Without the Ike Dike, a direct hit in the Houston-Galveston area by a category 3 hurricane will result in a catastrophic loss of lives and property
Hurricane Ike, which struck the Texas Gulf Coast just east of Galveston in September 2008, was the third most destructive hurricane to strike the United States. Ike left an estimated $24 billion of property damage, 82 deaths and 202 missing in its wake. Had the storm not taken a last minute turn to the north from its northwest track, it would have made a direct hit on Galveston and Houston and the storm surge would have been far more catastrophic to property and lives.
In the wake of Hurricane Ike, Texas A&M University at Galveston oceanographer William Merrell devised a plan that would protect homes and lives in the Houston-Galveston area from deadly hurricane storm surges. His plan was dubbed the “Ike Dike”.
Professor Merrell proposed an extension of the seawall all the way to the western end of Galveston Island and for a new sea wall on the Bolivar Peninsula east of Galveston Bay. In order to protect Houston and other cities along Galveston Bay, Merrell proposed the construction of huge floodgates at the entrance to the bay, like those used in the Netherlands. He also called for smaller gates at San Louis Pass and the Intracoastal Waterway, both of which are west of Galveston Island.
Sounds like a solid plan, one that would protect several hundred thousand homes and people from those deadly and destructive storm surges. But the Ike Dike was met with immediate opposition from environmentalists.
The econuts warned that the floodgates would interfere with the migration of sea life. What a crock! Those gates would only be closed upon the approach of a hurricane. They would be open at all other times, thus allowing that precious sea life to migrate into the polluted waters of the Houston ship channel. The econuts also opposed extension of the sea wall. Instead, they proposed building up the sand dunes as a natural barrier against any storm surge. Yeah right, that’ll work.
The environmentalists also say that developers are to blame for building homes and businesses within the storm surge areas. Of course they are right. But that’s no consolation for the people now living in the hundreds of thousands homes that are now sitting where they should never have been built.
The next opposition came from the bean counters. They said that the estimated $5 billion it would cost to build the Ike Dike was unattainable. Never mind that Hurricane Ike did $24 billion of property damage even though it came ashore in a far less populated area than Houston and Galveston. $5 billion is too much? Never mind that the feds spent $14.5 billion just within the city of on New Orleans to protect its citizens from the ravages of storm surge-induced flooding.
What did New Orleans have that Houston and Galveston did not have? After Hurricane Ike we did not have the pictures New Orleans had showing heart-wrenching images of 16,000 poor souls trapped in the Super Dome under unimaginable inhumane conditions.
$5 billion is too much? Along came the educated idiots at Rice University’s Baker Institute to throw a wrench into the Ike Dike plan. They had the solution to the high cost of the proposed Ike Dike. They recommended scrapping Merrell’s floodgates and sea wall extension in favor of one floodgate across the Houston ship channel. That would protect Houston’s multibillion dollar petro-chemical complex. But what about the homes and businesses siting in the path of a hurricane storm surge?
I am not an engineer or hydrologist. Common sense tells me that the water from the storm surge won’t just stop once it reaches the ship channel floodgate. It has to go somewhere. It probably cannot recede. Most likely the water will spread east and west, thereby flooding thousands of homes that might otherwise have been spared.
There has been a concerted effort in support of the Ike Dike on the part of public officials and prominent citizens from the cities within the Houston-Galveston area. But here it is nine years after Hurricane Ike and no Ike Dike is in sight. And by now the cost has probably tripled.
Will the Houston-Galveston area ever get the Ike Dike? Yes, but I fear it won’t be until after the area has taken a direct hit from a category 3 hurricane and the catastrophic loss of lives and property left in its wake.
FURTHER INFO: Texas A&M’s IKE DIKE website
DanMan says
I’m not convinced this is a good idea. Suppose we have the wall built and the gates securely closed as a major storm moves in. It rains for three days prior to Hurricane Howie hitting and we get another US record rain like Alvin got 35 years ago (43 inches in 24 hours). And the storm stalls 50 miles offshore.
Keeps raining. Wind howling. Storm surge tops the wall while floodwaters build up behind it. Derp.
Howie Katz says
DanMan, a storm surge would be far more damaging and most definitely far, far more deadly than 43 inches of rain.
The sea wall in Galveston has protected the island from past storm surges. The flood damage done by Ike came from the water on the north side which backed up into the city.
The Ike dike is not going to protect us completely but it will certainly result in a very signifi9cant reduction in the loss of lives and property.
I believe the Ike dike is what we need and we need it badly … and we need it yesterday, not who knows how many years from now.
txlt44 says
Ike wasn’t bad enough. We have always been reactionary in Texas. It will take a mega storm that kills several thousand folks before anything is done. That’s why the Galveston seawall was built. 12000 lives lost.
Royko says
This is more Progressive’s attempt to try and get taxpayers to pay for another attempt to create utopia that results in a taxpayer boondoggle.
Next we will have promoters of another “Springfield” Dome.
Mick Abrahams says
What, you don’t want to shell out your money to protect the energy industry properties and wealthy beachfront homes knowingly built in surge-prone areas?!? How selfish of you!
Howie Katz says
Royko and Mick, you guys must live in an area that will not be hit by a storm surge.
Referring to the Ike Dike as a liberal boondoggle is just plain absurd. Protecting its citizens is the duty of any government and that requires taxpayer funds to carry that out.
On a personal note, my neighbors and I are not wealthy. When our houses in my Clear Lake City neighborhood were built in the late ’60s, they went for around $30,000. They are now valued at around $180,000, which makes ours a middle class neighborhood. And even though we live miles from any beachfront, we are still in danger from the storm surge generated by a category 3 hurricane. As a matter of fact, a direct hit by a category 1 hurricane could cause significant flooding in the Clear Lake area.
So don’t come up with that wealthy beachfront homes crap. The people in harms way are the poor and the middle class.
Mick Abrahams says
Then I’ll rephrase:
What, you don’t want to shell out your money to protect the energy industry properties and Howie Katz’s home knowingly bought despite being in a surge-prone area?!? How selfish of you!
Better?
Howie Katz says
Mick, it is obvious you do not know that the flood gates of the Ike Dike would also protect the ship channel petro-chemical complex. And when we bought our home, which is several miles from Galveston Bay and 30 miles from the Gulf, no one informed us that we were in a storm surge area.
So, before you start calling someone selfish, you ought to get your facts straight.
Don Sumners says
Howie, Do you not understand that Mick is talking about the ship channel petro-chemical complex when he says energy industry properties. Mick is right. Those affected most should pay the majority of cost. I have no obligation to pay for losses of owners knowing risk of acquiring expensive coast properties.
Mick Abrahams says
Exactly, Don. And “no one informed us” is not an excuse. It’s not my financial obligation to indemnify someone who did not perform their due diligence when buying their home. And as a matter of fact, Howie, I do live in a coastal county and I pay for Texas Windstorm Insurance to insure against possible losses. And guess what? I never once used this blog to ask you or anyone else to help me pay for it. So you might want to cut back on the ad hominem attacks.
Manuel Barrera says
Government does not have money for things like that, federal debt keeps going up and up and up, does not matter what party is in control.
Jack Rhem says
I read a lot about the NFIP in a graduate program on emergency management. This is from one of the better sources the subject. The quote is actually outdated as the program is substantially way more indebted now than when he wrote this years ago.
“In fact, it ranks as one of the largest government-run social insurance programs in the United States, surpassed only by Social Security and Medicaid (King, 2005). The NFIP is currently over $19 billion in debt to the US Treasury (GAO-09-420R, 2009). There is pending Congressional legislation which will broaden the NFIP to include wind damage (Kelly, 2007)1.”
Floods, as a peril, are unique in that you really can’t assemble a good pool that spreads risk. More specifically to the subject at hand, flood mitigation projects are not particularly effective and incredibly expensive. If you endorse this program, you endorse taxpayers subsidizing those who willingly choose to lift in flood prone areas. That’s fine if you do, I just hope people can acknowledge this or at least recognize the cognitive dissonance – saying you don’t like subsidy programs, but you want the federal government to build you a wall.
Howie Katz says
Let me see if I got this right. The way some of you guys put it, homes should not have ever been built in much of southeast Houston, in Baytown and in most of Galveston county. Oh yes, and that ship channel petro-chemical complex should never have been built there either because it too sits in the storm surge prone area.
Manuel Barrera says
Howie if the home did not have a chance of flooding when built, but because of development that has changed than government is at fault for allowing it. Harris County did not properly manage its’ duty of flood mitigation. Storm surge is a God thing and insurance is the proper way to handle that, buy flood insurance if you don’t already have it, it should cost you about $3,000 a year.
DanMan says
I pay about $500/year, in a flood plain about 1,000′ from Braes Bayou in a 60 year old house that so far has never flooded. I’m sure eventually it will.
I had a friend have her house flood from a micro burst rain event. Her house is not in a flood plain and is about 1,000′ from Buffalo Bayou and the bayou barely came up during the storm. She was one of the few in her neighborhood that has flood insurance.
It’s a pretty good idea to have flood insurance if you live on a coastal prairie in the tropics.
Manuel Barrera says
Dan you are grandfathered in that is the reason for the low rate, I have always had flood insurance so I don’t pay as much as others in my neighborhood. Flood insurance went up after Katrina, we are subsidizing people that want to live by or near the ocean.
Jack Rhem says
Dan,
I have a house in Westbury that hasn’t flooded either. I participate in the NFIP knowing 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} that if the government didn’t offer the program, there would probably be no private insurance product. I take that back, there might be a very small market if you had a lot of disposable income, but if you had the money to afford said insurance why would you live in Meyerland in the first place?
Most people agree that NFIP policy holders are paying about 1/4 to 1/3 the actual fair market rate of their policies.
fat albert says
Howie,
It’s a (ahem) free country. Build your house any damn place you want. You’re a bright boy, if you build it in a place where it might flood, then you might want to consider buying some insurance. Same thing for all those industries. They’re smart guys – I suspect that they’ve done the cost/benefit analysis and determined that the benefits of building where they are outweigh the associated risks.
Not that I’m necessarily totally opposed to a flood wall – I can see a coalition of property owners (residential and commercial) getting together and raising funding to build it. I’m mostly perplexed at the willingness of “conservatives” to chuck their small-government principles out the window as soon as the subject deals with something that directly benefits them.
Ross says
Keep in mind that the sites for most of those plants were chosen prior to 1950, which means prior to the 4-10 feet of subsidence that’s occurred since then, and prior to the increased knowledge of how storms work, and the effects of storm surge.
If the cost for limiting storm damage falls completely on the property owners affected, then you can expect to have no new plants built, and a probable migration when replacing old ones. That means all of the jobs go away, all of the taxes go away, etc.
Fat, there are no small government conservatives, only conservatives that oppose spending that doesn’t benefit them personally.
fat albert says
Actually, Ross, the cost for limiting storm damage DOES fall on commercial property owners. As far as I know the government flood insurance program does not include commercial property. And yet. . . . . in the last couple of years, (well after Ike) Exxon, Mobil, Enterprise, Dow, and several other companies have announced plans to build new facilities in flood prone areas. So much for your jobs and taxes argument.
“there are no small government conservatives”. Forgive me, but that is so much bovine offal. I don’t argue that there are conservatives that sacrifice their principles from time to time, but that doesn’t disprove the principle, it simply proves the weakness of humans.
Ross says
So what if new facilities are being built – most of them are next to existing facilities with their attendant infrastructure and workforce. So far, there’s been no requirement for the companies to fund any large flood mitigation projects. If ExxonMobil, or Shell, or Dow, et al had to cough up a billion or two dollars each for flood mitigation, you can bet that new facilities would be located elsewhere.
I stand by my conservative comment. I’ve never met one alleged conservative that would give up a personal benefit, but they are all over screwing the rest of society at every opportunity for some illusory reduction in taxes.
Fat Albert says
Ross, please explain why there should be a requirement for companies to fund flood mitigation projects. However, yes, if you charge corporations exorbitant fees to build their facilities here, they will go elsewhere.
