The Galveston storm of 1900 produced a seawall.
The Miami storm of 1926 produced building codes.
The Okeechobee flood of 1928 produced a dike.
The Council Elder set the three responses beside one another: Galveston’s seawall, Miami’s codes, Okeechobee’s dike.
* * *
The building codes that followed the Miami storm were a response to the failure of construction. The hurricane had demonstrated that the structures of the Florida land boom — built quickly, built cheaply, built to satisfy demand rather than to resist wind — had not performed adequately. The code response addressed the structures: stronger ties, better materials, more rigorous inspection.
The codes were a response to what failed in Miami in 1926.
The codes that were proposed and partially implemented after the Okeechobee flood were similarly a response to what failed on the south shore in 1928. The levee had failed. The levee was the structure. The response was to the structure.
None of those responses fully addressed who stood in the path when the failure came.
* * *
The Okeechobee flood produced a political response as well as an engineering response.
The failure of the south shore levee system — a system that had been built piecemeal by a combination of state drainage districts, agricultural interests, and local governments, without federal involvement and without federal standards — became an argument for federal engineering at a scale that the previous infrastructure had not approached.
Herbert Hoover, who would be elected President of the United States in November 1928, was the Secretary of Commerce when the flood occurred. He came to the south shore in the weeks after the disaster. He saw the levee. He saw the muck plain. He saw the damage.
He had views about what engineering could accomplish.
* * *
The engineering argument that followed the Okeechobee flood reached Congress in the form of authorization for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a levee system on the south shore of Lake Okeechobee that would be engineered to federal standards, funded by federal appropriations, and built to a height and structural integrity that the previous levee system had not possessed.
The authorization was granted. The Corps designed the Hoover Dike, which would eventually encircle the entire lake. The construction proceeded through the 1930s. The dike was substantially complete by the early 1940s.
The Hoover Dike has held.
* * *
The Analyst marked what the Hoover Dike addressed and what it did not.
It addressed the engineering failure. It did not address the labor system that had placed people on the south shore muck plain in the labor camps closest to the lake. It did not address the geography of exposure — the relationship between where people lived, where they worked, and where the water would go if the containment failed.
The dike prevented the lake from moving again as it had moved in 1928.
The dike did not change the geography of who would be in the path of the lake if the dike ever failed as the levee had failed.
The Council Elder kept a hard distinction here. Engineering responses address the failure mode. They do not automatically change who is exposed when the failure mode returns.
The codes tell you what to build and where. They do not tell you who will be standing on the ground when the next storm comes.