Saturday, November 02, 2013

Army Corps of Engineers: Severe Storm Could Submerge Norfolk Naval Base


Republicans in both the Virginia General Assembly and Congress continue to deny that climate change is occurring or that sea levels are dangerously rising.  Indeed, the only way a study on what is happening in Virginia could get authorization through the the General Assembly was to have it study "repetitive flooding" with no mention whatsoever of "rising sea levels" or "climate change."  It's an example of taking the concept of sticking one's head in the sand to a whole new level.  And the current GOP statewide slate all deny that climate change is occurring, especially the rabidly insane Ken Cuccinelli.  Now, a new Army Corps of Engineers study reports that the Norfolk Naval Base - the largest naval base in the world - is at risk of being inundated in a bad storm. We've already seen entire piers go under water in lesser storms and the Corps says things could be far, far worse.  Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot:

Norfolk Naval Station's vital infrastructure wouldn't survive the kind of powerful storms and widescale flooding that rising seawaters are expected to bring by the second half of the century. And those conditions would likely get even worse in the following decades.

That's the conclusion of a three-year case study of the naval base, conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, which analyzed computer storm models based on varying degrees of sea level rise.
It was one of four government-funded studies conducted nationwide to assess the impact of sea levels rising as much as 6 feet over the next 85 years.

"Military bases... are designed to be able to withstand hurricanes and flooding and that type of thing - to some extent," said Kelly Burks-Copes, a Corps of Engineers research ecologist who led the study of the base. . . . "But there was a growing concern that the military's infrastructure was no longer sustainable in the face of exacerbated storms and that climate change was likely to cause frequent storms, stronger storms, even if they are infrequent, more flooding," she said. "And they needed the questions asked: What were the risks and if there were risks, were there ways to reduce the risks?"

The results drive home the immensity of the challenge the Navy faces preparing for a long-term threat as budget crises and government shutdowns undermine even short-term planning.

The results found that at some point between a 1.5-foot and 3-foot rise of the sea, the Navy base - and much of Hampton Roads - would be submerged for hours or even days by a big storm. Without proper planning, the base would be unable to function.

The study identified weak points that can help the Navy plan as it replaces aging equipment and infrastructure, Burks-Copes said.  It can also help the Navy avoid spending money on short-sighted options that will force more spending down the road.

For example, since 2001, the Navy has been building expensive double-deck piers in Norfolk that are supposed to last for decades. They protect the utilities on the lower decks from water damage - based on current sea levels. That works now, she said, but because they weren't designed to address climate change, they won't be usable as long as expected.

"What is our backup if you lose Norfolk?" he asked. "What's plan B?"  Mayport Naval Station in Florida couldn't accommodate all of Norfolk's ships, and after rounds of base closings in recent decades, there are fewer Navy bases to choose from. Unlike the Army or the Air Force, which could just pull back and build an airfield farther inland, the Navy won't have those options.

"These questions are not or should not go away," Titley said. "The Navy will be front and center in dealing with this option whether it wants it or not."

On Tuesday Virginians have the choice of voting for a slate of candidates which doesn't even admit the problem exists or a slate that looks to the future and wants to prepare Virginia for the coming challenges.  Vote a straight Democrat ticket on November 5, 2013. 

No comments: