Kelly, The geomorphology of Vermont dictates where the roads go-- in valleys, for the most part. Most of the state is within a floodplain, per se. While this may seem to make settlements especially vulnerable, I do think it's worth noting that many of the houses, covered bridges, and roads that were destroyed are over 150 years old; these floods were unprecedented in recent history, and have led some to suggest that we can expect more of this in the future with global warming. Many of the bridges dated back to the 1923 flood, and were well overdue for replacement anyway, and so were already in need of taxpayer dollars. New England settlements are some of the oldest (and therefore most "stable") in the nation; no place is without risk of some natural disaster, whether due to hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, ice storms, etc. I think looking at the rate of such events is as important than the magnitude of any one particular event. In the case of Vermont, doing what you're describing would mean displacing a large portion of the population, moving people into larger settlements (and thus contributing to sprawl), and losing unique regions of cultural and historic heritage. I do think that there are examples of the futility of trying to "control" nature (see John McPhee's The Control of Nature), but I am not inclined to think that Vermont is such a case.
Jacquelyn On 09.06.11, Kelly Stettner <[email protected]> wrote: > In light of the intense and ongoing flooding and erosion in many parts of > Vermont, it's become clearer than ever to me that rivers need to be > respected. I don't mean revered and worshipped...I mean that humans need to > pay attention to the bigger flood-plain picture and develop accordingly. > Seems to me that all the talk going around now is to "put the river back > where it belongs." I wonder if this is, with all intentional punny-ness, a > watershed moment? Why not attempt to recognize and accomodate what is > obviously the "territory" of our streams and rivers? I'm not recommending > that we demolish all dams and hope for the best. I'm thinking specifically of > those roads and bridges and culverts which are quite obviously not up to the > task of surviving high water. A road in my area that was built to follow the > sinuous curves of the Black River was washed out in a number of spots, as the > river swelled to its hundred-year-flood parameters and then > some...why rebuild that road in the same place? Isnt' that just doing more > of the same and expecting different results? Why waste tax-payer money, why > risk the loss of more lives and property by "putting the river back where it > belongs"? I realize there are some big challenges, such as obtaining > permission to install a new road; but wouldn't it be wiser to go that route > rather than trying to rebuild and reconstruct within the flood plain? > > I'm all for input and feedback! Thank you all for your thoughts and > attention. > > Kelly Stettner, Director > http://www.BlackRiverActionTeam.org > > > -- Jacquelyn Gill(https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/jlgill/web/Home.html) PhD Candidate John W. Williams Lab(http://www.geography.wisc.edu/faculty/williams/lab/) University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Geography 550 North Park St. Madison, WI 53706 608.890.1188 (phone) 608.265.9331 (fax)
