While the suggestion to “move to higher ground” may be wise, many times it is a practical impossibility. In Houston, for many years I lived in the Heights. We were -30’ above sea level. The only “higher ground” were parking garages downtown! Having just watched Nat Geo’s new documentary on Katrina (excellent BTW), what do people living at or below sea level do, especially those lacking transportation? The loss of life in Kerr Co. was largely avoidable if competent emergency management had been on duty and development in flood ways had been forbidden. Just an infuriating tragedy.
Thanks for opening up this edition of your Substack. An important and timely topic.
Perhaps it is different in Texas, but in Kansas the hierarchy is:
-- Flood Advisory
-- Areal Flood Warning (Public doesn't know what this is. They think it means, "a real" is in "genuine")
-- Flash Flood Warning
-- Flash Flood Warning ("considerable," a distinction about which the public is unaware)
-- Flash Flood Emergency (issued too late most of the time)
We get the Areal warnings with virtually every heavy rain. It is what the NWS uses when the "usual places" are flooded.
Agree with Beau's comment below, "They all say MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND. I have never once had to move to higher ground. This makes me question how we handle the "message" or call to action."
With five categories of flash flood warnings, the loaf is being sliced too thin. Warning fatigue is a significant issue.
We should go back to 2 (FFW and FFE) or, at most, 3 flood-related warnings (FA, FFW and FFE). As with convective outlooks and tornado warnings, we tell the public we can do things (in this case, 5 levels of flood warnings) we do not have the consistent level of scientific skill to accomplish well.
Example: The FFE for Kerr County at 4:03am on July 4 was not issued until the Guadalupe River was approximately 20 feet (!) above flood stage -- far too late to be of use. This was also the case with major floods in Tennessee in 2021 and West Virginia in 2016.
The above comments do not include the issues with emergency management to which you alluded.
The flood warning system should be rethought, perhaps by a National Disaster Review Board ...modeled after the highly successful National Transportation Safety Board.
I have been in over 100 flash flood warnings in my life. They all say MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND. I have never once had to move to higher ground. This makes me question how we handle the "message" or call to action. I appreciate your article.
Also, many people accidentally drive into floodwaters at night. They are going 50 mph and suddenly end up in the water.
I think one problem is that “tornado warning” means something different than a flash flood warning. The NWS should standardize the word “warning” the current second level should not use the word warning
Very interesting discussion, Matt, thanks for the post.
True "Flash Flooding" is relatively rare in many parts of the country. We do have some flashy watersheds in my neck of the woods (mostly in the southern portions where we actually have a small amount of what you could legitimately call terrain), but for the most part, the truly life threatening flooding that the flash term implies doesn't come around that often.
I have to agree that advisories (or statements, once HazSimp brings an end to that term), are likely adequate for a large proportion of non-riverine floods, and have used them more liberally in recent years as my perspective has evolved.
Usual disclaimers apply - my opinion only, speaking only on behalf of myself.
Yes. “Simplification” has made things more complicated.
Every message should relate impacts and hazard level (and location!) appropriate messaging regarding what people should do.
But my question is, what percent of the population actually receives a Flood Advisory or base FFW? Without WEA, the base FFW and advisory are essentially the same. The default wording is essentially the same. Should the messaging in the base warning be enhanced?
While the suggestion to “move to higher ground” may be wise, many times it is a practical impossibility. In Houston, for many years I lived in the Heights. We were -30’ above sea level. The only “higher ground” were parking garages downtown! Having just watched Nat Geo’s new documentary on Katrina (excellent BTW), what do people living at or below sea level do, especially those lacking transportation? The loss of life in Kerr Co. was largely avoidable if competent emergency management had been on duty and development in flood ways had been forbidden. Just an infuriating tragedy.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for opening up this edition of your Substack. An important and timely topic.
Perhaps it is different in Texas, but in Kansas the hierarchy is:
-- Flood Advisory
-- Areal Flood Warning (Public doesn't know what this is. They think it means, "a real" is in "genuine")
-- Flash Flood Warning
-- Flash Flood Warning ("considerable," a distinction about which the public is unaware)
-- Flash Flood Emergency (issued too late most of the time)
We get the Areal warnings with virtually every heavy rain. It is what the NWS uses when the "usual places" are flooded.
Agree with Beau's comment below, "They all say MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND. I have never once had to move to higher ground. This makes me question how we handle the "message" or call to action."
With five categories of flash flood warnings, the loaf is being sliced too thin. Warning fatigue is a significant issue.
We should go back to 2 (FFW and FFE) or, at most, 3 flood-related warnings (FA, FFW and FFE). As with convective outlooks and tornado warnings, we tell the public we can do things (in this case, 5 levels of flood warnings) we do not have the consistent level of scientific skill to accomplish well.
Example: The FFE for Kerr County at 4:03am on July 4 was not issued until the Guadalupe River was approximately 20 feet (!) above flood stage -- far too late to be of use. This was also the case with major floods in Tennessee in 2021 and West Virginia in 2016.
The above comments do not include the issues with emergency management to which you alluded.
The flood warning system should be rethought, perhaps by a National Disaster Review Board ...modeled after the highly successful National Transportation Safety Board.
I have been in over 100 flash flood warnings in my life. They all say MOVE TO HIGHER GROUND. I have never once had to move to higher ground. This makes me question how we handle the "message" or call to action. I appreciate your article.
Also, many people accidentally drive into floodwaters at night. They are going 50 mph and suddenly end up in the water.
I think one problem is that “tornado warning” means something different than a flash flood warning. The NWS should standardize the word “warning” the current second level should not use the word warning
Very interesting discussion, Matt, thanks for the post.
True "Flash Flooding" is relatively rare in many parts of the country. We do have some flashy watersheds in my neck of the woods (mostly in the southern portions where we actually have a small amount of what you could legitimately call terrain), but for the most part, the truly life threatening flooding that the flash term implies doesn't come around that often.
I have to agree that advisories (or statements, once HazSimp brings an end to that term), are likely adequate for a large proportion of non-riverine floods, and have used them more liberally in recent years as my perspective has evolved.
Usual disclaimers apply - my opinion only, speaking only on behalf of myself.
Yes. “Simplification” has made things more complicated.
Every message should relate impacts and hazard level (and location!) appropriate messaging regarding what people should do.
But my question is, what percent of the population actually receives a Flood Advisory or base FFW? Without WEA, the base FFW and advisory are essentially the same. The default wording is essentially the same. Should the messaging in the base warning be enhanced?