even with these sensors - the bottom line is it will do notihing to prevent flood damage, and do nothing for flood control. talk about useless! here's a flowchart folks: if you get a lot of snow up stream - it has to melt, and guess where it is going to go? you guessed it - right down the river, the ground can only soak up so much. Heavy rain to the North? where's it going to go? yep!
oh, that will be $3500 please....
even when people downriver get early warning (think cedar rapids - 2008), they don't bother to get the books out of the library (that one row of sandbags sure helped though), or bother to get out of the water's way. CR knew it was coming and still did next to nothing!
i thought the same thing. these sensors do NOTHING to prevent flood damage, flood control, etc. pet rock is right! these sensors do nothing more than tell you what can be clearly observed... "hey, the sensor says the water is rising, what do we do?" - the same thing that everyone else that lives along the river that doesn't have a sensor - get out of the way.
man, did someone see you guys coming!
amen! if they just had insurance..... they could rebuild their dam.... leson learned: BUY INSURANCE!
can't disa.gree there. how those rascals on the city council were not reca.lled i will never know. by failure of the VOTER to ACT when they saw this hijac.king, they are as guilty as the ones voting to let PCI close streets, using tax money to buy hotels, etc.
nice article here:
i don't think anyone has shown conclusive proof one way or the other if this is public or private.
bottom line: the taxpayers cannot af.ford to rebuild this lake. you want it rebuilt, YOU do it. next time i might suggest BUYING INSURANCE and partic.ipating in FEMA's insurance program. you have a lot of land to fix up down river after YO.UR DAM (by your own admission) gave way and brought devestation downriver.
until you secure private money or loans to rebuild it AND par.ticipate in the flood insurance program - keep your lips puckered.
i wonder how many soldiers under 21 were killed in the invasion of Normandy - at the time Germany was a country that was of no threat to us either.... interesting.
when i grew up in Iowa, the law was changed to 19. i remember the outcry and the same old worn-out arguments. I was 17 at the time. It didn't matter to me really, because i had access to beer at home if i wanted one. before someone thinks my parents were bad for 'allowing' this, i never had the urge to go out to some high school 'kegger', or go party, because the 'taboo' was gone and it wasn't approached as 'evil' in our house. that's beside the point. I liked 19 for the age. MANY high school kids turn 18 in high school, but not as many turn 19 in high school. I'll agree with another poster though... the level of maturity between one who is 18 and 21 is staggering sometimes. but even those numbers adon't say much. i have met many in their mid 20's that didn't know how to put a sheet on their beds, let alone make informed decisions on alcohol!
old argument. won't work. for the record, i agree with you. If you are mature enough to join the military, then you are mature enough for a beer. but having retired from the military, i have met many 19 or 20 year olds that shouldn't be in the service, and in no way could handle a beer. the military takes under age drinking very seriously. it can - and does - cost people their careers. military members have to follow the rules of many 'governing bodies'...the constitution, the laws of the state where they live, the UCMJ, and the laws of the country they are in at the time. if they are stationed in Europe, then they are 'legal' to get booze at 18. Some base commanders give orders to the contrary, and if they are caught downtown having a beer under 21 - then they run the risk of discharge, even though they are 'legal'.
i hear you, but you are singing to the choir on this one
you point out just WHY community service (cleaning roadsides and stuff) WON'T work - they would be doing someone else's job.... some highly paid union job no less, and if the state can get people to do that job for 'free' versus paying some union guy $25 an hour...well, that would be a threat to his job and the state might think "wait a minute! why do we have employees on the payroll to do these jobs, when we can use law violators, jailhouse prisoners, inmates, etc - for free? cheaper to pay the guard with a gun to watch them, than pay 5 union guys to do the same thing".
watch for it - you might start a trend...