demonstrably perverse? Yes. If your baby is hit by a flamethrower, does wearing a fire retardant onesie help much?