I just finished reading two articles, one on the impacts of earthquake and tsunami on the infrastructure ("Research studies tsunami impact on infrastructure," The Astorian, Aug. 20), and one on the impact and benefit of estuary restoration ("New maps chart possible course for estuary restoration," The Astorian, Aug. 20).

Put the two together — developments in estuarine environments are, by definition, subject to earthquake and tsunami damage. They are at or near sea level and are on fills. If we return those environments "to the tides," and eliminate developments in those areas, rather than expend money and effort on protecting them, we will address both issues.

The estuary will be restored to its more natural condition and be able to support diverse wildlife habitat, and there won’t be money or effort expended to make inherently unstable areas stable during a disaster.

There will have to be money expended to provide suitable development areas in locations not prone to damage during major disasters, and that won’t be trivial.



(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.