Left In Lowell

Shadows of Last Year’s Flood

27 Responses to “Shadows of Last Year’s Flood”

1. Jay Booth Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 am

   Yup, my building was about 2 inches away from flooding when I left for work this morning (with a backpack and change of shoes). And we’re nowhere near the crest yet.. the poor people who live downstairs from me had just gotten back in after all the repairs from last year a few weeks ago. 100 year flood 2 years in a row?

2. Thom B Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am

   I just caught an update posted on the Sun online that some of the same areas effected by the last flood were ordered to be evacuated. I was without power from 6:00AM Monday til sometime after midnight. Tonight I get to wet vac the basement. The only one happy is the dog who gets to sleep in the kitchen rather than the basement due to the fact his basement bed is currently floating.

3. Jay Booth Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

   I’m suing Al Gore.

4. Paul@01852 Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

   Right now I am almost physically trapped in a large business on Pawtucket Blvd. along with about 2/3 of the employees (those who park in the lot at the same end of the building as I do). The main drive is completely under approximately a foot of water (and still rising) and the perimeter road behind the building that would normally allow an alternate means of egress is also under 6 or more inches. There is one normally closed and locked gate which is the only way in or out at this time. So not only does the city have to begin planning for ANNUAL “100-year floods” but so do businesses and homeowners. I personally know one co-worker from Methuen who is *still* making repairs to her home from last years floods. I cringe to think all she has invested may have been for naught if she has new damages from this latest storm.

5. waittilnextyr Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm

   Some historical peaks of the river at Lowell:
   68.40 ft on 3/20/1936
   60.60 ft on 4/23/1852
   60.56 ft on 9/23/1938
   58.84 ft on 5/15/2006
   57.77 ft on 4/17/2007
   The crest is forecast to occur about 2pm, so hopefully is starts to recede (quickly) soon.

6. -b Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm

   I spent a good part of the morning down at the end of New York Street. Again, the city has been a huge help, and the whole neighborhood was pitching in to help sandbag to keep the brook from spilling over its banks. The city filled in our back yard with dirt this morning, and I think that really helped to save many houses on Lafayette Street.

   We emptied out our basement, and now just have to cross our fingers that this thing crests when the NWS says it does. Yesterday the NWS was saying that the river would crest at 53.7 feet, so at this point I’m very weary of the predicted 02:00PM crest of 57.7.

   When I left for work around 11 there were only a handful of houses (the new condos on NY Street) that had succumbed to the flood. Hopefully when I return we will still be dry…

   Anyone interested in buying a house on the cheap?

7. K-R-S Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm

   Just drove down Varnum Ave and many of the homes that were underwater last year are currently underwater once again.
   In a discussion I had had with a co worker today, we got around to the discussion of flood insurance…Can a policy holder only claim once for flood damage? And what happens to the folks that are not covered?
   For many of those residents, this years flood is just as devastating as last years.
   I do hope the process for recovery is much smoother this time around, we had plenty of practice last time around. Hopefully, the glitches have been worked out.

8. Paul@01852 Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

   Speaking of “repeat damages” the owner of Brunswick Lanes so enjoyed spending 4 months renovating his business last Summer that it appears he is going to do it all over again THIS Summer! I did manage to exit work approximately 30 minutes ago thru the one exit still open and in passing Brunswick the parking lot there was under approximately 6″ of water. He did have the entrances and windows sandbagged but I wouldn’t be too optimistic that he will be able to prevent major damage. The National Weather Service had predicted that the river would crest at approximately 2:30 this afternoon at 57.7 ft. but as of 3pm it was officially at 57.96 ft. and it appeared to be still rising. Last May’s flood peaked at 58.84 ft. This flood has become the fifth worst in recorded history as waittil posted above.

9. Mimi Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 7:02 pm

   Caveblogem, a non-political Lowell blogger, has posted some pictures of today’s flood.

   http://caveblogem.wordpress.com/

10. Mimi Says:
    April 17th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    And to Anonymous who made the sarcasitc comments on K-R-S post on Govenor Patrick activating MEMA, What do you have to say now?

11. waittilnextyr Says:
    April 17th, 2007 at 9:38 pm

    It looks like it crested at 58.09 and has dropped to 58 so things should start to improve.

12. -b Says:
    April 17th, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    My house and most others appear to be spared thanks to the work of the city. They build up the wall along the brook from the end of New York Street down to Beaver Street. As far as I can tell only four or five houses on New York Street took on major water this time around.

    I really must commend the city for the great work. They saved the neighborhood tens of thousands in property damage.

    I have to take issue with a couple comments on this post however… First, I don’t see the connection to global climate crisis. Yes, this is the second year in a row we have been hit with nasty flooding. But floods worse than this happened in 1936 and 1938. Was that also part of the climate crisis? There were also top 10 crests in 1927, 1933, and 1934.

    Many people have also termed these storms as “100-year floods” I don’t know how these storms are being labeled as such. (I guess some others on the site don’t either) If you look at the top 10 river crests 9 of them happened in the last 100 years.

    * (1) 68.40 ft on 03/20/1936
    (2) 60.60 ft on 04/23/1852
    * (3) 60.57 ft on 09/23/1938
    * (4) 58.84 ft on 05/15/2006
    * (5) 57.16 ft on 04/07/1987
    * (6) 56.50 ft on 11/05/1927
    * (7) 56.00 ft on 04/06/1960
    * (7) 56.00 ft on 04/20/1933
    * (9) 54.02 ft on 04/14/1934
    * (10) 53.71 ft on 06/01/1984

    Three of the four events that were worse than what we saw this week also happened in the last 100 years.

    * (1) 68.40 ft on 03/20/1936
    (2) 60.60 ft on 04/23/1852
    * (3) 60.57 ft on 09/23/1938
    * (4) 58.84 ft on 05/15/2006

    It is statistically arguable that the storms before 1938 should be compensated for due to engineering changes in the river, but that still leaves 4 high crests.

    * (4) 58.84 ft on 05/15/2006
    * (5) 57.16 ft on 04/07/1987
    * (7) 56.00 ft on 04/06/1960
    * (10) 53.71 ft on 06/01/1984

    Latest reading at 8:30 shows the river at 58.09. Thats the same as the 7:30 reading, so it looks like the river may have crested.

13. K-R-S Says:
    April 17th, 2007 at 10:12 pm

    -b, glad to see your home has been spared. For those that were not spared, as for those not as fortunate, I’m sure the community as a whole will pull together once again to assist those folks.

14. -b Says:
    April 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    The Sun has an excellent video on the flood at Beaver Brook.

    http://extras.lowellsun.com/lowellsun/video/ray/media/storm2.htm

15. waittilnextyr Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am

    It seems that the river crested nearly at the level of 2006 with only about half the amount of rainfall in this area, but maybe the comparison in rainfall was closer in the NH watershed. There also may have been some contribution from snowmelt this year, although it was pretty cold throughout and the snowmelt wouldn’t be so rapid as was experienced in the past couple of days. There may be some change to the river flow itself, such as higher tides restricting the outflow to the ocean, and manmade protections set up in response to last year’s flooding. Maybe the Core of Engineers has to put in place more permanent protections for currently developed property, but at the same time restrict further development along the river while putting in environmentally protected wetlands to act as local reservoirs to absorb the excess water in future events.

    The flood of 1936 was apparently a combination of heavy rain and extreme snowmelt, while 1938 was from the Great NE hurricane. I believe there was a lot of reconstruction of the Merrimack River watershed in the 1940s to mitigate future events such as these. The more recent events (1987, 2006, 2007) imply things are worsening, whether because of just statistical anomalies, Global Warming or development along the river. To the degree it is the latter, we must take action through our local, State and Federal governments, as it is the one over which we have most control.

16. Lynne Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 10:05 am

    I didn’t term this as a 100 year flood, I said if we start seeing 50 or 100 year floods on a regular basis, that is going to cost our economy dearly. And 100 year floods are characterized not by what happened in the last 100 years, but are based on a long term, ‘likelyhood’ calculation. For more, this website has some basic explanations. I’m guessing this qualified for probably at least a 50 year flood - ie, it’s only supposed to statically happen once every 50 years. (2% chance of it happening in any given year.)

    Second, you see the fourth and fifth worst floods in less than one calendar year, and you’re not worried? Just because it happened before? More worrisome to me, is that the northeast US rainfall pattern has changed drastically in spring and fall. There’s definitely a new pattern the last three years, and it’s severe amounts of rainfall just after the peak sunlight intensity in the Gulf and tropics. This, despite drastically different external weather conditions - this year was an el Nino/la Nina year. That should have seriously disrupted any of this new pattern.

    I’m no scientist, but scientists do say that the Gulf and the tropical waters are warmer by a few degrees than they used to be. Couple that with the yearly peak sunlight intensity in spring and autumn equinoxes and I’d say it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think that might cause more evaporation in the tropics, moisture which often finds its way up here.

17. EaBo Clipper Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am

    http://www.redmassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=236

    Take a look. Seems the leveling off had something to do with the dam in Lawrence.

    NOAA predicted a 53.7 ft crest. What happened. This may help to explain it.

18. ~thebull~ Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Here is something to ponder. The earth has been around for 4 billion years. We have been coming out of an ice age that just ended 10000 years ago. At one time Antarctica was tropical. The climate is and always will be changing. Instead of watching CNN for your lastest science news…how about doing some real research and look at the big picture…not just the last 150 years of record keeping. Didn’t it snow in Malibu this year??

19. -b Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    Well said bull.

20. Jason Says:
    April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    We have suffered significant flood damage in certain parts of northwestern Worcester county, and all around the state obviously. Just a reminder that flooding has not been limited to the coastal regions - don’t forget about us in central and western Mass! I haven’t been able to get information from anyone locally on how or if we can possibly get relief funds via FEMA or MEMA. Along with many others in the area, we did not have flood insurance (we are not in a flood plane, there was a flash flood when a river overflowed its banks and basically emptied into our basement further downstream). I haven’t seen anything on the local news about flood relief yet. I know in the past 3 years during spring flooding, there were relief funds made available to affected families after the event. Does Governor Patrick need to request assistance first or declare a state-wide emergency in order to “kick off” any relief efforts? Not sure where to start or who to contact. So far, I’ve talked to my local town manager, DPW and even called MEMA on Monday during the flood event itself with no luck so far…

    Thanks in advance,

    Jason

21. Mr. Lynne Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 1:06 am

    document everything. Get friends to witness.

22. Lynne Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am

    hey bull: how about listening to the vast majority of scientists instead of Republican oil-mogal talking points?

    It’s a myth that the earth has been lots warmer since the dawn of humanity. For the most part, we should be headed into a cooling period en route to the next ice age (if I recall, a mini ice age actually). And we know the last 600,000 years of greenhouse gas levels…because of ice cores. That far predates human civilization, and predates homo sapiens (who developed about 250K ago). Actually, we’re headed to warmer average global temps than in any time since we developed as a species.

    Global warming has been predicted to cause global climate disruption. Overall, the average temporature will be higher, but individual areas will experience that in different ways. In the northeast, that has meant unseasonably cold springs. That doesn’t mean there’s no global warming, unless you listen to the talking points of people who are paid by oil companies, of course.

23. Lynne Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Oh, and while we’re at it, last I checked, only one glacier in the world was NOT receding. Anyone who looks at the dramatic pictures of glaciers which date back to before the last ice age just disappearing in less than a 100 years and says something ain’t about to hit us hard…well, let’s just say I wouldn’t trust you to teach science to my kid.

    And if “global warming” proponants are right? Hey, we get off of fossil fuels which pollute with MORE than just CO2 and we can stop dealing with unstable middle east regimes to get our energy, we’ll have whole new industries of jobs building renewable energy equipment and decentralized power that will allow people to be energy-autonomous…if YOU are wrong? The planet is cooked. Cities will be underwater. Some whole countries will be under water, in fact. Disease and famine will increase. Large regions will undergo desertification, others (like, say, New England?) will be severely flooded, regularly. Our whole GDP will be socked with the cost of climate disaster, with nothing to do to prevent worse from happening because it’s too late.

    I’d rather go my route and avert the worst and end up with a better economy anyway, than be like you and stick my head in the sand hoping the lion doesn’t notice me.

24. EaBo Clipper Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Lynne. 1) The earth is warming. Scientists seem to agree on that. 2) Scientists do not agree on what the effects of that warming will be.

25. Mr. Lynne Says:
    April 19th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    You left out that 3) Scientists do agree that, while not agreeing on specifics, we should all be worried and the clock is ticking.

    With out (3) your statement sounds so benign.

26. Anonymous Says:
    April 24th, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    hi

27. Leon Luc Says:
    April 24th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    hi i like susan phomosahk

Leave a Reply