Interestingly, like any good politician you completely sidestepped the point that I made. You said “the sites for most of those plants were chosen prior to 1950” and “If the cost for limiting storm damage falls completely on the property owners affected, then you can expect to have no new plants built, and a probable migration when replacing old ones.”
I demonstrated that both statements are demonstrably false, at which point you simply changed your point and now not only want the companies to indemnify themselves against loss, you want them to pay for others.
As for your “conservative” comment. You’re obviously running with the wrong set of people. Conservatives I know don’t want benefits, they simply want to be left the hell alone – which means keeping YOUR hand out of OUR pockets.
Txlt44 says
Nobody is going to pay for and build a dike. Let’s face it, any storm damage will be paid for after the fact with flood insurance, FEMA aid and Band-Aid solutions. Flood insurance is not that pricey. Windstorm insurance is very high. However, I’ll bet hail damage in North Texas is more costly for the state windstorm pool than hurricanes. There is nothing that can be done to stop hail.
If the petro-chemical industries want to build something for the ship channel, let them pay for it. Yeah, Right!
David Jennings says
Interesting. We have people commenting against the use of government to prevent damage at the same time that they are subscribers to government subsidized insurance to repair damage.
And that is that way the world turns.
Howie Katz says
Right, David!
But let me add that while flood insurance – which by the way I’ve had since it was first offered – may replace a home, it cannot replace personal items lost in a storm surge. Of much more importance is the fact that flood insurance will not restore the lives lost.
In their opposition to the Ike Dike, these guys either do not understand that, or else they don’t give a damn.
fat albert says
Howie,
You’re wrong. A flood can destroy a home, and all of the irreplaceable things within. So can a fire, or a tornado, or an earthquake, or a giant sinkhole. All of those things can also take lives which are also irreplaceable. Is it your position that the government is responsible for preventing or indemnifying you against any or all disasters which might occur?
I’m not opposed to the government building a flood wall per se. But, I AM opposed to a government that is an out of control, ill-considered, spending machine. The amount of money owed by our local, state and federal governmental entities is so large that the number is literally incomprehensible. The Federal Government owes $20 Trillion. There’s another $47 Trillion in unfunded obligations. The collective 50 states and their local governments own another #30 Trillion in collective debt and obligations. Thats right at $100 TRILLION dollars in debt. Or, to put it in more comprehensible terms your share is $290,000. So is your wifes. Each of your kids? Another $290,000.
The sad thing is we just keep spending. A flood wall? sure! Another stadium? Why not! Gee whiz 250 MPH super trains? Absolutely! New uniforms for the inner city marching band? Hey it’s for the kids! They deserve the best!
So, with all due respect, if you want to build an Ike Dike, fine. But unless you can find a way to make it revenue neutral (i.e. no borrowing money to build it) Forget it. If you don’t want the risk of living in a flood plain – move. I hear there’s lots of nice places in the Woodlands.
Manuel Barrera says
Interesting, lives lost? Health insurance for everyone would save a lot more lives.
Manuel Barrera says
David if you have a mortgage and live in a flood zone the bank requires you to get insurance, the only insurance company that the banks seem to accept is FEMA. If one does not have a mortgage one may be able to find a private insurer, there are very few. But like health insurance it is subsidized by government.
Jack Rhem says
David, I don’t know if you’re referring to me. I do have taxpayer subsidized flood insurance. I also have a taxpayer subsidized mortgage interest deduction (theoretically, since I still take the standard deduction). My point is that since I am not super conservative, it’s fine. However, some people on here really amount to RINOs or they don’t even see (refuse to see maybe) the contradictions.
Government spending out of control ! Rabble rabble! Let’s build a boondoggle project that will take take 2-3 times the amount of purported money and twice the time!
Greg Degeyter says
Howie, you had asked about storm surge and what happens when it hits the floodgate.
Here’s a link to a SLOSH model maximum of maximums for a category 3 storm at Galveston.
https://bigjolly.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/galveston_mom3h.png
With storm surge, it’s not the volume of water that’s blocked that’s important, but rather it’s the barrier to the waterways running inland. What a flood gate is designed to do is to prevent the storm surge from advancing along and spilling over the banks of the waterway it is gating off. Let’s take the proposed floodgate at the entrance to the bay. That would stop the storm surge flooding in the finger extending northwest of the bay, as well as the intrusions into Baytown and Houston.
So what happens to the surge? In a purely technical standpoint you are correct it does spread out around the floodgate. However, it doesn’t have nearly the impact since it is not funneled up the waterways. Rather, the blocked water would add a minimal amount of height to the general storm surge already present.
Is that important? Depends on how the minimal additional height impacts the particular structures. If a structure is going from 1 inch below the power outlets to flooded power outlets it’s a heck of an impact. Otherwise, we’re dealing with a not so much impact. The additional height added to the general surge around the floodgate is going to be a minimal height add.
Howie Katz says
Greg, you have given a good account on the flood gate and storm surge issue. The flood gates seem to do a good job protecting the low-lying Netherlands from the stormy North Sea.
Greg Degeyter says
Here’s some figures to consider when dealing with the cost of a seawall/floodgate.
In Ike, FEMA spent over $2.5 billion. Granted some of this was not in Harris and the surrounding counties.
Of the $2.5 billion, $635,8 million was in loans leaving a total of $1.86 billion in non-recoverable expenditures. Two and a half category three storms and the seawall has paid for itself. An effort to maximize cost/impact savings, such as the proposed ship channel floodgate, would lead a closer financial tally.
With smart placement the protective measures are fiscally responsible.
Fat Albert says
Houston averages a Cat 3+ storm every 20 – 25 years or so. That means your return on investment is 50 – 60 years. And, that assumes a zero growth pattern from here on out. And it assumes that your cost estimate is actually achieved in reality. (An assumption that is ridiculously naive!)
Personally I don’t think a 50 year break even ROI is anything close to fiscally responsible – especially since we’re going to be using borrowed money to fund the project in the first place!
Greg Degeyter says
Howdy FA,
The thought process is more nuanced than it appears. You correctly state that the cost estimate is unlikely to be achieved. That’s why a cat 3 (though I will include Ike even though he was only a 2) was chosen as the unit for measurement. If we were to consider all named tropical systems to make landfall in the two breakpoints covering the area then the frequency is roughly one named system every four years. Sure, only Alicia and Ike generated cat 3+ storm surge. However, you have 12 more landfalls (with an additional 2 storms passing through the breakpoints) that would yield cost savings.
Also, remember I stated “With smart placement the protective measures are fiscally responsible” not the Ike Dike as proposed is fiscally responsible. Building a floodgate rather than the proposed dike system will have a much lower price while creating a high level of protection. Bring the ROI down to 18-20 years and then it’s an arguable position.
fat albert says
OK, that kind of makes sense, but most Tropical Storms and minimal hurricanes have only minimal storm surges. If we are going to spend a crap load of money on flood prevention it would seem to me that a better play would be storm water drainage. We get hit by flooding rainstorms every year. Why not spend the money actually trying to build a drainage system that works?
Regardless, I’m willing to listen to any idea. But I’m going to start from the mindset that we don’t need to be spending money that we don’t have. A mindset, I might add, that our political leaders would do well to emulate.
Greg Degeyter says
Fat Albert I used to be a meteorologist so am more concerned with everyone having a working casual understanding regarding the science more so than the fiscal considerations. The hydrology to combat river flooding and/or sheet flooding is very different than stopping storm surge flooding.
The area has problems with three different types of flooding: sheet, river, and storm surge. They all would require different solutions. If sheet flooding can be mitigated it will lessen river flooding where the water origin is local, but not with classic river flooding.
If you look in my post history there’s a post regarding how to mitigate sheet flooding. That is going to be the least expensive type of mitigation, and can be figured into routine maintenance and upgrade budgeting. Not a total cure, but in normal disaster planning you don’t try to protect from worst case scenario.
River flooding can be prevented, but it’s a much more costly proposition. Dredge to deepen the river, raise the bank, create retention areas, build levees, etc. It can be done. It also requires a significant amount of both construction and maintenance costs covering a large area since the water is either being contained in the river channel or diverted and retained.
Storm surge protection is a different consideration. The hydrology isn’t containing or diverting the water. The hydrology is building a barrier to block the water. Even with storm surge there’s a variation in how you block the water.
Galveston would need a sea wall on all sides to be protected. Think walled castle. There’s no economically efficient way to protect the island. Harris County is a different matter. The storm surge, even for a category 1 storm, could reach 59 near 10 per SLOSH maximum of maximums. However the surge penetrates up the waterways.
Rather than build protection as with river flooding the cure is to create a barrier preventing penetration. Here, you create a floodgate to stop penetration and are done. No need to divert and retain; no need for miles and miles of riverbank alterations or dredging.
You don’t get total protection, but you do stop the inland surge at the expense of coastal surge where the structures are already either damaged or built with surge mitigation in mind. In a situation like this it’s possible for a fairly quick ROI if the barrier is placed to minimize costs while maximizing protection areas.
Greg Degeyter says
Here’s the prior post regarding mitigating sheet flooding.
https://bigjolly.com/reducing-sheet-flooding/
Howie Katz says
Greg, unfortunately you are not preaching to the choir. Most of the readers who commented on my post do not want any taxpayer dollars spent to protect people in flood-prone areas. Screw ’em, they shouldn’t have taken up residence there in the first place.
fat albert says
Ya know Howie, If I weren’t such a low key kinda guy, you post might almost kinda upset me a mite. It’s deliberately pejorative and mischaracterizes the disagreement.
The fact of the matter is that you don’t have any taxpayer dollars to spend on a dike. You have already spent all of the taxpayer dollars on other stuff. No, what you want to spend is the dollars of taxpayers who haven’t even been born yet. Worse yet, you want to spend those dollars inefficiently and (probably) uselessly. With all due respect to Greg, who I’m sure is a fine scientist and very knowledgable on the subject, the government (in all of it’s varied sizes and permutations) has been spending copious amounts of money of flood control and mitigation for decades.
You say that the Ike dike would cost $5 Billion. That’s probably true, if it were being built by a private consortium. But it won’t be, it will be built by the federal government. Which means that it will cost $15 – $20 Billion, and as soon as it’s completed we will need an endless series of ongoing repairs and upgrades to make it work.
But for you, hey it’s no problem, it’s just the taxpayers money, screw ’em.
Howie Katz says
Fat Albert, with all due respect, by your reasoning the government should stop spending any money until it is out of debt and has the funds to pay for all expenditures.
For now that means no spending for defense, for congress, for the executive branch, the judicial branch, etc., etc. In other words there should be only one government agency, and that is the IRS until it collects in taxes enough so that we are out of debt. Sound far fetched? Not if you don’t want the government to spend any money it doesn’t have.
fat albert says
Good one Greg. You got me. I bow to your superior wisdom, wit and intellect. I have been brought low by reductio ad absurdum. How could I have been so silly as to not see that building a flood dike is exactly the same as running our court system, or funding our armed forces.
Greg Degeyter says
Here’s a proposal from Rice University. I post this for illustrative purposes.
https://bigjolly.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Ike-Dike-Rice-University-Scheme.jpg
The ship channel gate is at spot ‘U’ and the estimated cost for this portion of the project would be $1,5 billion. The protection from the ship channel floodgate would stop the intrusive storm surge while doing nothing to abate the general surge.
Even a cat 1 hurricane will cause significant intrusive storm surge flooding, which the HSC floodgate would prevent. This places ROI at most at the next major hurricane, and likely before given that it would have savings every four years on average as storms move into the breakpoints covering the area.
Let’s say it’s in the 15-20 year time frame. Let’s further suppose that the project was a combined federal and local government funding issue with Harris County Flood Control and Port of Houston Authority both contributing funding at say a 50/25/25 level (federal government at 50). The federal government then is only funding $750 million reducing the ROI to 7-10 years. Is that something that you would deem fiscally responsible Fat Albert?