Boston Harbor Flood Protection Projects

[Delvin4519]

When measuring storm surge in a hurricane in the Northern hemisphere, the highest surge values are on the right-side quadrants of a hurricane .that is traveling poleward. The highest storm surges produced by the Great Hurricane of 1938 are shown in the images below.

The referenced South Street Station dock is at 360 Eddy St. in Providence. What happened in Providence in 1938 is similar, from a phenomenon standpoint, to what happened t in Tampa Bay during Helene. There was no surge in Tampa Bay during Milton.

One would be hard-pressed to develop a scenario where a hurricane would generate a storm surge of 15 feet in Boston Harbor, or on any community facing Massachusetts Bay. Also a hurricane is not a Nor'easter, Sandy's storm surge along the east-facing shoreline of Massachusetts Bay was 2.5-4.5 feet. On the south coast of Massachusetts, Sandy's surge was 4-6 feet. While Sandy and historic nor'easters generated waves of 25 feet in Massachusetts Bay, Boston Harbor is not Scituate

Wouldn't that mean you want a hurricane to track immediately west of Boston to put Boston on the right-hand side of a hurricane? Such a track would put Boston in roughly the same location as Tampa Bay in Helene, or Port Charlotte in Milton. You'd also want a track where the hurricane is pointing due north or NNW.

 

[KCasiglio]

Wouldn't that mean you want a hurricane to track immediately west of Boston to put Boston on the right-hand side of a hurricane? Such a track would put Boston in roughly the same location as Tampa Bay in Helene, or Port Charlotte in Milton. You'd also want a track where the hurricane is pointing due north or NNW.

I'm no meteorologist but while such a scenario is possible, it would still mean Boston wouldn't get the worst storm surge because the storm would be weakened by making landfall somewhere around Providence/FR/NB

 

[stellarfun]

Wouldn't that mean you want a hurricane to track immediately west of Boston to put Boston on the right-hand side of a hurricane? Such a track would put Boston in roughly the same location as Tampa Bay in Helene, or Port Charlotte in Milton. You'd also want a track where the hurricane is pointing due north or NNW.

Hurricane Helene tracked 100 miles to the west of Tampa in the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Hurricane of 1938 made a first landfall in Long Island, and a second landfall near Milford CT. The 1938 Hurricane then tracked to the west of Hartford and Springfield. For a storm surge, a hurricane's right-side quadrants need to be tracking over open water, not over forests and fields. Providence experienced a devastating storm surge because the right-side quadrants of the 1938 hurricane's eye pushed water up Narragansett Bay, about 100 miles east of the CT landfall, and when that surge reached Providence at the northern end of Narragansett Bay, it had no where to go but up.

Because Milton crossed Florida about 70 miles south of Tampa, water was sucked out of Tampa Bay.. The water level in Tampa Bay temporarily dropped by about five feet.
https://apnews.com/article/hurricane-milton-tampa-bay-reverse-surge-3ac00f9d341d6ec5fa024af253f5bdc1

In the Great Hurricane of 1938, the highest recorded wind gust was 186 mph at Blue Hill. The highest waves were 50 feet at Gloucester. Those measurements reflect another hurricane phenomenon. The forward speed of a hurricane tracking northward is added to a hurricane's peak sustained wind in the right quadrants of a hurricane and substracted from the left quadrants. The forward speed of the 1938 hurricane was calculated at 47 mph as it traveled over New England. If the sustained wind of the 1938 Hurricane was 100 mph at Milford CT., the sustained wind at New Haven might be 147 mph, while the sustained wind at Stamford, on the left side of the eye, might be 53 mph.

 

[OldColony]

Communities along Buzzards Bay (further east away from the Long Island/CT landfall) also experienced a devastating storm surge during the 1938 hurricane, causing much damage in towns like Wareham and Bourne. As noted by others, the hurricane traveling over open water pushed water up into the bays and inlets east of landfall, with damage as far east as the Cape.

 

[Delvin4519]

How much of an extra barrier is costal flood protection in Boston Harbor going to be; now with a more hostile federal government in place for the remainder of the decade? Would a Trump administration even be willing to fund a billion dollar seawall to protect a blue city from something they don't even think is real nor exists to begin with?

The existing patchwork of incomplete projects is nowhere near sufficent to protect Boston from the flood risk of hurricanes and storms between now and 2035.

 

[TheRatmeister]

How much of an extra barrier is costal flood protection in Boston Harbor going to be; now with a more hostile federal government in place for the remainder of the decade? Would a Trump administration even be willing to fund a billion dollar seawall to protect a blue city from something they don't even think is real nor exists to begin with?

The existing patchwork of incomplete projects is nowhere near sufficent to protect Boston from the flood risk of hurricanes and storms between now and 2035.

Quite frankly it probably wasn't happening regardless of who won, it will take some catastrophic event for everyone to finally pull their heads out of their asses. Because of the Harbor Islands any South shore barrier should be relatively cheap. Boston also doesn't really need to deal with the consequences to shipping, at least not in the way New York does. Deer Island to Hull only really needs around 2.5 miles of dijk.

There will also need to be measures taken to absorb water on a local level, these were probably always going to be locally funded. Raise the Nahant isthmus to serve as a breakwater, allow for flooding of natural coastal areas, increase the water storage capacity of coastal marshland, etc.

 

[Equilibria]

How much of an extra barrier is costal flood protection in Boston Harbor going to be; now with a more hostile federal government in place for the remainder of the decade? Would a Trump administration even be willing to fund a billion dollar seawall to protect a blue city from something they don't even think is real nor exists to begin with?

The existing patchwork of incomplete projects is nowhere near sufficent to protect Boston from the flood risk of hurricanes and storms between now and 2035.

I'd also point out that the Federal Government isn't the only entity that can spend a billion dollars on something. Cities and states are spending billions on sports stadiums for billionaire owners. The question is whether we get a functioning Legislature that can actually address the funding gap if the Federal Government gets cut to the bone. We can tax, spend, and build here.

States and regions will need to become more self-reliant. Frankly, we should have learned that lesson in 2020 and executed on it during the four years everyone believed Trump's return was inevitable. But as was said above, often you only do it once it's an emergency.

 

[Jeremi]

Boston Harbor is/contains navigable waterways that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Trump could and would just say, "no." Really should have started on January 21, 2021.

 

[bigpicture7]

Navigable waterways are not going to block this. Having / not having billions of dollars is what is going to enable/block this. If some party other than the feds shows up with megabux, the navigable waterways thing becomes a design consideration, not a blocker.

 

[Jeremi]

Navigable waterways are not going to block this. Having / not having billions of dollars is what is going to enable/block this. If some party other than the feds shows up with megabux, the navigable waterways thing becomes a design consideration, not a blocker.

Incorrect. The federal government can, has, and will block projects, regardless of funding source, based purely on political whims. “Navigable waterways” is just the excuse that lets the feds do it. This is the exact reason why New York has a Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and not a Brooklyn-Battery Bridge.

 

[Equilibria]

Incorrect. The federal government can, has, and will block projects, regardless of funding source, based purely on political whims. “Navigable waterways” is just the excuse that lets the feds do it. This is the exact reason why New York has a Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel and not a Brooklyn-Battery Bridge.

Boston rejected the idea of a full flood barrier across navigable waterways in favor of waterfront improvements, raising, seawalls, etc. I don't see how any of that interferes with a navigable waterway.

 

[Jeremi]

Boston rejected the idea of a full flood barrier across navigable waterways in favor of waterfront improvements, raising, seawalls, etc. I don't see how any of that interferes with a navigable waterway.

All that stuff is great but it’s not going to make much of a difference.

 

[bigpicture7]

I really don't understand the point of commenters who post things implying that everything is completely doomed and not worth discussing - yet then they seem to want a discussion. Are they just trying to get absolute validation that their doom view is completely correct?

 

[Jeremi]

Navigable waterways are not going to block this. Having / not having billions of dollars is what is going to enable/block this. If some party other than the feds shows up with megabux, the navigable waterways thing becomes a design consideration, not a blocker.

I'm trying to get across an idea that people need to begin to digest. People in the thread above (Delvin) were discussing the possibility of local/state/regional funding for a harbor flood protection project. I'm trying to explain that it is not going to be possible because the federal government has a veto regardless of where the money comes from:

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899​

That it shall not be lawful to construct or commence the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plans for the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of the Army

Even if you think that a bill to allow a locally-funded flood barrier in Boston Harbor could somehow pass through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, the President (via his Secretary of the Army) will refuse to approve it.

 

[bigpicture7]

No one is disputing that it could be blocked. But, however likely, it is not an absolute that it will. Even in this context. And I would find it hard to imagine it is illegal to design such a structure. It will take years and megabux just to design this. Why would those who care halt all efforts just because of the political climate in 2024?

 

[stellarfun]

I'm trying to get across an idea that people need to begin to digest. People in the thread above (Delvin) were discussing the possibility of local/state/regional funding for a harbor flood protection project. I'm trying to explain that it is not going to be possible because the federal government has a veto regardless of where the money comes from:


Even if you think that a bill to allow a locally-funded flood barrier in Boston Harbor could somehow pass through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, the President (via his Secretary of the Army) will refuse to approve it.

^^^ This is incorrect.

Full text of Section 9.

Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899​

33 U.S.C. 401. Construction of bridges, causeways, dams or dikes generally; exemptions​

It shall not be lawful to construct or commence the construction of any bridge, causeway, dam, or dike over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plans for (1) the bridge or causeway shall have been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or (2) the dam or dike shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army. However, such structures may be built under authority of the legislature of a State across rivers and other waterways the navigable portions of which lie wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army before construction is commenced. When plans for any bridge or other structure have been approved by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army, it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans either before or after completion of the structure unless modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating or the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. The approval required by this section of the location and plans or any modification of plans of any bridge or causeway does not apply to any bridge or causeway over waters that are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and that are not used and are not susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce.

Bolding in the substantive text mine.
Consent of Congress is not required for a Boston flood barrier.

 

[Jeremi]

^^^ This is incorrect.

Full text of Section 9.

Bolding in the substantive text mine.
Consent of Congress is not required for a Boston flood barrier.

1) Federal government could claim that the flood barrier impinges on NPS territory (Harbor Islands), thus requiring an act of Congress.
2) Even if they didn’t, the Secretary of the Army (a political appointee) could just veto the project at the direction of the President.

 

[stellarfun]

1) Federal government could claim that the flood barrier impinges on NPS territory (Harbor Islands), thus requiring an act of Congress.
2) Even if they didn’t, the Secretary of the Army (a political appointee) could just veto the project at the direction of the President.

1.) The law does not carve out an exclusion for Federal lands wholly within the boundaries of a single state.

2.) The Secretary of the Army must act in accordance with the provisions of 33 CFR Part 322. (CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations. You can read 33 CFR Part 322 here.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-33/chapter-II/part-322

If the Secretary of the Army acted in a way inconsistent with the provisions of Part 322, he or she would find themselves in Federal court.

If you were to make an argument that Trump and a Republican Congress would not provide Federal funding for such a barrier, that's a different matter. That is within their discretion. However, I have seen zero indication that the Commonwealth has funded or will fund detailed design studies for such a barrier,. Such design studies would need to be completed and then submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review and approval under Part 322.

 

[Jeremi]

1.) The law does not carve out an exclusion for Federal lands wholly within the boundaries of a single state.

2.) The Secretary of the Army must act in accordance with the provisions of 33 CFR Part 322. (CFR stands for Code of Federal Regulations. You can read 33 CFR Part 322 here.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-33/chapter-II/part-322

If the Secretary of the Army acted in a way inconsistent with the provisions of Part 322, he or she would find themselves in Federal court.

If you were to make an argument that Trump and a Republican Congress would not provide Federal funding for such a barrier, that's a different matter. That is within their discretion. However, I have seen zero indication that the Commonwealth has funded or will fund detailed design studies for such a barrier,. Such design studies would need to be completed and then submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review and approval under Part 322.

The end of both of these scenarios is going to Federal court and the project getting blocked by a 22 year old FedSoc lifetime appointee. I don’t think people realize how openly hostile the federal government is going to be toward blue cities and especially toward climate resilience projects, even ones that are self-funded. And the judiciary is a lost cause. If you need so much as a signature from the Federal government, your project is DOA.