Thack God for the flood

So sorry for your losses I can’t imagine.

Only wildfires and drought now, right. Good luck.

Houston will get them again and Miami...and it will all be falsely called climate change.

@@mic4902 Also flash floods, landslides, dangerous wildlife, blizzards.

Yah

That's why the local government should not have allowed it. Sue the ba***rds.

@@facitenonvictimarum174 the house was built back in 50's. Who you gonna sue?

@@christopherdunlap88 The government agency that allowed the house to be built in a floodplain that goes back thousands of years.

Most of the American West is not meant for permanent habitation like we've developed it into. It is truly ironic to see that this was Park Service property, so ill placed.

Sure, but there's risk no matter where you live. Near the ocean or a river? Floods. On a hill? Mudslides. In the southeast? Hurricanes. We all have to balance the risk (as best we can estimate it) against the benefits of a particular place to live. This time, the river's flow was said to be about 50% worse than it had ever been in the past. An awful lot of folks choose to live in homes that would be in peril if they were hit with a 50% worse version of the local and expected calamity. Think about coastal cities and a storm surge 50% worse than any before. In this case, it seems the building was 100 feet from the river, and the bank hadn't moved in a long time. Then it did, very quickly. If 100 feet is too close, how far back is safe enough?

Same thing happened in Santa Clara, Utah. High End homes ended up in the Santa Clara river. They should never have built houses there. People were saying.. "This hasn't happened in the last hundred years." Wow.

@@reidellis1988 ..and that's the kicker, they know that it will happen again. Guess who ultimately pays for these losses.. Yep, other policy holders and even the American Public as a whole. What that's worth, I just cannot see value in these locations, as permanent residences, anymore. Nature is telling these people to stay out of certain areas, but we rebuild and rebuild. True and utter insanity.

We'll get an executive order to change that..

So AS the river KEPT ERODING the bank no idiot in charge of maintaining the Park Service buildings thought it would be a good idea with the millions in the budget to reinforce the bank years ago....

@@donnamoss9650 no part of that bank fell into the river for decades. 100 feet got washed away within 24 hours during this flood.

Eh, the Park Service has long since been aware of flood plains, and how water helped shape that very topography that they long since placed such structures on. I wouldn't say that it is as much a misconception, but rather that of a poetic irony for Nature to bring yet another reminder of our impermanence.

@@mic4902 except that building was put up by a guy only known to me as Schmitty.

*Bullcrap,* you sound like a shill for the corrupt local politicians and developers. And who appointed you as the "misconception discourager?" And you totally lie when you say it should have already been "reduced to splinters," that sounds like a lawyer defending the corrupt local governing agency

Does that make you feel good to say because it does nothing

@@grahamtuckey5343 stop being a jerk.

@@grahamtuckey5343 oh it absolutely does something. Prayer changes things!

The guy who built it passed away probably before I born and this was an old building.

@@Silverstar129 dam it survived time and the river hew the hell was this guy... We need to do a movie on him

@@pablopence2429 update I have a name "shcmitty" and my mom thinks he moved away but hes known by all the old timers in gardiner

God creates disaster. God please help.

. Yeah but payed by the taxpayers

@@permitfisher this is a stupid comment.

Gov't Housing.

It was gov't housing, and you believe $40 Billion really went to Ukraine.

Flood insurance doesn't cover flood zones

jeeze that's a joke, right?

@@GratefulOverlander home owners insurance does not cover floods, however flood insurance can be purchased from a National Flood Insurance company.

Its basically a small apartment

I’d hope so.

Forest Service housing.

Probably immigrants. 🤷‍♂️

@@straybullitt its a tourist hot spot, a lot of people from other coutries wind up in town. I knew a couple women fro Bulgaria that would travel out to work for the summer. So sort of yes but no? Though I would say its more complicated.

That was employee housing, I'm sure the National Park Service will take care of them....

@@johnganshow5536 thanks , I don’t listen to all the bla bla bla of every video. LoL 😂

Heavy snowpack in the mountains melting and lots of unseasonal heavy rain, thus elevating and increasing the water flow of the Yellowstone River.

from the sky.

no it isn't.

Park employee housing. So NPS I'd guess

@@patrickjones8255 Not necessarily. There are permanent (as opposed to seasonal) employees of the three concessioners that contract with the NPS, in addition to permanent NPS employees. The NPS provides housing (which is NOT rent-free, as some comments are suggesting) for some of these employees. I don’t know about the concessioners, but, if they do, it will probably be in buildings outside of the park boundaries. The location of the doomed structure in the video looks like it’s somewhere outside the North Entrance. If it is, then this would probably be concessioner’s - not NPS - housing. (I realize I’m being obsessive about this, but I used to work as a seasonal ranger in Yellowstone, and not being able to pin this down is driving me crazy.)

This house was located below Hwy 89, about 1 mile outside Gardiner, MT, across the street from the Gardiner Rodeo grounds. It was at the end of the driveway into the Yellowstone RV Park.

@@b4peace1 Thank you! I can sleep now. 🤣

It's a house they lived in owned by the NPS because they were working for the NPS.

Because it is.

Some seasonal employees work year round there in a different job.

If one can't smile In the face of adversity, one will live an entire lifetime of sadness.

Pretty sure the tears came while it was going on.

It wasnt very close before the flooding

@@Silverstar129 but it was located in an area long known as a flood plain.

@@vickimeyers2672 that is very much not a flood plane

@@vickimeyers2672 it was even further from the water than I though at over 100 feet

yeah. I do. I doubt God has squat to do with a rainstorm.

It wasn’t a flood zone.

Sorry for my ignorance, but why should one live in the middle of pine trees? Is it because of forest fires? 🧐

Well that eliminates half the homes in the United States

Pine trees? What’s up with pine trees?

@@cynicalcindy1434 if theirs ever a fire! 🙃. Been there done it..

@@spiritseeker1932 Ohhhh! Yes!!! Pine trees close to liberal cities are the most dangerous too! Totally get that! Happy to deal with gators and hurricanes over forest fires!

Now that's funny

Demand that Newsom and his cronies check into how Israel is solving their water crisis.

Snore.

Gov't Housing. FJB

Oh please....why??? Those 'go fund me' pages are a rip off for people with more money than sense!!

Forest Service

Nobody was trying to do that

@@Silverstar129 yes they were by building so close to a river.Rivers flood and you can’t stop them if Mother Nature doesn’t want you to. She is more powerful than than any human.

@@Biggestfoot10209 it was 50 feet away from the river before the flooding and the channel there so deep that the water hasn't gotten that high before.

@@Silverstar129 you are so clueless, and that river just proved it. 50 feet meant nothing to that river as it just proved it. You build that close to a river you deserve to lose your property. I live 100 yards, that’s 300 feet in case you don’t know and 30 feet above a small Creek and still I take Precautions

@@Biggestfoot10209 i lived there, this is extremely abnormal flooding

its a federal house ...

@@49558201 You are further reinforcing the original statement.

@@49558201 That explains everything 😂

According to another comment here, the home when originally built was 100 Ft. away from the river bank.