08-19-2007, 08:07 AM
Scott, Our instructor had brought up a lot of points, & my notes do not have all of them, but they include the fact that the technologies used in lava control are not very tested (most water control projects are), none have an accuracy/failure rate of much more than 50% (most water projects have in the upper 90's), the viscous flow of lava is not as well understood as water (it can flow uphill, change viscosity in mid-flow, go from flow to flume...) it is much harder to channelize, as it can weaken and/or liquify most containment methods, and a flow mistake can take decades to reenter, most floods are at most weeks.
Prof. also brought up that the state has alerted owners of the property hazards. and has, by & large, discouraged most new subdivision projects in lava prone areas (this is an official stand that is not as well followed through with).
Prof. also mentioned that the state subsidized insurance was initially to allow those that had land (in the way back times) to be able to have protection. If it was not for this subsidized insurance, mortgage companies would never have issued mortgages & the current build out of Puna & Kau would not have happened.
You are right, in that if the state had never offered the insurance, the problem would not have been as great.
When you use the arguement of weighing the good, remember where the population base is. Also remember to look at the ownership of the lands you think the lava should be diverted onto. Right now it is on state property, and could remain on state property throughout the flow life. That is all we can hope for.
Prof. also brought up that the state has alerted owners of the property hazards. and has, by & large, discouraged most new subdivision projects in lava prone areas (this is an official stand that is not as well followed through with).
Prof. also mentioned that the state subsidized insurance was initially to allow those that had land (in the way back times) to be able to have protection. If it was not for this subsidized insurance, mortgage companies would never have issued mortgages & the current build out of Puna & Kau would not have happened.
You are right, in that if the state had never offered the insurance, the problem would not have been as great.
When you use the arguement of weighing the good, remember where the population base is. Also remember to look at the ownership of the lands you think the lava should be diverted onto. Right now it is on state property, and could remain on state property throughout the flow life. That is all we can hope for.