spartan7886
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 14:04:22 GMT -5
Posts: 788
|
Post by spartan7886 on Sept 2, 2017 20:45:11 GMT -5
The people in the Houston area stepped up and started clean up right away instead of where is the government cleanup people wanted after Katrina. Katrina displaced complained about being served ham sandwiches instead of McDonalds. They were too used to having everything their way. A Texan would eat and thank you for serving prepared snake or tarantilla. The people in Houston are mostly still in Houston, and there are a lot more of us who don't have trouble of our own and can go help each other. After Katrina, the government called a mandatory evacuation of the entire city for a period of time. However necessary it may have been, that made houses that could have been salvaged much worse. I knew people who didn't even have water in their home who had to throw out upholstered furniture due to mold after Katrina.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,353
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 2, 2017 20:58:09 GMT -5
The current powers that be want to cut money to the EPA and eventually (if they get their way) dismantle it, yet now we have this: www.yahoo.com/news/ap-exclusive-toxic-waste-sites-172100290.htmlI can't copy text on my iPAD, but there are 7 (seven) superfund sites in and around Houston that are flooded. And then there is the executive order signed recently by our *****-in-Chief that removed the requirement to use federal building funds to be used such that (re)building be such that risk of flooding and such would be minimized. Add in the Texas legilature that removed restrictions on chemical plants, leading to the Arkema plant fire, and yes people, events like these will continue to be exacerbated by politicians with $$-signs in their eyes. The world will never be safe, hurricanes will happen, as will tornados, droughts, earthquakes, etc. But the only way to minimize the human misery caused by them is if we get leadership that focuses on the greater good of the country and not on who I chose to have sex with, or even worse, whether it will secure their next election. And yes, despite the despicable behavior of the Texas contingent in Congress after Sandy, I believe we have to help the people in Texas.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Sept 2, 2017 21:51:40 GMT -5
It's a slippery slope, though. How strict do zoning regulations have to be? There are areas with floods and earthquakes and tornadoes and snow and ice storms and uncontrollable fires. That doesn't leave much area for "safe" housing. Like I said - when we got a lot of snow a few years ago many many people were having roof problems - either extensive, into the wall leaks or roofs collapsing. So, does that mean govt should prohibit homes with architectural shingles and only allow metal roofs in this area? Regardless, some folks try to make others responsible for their poor decisions. For example, about 15 years ago a couple built an expensive new home in upscale Anaheim Hills, CA and filled it with new furniture. The next winter, a series of unusual rain storms caused the soil to slide and the house to be declared unfit for habitation. The house was so dangerous the county wouldn't even let the owner go in and remove the furniture. The home owners tried to claim the county never should have allowed building on the lot and that the county should reimburse them for the loss of their home and possessions. But, it turns out that the homeowner had multiple contractors, including a family friend, refuse to build on that lot without building the house on pilings to stabilize the building against soil movement. Finally the homeowner found a contractor who didn't recognize the risks or who didn't care. By the way, the house next door, which was built on pilings, handled the rain without damage. HTH did they get the inspector to sign off on it? We built a 10x12 deck that sits 1-2 feet off the ground. We had to put in 8 pilings to support this thing, inspector coming by before the concrete went down in the holes. For a little friggin deck, which if it fell with people on it, might cause some bumps and bruises. Perhaps a broken flower pot.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 19:41:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 22:10:29 GMT -5
So what SHOULD happen to the 80% of people who lived in Houston who didn't have flood insurance? That's the number I read in USA Today this morning.
Like you and me, they probably have mortgages. The mortgages didn't get wiped away with their houses. So you are talking about millions of people who owe on mortgages but have no livable housing.
We can let these people go bankrupt. That's the only way I could write off my mortgage if I don't rebuild. If they go bankrupt, the federal government will have to subsidize the banks holding these loans by letting them write off their losses. Is it better to subsidize the people hurt or the banks?
I don't know the answer, but I suggested to my husband that flood insurance should be part of homeowner's insurance. It shouldn't be separated out. Don't they let the people in California have fire insurance even though fire is a real threat? If flood insurance was part of everyone's homeowner's insurance, the cost would be spread around. My insurance company doesn't refuse to write tornado insurance even though I'm in what is referred to as tornado alley. They spread the cost of insuring my home against tornadoes among all their policy holders.
If everyone had flood insurance, then insurance companies couldn't try to weasel out by calling stuff flood damage as opposed to wind damage. A hurricane is wind damage. You wouldn't have the flood damage without it.
Yes, universal flood insurance means some of us would pay more for insurance. But I don't think the federal government should subsidize the insurance companies (that's what it amounts to) by covering a major peril. Why not all perils, then?
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 3, 2017 0:58:17 GMT -5
So what SHOULD happen to the 80% of people who lived in Houston who didn't have flood insurance? That's the number I read in USA Today this morning. Like you and me, they probably have mortgages. The mortgages didn't get wiped away with their houses. So you are talking about millions of people who owe on mortgages but have no livable housing. We can let these people go bankrupt. That's the only way I could write off my mortgage if I don't rebuild. If they go bankrupt, the federal government will have to subsidize the banks holding these loans by letting them write off their losses. Is it better to subsidize the people hurt or the banks? I don't know the answer, but I suggested to my husband that flood insurance should be part of homeowner's insurance. It shouldn't be separated out. Don't they let the people in California have fire insurance even though fire is a real threat? If flood insurance was part of everyone's homeowner's insurance, the cost would be spread around. My insurance company doesn't refuse to write tornado insurance even though I'm in what is referred to as tornado alley. They spread the cost of insuring my home against tornadoes among all their policy holders. If everyone had flood insurance, then insurance companies couldn't try to weasel out by calling stuff flood damage as opposed to wind damage. A hurricane is wind damage. You wouldn't have the flood damage without it. Yes, universal flood insurance means some of us would pay more for insurance. But I don't think the federal government should subsidize the insurance companies (that's what it amounts to) by covering a major peril. Why not all perils, then? what you're talking about would address flood losses. But, what you are talking about is forcing everyone to participate in paying for the relatively higher risk decisions of just a small portion of the population. When I choose to skydive or scuba dive or drive race cars, I pay higher life insurance premiums to reflect the risks that I choose to assume. When someone chooses to buy a house built on marsh land or a flood plain or the sea shore, why should I be forced to absorb risk that is the consequence of that other person's decision? All that indemnification from the consequences of risky decisions does is encourage people to make risky decisions.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 3:20:51 GMT -5
My flood insurance is part of my mortgage payment. I don't have any choice.
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,703
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Sept 3, 2017 5:34:59 GMT -5
My flood insurance is part of my mortgage payment. I don't have any choice. Same here. My flood, homeowners, and property tax are all escrowed out of my total monthly mortgage payment. My mortgage fluctuates annually based on whether premiums or taxes have gone up or down.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 3, 2017 5:41:59 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 19:41:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 7:22:55 GMT -5
j I don't know the answer, but I suggested to my husband that flood insurance should be part of homeowner's insurance. It shouldn't be separated out. Don't they let the people in California have fire insurance even though fire is a real threat? If flood insurance was part of everyone's homeowner's insurance, the cost would be spread around. My insurance company doesn't refuse to write tornado insurance even though I'm in what is referred to as tornado alley. They spread the cost of insuring my home against tornadoes among all their policy holders. <snip> Yes, universal flood insurance means some of us would pay more for insurance. But I don't think the federal government should subsidize the insurance companies (that's what it amounts to) by covering a major peril. Why not all perils, then? If flood insurance were truly priced according to the risk, it would be unaffordable for some. My sister and BIL on Hilton Head (not oceanfront) were paying $8K/year on a house worth about $800K before they sold it a few years ago. They could afford it, they just got tired of paying it- and that was with government subsidies to the flood insurance program and some "flattening" of rates. It's more frequent and affects wider areas when it happens. I'm in Tornado Alley, too and the extra cost of insuring windstorms isn't that high (I pay $2K year TOTAL for a $250K house). And insurers don't spread the cost of tornadoes among all their policyholders. Rates are state-specific and must be approved by state insurance departments and I assure you the state of Idaho will not approve rates that include a subsidy for tornadoes in Kansas. The windstorm component is developed using catastrophe models which are, in turn, based on historic tornado patterns in your area.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 19:41:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 7:24:34 GMT -5
So it's ok to force everyone to pay for these things through mandatory insurance to a for profit entity, but not through government?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 3, 2017 8:46:25 GMT -5
The people in the Houston area stepped up and started clean up right away instead of where is the government cleanup people wanted after Katrina. Katrina displaced complained about being served ham sandwiches instead of McDonalds. They were too used to having everything their way. A Texan would eat and thank you for serving prepared snake or tarantilla. I've noticed that to. There seems to be a significant difference in the attitudes of the people affected by Harvey versus Katrina. I hate to see the devestation Harvey brought to Texas but watching the news coverage restores my faith in humanity...until the idiots start harping on melania's choice of shoes
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 3, 2017 8:54:22 GMT -5
I don't know much about Houston. I do think they people are responsible for foreseen perils and the government should not bail them out. But if this is truly an 800 year flood to me, that is an unforeseen peril. A bank will not mortgage a property in a flood zone if you do not carry flood insurance. And if you try to drop it, the bank is notified and they pay the premiums and add it to the mortgage. That tells me that a lot of these people were not in your typical flood zones. I can be considered a heartless person because I believe in personal responsibility. But at the same time, if your area is hit by something that never would have been expected I don't know how you protect yourself from that. So I am ok with the taxpayers helping out.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 3, 2017 9:17:15 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. Said the conservative queen of "Whataboutits".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 3, 2017 9:29:59 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. Not that truth and facts have ever mattered to Shooby: No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that. No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 9:41:12 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. Not that truth and facts have ever mattered to Shooby: No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that. No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing' More from the article: I really wish people had higher standards. What is the old saying, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?"
|
|
Bonny
Junior Associate
Joined: Nov 17, 2013 10:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 7,437
Location: No Place Like Home!
|
Post by Bonny on Sept 3, 2017 11:09:14 GMT -5
So what SHOULD happen to the 80% of people who lived in Houston who didn't have flood insurance? That's the number I read in USA Today this morning. Like you and me, they probably have mortgages. The mortgages didn't get wiped away with their houses. So you are talking about millions of people who owe on mortgages but have no livable housing.
We can let these people go bankrupt. That's the only way I could write off my mortgage if I don't rebuild. If they go bankrupt, the federal government will have to subsidize the banks holding these loans by letting them write off their losses. Is it better to subsidize the people hurt or the banks?I don't know the answer, but I suggested to my husband that flood insurance should be part of homeowner's insurance. It shouldn't be separated out. Don't they let the people in California have fire insurance even though fire is a real threat? If flood insurance was part of everyone's homeowner's insurance, the cost would be spread around. My insurance company doesn't refuse to write tornado insurance even though I'm in what is referred to as tornado alley. They spread the cost of insuring my home against tornadoes among all their policy holders. If everyone had flood insurance, then insurance companies couldn't try to weasel out by calling stuff flood damage as opposed to wind damage. A hurricane is wind damage. You wouldn't have the flood damage without it. Yes, universal flood insurance means some of us would pay more for insurance. But I don't think the federal government should subsidize the insurance companies (that's what it amounts to) by covering a major peril. Why not all perils, then? Looks like TX is a Trust Deed state meaning that when the lender forecloses it can only go after the property and not the borrower (other than affecting their credit rating). And of course every state is different in terms of what kind of loans qualify for this kind of recourse. In CA and AZ this provision only applies to purchase money acquisitions and refinances which do not exceed the original purchase money loan amounts. There is also an exception to those situations where the lender believes there was fraud and can choose to do a judicial foreclosure which could result in a personal judgement against the borrower. They are rare because they are so expensive and slow but it's possible.
In theory this means that the investors that lent their money will take it in the shorts unless they have purchased some kind of insurance. But as we know from the mortgage melt-down our monetary system is so inter-connected that a default goes all the way to individual investors who thought they had invested in "safe" investments.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,468
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 3, 2017 11:17:59 GMT -5
Moral Hazard- should tax dollars be used for flooded homes? Taking Steps Back from the Immediate I heard of a lesson given to middle school students studying geography. They were given a paper with a land mass showing rivers and shoreline printed on it. They were to "populate" it as they imagined it would be done if people moved onto the land mass. After they had done that, they were given a map showing the same land mass, which was Australia, with existing population centers shown. The teacher said that most did a good job to putting people in theory where they had put themselves in reality. And the obvious key was water. Human beings have been using water for transportation of themselves and goods for all of human history. It is easily the most effective means of doing so. So communities have developed around water that is useful for commerce. And also dangerous at times. So we have Houston. It has developed because of the access to water. It has developed in ways that take into account the economics of the modern world. Those filling the more lucrative positions in that world either are on the beach with insurance or in locations less likely to flood. Those with less lucrative positions are in locations more likely to flood. And frequently without the resources to properly insure themselves. We all have benefited due to the existence of places like Houston. For example, we benefit from the oil refineries that are easily accessible. And now we face a cost.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 19:41:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 11:55:16 GMT -5
Just a few little points to ponder. First of all, many of Houston's older, poor residences can't be insured because they are in poor condition or don't meet current codes, yet they are home to thousands who work and contribute to the community's tax base. Even those structures than can be insured, sometimes aren't because they are owned by a senior on a fixed income who has a choice between food and insurance.
Just today I read that 1/4 of American-produced wheat comes from Texas so a prolonged port shutdown could have a real economic impact. And you might want to stock up on rice, because many Texas and Louisiana rice farmers were only part way through harvest and the rest of the crop is probably lost. The impact on the beef industry is unknown at this point since it's impossible to gauge the death toll on beef cattle. Also unknown is the long-term impact on the Gulf Coast shrimp and oyster industry because of reduced salinity levels.
Many posters have made the point that our economic systems are so interrelated that we can't treat problems as localized, especially disasters of this magnitude.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,353
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 3, 2017 12:06:32 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. It might have escaped your attention, but you can't very well give away what doesn't belong to you in the first place. What you imply would be the equivalent to the government selling all your possessions, seizing all your other funds and giving the proceeds to the people in Houston.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 12:51:11 GMT -5
I'm enjoying the fact that gas prices went up in areas that in no way were affected by Harvey but it's a great excuse. Glad I've got 3/4 of a tank because that's just wrong
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 12:52:06 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. I wonder how long we had that 150 billion ?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Sept 3, 2017 13:07:04 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. It might have escaped your attention, but you can't very well give away what doesn't belong to you in the first place. What you imply would be the equivalent to the government selling all your possessions, seizing all your other funds and giving the proceeds to the people in Houston. We fought a war for them. We should have seized their oil wells to pay for it.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,353
|
Post by NastyWoman on Sept 3, 2017 13:12:00 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. I wonder how long we had that 150 billion ? Since 1979. Iran had bought and paid for planes and military equipment. The year should clue you in as to why delivery did not take place, but we kept the money paid. This was a government to government transaction, so yes the US government did in fact owe this money to Iran
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 13:14:21 GMT -5
When exactly did we fight a war FOR Iran? I must've missed that.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 3, 2017 14:29:12 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. Not that truth and facts have ever mattered to Shooby: No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that. No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing' Don't bother, Tenn. This has been explained to her over and over and over and over and over and over again. It doesn't seem to sink in.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,464
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 3, 2017 14:37:22 GMT -5
Gee the $150billion that Obama put on a plane to Iran would have been nice. We should stop all foreign aid except and take care of ourselves. I wonder how long we had that 150 billion ? With accruing interest (which belongs to Iran too), since 1979, when Iranians took over the U.S. embassy. ETA: Just saw reply #54.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 3, 2017 14:53:21 GMT -5
So for decades. Until obama returned it. I can see the issue.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 3, 2017 15:53:19 GMT -5
So for decades. Until obama returned it. I can see the issue. With interest accruing the whole time. And with the likelihood that the World Court would soon rule in Iran's favor in their lawsuit against the United States, which would have made things even worse. So we could effectively give them their money back, that we had held for almost forty years, or continue to hold onto it and watch the price tag go higher.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,118
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 3, 2017 15:55:52 GMT -5
Just a few little points to ponder. First of all, many of Houston's older, poor residences can't be insured because they are in poor condition or don't meet current codes, yet they are home to thousands who work and contribute to the community's tax base. Even those structures than can be insured, sometimes aren't because they are owned by a senior on a fixed income who has a choice between food and insurance. Just today I read that 1/4 of American-produced wheat comes from Texas so a prolonged port shutdown could have a real economic impact. And you might want to stock up on rice, because many Texas and Louisiana rice farmers were only part way through harvest and the rest of the crop is probably lost. The impact on the beef industry is unknown at this point since it's impossible to gauge the death toll on beef cattle. Also unknown is the long-term impact on the Gulf Coast shrimp and oyster industry because of reduced salinity levels. Many posters have made the point that our economic systems are so interrelated that we can't treat problems as localized, especially disasters of this magnitude. Reduced salinity levels??? The water that was dumped on Houston came from the Gulf of Mexico, and will return to the Gulf of Mexico.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Sept 3, 2017 16:05:56 GMT -5
Just a few little points to ponder. First of all, many of Houston's older, poor residences can't be insured because they are in poor condition or don't meet current codes, yet they are home to thousands who work and contribute to the community's tax base. Even those structures than can be insured, sometimes aren't because they are owned by a senior on a fixed income who has a choice between food and insurance. Just today I read that 1/4 of American-produced wheat comes from Texas so a prolonged port shutdown could have a real economic impact. And you might want to stock up on rice, because many Texas and Louisiana rice farmers were only part way through harvest and the rest of the crop is probably lost. The impact on the beef industry is unknown at this point since it's impossible to gauge the death toll on beef cattle. Also unknown is the long-term impact on the Gulf Coast shrimp and oyster industry because of reduced salinity levels. Many posters have made the point that our economic systems are so interrelated that we can't treat problems as localized, especially disasters of this magnitude. Reduced salinity levels The water that was dumped on Houston came from the Gulf of Mexico, and will return to the Gulf of Mexico. Not all of it. Much came as rain (almost 50" in some areas if I remember correctly) and more of it came as rain being released from reservoirs further north and coming down the rivers and creeks. There's a whole bunch of water with no salinity that just got dumped into the Gulf for the past week and for weeks to come.
|
|