And, these aren't isolated instances, they occur frequently in your neck of the woods.
What do you mean by my neck of the woods? If you mean California, a state about the size of France, then yes they happen frequently. If you mean in one particular drainage in California, then the answer is no.
If that's the case, then you again have to question the site selection.
Questioning the site selection is a more reasonable way to approach this than assuming one can efficiently control the environment. But site selection comes down to efficiencey as well. You make assumptions about the economic realities that are baseless, as far as I can tell.
I'm aware that it's brushland and not forest.
I'm also not so sure that the absence of the fire would have prevented this. One only has to look at other areas where no previous fires occured. They weren't immune to flooding and destruction.
Once again Patrick, you expose your ignorance to the facts of the situation. The flash flood problems this year have been focused in areas in watershed's which were burned in the October 2003. This has been widely reported, and is even part of the railroads' statement regarding the problems.
The photo of highway 101 might be a good example.
La Conchita another.
Not sure how landslide danger correlates to flash flood danger. Are you? Or is this just a way out of context comparison.
You are making your own case against talking without facts. You have seen photographs of two places, Rustic Canyon and the La Conchita disasters. So now all your knowledge comes from those two, and you think they are somehow comparable.
County/State records should provide a history of flood activity. My guess is that this isn't as rare an occurance as you seem to indicate.
Why dont you take a look at them and tell us whether your theories have any support?
As a typical attorney, you've inserted the qualifying word "constant". Change that to "random" or "occassional"
One only has to look at the homes wiped out in La Conchita by the water and mud slide to refute your "approval" logic.
You were referring to a pattern of frequent and repeated flooding. That is not the case. Contant is the wrong word, but I was just exaggerating your misunderstanding of what has gone on.
That's just 10 years ago. Two years ago there was flooding as well. Three floods in 10 years and you continue to deny the perilous nature of the site. Only in Callifornia, I guess.
You have misread what I said. I said a major pineapple express passed through Southern California 10 yrs ago, and as far as I know there was
no significant flooding in this canyon. If true, this would be strong evidence against your theory that pineapple expresses normally cause the type of flooding which occurred this year.
How familiar were you with this area prior to Rustic Canyon's development on this site ?
Much more familiar than you, but much less familiar than others I have spoken to about the site.
Not really, the facts are the facts irrespective of where any of us live.
Tell me Patrick, what are you sources for facts about this canyon? Other than this website, I mean?
Noone is questioning the character or quaty of the golf course or it's architecture, only the wisdom of siting and the potential benefit of elevated features in an area prone to floods during heavy rains.
Prone to flooding during heavy rains? What is your factual basis for this? The floods of the past couple of seasons since the fire? An imcomplete record to say the least.
Two years ago, weren't some features washed out and barriers built or construction altered to prevent a reoccurance
A tee box elevated approx. 12 feet above the canyon floor washed out and was rebuilt. One fairway was covered with mud and was regraded and reseeded. A small berm was built behind the 13th green to direct water toward the main channel and to keep water from flowing down the thirteenth fairway. Bunkers were built on 10 in a spot where water spilled out of the main channel, in a place they were planned for originally. Not exactly major reconstruction.
The term "disaster" relates to the object and the incident.
I would say that Rustic Canyon suffered a disaster.
Wouldn't you ?
If you say so. The course certainly suffered serious damage which will cost a bunch of money to fix. That being said, they expect to have 14 holes open next week.
You're not going to maintain that this event was beyond the realm of imagining, are you ? Especially after the events of two years ago where floods damaged the golf course.
There are most definitely risks associated with the site. The question is, when reevaluating these risks, how much weight does one give to two floods (one major and one minor in comparison) which happened after a major burn. In my opinion, you give these two events much too much weight in your risk calculation.
If it's a "PATTERN" how can it be unusual ?
Okay Patrick, Pattern is the wrong word. Two floods in the three years after the fire does not make a pattern. That I guess is my point.
Perhaps Joe isn't familiar with what happens to restaurants and other facilities that close for repair or remodeling. Their customers tend to go elsewhere, and as creatures of habit, aren't prone to return so quickly when the work is complete. That's why companies have business interruption insurance.
Well that did not happen after the first flood, we will see after this one. Frankly, RC is so far above the competition for value and quality, that I dont see this being a problem. You also assume the competition was not damaged and that is not true.
Who says Rustic does not have business interruption insurance?
Dave, by the time the water gets to Rustic, it's too late.
My question is, what could have been done, upstream or upcanyon, so to speak, to prevent or diminish the effect of heavy rainfall ?
Geez Patrick. I am not talking about the ground cover at Rustic.
I am talking about the ground cover above the course, in the 12 mile watershed which was burned bare. Are you even paying attention?
Dave, California is a wonderful place, but, development has been allowed to occur in areas that prudent people would define as perilous.
Well then we are 30 million imprudent people who live in an exceptionally productive but dangerous place.
The Santa 'Ana winds, El Nino and the Pineapple Express are common weather patterns or occurances as well.
Yes, but every time they come each canyon does not have a major disaster?
It's not irresponsible to say that the possibility of the convergence of these events is not as rare as you would lead us to believe.
It is irresponsible if one has no evidence to support your claim.
How many times has this canyon experienced a flash flood of this magnitude? How many times have these conditions converged in this location to cause these problems?
That bad things happen in California does not support the proposition that any one particular location is likely to experience the brunt of every bad thing that ever happens.