The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 24, 2017, 01:02:10 pm
-
Here are the 66 programs eliminated in Trump's budget
By Niv Elis - 05/23/17 02:03 PM EDT
President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget proposal would completely eliminate 66 federal programs, for a savings of $26.7 billion.
Some of the programs would receive funding for 2018 as part of a phasing-out plan.
Here are the programs the administration wants on the chopping block.
more
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/334768-here-are-the-66-programs-eliminated-in-trumps-budget
-
Really???
Actual CUTS! Be still my heart!
-
I'm glad to see the cuts; especially the State Criminal ALIEN Assistance Program!!!
-
66 pocket-liners. Not my pocket and probably not yours.
-
66 pocket-liners. Not my pocket and probably not yours.
Mostly conduits for funneling public monies into private, and mostly liberal, pockets!
-
I like it! It's a good start, but I would still like to see Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill and Public Broadcasting Indoctrination System on the list. I'm hoping I just missed them while reading...
-
I like it! It's a good start, but I would still like to see Planned Parenthood Abortion Mill and Public Broadcasting Indoctrination System on the list. I'm hoping I just missed them while reading...
"Corporation for Public Broadcasting"
Congress will knock out many if not most of these cuts.
-
Mostly conduits for funneling public monies into private, and mostly liberal, pockets!
A full list of such programs would be extensive and would leave us wondering where the hell the money goes.
-
Well, guys, this so-called budget has to go through our illustrious representatives first, and I hear members of both parties are already squawking over the cuts. This will be watered down considerably.
-
Well, guys, this so-called budget has to go through our illustrious representatives first, and I hear members of both parties are already squawking over the cuts. This will be watered down considerably.
More like entirely!
-
Really???
Actual CUTS! Be still my heart!
Ditto. Yay Trump, for doing something Conservative. Glad to have him on board with this one.
-
Really???
Actual CUTS! Be still my heart!
It wouldn't hurt the credibility of the usual suspects on this forum to lend a positive word to this news, which (I assume) should be welcome by all of us.
-
It wouldn't hurt the credibility of the usual suspects on this forum to lend a positive word to this news, which (I assume) should be welcome by all of us.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/weighttraining.com/challenge_images/163/original.jpg?1311487227)
-
Just think of how much money could be saved if Congress only spent money constitutionally. That would include removing their perks and special insurance and retirement benefits.
-
Hitlery says the budget is cruel, De Blasio says it will kill children, and Pelosi called it a killer. Folks, budgets don't kill people, people kill people! :silly:
-
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program?
Hmmm... There could be long-term costs to this, as development is increasing flood areas and if they aren't reassessed, the government will be undercharging for flood insurance relative to the risk (well, even more than they currently do).
-
Here is a headline we'd never see, "Here are the 66 Programs Eliminated in Hillary's Budget."
-
It wouldn't hurt the credibility of the usual suspects on this forum to lend a positive word to this news, which (I assume) should be welcome by all of us.
@skeeter
Take my advice and don't hold your breath waiting for that!
-
Look, Trump Fans, I will admit this proposal is a good start. Forgive me for not prostrating myself in awe of your hero. But you must understand there will be considerable pushback from the usual suspects in congress. They are not about to let go of the entitlements they use to secure votes in their districts. If half the cuts make it through, it will be a miracle. Of course, I will rejoice if at least some of the cuts make it. But we have to be realistic. It's going to be a tough battle for whatever reductions we get.
-
Just think of how much money could be saved if Congress only spent money constitutionally.
Sounds like something Ted Cruz would say.
-
Look, Trump Fans, I will admit this proposal is a good start. Forgive me for not prostrating myself in awe of your hero. But you must understand there will be considerable pushback from the usual suspects in congress. They are not about to let go of the entitlements they use to secure votes in their districts. If half the cuts make it through, it will be a miracle. Of course, I will rejoice if at least some of the cuts make it. But we have to be realistic. It's going to be a tough battle for whatever reductions we get.
Trump is FAR from "my hero"! Would you be kind enough to show me the last time any president proposed getting rid of anywhere near this amount of government BS?
-
Sometimes you Trumpsters remind me of another NY Liberal
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Jte4r1uBT0w/UPm-uCDpZaI/AAAAAAAALmI/R-Sjxz3boIA/s1600/Mr+Haney.gif)
-
Sometimes you Trumpsters remind me of another NY Liberal
Some people cannot see the forest for the trees it seems!
-
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program?
Hmmm... There could be long-term costs to this, as development is increasing flood areas and if they aren't reassessed, the government will be undercharging for flood insurance relative to the risk (well, even more than they currently do).
How do they eliminate the risk analysis while keeping the National Flood Insurance Program?
-
Sounds like something Ted Cruz would say.
Exactly.
-
Trump is FAR from "my hero"! Would you be kind enough to show me the last time any president proposed getting rid of anywhere near this amount of government BS?
George W. Bush, 2006 - Social Security Ponzi Scheme
-
Nice list. Only two I'm disliking - the NASA education office (which costs pennies and is very effective) and the flood mapping. Mapping threats is a legitimate task of government. Keep the mapping and risk assessment program and get the goverment out of the flood insurance biz instead.
The rest are pure pork.
-
Some people cannot see the forest for the trees it seems!
With all due respect @Bigun Some people refuse to believe Unicorns fart skittles also.
Presidential Budgets are merely 'suggestions' that are rarely adhered to by the a$$holes in Congress and if I may add, if the results of the last Budget process, is any indication it'll look like nothing that was promised.
Trump's Budget Is a Waste of Everybody's Time
Budgets are often dead on arrival, but this one is something new.
by The Editors
May 23, 2017 4:32 PM
President Donald Trump’s first budget is truly remarkable in its unseriousness. To see why, try for a moment to take it seriously.
The plan purports to be fiscally responsible, saying that the national debt will fall from 77 percent now to 60 percent in 2027. A worthy goal, to be sure. At the same time, it calls for tax cuts but no changes in spending on the two main entitlement programs, Medicare and (non-disability) Social Security. To square these ambitious pledges, the budget then needs either a close-to-impossible acceleration in economic growth, or an implausibly severe squeeze on most other kinds of spending.
With characteristically Trumpian disdain for reality, the budget proposes both.
The Trump administration has until now said its planned tax cuts would pay for themselves by pushing economic growth to 3 percent a year -- a claim already seen as outlandish by every serious analyst, liberal and conservative alike. The budget appears to go one better: It says this boost in growth will be sufficient not just to maintain revenue (despite the cut in rates) but will actually raise revenue by $2 trillion over 10 years compared with current policy. Perhaps somebody just made a dumb mistake, counting the revenue from faster growth twice over. With this administration, it’s wise not to rule it out.
<..snip..>
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-23/trump-s-budget-is-a-waste-of-everybody-s-time (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-23/trump-s-budget-is-a-waste-of-everybody-s-time)
-
With all due respect @Bigun Some people refuse to believe Unicorns fart skittles also.
Presidential Budgets are merely 'suggestions' that are rarely adhered to by the a$$holes in Congress and if I may add, if the results of the last Budget process, is any indication it'll look like nothing that was promised.
@corbe
And what the pukes in congress do is totally independent of what the President has suggested! The fact that he has the guts to even suggest this is HIGHLY significant!
-
Exactly.
As impressive as the cuts seem to be, $26.7 billion is still just a drop in the budget bucket, unfortunately.
@Bigun
@Hoodat
-
As impressive as the cuts seem to be, $26.7 billion is still just a drop in the budget bucket, unfortunately.
@Bigun
@Hoodat
@the_doc
Except for the fact that those cuts add up over time! $300 Billion over 10 years if you include AUTOMATIC increases built into the current budgeting process!
-
As impressive as the cuts seem to be, $26.7 billion is still just a drop in the budget bucket, unfortunately.
@Bigun
@Hoodat
How do you walk around the world? You start.
Any start - as in actual permanent cuts, not a smaller than expected increases - is good. Doesn't matter if it saves a billion or 97 cents.
-
How do they eliminate the risk analysis while keeping the National Flood Insurance Program?
Just cover "pre-existing conditions".
I'm all for cutting the size and expense of Government, and laud any attempt to do so (with the possible exception of core, Constitutionally mandated functions). Why, that's a Conservative principle (The government which governs best, governs least.)
The question is how much of this will come out of the Congressional inverter as actual cuts, and not 'Democrat math". (Where the budget is to be increased 100%, that's cut to a 50% increase, and sold as a 50% cut.)
When it's all done, how many 5th generation fighters, ships, and submarines will that build?
-
As impressive as the cuts seem to be, $26.7 billion is still just a drop in the budget bucket, unfortunately.
@Bigun
@Hoodat
It's a small start. I'll take it. It's still better than nothing, which is what we get with the Democrats.
-
It's a small start. I'll take it. It's still better than nothing, which is what we get with the Democrats.
Not only would we not see any proposed cuts with Hillary as president but I'm sure there would be proposed increases, which would mean us paying more taxes.
-
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/weighttraining.com/challenge_images/163/original.jpg?1311487227)
LMAO! Perfect!
-
Not only would we not see any proposed cuts with Hillary as president but I'm sure there would be proposed increases, which would mean us paying more taxes.
Oh hell yeah.
-
How do you walk around the world? You start.
Any start - as in actual permanent cuts, not a smaller than expected increases - is good. Doesn't matter if it saves a billion or 97 cents.
Your metaphor actually underscores my complaint about our crazy economy. I am not sure we have time to "make America great again." Even if our GDP goes up a lot, a European banking crisis could domino over to us in a crushing way. (I believe this scenario was the key to Greenspan's warning last fall. Our dangerous debt problem is not going away any time soon. We are sitting on a bubble of economic unreality.)
I am not blaming Trump in any of this. I am just not sure our problem is fixable.
-
Your metaphor actually underscores my complaint about our crazy economy. I am not sure we have time to "make America great again." Even if our GDP goes up a lot, a European banking crisis could domino over to us in a crushing way. (I believe this scenario was the key to Greenspan's warning last fall. Our dangerous debt problem is not going away any time soon. We are sitting on a bubble of economic unreality.)
I am not blaming Trump in any of this. I am just not sure our problem is fixable.
It most surely isn't if we don't try!
-
Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program?
Hmmm... There could be long-term costs to this, as development is increasing flood areas and if they aren't reassessed, the government will be undercharging for flood insurance relative to the risk (well, even more than they currently do).
That's not exactly correct. Here in Florida at least, if a development encroaches into a flood area then an equal volume of flood area must be added somewhere else that is directly connected to the flood area that is destroyed. Typically that means that a treatment pond will be made with additional volume, but sometimes one flod area is filled in, say on the south side, but more flood area is added on say the west side.
-
Your metaphor actually underscores my complaint about our crazy economy. I am not sure we have time to "make America great again." Even if our GDP goes up a lot, a European banking crisis could domino over to us in a crushing way. (I believe this scenario was the key to Greenspan's warning last fall. Our dangerous debt problem is not going away any time soon. We are sitting on a bubble of economic unreality.)
I am not blaming Trump in any of this. I am just not sure our problem is fixable.
I am by no means an economic expert (far from it).... but is it possible that even 'this' small/first attempt to reduce the debt may actually help to spur and jump-start our economy out of the stagnant state it has been in for the past eight plus years? I would think so.
-
I'm glad to see the cuts; especially the State Criminal ALIEN Assistance Program!!!
Me too. Cuts in the billions were in HHS, State Dept stuff.
I was pleased to see funds cut for NEA (never should have been publically funded) and Public Television (You're on your own, Big Bird).
A few things that should have been cut are missing... especially Planned Parenthood but it's a good start.
-
It most surely isn't if we don't try!
I agree!
-
It wouldn't hurt the credibility of the usual suspects on this forum to lend a positive word to this news, which (I assume) should be welcome by all of us.
I think it would be physically painful for the usual suspects to praise anything, anytime, anywhere.
-
Look, Trump Fans, I will admit this proposal is a good start. Forgive me for not prostrating myself in awe of your hero. But you must understand there will be considerable pushback from the usual suspects in congress. They are not about to let go of the entitlements they use to secure votes in their districts. If half the cuts make it through, it will be a miracle. Of course, I will rejoice if at least some of the cuts make it. But we have to be realistic. It's going to be a tough battle for whatever reductions we get.
I'm all for realism and I'm sure you're right. But how about a moment of silence in appreciation for some needed cuts.
-
Sometimes you Trumpsters remind me of another NY Liberal
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Jte4r1uBT0w/UPm-uCDpZaI/AAAAAAAALmI/R-Sjxz3boIA/s1600/Mr+Haney.gif)
Corbe, my good man. Appreciating some needed budget cuts does not make us Trumpsters.
Please try to remember that.
-
I am by no means an economic expert (far from it).... but is it possible that even 'this' small/first attempt to reduce the debt may actually help to spur and jump-start our economy out of the stagnant state it has been in for the past eight plus years? I would think so.
I believe you are correct (if nothing else, as a matter of the perceptions influencing economics). But time is running pretty short for us in a world system that seems to be trying to destroy all of us, so to speak.
-
(http://finance-commerce.com/files/2017/05/Trump-Budget.jpg)
"Taxpayer First"---is it any wonder Chuckie's breathing into a paper bag?
-
"Corporation for Public Broadcasting"
Congress will knock out many if not most of these cuts.
Correctamundo. That you can bet the farm they will.
-
Me too. Cuts in the billions were in HHS, State Dept stuff.
I was pleased to see funds cut for NEA (never should have been publically funded) and Public Television (You're on your own, Big Bird).
A few things that should have been cut are missing... especially Planned Parenthood but it's a good start.
Even though small, I like the message this cut sends: Justice Department — $210 million · State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
-
Sounds like a lot of cuts to programs that funnel money to liberal orgs.
-
I am by no means an economic expert (far from it).... but is it possible that even 'this' small/first attempt to reduce the debt may actually help to spur and jump-start our economy out of the stagnant state it has been in for the past eight plus years? I would think so.
The Obama administration had an oil boom going on with plenty of money going around. Smaller businesses were held back by the ACA from expanding, other businesses as well. They fought the oil boom every inch of the way, and despite them, the price of gasoline is half what it was. That should have spurred growth, too, but the ACA was in the way.
People lost insurance, were penalized for not having insurance, businesses didn't expand, and those who kept insurance had to pay more out for the same things they used to have covered for less, so the insurance/healthcare sector sucked up the seed money for the economy getting out of the doldrums. Hopefully, we can over come that if Congress will shut down that giant sucking sound (It isn't from the swamp draining).
I'm beginning to see a pattern there, in what might be holding the economy back some...
-
As impressive as the cuts seem to be, $26.7 billion is still just a drop in the budget bucket, unfortunately.
@Bigun
@Hoodat
Got to start somewhere. Just taking a step in the right direction makes me shiver with anticipation.
(https://lunkiandsika.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tim-curry-frank-n-furter-in-drag-rocky-horror-picture-show.png)
-
The Obama administration had an oil boom going on with plenty of money going around. Smaller businesses were held back by the ACA from expanding, other businesses as well. They fought the oil boom every inch of the way, and despite them, the price of gasoline is half what it was. That should have spurred growth, too, but the ACA was in the way.
People lost insurance, were penalized for not having insurance, businesses didn't expand, and those who kept insurance had to pay more out for the same things they used to have covered for less, so the insurance/healthcare sector sucked up the seed money for the economy getting out of the doldrums. Hopefully, we can over come that if Congress will shut down that giant sucking sound (It isn't from the swamp draining).
I'm beginning to see a pattern there, in what might be holding the economy back some...
I've been seeing that same pattern (deliberate sabotage of the economy) from the Obama administration for the past eight years .... and before that by the Democratic Party during George Bush's presidency. So yeah, the ACA is probably going to keep us from recovering. Especially if/when the GOPe solution to the ACA is a watered down version. Depressing....
-
How do they eliminate the risk analysis while keeping the National Flood Insurance Program?
"Recklessly"
(I.e., that's exactly my point...)
-
That's not exactly correct. Here in Florida at least, if a development encroaches into a flood area then an equal volume of flood area must be added somewhere else that is directly connected to the flood area that is destroyed. Typically that means that a treatment pond will be made with additional volume, but sometimes one flod area is filled in, say on the south side, but more flood area is added on say the west side.
@RoosGirl
That helps, but doesn't totally offset the problem. Development increases flooding even when not in flood areas, by preventing infiltration to groundwater (so all the water runs off to streams), and making the delivery of rainfall to surfacewater bodies faster (which leads to higher peaks, rather than more gradual [and lower] peaking).
-
I've been seeing that same pattern (deliberate sabotage of the economy) from the Obama administration for the past eight years .... and before that by the Democratic Party during George Bush's presidency. So yeah, the ACA is probably going to keep us from recovering. Especially if/when the GOPe solution to the ACA is a watered down version. Depressing....
Thanks, guys.
I started out feeling good about some of the budget cuts but ten minutes over here .....
-
Just cover "pre-existing conditions".
The problem I have is conditions significantly change with major construction and it is difficult for any individual to tell the impact of the change.
I'm near the end of a 800 mile river with the expansion of greater Houston coming my way. Like the USDA and FDA, they provide information on the risks to others created by companies and even local governments. The building of levees and dams hundreds of miles away can greatly impact tens or hundreds of thousand people and their homes.
In this type of area, flood maps greatly change. A single new major subdivision commonly build levees that change the flood risks over 10 square miles and indirectly impacts another 25~50 square miles.
I'm all for cutting the size and expense of Government, and laud any attempt to do so (with the possible exception of core, Constitutionally mandated functions). Why, that's a Conservative principle (The government which governs best, governs least.)
The question is how much of this will come out of the Congressional inverter as actual cuts, and not 'Democrat math". (Where the budget is to be increased 100%, that's cut to a 50% increase, and sold as a 50% cut.)
When it's all done, how many 5th generation fighters, ships, and submarines will that build?
I'm for cutting government as well. But the combination of providing the insurance while discontinuing the risk assessment set up the taxpayer to cover unknown future losses.
-
Thanks, guys.
I started out feeling good about some of the budget cuts but ten minutes over here .....
See? I knew we could cheer you up!
Despite that damper on growth, I think we will see some recovery unless someone does something to kill it. First, do no harm, and all that.
-
Thanks, guys.
I started out feeling good about some of the budget cuts but ten minutes over here .....
66 programs proposed to be cut and I have concerns with one of them. Concerns of wasted taxpayer money by keeping the insurance but eliminating the risk analysis.
In other words, a pretty darn good list.
Now lets work on the few rough edges.
-
I'm for cutting government as well. But the combination of providing the insurance while discontinuing the risk assessment set up the taxpayer to cover unknown future losses.
I agree. The "preexisting conditions" crack was a poke at the ACA, too, which is already an example of where that sort of policy can go.
-
@RoosGirl
That helps, but doesn't totally offset the problem. Development increases flooding even when not in flood areas, by preventing infiltration to groundwater (so all the water runs off to streams), and making the delivery of rainfall to surfacewater bodies faster (which leads to higher peaks, rather than more gradual [and lower] peaking).
No, sorry, that is not correct. When you add impervious area (buildings, paving, etc), at least here in Florida, I cannot speak for other states, you have to take that area into account for both treatment and attenuation. Meaning, you have to hold that water for a certain amount of time. In high infiltration areas, like the Wekiva basin, you additionally have to account for the water that would normally infiltrate into the ground and account for it in your stormwater treatment for the site.
Because of our obvious water/flooding problems, Florida was ahead of the curve in requiring treatment and attenuation, but I think most states have pretty much caught up by now with their stormwater regulations, spurred on by the EPA generating stricter requirements.
-
No, sorry, that is not correct. When you add impervious area (buildings, paving, etc), at least here in Florida, I cannot speak for other states, you have to take that area into account for both treatment and attenuation. Meaning, you have to hold that water for a certain amount of time. In high infiltration areas, like the Wekiva basin, you additionally have to account for the water that would normally infiltrate into the ground and account for it in your stormwater treatment for the site.
Because of our obvious water/flooding problems, Florida was ahead of the curve in requiring treatment and attenuation, but I think most states have pretty much caught up by now with their stormwater regulations, spurred on by the EPA generating stricter requirements.
So what! Cut it anyway! Do you imagine that the states can't figure out where they have flooding problems without the fedgov?
-
The problem I have is conditions significantly change with major construction and it is difficult for any individual to tell the impact of the change.
I'm near the end of a 800 mile river with the expansion of greater Houston coming my way. Like the USDA and FDA, they provide information on the risks to others created by companies and even local governments. The building of levees and dams hundreds of miles away can greatly impact tens or hundreds of thousand people and their homes.
In this type of area, flood maps greatly change. A single new major subdivision commonly build levees that change the flood risks over 10 square miles and indirectly impacts another 25~50 square miles.
I'm for cutting government as well. But the combination of providing the insurance while discontinuing the risk assessment set up the taxpayer to cover unknown future losses.
I can't believe the state would allow an upstream dam/levee to be built that has a negative impact on anyone downstream. Seems like that would just lead to a ton of lawsuits and insurance claims, not to mention possible loss of life.
-
So what! Cut it anyway! Do you imagine that the states can't figure out where they have flooding problems without the fedgov?
I'm not really arguing one way or the other that this is within FedGov pervue. Certainly any state could set up a program within some existing department to manage and maintain the FIRMs. But, doing away with it completely makes no sense. The information is absolutely needed for future safe development.
-
I welcome virtually any cuts the federal government makes, particularly in areas where it has no constitutional authority being.
That being said these are not cuts until they actually become law. And we are far from that. I'll grant kudos when/if it actually happens.
-
I agree. The "preexisting conditions" crack was a poke at the ACA, too, which is already an example of where that sort of policy can go.
Why is the federal government in the flood insurance business to begin with? And under what authority are they doing it?
-
Why is the federal government in the flood insurance business to begin with? And under what authority are they doing it?
A most excellent question that would lead to a million similar ones should it ever be answered!
-
Why is the federal government in the flood insurance business to begin with? And under what authority are they doing it?
The government is in the flood insurance business because insurance companies are not willing to sell flood insurance to people who live in flood plains. The worst part of all is that once that person gets flooded, the government pays out all the money for that person to rebuild on the exact same spot, and then offers them the exact same deal on government flood insurance. Four years later, the place gets flooded again, and the government repeats the routine.
No insurance company in their right mind would do this. But then no insurance company has their own printing press either.
-
It wouldn't hurt the credibility of the usual suspects on this forum to lend a positive word to this news, which (I assume) should be welcome by all of us.
If I am among the usual suspects... It's nice. I guess.
But over all, not all it's Trumped up to be. Ask me when it is an actual reduction in spending and not just yet another reduction in increase.
-
If I am among the usual suspects... It's nice. I guess.
But over all, not all it's Trumped up to be. Ask me when it is an actual reduction in spending and not just yet another reduction in increase.
Something similar was demanded during the GOP ObamaCare 'Repeal and Replace' effort, that we should be positive in our words to the efforts they were making at 'fixing' ObamaCare.
I do not hold my breath when it comes to government 'fixing' anything or eliminating any spending.
As Reagan said, "A government program is the closest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth".
-
If I am among the usual suspects... It's nice. I guess.
But over all, not all it's Trumped up to be. Ask me when it is an actual reduction in spending and not just yet another reduction in increase.
This budget proposal would eleminate entire programs my friend which means there are REAL honest to God cuts in there. Not that this congress will enact them mind you but they are in the proposal which itself is progress!
-
uh huh
Trillions Go Missing from the Military: Pentagon Can't Account for $6.5T in Taxpayer Cash
-
Something similar was demanded during the GOP ObamaCare 'Repeal and Replace' effort, that we should be positive in our words to the efforts they were making at 'fixing' ObamaCare.
I do not hold my breath when it comes to government 'fixing' anything or eliminating any spending.
As Reagan said, "A government program is the closest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth".
That's right.
-
This budget proposal would eleminate entire programs my friend which means there are REAL honest to God cuts in there. Not that this congress will enact them mind you but they are in the proposal which itself is progress!
@Bigun
I don't know. I know Rush admitted there were no cuts overall... just reduction of increase.
And 50B is a drop in the bucket. A balanced budget is somewhere around a $1T cut in spending.
So when they get in that neighborhood, expect joy from me.
But this? Just rearranging the deck chairs.
-
Outstanding, about time!
-
Look, Trump Fans, I will admit this proposal is a good start. Forgive me for not prostrating myself in awe of your hero. But you must understand there will be considerable pushback from the usual suspects in congress. They are not about to let go of the entitlements they use to secure votes in their districts. If half the cuts make it through, it will be a miracle. Of course, I will rejoice if at least some of the cuts make it. But we have to be realistic. It's going to be a tough battle for whatever reductions we get.
This is true, but does that not make congress the villain instead of Trump?
Whatever Congress does, this President has submitted some cuts, many if not all that, we can agree on.
-
So what! Cut it anyway! Do you imagine that the states can't figure out where they have flooding problems without the fedgov?
Ultimately zoning and permitting have to pass muster at the county/city level anyway.
While that doesn't mean it will be done wisely, that's where the rubber meets the road.
-
I can't believe the state would allow an upstream dam/levee to be built that has a negative impact on anyone downstream. Seems like that would just lead to a ton of lawsuits and insurance claims, not to mention possible loss of life.
Normally, no. But if You are on the Missouri in one state and someone builds levees in another that can impact folks miles away. Still, the States along the river could establish multi state compacts to deal with the issues affecting the watershed.
-
I'm not really arguing one way or the other that this is within FedGov pervue. Certainly any state could set up a program within some existing department to manage and maintain the FIRMs. But, doing away with it completely makes no sense. The information is absolutely needed for future safe development.
The Corps of Engineers should have all that data FWIW, as it has asserted jurisdiction over all navigable waterways in the US.
-
Ultimately zoning and permitting have to pass muster at the county/city level anyway.
While that doesn't mean it will be done wisely, that's where the rubber meets the road.
I would much rather see it at the state level. That makes more sense given that watersheds don't follow county boundaries. I think it would be more consistent.
-
Something similar was demanded during the GOP ObamaCare 'Repeal and Replace' effort, that we should be positive in our words to the efforts they were making at 'fixing' ObamaCare.
I do not hold my breath when it comes to government 'fixing' anything or eliminating any spending.
As Reagan said, "A government program is the closest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth".
The time to provide input is when the iron is in the forge, not after it is quenched.
-
The Corps of Engineers should have all that data FWIW, as it has asserted jurisdiction over all navigable waterways in the US.
Flood zones aren't necessarily navigable waters though.
-
Flood zones aren't necessarily navigable waters though.
No, but river flows and flood data should be. If the crest is at X feet, and the river is within its banks at X-n, then anything within n feet, topographically, of the normal river level that isn't well protected will flood. GIS data should enable the rest to be mapped without too much trouble.
Recall "navigable waters" have the traditional definition of anything which will float a log.
-
No, but river flows and flood data should be. If the crest is at X feet, and the river is within its banks at X-n, then anything within n feet, topographically, of the normal river level that isn't well protected will flood. GIS data should enable the rest to be mapped without too much trouble.
Recall "navigable waters" have the traditional definition of anything which will float a log.
But, flood zones aren't always associated with rivers. Some places are just really low and have poor soil drainage and/or high water table and during a large storm event will flood. The FIRM maps show flood zones out to areas that flood for a 500 year storm and those areas must be accounted for if developed within.
-
I would much rather see it at the state level. That makes more sense given that watersheds don't follow county boundaries. I think it would be more consistent.
Flooding potential in topographically complex scenarios involving commercial and real estate development projects are always evaluated by extraordinarily tedious computer programs (stochastic hydrology) that ignore county lines for purposes of studying any given area of concern. I believe adjacent counties would always cooperate fully in these studies. (Besides, civil engineering blunders that back up flood waters into other counties due to inadequate water shedding would be blunders that Professional Civil Engineers don't want to make.)
@Smokin Joe
-
This is true, but does that not make congress the villain instead of Trump?
Whatever Congress does, this President has submitted some cuts, many if not all that, we can agree on.
Mostly yes, but... Trump is the leader of the party and if he's serious about these cuts he need to make the case publicly with force to put pressure on congress. That's his job.
-
Flooding potential in topographically complex scenarios involving commercial and real estate development projects are always evaluated by extraordinarily tedious computer programs (stochastic hydrology) that ignore county lines for purposes of studying any given area of concern. I believe adjacent counties would always cooperate fully in these studies. (Besides, civil engineering blunders that back up flood waters into other counties due to inadequate water shedding would be blunders that Professional Civil Engineers don't want to make.)
@Smokin Joe
Speaking as a civil engineer, that would be a horror for permitting. You would have to submit to and get approval from any county that the overall watershed covers, as opposed to currently FEMA for the flood map revision approval, or as I suggested above the state. Having used the software to do such modeling, I would not describe it as extraordinarily tedious, but perhaps that is just my perspective of it.
-
But, flood zones aren't always associated with rivers. Some places are just really low and have poor soil drainage and/or high water table and during a large storm event will flood. The FIRM maps show flood zones out to areas that flood for a 500 year storm and those areas must be accounted for if developed within.
I agree.
Any area that has historically flooded should be documented already, but that does not mean new ones cannot be created by construction, highway projects, and alterations to surface permeability.
Topographic contour data should be available in GIS format or hard copy as well, which permit the delineation of drainages, whether highly organized, estuaries, or inland basins.
While the Corps may not have everything, I'd wager the 'intermittent wetlands' are documented either there, or at EPA who has had dreams of (and actual accounts of) suing people for filling low spots in their yard after deeming that low spot to be an 'intermittent wetland'. Soils data should be able to confirm or deny wetland status in the past.
The 100, 200, and 500 year flood plains are an actuarial feature, based on topographic information and anticipated flood volumes.
Anything which impedes the flow of water through the watershed at a specific volume must be taken into account, whether levees, bridges, culverts, or the like because it can create impoundments at that flow rate and above which would not exist at normal flows, that complicates the problem, because the duration of high flow states will affect the amount of water caught in that and how far it spreads over any given topography.
Overtopping or destruction of those impounding features can relieve the impoundment beyond that stage, but there will still be additional areas inundated as the water rises.
It is complex enough that you'd want competent hydrologists working on the problem, just from the viewpoint of the impact of additional structures or impermeable surfaces changing the flow characteristics of the watershed, be that a river or a natural (or even artificial) impoundment.
Those personnel will cost money, and it is more likely that competent personnel could batter be retained at the State Level and have the resources available to adequately assess the impact of proposed construction, than at the local level, unless that locale is a major urban area. .
-
impermeable surfaces changing the flow characteristics of the watershed
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot? @Smokin Joe
-
I agree.
Any area that has historically flooded should be documented already, but that does not mean new ones cannot be created by construction, highway projects, and alterations to surface permeability.
Topographic contour data should be available in GIS format or hard copy as well, which permit the delineation of drainages, whether highly organized, estuaries, or inland basins.
While the Corps may not have everything, I'd wager the 'intermittent wetlands' are documented either there, or at EPA who has had dreams of (and actual accounts of) suing people for filling low spots in their yard after deeming that low spot to be an 'intermittent wetland'. Soils data should be able to confirm or deny wetland status in the past.
The 100, 200, and 500 year flood plains are an actuarial feature, based on topographic information and anticipated flood volumes.
Anything which impedes the flow of water through the watershed at a specific volume must be taken into account, whether levees, bridges, culverts, or the like because it can create impoundments at that flow rate and above which would not exist at normal flows, that complicates the problem, because the duration of high flow states will affect the amount of water caught in that and how far it spreads over any given topography.
Overtopping or destruction of those impounding features can relieve the impoundment beyond that stage, but there will still be additional areas inundated as the water rises.
It is complex enough that you'd want competent hydrologists working on the problem, just from the viewpoint of the impact of additional structures or impermeable surfaces changing the flow characteristics of the watershed, be that a river or a natural (or even artificial) impoundment.
Those personnel will cost money, and it is more likely that competent personnel could batter be retained at the State Level and have the resources available to adequately assess the impact of proposed construction, than at the local level, unless that locale is a major urban area. .
If you've looked at a FIRM, which it sounds like you have, you will recall that many areas are designated flood zone but do not have an elevation associated with them. The civil engineer for whatever project to be built should be the one doing the work. The state level, currently the federal level, that we are talking about would be reviewing and essentially agreeing or disagreeing or in most cases asking for further information.
-
If you've looked at a FIRM, which it sounds like you have, you will recall that many areas are designated flood zone but do not have an elevation associated with them. The civil engineer for whatever project to be built should be the one doing the work. The state level, currently the federal level, that we are talking about would be reviewing and essentially agreeing or disagreeing or in most cases asking for further information.
That information may not be displayed in that format, but it is readily available, and with decent GPS and a 4-wheeler, can be obtained just about anywhere if the terrain has been altered. THis is why I brought up GIS, it allows overlay of different data sets, and could facilitate evaluation of a site or the effects of alterations both upstream and down, or in a localized area.
-
That information may not be displayed in that format, but it is readily available, and with decent GPS and a 4-wheeler, can be obtained just about anywhere if the terrain has been altered. THis is why I brought up GIS, it allows overlay of different data sets, and could facilitate evaluation of a site or the effects of alterations both upstream and down, or in a localized area.
Readily available for us (civil eng), when it gets to project level, generally means survey of the site, but topo maps can give adequate info for some rough estimates, or if you're doing a huge watershed analysis. But my experience has been that huge watershed analysis are rare. For any development you would want a survey and the permitting entity would require one. Again, speaking within Florida only. The big watersheds here are and have been defined for quite some time. It's really just site development that results in FIRM map revisions and on occassion the development is far enough away from a defined flood elevation that we get the geotech engineers to look at the survey and then go out and dig holes and then work out what the actual flood elevation is.
But, back to the FEMA FIRMs, it should be a fairly simple thing to move those to a state level, but yes will involve some state funding to maintain.
-
Hooo...
Y'all are way up pver my head. Didn't know it was all that complicated.
As a landscaper for many years, it was covered in two simple rules:
1. Water goes downhill.
2. Green side up.
-
Hooo...
Y'all are way up pver my head. Didn't know it was all that complicated.
As a landscaper for many years, it was covered in two simple rules:
1. Water goes downhill.
2. Green side up.
888high58888
Those are the basics, all right! Another way to think of it, though, is as surface plumbing. It backs up every now and then.
-
Hooo...
Y'all are way up pver my head. Didn't know it was all that complicated.
As a landscaper for many years, it was covered in two simple rules:
1. Water goes downhill.
2. Green side up.
Hah, see, it ain't all that complicated. Our professional mantra is $hit flows downhill. But generally, lots of blabber about specific things that don't really matter much to the topic, except to perhaps explain why not everything can or should be dealt with at the local level. Though certainly much that is currently overseen at the Fed level is nonsense.
@roamer_1
@Smokin Joe
-
I can't believe the state would allow an upstream dam/levee to be built that has a negative impact on anyone downstream. Seems like that would just lead to a ton of lawsuits and insurance claims, not to mention possible loss of life.
We have many dams that were built for flood control as the justification of the cost.
Now, decades later, many of those are operated to maintain water supply, keeping them as full as possible and negating the flood control capability. The cash flow of being able to sell water, especially during multi-year droughts is a siren call.
Levees have been built in flood plains for more housing near urban areas. Although they do retain water as you described for the area they cover, they no longer allow the river to swell outwards during a heavy rain event. That area that previously flood is now protected and the river piles up higher creating problems in other areas.
-
The government is in the flood insurance business because insurance companies are not willing to sell flood insurance to people who live in flood plains.
I think the history is worse. Companies would sell the insurance then go into bankruptcy after a flood event providing no insurance for the premiums paid.