Houston,Texas is now front and center in the news because of weather. The rain keeps coming relentlessly. We can't control weather. Why?

?

You asked why.

"Because I said so" is not a reason. It is a meaningless lame rejoinder. You know you can do better than this. Why don't you?

I just asked a question this morning Durdle before I came upon this. Here it is for your perusal. You know how "rainmakers" seed clouds to elicit rain? Can the opposite be effected? When a Hurriane is in its infancy can something be done to dilute its effect, mitigate the damage, render it benign? Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Sunday! :) When it is very small and in its initial stages?

I don't think clouds can be made to stay as clouds.

"Seeding" them gives tiny nucleii around which the moisture droplets can accumulate until large enough to fall as rain-drops. You may have noticed that of very foggy days, the air is slightly clearer under the trees, but the leaves shed a lot of heavy drops. That's the same effect.

As far as I am aware you cannot reverse the process.

That is treating individual clouds. It does not affect the weather system that is producing the clouds.

Even if the weather itself is benign, such as in a temperate-region Summer anticyclone, a weather-system is a huge circulation of air perhaps a thousand miles across, and the power (rate of energy conversion) driving it is immense and spread over many hours; far greater than anything Mankind can produce. Consequently, I am afraid it is extremely unlikely it would be possible to prevent a hurricane developing, even in its infancy.

The only way communities in the areas can mitigate the effects of these gigantic tropical depressions is to protect life and property from them as best they can, and predict as accurately as possible given that natural processes do not work to strict time-tables and dimensions, the likely paths and strengths of the storms.

For starters some communities are below sea level near the ocean. Isn't that just asking for trouble like in New Orleans or the flood in Galveston many years ago? How effective are SEAWALLS? How tall do they have to be built to be meaningful? Taller than the fabled Trumpwall? If you're below sea level and the storm surge is predicted to be 12-15 feet how do you protect against that? Maybe have no home built within a mile of the ocean?  I'm gonna ask that question. Thank you for your helpful though disappointing answer Durdle. Not your fault that it is disappointing. Science is what it is after all!  :). This post was edited by RosieG at September 12, 2017 3:21 AM MDT

We Britons grumble about our weather and Londoners get all in a tizz when the capital has a rare snow-fall that Northern England and Scotland would regard as nowt much; but we are thankful we do not suffer from hurricanes and our cyclones are very rarely at all damaging, and our thoughts are with everyone in the Caribbean and Southern US states hit by those storms.

I read somewhere that New Orleans was built on a slight rise above the surrounding land, but so much water has subsequently been extracted from below ground that it has subsided,  increasing the risks of flooding.

I'm afraid the only safe answer is yes, build nothing within reach of the sea, even if the higher land is a mile inland. A sea-wall works as long as it's not over-topped, obviously, but you also have to consider any rivers crossing the area. If the sea rises or falls, the estuary level rises or falls with it.

A problem we have in parts of the UK is coastal retreat, where cliffs of soft rocks like clay are being eroded rapidly. One approach now becoming more common is to accept this, not try to fight it, because sea-defences are costly and cannot be guaranteed to work for more than 50 to 100 years or so. We also have areas prone to flooding by rivers, and when you look at the old towns there you realise they were all built if possible above the worst-remembered flood-levels: it's modern developments that suffer by being built on flood-plains!

The folks I don't understand are the ones who keep rebuilding IN THE EXACT SAME SPOT! They get flooded out and maybe expect it will never happen again?  Wouldn't that be a solid indication that the location is subject to Mother Nature's whims and rebuild someplace else?  In California of course we have earthquakes and fires and less often floods. I think the fires are the most consistent thing because of our minimal rainfall. Then of course when the rains do come there is much debris and erosion and mudslides. But all in all that is localized. Fires do spread but not like hurricanes. Earthquakes don't spread...they hit where they hit. They're not contagious. It seems to me if you live by a body of water that always causes flooding or by the ocean which is subject to hurricanes, water surges, Tsunamis (rare here) you'd want to move inland. I don't know how they're going to rebuild in the US Virgin Islands. Or in the small islands off the coast of Florida.  So many of them are without power, water. Folks are stranded. Sewage is backing up. The island of  Barbuda is totally damaged.There is nothing to prevent this happening again. Why tempt Fate? Our dream is to have a condo at the beach. But not ON THE BEACH. On a cliff above so we could see the view but be safe too. Who is at fault here Durdle? People for ignoring the worst-case scenario and only considering the view? Realtors for selling property they shouldn't? Politicians for not making laws AGAINST building homes in danger zones? Geologists for not making it clear that some places are simply inhabitable? You have to have a building permit to build anything. Why issue them in areas that are subject to environmental disaster? Thank you for your thoughtful reply and Happy Tuesday! :)

I agree entirely, Rosie.

I don't of course know American planning laws and policies, but it is foolish to build on areas known to flood.

In Britain, the Department of the Environment published maps showing areas at risk from flooding, but unfortunately these have had the unintended consequence of insurers not covering for water damage, or at all, even where the homes are well above any flood. That happened because the map-makers did not account for topography. They just drew lines parallel to river-banks. 

A friend in the North of England told his insurers were like that, because his home is within the supposed flood width in plan, but it is actually a hundred feet above the river, on the steep valley side!

I think the geologists and geographers DO make the risks clear - but are ignored to suit politicians' and developers' interests.

Something that's emerged from recent Asian tsunamis is that in the past, the most seriously affected coasts from a human point of view, used to be protected naturally and very effectively by mangrove swamps. These were cleared to build tourist hotels and marinas, and associated housing,  then of course the waves have unimpeded access and everyone wonders why.