Vermont weather geek's hodgepodge of weather and climate news and opinion. Often Vermont focused, but taking a national and global approach, with sometimes an appropriate dash of fun, outrage, cynicism and compassion.
The ice jam that caused the devastating flood in downtown Montpelier in 1992 The city has now created measures to prevent this from happening again
Ice jams are cropping up in Vermont and surrounding areas of the North Country, threatening abrupt floods as the ice dams up rivers swollen by melting snow.
Montpelier, Vermont has a rough history with ice jams. In1992, an ice jam formed along the Winooski River, which runs through the city. Water backed up and flooded virtually all of downtown Montpelier causing millions of dollars in damage.
This is easily one of the most dangerous ice jam seasons in years. A particularly cold winter allowed ice to form thick, strong sheets over the rivers.
An abrupt and strong March thaw is rapidly melting the snow. That in turn is swelling the rivers and breaking up the ice. A slower, more gradual thaw would have weakened the river ice, reducing the chances big chunks would pile up against obstacles to form dams.
But here we are. Montpelier, though, has a bunch of ice jam prevention plans and gizmos set up to avoid a repeat of 1992. Or arepeat of the summer of 2023 for that matter, when another flood trashed downtown Montpelier.
This all started in January, as it has every year since 2013 in Montpelier. Since the beginning of the year, the city has discharged treated wastewater into the Winooski River at three locations. That water is around 42 degrees, so it weakens ice in the river and creates channels where water a freely flow, as WPTZ reports.
=The city has deployed a long-reach excavator to help move ice downstream if it starts jamming up in Montpelier, said Kurt Motyka, the city's public works director.
So far, there are no reports of ice jam trouble in or near Montpelier during this warm spell. Other areas as of early this afternoon still have ice jams. I was up in Enosburg late this afternoon and, if anything, the ice jam near Boston Post Road is getting a little worse.
A lot more ice chunks were coming down from upstream and adding to the jam. The jam started moving while I was there, but then stalled again after moving about 100 yards downstream. These things are unpredictable and things change near ice jams in an instant.
Which is why Montpelier has invested so much in battling ice jams.
Vermont's Green Mountain Power, weighed down by the expense of repairs after climate change-driven storms, is launching an initiative to harden its system with a goal to prevent all power outages. Is it feasible?
Can a decent sized electrical utility eliminate power outages?
It doesn't seem likely, but Vermont's Green Mountain Power is going to try. And company representatives say they will do it by 2030.
This is a first of its kind initiative anywhere in the nation. I'm sure other utilities and energy experts around the nation are watching to see how this all works out.
Here's how Green Mountain Power announced it back on October 10:
"Green Mountain Power (GMP) today launched its Zero Outages Initiative, the first utility in the country to commit to a comprehensive, data-driven plan that creates layers of resiliency across Vermont but building on GMP's successful and proactive undergrounding and storm-hardening of lines, as well as deployment of energy storage through batteries and microgrids."
Like so many corporate, government and individual decisions these days, GMPs plans are at least in part motivated by climate change.
Storms in Vermont, often supercharged by climate change, has taken a toll on GMP, along with many other utilities. As GMP's press release states:
"For context, major storms are escalating and sustainable. In the past twelve months alone, major storms required more than $5 million in repairs. Since 2013, major storms caused $115 million in damage across GMP's service area, with 60% of that in the last five years. 40% of that in just the last two years, and the $45 million in 2023 was the most yet. That is money spent to repair the existing system and get customers reconnected after storm damage, and it does not prevent future outages."
GMP President and CEO Mari McCluretold Vermont Public that the increasing storminess associated with climate change is the biggest threat to the electrical grid, which is why the utility is acting.
According to filings with state regulators, the Zero Outages initiative would costup to $280 million over the next two years, then another $250 for putting lines underground or hardening them against storms, and $30 million for energy storage.
The utility hopes to recoup much of that investment by sharply reducing the need to conduct expensive storm repairs.
Distribution lines in very rural parts of the state would be relocated underground. That would eliminate the risk of trees falling on the lines and cutting power.
Then there main feeder lines which originate in substations and go out into towns and cities throughout Vermont. These lines serve both rural and urban parts of the state. These lines would be strongly reinforced and insulated to withstand the pressure of falling trees and branches.
There's a substation a short distance from my St. Albans, Vermont home and one of those feeder lines goes right by my house. There's a lot of trees hovering over near my place. It will be interesting to see what GMP does to this feeder line when the work starts.
Finally, people in very rural areas would receive batteries to store electricity. That way, if remote electrical wires are cut by storms, people in these outlying areas will still have a supply of power until the lines are repaired.
Energy experts are aligned with my thoughts that GMP's zero outage goal is laudable, but probably not completely attainable. Especially with the boost from climate change, there will always be storms that overwhelm the defenses the utility is trying to put up.
The initiative needs approval from the Vermont Public Utility Commission before it can start. If the approval arrives, the first work on the project would start sometime next spring or summer.
Heat waves are the deadliest kind of weather. So why don't we declare disasters during huge heat waves, like the one baking the nation's center now.
We all know the sad routine. A hurricane, flood, tornado or some other weather calamity strikes a part of the nation.
The President steps in and declares the storm zone a federal disaster area. This frees up the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide resources and reimburse affected towns, cities, counties and states for their response to the disaster.
You never hear of a disaster declaration for a heat wave. No U.S. President has ever made a disaster declaration due to a heat wave.
There have been three request in the past for disaster declarations centered on heat waves, but all three were denied.
At first glance, you'd thing, why would you bother with a heat wave disaster declaration?
Heat waves rarely cause much physical damage. Sure, you get wildfires and droughts during heat waves, but a disaster is declared for the wildfire and the drought, not the temperature. Heat waves don't destroy buildings or cause all that much damage to infrastructure, other than some warping of railroad tracks and some heaving on concrete roads. All minor stuff.
This week, a brutal heat wave is broiling in the middle third of the nation. A massive area from Louisiana to Minnesota and from Kansas to Indiana is under an excessive heat warning. About 143 million people are under heat alerts, so the chances that this hot weather could kill somebody are pretty high.
Given there's currently a record breaking heat wave is baking the middle of the nation, consider this,as the Washington Post did:
Heat waves are the biggest killer in the United States among all weather hazards. Sure, you don't get photogenic video of wreckage or dramatic wind or flooding on the news when there's a bad heat wave, but the human toll is terrible.
The huge purple and orange area in the middle of this United States map are the areas under heat warnings and alerts today.
Deaths from various forms of weather vary greatly from year to year. But 2021, which has the most complete data,is fairly representative.
That year, 104 people died in tornadoes, 106 from extreme cold, 111 from rip currents, 135 from flash floods and 190 from hot weather.
The year 2021 wasn't a one-off.According to the National Weather Service, the 30-year average annual deaths in the United States from heat was 168. The second highest cause of weather-related deaths in that 30 year average was floods, with an average of 89 deaths over those 30 years between 1993 and 2022.
So if something can be done to prevent heat deaths, especially since heat waves are getting more intense, longer lasting and more deadly with climate change, that would be a good thing.
"A disaster declaration by the president could allow states to be reimbursed for taking action that could save lives - such as opening cooling centers, distributing water and checking in with residents door-to-door.
States could also ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency to launch an emergency response, such as supplying medical teams or rounding up generators."
"Some local and national politicians are hoping to add extreme heat to the list of major disaster-qualifying events to better reflect its threat. In early June, Reps Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Amide (R-Nev.) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Tex.) introduced a bill to add extreme heat to the list."
The legislation, if enacted, would likely help the federal government save lives in heat waves. And in my estimation at least, the legislation would be relatively easy to implement. Mostly because there's no legal prohibition in declaring heat waves major disasters.
Heat waves are rather predictable, more so than events like tornadoes and flash floods. So resources can be brought in ahead of a torrid hot spell to mitigate the effects on people, and likely reduce deaths. After all, preparation for any disaster - including heat waves - is key to saving lives.
Hail drifts cover a walkway at the Red Rocks Amphitheatre near Denver Wednesday night after the storm injured dozens
Nearly 100 people were injured, including seven who needed hospitalization, when a hail storm struck the famed Red Rocks Amphitheatre near Denver Wednesday.
The show, featuring Louis Tomlinson, was stopped as hailstones, the biggest ones about the size of tennis balls, pelted the crowd. .
Video taken during the storm showed chaos. People screamed in pain as hail bruised their bodies. After the storm, hail drifts several inches deep covered parts of the site.
The concert will probably be rescheduled, but that rescheduling probably should have happened before people even began gathering for the show.
True, I'm Monday morning quarterbacking, but the signs were there that potential danger loomed.
First of all, the Front Range of the Colorado Rockies are famous for the volatile weather around there.
Even management at Red Rocks acknowledged this in a Tweet after the disaster. "....we're having a little talk with Mother Nature about this weather business at Red Rocks. Between a wind-whipped opening night wildfire, snow showers, torrential rains and hail, it's been a crazy six weeks in the foothills."
Large outdoor venues at least should have some experts on staff working with meteorologists to ensure public safety. Summer is chock full of festivals like concerts, fairs and large gatherings. Summer is also known for its severe thunderstorms, high wind, hail and lightning, which can develop pretty quickly
Having an event you've looked forward to for months abruptly canceled due to weather just before it starts is a terrible bummer, to put in mildly. But you have to consider that being injured or even dying at the show due to the weather just ain't worth it.
And people have died during severe weather events at outdoor venues. One of the most memorable and tragic examples was in 2011, when a severe thunderstorm blew stage scaffolding and other large debris into a crowd awaiting a Sugarland concert. Seven people died and 58 were injured.
STORMS LOOMED HOURS BEFORE
Concert organizers should be nimble on their feet. Should being the operative word.
As early as 3:49 p.m. Wednesday local time, NOAA's Storm Prediction Centerreleased a short-term forecastconcerning a severe thunderstorm watch that was already in effect for the area. "Large hail, (some 2+ inches in diameter is the primary threat, though severe gusts may occur," the statement said.
Radar images Alonzo shared showed several severe thunderstorm, including one that just barely missed Red Rocks not long before the show.
The thunderstorm that deposited the hail on concertgoers arrived at the venue at around 9:20 p.m local time. A severe thunderstorm warning had been issued for the Red Rocks area about 20 minutes prior.
The Washington Post said the severe thunderstorm warning was issued at 9:04 p.m., but the concert venue didn't tell people to take shelter until 9:14 p.m.
Of course, that's not a lot of time to send people to shelter before the storm hit. Apparently, people were also reluctant to get up and go to their cars. They assumed the concern would resume once the storm passed, and they didn't want to lose their good seats.
Perhaps the concert should have been canceled at that initial severe thunderstorm warning, since nobody would then have the incentive to stay in their open air seats.
Alonzo also points out a good outdoor venue should had an experienced meteorologist on staff who could have understood the danger from the storm before the official severe thunderstorm warning was issued.
Moreover, lightning within nine miles of Red Rocks from numerous thunderstorms in the area started at around 7:15 p.m, WaPo reports. Lightning can strike up to 15 miles away from the parent storm, so people were already in danger two hours before the hail.
A good safety plan would have postponed or canceled the concert and told people to seek shelter by 7:30 p.m, when the lightning was underway.
Of course, we don't have all the details yet of what happened and how decisions were made, so we'll see with updates.
The City of Denver owns Red Rocks. I imagine lawsuits are inevitable. That the venue is owned by a municipality will probably complicated those legal proceedings.
Video: Denver 7 collected clips of the storm at Red Rocks.Click on this link to view or if you see the image below, click on that:
