February 9, 2022

If you want to understand the thing I’m about to announce, consider reading Simcha Fisher’s excellent essay “The Church you’re building”:

First, let me be clear. There are people who feel this way, who have truly done their best to seek out the good, true, and beautiful in the institution founded by Christ, but it seems that every Catholic they encounter is on a mission to show them the bad, false, and ugly. I know people who are trying tremendously hard to refocus their hearts and minds on what is essential and eternal about the faith, but they are met, again and again, with Catholics who wound them profoundly. And I will not tell them that they should just work harder to get past it.

I know people who have tried to get away from what is hurting them in the church, and they have found that they can’t, because they’ve already been wounded so deeply. They carry their wounds with them, and when they walk, they bleed. I’m not going to tell people in this state what they ought to do, or where they ought to go.

But that’s only some people. There are others, who, when they say, “I’m so tired of the Church,” are in a different place entirely. I know, because sometimes this is me . . .


. . . Very often, when I say I’m tired of the Church, what I really mean is that I’m tired of the weird, ugly little quasi-church I’ve half-consciously built around myself out of sheer cynicism and snark and self righteousness. It’s a very flimsy, ugly, broke-down church indeed. No wonder I don’t like it there.

What I’ve been grappling with over the past several years are the different worlds of spiritual needs out here on the Catholic internet.

Me? I love debates.  I love wrestling with the truth. When I look out at the problems in the world — hunger, loneliness, war, disease — I want to figure out ways to solve those problems.  Debates ordered towards truth-finding are a means of discerning the best ways to mitigate human suffering.

But those debates can also be a treacherous, faith-destroying distraction.


I came up with The How-to Book of Evangelization because, in discussing possible book projects with an acquisitions editor at OSV, it became evident that I was passionately interested in that topic. It was the topic of the first essay I wrote here, before I even had my own Patheos blog.

I knew there was a need for the book because I had heard many faithful Catholics say so. They’d show up at Sherry Weddell’s evangelization and discipleship forum and ask: “Okay, I am ready to evangelize! But, um, what do we do? How does this work?”

So I wrote the book.  I also had to re-write at least one chapter in its entirety because my fantastic editor for the project cleared her throat and communicated with the correct combination of clarity and impatience: This is a great blog post, but it is utterly inappropriate for the book.

(That’s my paraphrase. I’m not going to dig up the annotated manuscript and give you the exact words. It will hurt us.)

To be honest, the book is so darn civilized I can sometimes forget that I wrote it. Turns out you can be emphatic and charitable. Who knew!  Here at Patheos I’m just proud if I start with a cussword and then change it to “excrement” and then reluctantly allow that the metaphor, no matter how politely worded, will not actually change hearts and minds and I’m going to have to rewrite completely.

So that’s a bit of a conflict.

If you’re a longtime reader here, it’s because you are comfortable-enough with strong and clashing opinions. You’ve seen me discuss controversial things, seen me be wrong some of the time, and you know that’s all just part of the discourse. But not everyone is comfortable there.  A lot of people who care about sharing Jesus don’t want to camp out on the war-of-words battlefield.


So, here’s the new thing:

One Soul at a Time is a substack devoted 100% to Catholic evangelization and discipleship.  No liturgy wars. No pope complaints. No links to exposés at The Pillar. No COVID-policy debates. None of that.

I know, you can barely breathe thinking about it.  Is there even enough air in the world if we don’t have that?

Relax. I will still be passionately wrong-headed here at Patheos, for all your doomscrolling needs. Seriously? You thought I could just quit opining like that? As if.  Heck, in paring down my social media presence post-illness, I’ve chosen Twitter of all places to be where I run my mouth short-form.

But if you’re over at One Soul at a Time you don’t have to know any of that.


I’ve intentionally created the substack in a way that lets you not be sucked into social media if you don’t want to be. You can subscribe for free and receive all content straight to your e-mail inbox, which even makes it safe for Lenten social-media fasts — and the content itself will be Lent-friendly.

So that’s the plan.  I’ll still hit controversial E&D, catechetical, and spiritual topics here, but follow both Patheos and One Soul at a Time if you want everything I have to say, even the nice stuff.

Cover art: The How-to Book of Evangelization by Jennifer Fitz

PS: Even though I’m really even-tempered and charitable (for me) over at the new place, I’m still hitting the hard topics in the spiritual life. Just doing it from a place of more prayer and less redacted-bits.

June 29, 2020

The kindle edition was available ahead of the official launch date, but I’m pleased to announce that The How-To Book of Evangelization: Everything You Need to Know but No One Ever Taught You is now showing up “in-stock” at Our Sunday Visitor.

Tomorrow (Tues. 6/30) at 1pm Eastern I’ll be doing a free webcast introducing the book.  Topics I’ll be covering:

  • Why I Wrote this Book
  • Top Four Most Important Topics in this Book
  • My First Attempts at Evangelizing (Yikes!)
  • When to Speak, When to Hush
  • Keeping Jesus Center Stage
  • Helping Someone Heal from Church-Induced Disgust

Time permitting I’ll be taking open Q&A at the end, but you can always submit additional questions via this blog’s discussion group on Facebook.

Need captions? Until/unless we can get a clean transcript directly from the webinar, I’ll post my copy of my prepared talk over at my personal blog immediately after the webinar. If there is time for open Q&A, I’ll turn those topics into blog posts so that you can get all pertinent info, admittedly in a cleaned-up and more thorough version than my initial attempts at winging-it.


If you enjoy this blog, I think you’ll enjoy the book.  My fantastic editor managed to straighten me out and reign me in on my most egregious rants and raves, but you can expect the same level of no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is you have come to love or dread.

For those who have noticed I’m a hot mess, be assured: This book represents years of notes I’ve been taking from the people who have it together in evangelization.  I went to the experts, thanks!

The book brings to you a compendium of useful ways to help your friends grow closer to God, taken from the experiences of many, many Catholic evangelists of all kinds, most of them just ordinary Catholics in the pews.  You aren’t supposed to do it all!  In reading the book the hope is that you can find yourself somewhere in there and figure out your own small part to play as a member of the Body of Christ.  Enjoy!

The How-to Book of Evangelization

Cover art for The How-to Book of Evangelization by Jennifer Fitz, courtesy of Our Sunday Visitor.

June 24, 2018

This morning I had the pleasure of being present when Bishop Robert Gugliemone announced the creation of (yet another) St. Peter’s Basilica, suitably proclaimed on the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the diocese of Charleston’s patron saint.

Updated to share a link to the proclamation:

And Bishop Gugliemone’s homily:

Here are a few quotes from the bishop’s homily, pulling inspiration from the example of St. John the Baptist.  On the miraculous conception of the saint, but applying that to the lives of every Christian:

“God’s word can break through any human barrier.”

On how God stills speaks through people today, the bishop listed among others:

” . . . those who can challenge people to change their evil ways.”

And on the difficulty of discerning how to respond to evil:

“The only bad way is not to do anything.”

So that’s the standard Bishop Gugliemone set for himself this morning.


Why does it matter?  Because Bishop Gugliemone comes from the Diocese of Rockville Center (that’s Long Island to the rest of us), where he was made director of clergy personnel after the grand jury report on that diocese’s sex abuse scandals came out.  As with the bishops who’ve made official statements on Cardinal McCarrick’s case, Bishop Gugliemone can’t know nothing.

What he knows and what he thinks, I could not say.  I don’t have any inside scoop on the man.  From what I have seen in his years as bishop, Gugliemone is a diplomat’s diplomat who wants to peacefully preside over the work of enabling decent Catholics to do what Catholics do.

He is not a hard hitter.  I’ve never heard a forceful word out of the man in my life.  Speaking candidly about what substance lies behind the allegations made by Rod Dreher and Julia Duin is the exact opposite of Bishop Gugliemone’s usual modus operandi.

But as the man himself says: We need to challenge people to change their evil ways.


Updated to share a related link: Jesus Doesn’t Need Your Lie.


Here are a couple snapshots from today, as taken from the Seating for People Who Were Late to Mass.  (I know!)  For a slideshow of the new basilica, look here.   If you’re wondering whether the new basilica’s liturgy was really all that, here’s (someone else singing) the Sanctus and Agnus Dei from today’s Mass.



September 28, 2017

New in JAMA: Research showing that children who view movies with gun usage in them are more likely to pick up and play with a real gun.  The experiment was pretty simple: Children viewed a PG movie that either showed guns being used or had the gun-containing scenes edited out. The children were then left to play in a room full of toys, with a real but disarmed gun planted in the playroom.*  After controlling for other variables, the researchers noted that children who had just viewed the gun-containing version of the movie were more likely to pick up the weapon and play with it.

This is not surprising research.  Children learn.  They act out in their play what they see around them.  I’ll note here that the fact the gun was planted in a toy room was bound to cause some children to think it must be a toy gun.

Though firearms are not responsible for as many deaths among children under 12 than either drowning or automobile accidents, all the same: dead is dead.  You don’t want your kid dying from any of these.  That’s why we have to be obsessive about keeping young children from getting into the pool without adult supervision, for example, and making sure that when children are near water that the adult supervision is 100%.  (Which is exhausting.  There’s nothing easy and simple about keeping kids from drowning.)

The gun-viewing study, though, is interesting in that it offers such a simple way to reduce (not eliminate) childhood gun accidents: It’s not really necessary for children’s entertainment to contain gun scenes.  I don’t say that because I’m one of those hyper-paranoid mothers who stores their child in an organic, passive-solar, spring-fed crate with three silk scarves to play with and a book about Our Silk Is Fair Trade.  I say it because it’s possible for Hollywood to restrain itself.  You could write scripts that don’t call for gun scenes.

And get this: You could have adult movies that didn’t show ridiculously irresponsible behavior with guns by people who ought to know better.  How about . . . Don’t point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to shoot?  Finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot?  I’d tell you to try a drinking game with Netflix where you drink every time you see bad gun safety practices, but I don’t approve of drunkenness either.

I’m not proposing we pass a law.   I want no such law.  What I’m predicting is that Hollywood will mostly not care.

Other Things You Can Do to Protect Your Kids

The researchers propose that parents be more particular about keeping their guns out of children’s hands, and I agree.  Don’t store your firearms in a drawer in the kids’ playroom for certain.  I jest, sort of, but yes, this is how it works:

  • If you own a pool (bathtub, five gallon bucket . . .), you must be obsessively committed to keeping children from drowning in your water.
  • If you own a motor vehicle, you must be obsessively committed to keeping children from being crushed to death by your vehicle.
  • If you own a gun, you must be obsessively committed to keeping children from shooting themselves or others with your weapon.

Accidents can happen even when you are pretty impressively careful.  People are fallible.  Kids seem to gravitate towards the weirdest dangers sometimes.  You cannot prevent every single accident ever.  Bad things happen to good parents.  But you can improve the odds.  So definitely: Water safety, car safety, gun safety, all the other safety, as best you can manage.

Avoidance isn’t the Total Solution

Drinking, bathing, transportation, hunting, self-defense — these are all legitimate pursuits.  The fact that they entail some level of danger doesn’t mean we need to eliminate them.  So the other half of the equation is teaching your children how to stay safe.  Teach them to swim. Teach them to buckle up, to not walk out into traffic, etc.  And even though the research is discouraging, Stop, Don’t Touch, Run Away, Tell an Adult does sometimes work.  I know that it works because there was a time it worked for my kid.

The boy was about four years old, and we were at our friends’ house.  Our friends own guns, which they keep properly stored so that unauthorized users can’t access them.  The adults were on site, and the children, including teens old enough to supervise a preschooler, were playing in the yard and garage (yard fenced; garage is used as a rec room / mud room, does not have dangerous tools, vehicles, etc. in it).   In all ways this was a safe situation.  Unless you’re going to have the crate with the three silks, you really can’t ask for a more reasonable level of safety.

The house, itself, though, was not crated off from civilization.  Neighbors exist.

What happened is that the neighbor kid came over with his BB gun.

What happened next is that no one got hurt.

The reason no one got hurt is that our four year old boy bypassed Stop and Don’t Touch and went direct to Run Away and Tell an Adult.  He was probably more impervious to the neighbor kid’s influence because (a) he didn’t know the kid (b) a teen is much more intimidating to a four-year-old than to a peer and (c) he didn’t know it was a BB gun.  [Tip: BB guns do not cause very many deaths, but they can and do.]

Parents intervened, done.

Should you count on a four-year-old to reliably respond every single time?  Of course not.  But that doesn’t mean you give up and do nothing.

Safety training can help prevent injuries and death.  I have a friend whose baby was saved from drowning by her little four- or five-year-old brother (I can’t remember the exact age — but it was dramatically young).  How many times has a self-righteous sibling been the informant who let the driving parent know another of the children was unbuckled?  I had one of my kids so firmly committed to buckling (by the age when she could climb into her own car seat and buckle herself reliably) that she’d yell, “I’m not buckled!” if you turned on the vehicle before she was fully buckled.

Teaching your kids good safety practices isn’t 100%.  Nothing is 100%.  Stuff is still gonna happen.  You improve the odds by doing all the different things as well as you can.

File:Operation Atlantic Resolve-South, local Romanian students visit with 2-2 150407-A-EM105-591.jpg

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia [Public Domain], click through for the details.


*I think this study design is a terrible idea.  Don’t model irresponsible gun habits.   Kids should be able to trust that grown-ups aren’t going to put them in a room with a weapon like that.  Honestly? I think causing a kid to have the experience of adults standing by watching (behind the glass) while the kids pick up a gun, point it at their playmate, and pull the trigger is unconscionable.

October 28, 2015

File:Justus van Egmont - King Louis XIV of France.jpg

I was raised on the kind of feminism that was about rejecting false stereotypes.  Your hobbies, your tastes, your talents — none of these are what defines you as “male” or “female.”  You can be a girl who likes sports (curiously, both my grandmothers played high school sports in the 1930’s — but that was Catholic schools, so it was different than normal, I guess) and woodworking and car repair, and that doesn’t make you less of a girl.

Boys were likewise accorded the complementary rights, though admittedly there was a little more hesitation in that regard.  A female engineer was just an “engineer” long before men got to shed the title “male nurse.”

This was the dogma I grew up with, and yes, people got carried away trying to pass on the dogma. In a desperate attempt to prove the point, girls were shunted into “boy” things just-because, and sometimes there was a scent of disappointment at girls who were perfectly happy with the traditional “girl” things.  It was an imperfect process, and often tainted by other terribly mistaken notions, but at its heart it was a good one.  I reached adulthood fully confident I could pursue whatever interests I liked, with no threat to my femininity perceived or feared.

I thus had to give serious thought to my reflection on the word “women” in the Word by Word Hail Mary, because I knew that so many of the typecasts assigned to femininity rang hollow.   There are indeed general, average, differences between men and women concerning size and strength and the distribution of this or that talent, but none of the exceptions to those “rules” are non-men or non-women.

Being a man or a woman simply is not about how well you stack up to a particular gender “ideal.”  It’s not even about how well your anatomical parts function — you can be infertile, impotent, or missing whole components of your genitalia altogether, and your femininity or masculinity is in no way compromised.  Devastating illness or injury can take away a part of your body you loved dearly, but it can’t take away the reality that you are a man or a woman.

These are facts.  This ideal I grew up with, however imperfectly transmitted, is a true ideal.


The current craze for gender-switching is a rejection of that ideal.  The reason is simple: It depends entirely on perpetuating the stereotypes we were supposedly trying to eliminate.

When a man claims to be a “woman,” the only way he can make that case is to don as many outer symbols of “womanhood” as he can.  Get himself some high heels and some fake breasts, slather on the lipstick, and try to convince people to buy the veneer.  The trouble is that pretty shoes and a nice figure and good make-up aren’t what make you a woman.  You can be utterly frumpy in every detail, and if you’re a woman, you’re still a woman.

When a woman claims to be a “man,” the only way she can float that claim is to try to downplay any outward sign of her femininity and adopt as many “masculine” habits as she can.   It creates a mockery of men — who are much more than flannel-clad testicle-bearers gathered around a football game.

Gender stereotypes are essential to the transgender effort because without them, you just have a regular person.  People might wonder on first acquaintance, if you have a sufficiently ambiguous outward appearance, whether you are a man or a woman. But, having established my credentials as a bona fide woman, it doesn’t matter how un-feminine I look, I still get to use the ladies’ room.

The OB-GYN will still drop a postcard in the mail reminding me to come in for the annual pap smear.  I don’t have to dress up special to persuade the nurse I’m not what I seem to be.  If people mistake me for a man because of my haircut and my work boots and my penchant for dockers, I even get the right to take offense: How dare you doubt my femininity just because I don’t look the way you think I should!

Pop culture is in a bind; we want our truth and our impossibilities too.  It’s no wonder Glamour magazine has chosen a man for its “woman” of the year.  The publication exists to sell the idea that your femininity isn’t a birthright at all, but something that can only be purchased by following the latest fads in the magazine.  When you’re in the stereotype business, your ideal spokesman is someone who wears nothing other than your product.

File:François Le Moyne (French - Head of King Louis XV - Google Art Project.jpg


  • Justus van Egmont – King Louis XIV of France [Public Domain] via Wikimedia
  • François Le Moyne – Head of King Louis XV [Public Domain] via Wikimedia

Whenever you’re feeling caught up in gender stereotypes, search Wikimedia on “King Louis.”


October 23, 2015

Kat Fernandez recently shared her perennial post on poverty-nagging.  What caught my attention was the blouse incident:

He didn’t have to say yes, he’d help me, but he did.

He also didn’t have to comment that I needed to learn to save money or note that I was wearing a new blouse, but he did.

Never mind the “new” blouse was actually a hand me down or the idea of a savings was laughable making barely over minimum wage. He was in a position to help me, which entitled him to lecture me for being poor.

And so what if I was wearing a new blouse? Would he have appreciated it more if I showed up to work looking homeless?

What people overlook is that our society is now so wealthy, in the aggregate, that we’re swimming in clothes.  That a person could be both poor and well-dressed is a stroke of good luck — not everyone has the hand-me-downs flowing in just the right mix — but it’s not a sign of lavish living.

Televisions are another hot topic.  Look at those poor people with their shiny big TV’s.  Try to give your old television away.  Everyone already has one as good as yours, and is only interested in a space- and electricity-hogging machine if it counts as an upgrade.  Hitting the hand-me-down TV lottery isn’t all that difficult.

If you were to try to sell any of these gifts to fund your rent or health insurance habit, you might be able to net a few dollars, but not enough to make a dent in your actual bills.   The hand-me-downs are far more valuable for the benefits they supply directly (work clothes, free news and entertainment) than they are for their cash value.

These realities reflect structural changes in our economy.  For millennia, clothing was hard to come by.  It was valuable even second-hand.  Fifty years ago, electronics were luxuries, not mass-merchandise.   The world has changed, and the outer shell of poverty has changed with it.  What is impossibly out of reach for many Americans today is not food or clothing, but a frugal home in a safe neighborhood with a decent school.  These things simply cannot be had.  They are not on offer.

Meanwhile: Smart phones.  Poor people have smart phones for good reason.  If you own one, you don’t have to have a landline or internet or a computer.  You can use it to apply for jobs and check your kids’ grades, and if you can’t afford a data plan you can walk down to the public library and use their free wifi.  A decent recent-vintage but not cutting-edge smart phone can be had off the shelf for a fraction of the cost of the freshly-minted iDevice that outrage-porn rhetoric imagines are issued with WIC cards.


This doesn’t make poor people saints, and it doesn’t make poor people masters of frugal living.  Some are, some aren’t.  If we look closely, we can find faults in all our friends and most of our enemies, so the poor are just as easy a target for criticism as anyone else.  If not their bad budgeting than their lousy taste in classical music.  We can be confident the poor must surely be doing something wrong, because everybody’s doing something wrong.

Furthermore, by the very nature of the problem, we know that some of the people who struggle to make ends meet have that problem because they really, really stink at making money decisions.  It’s true of the U.S. Congress, it’s true of corporate executives, and it’s true of poor people.  Financial disaster is sometimes not your fault, but sometimes it is.


There is, therefore, a place for both old-fashioned financial advice and old-fashioned almsgiving.  Knowing which are needed and in what proportions is a delicate art.   But we can say with certainty that if your poverty-shaming demonstrates that you have no working knowledge of the economic changes that have taken place in your own lifetime in your own neighborhood, you should hush up and just listen for a bit.

File:Kotsis Last belongings.jpg

Aleksander Kotsis (1836–1877), The Last Belongings, 1870 [Public Domain], via Wikimedia.

October 6, 2015

Statesmen have a right to poetry in their oratory, and I give Governor Haley every allowance for referring to the flooding in South Carolina as something that happens “once in a thousand years.”  The point she wishes to make is that the present events were utterly unexpected, and I agree with her.  There are countless cases where you can glance at the land and the forecast and be utterly unsurprised by a bit of flooding; the recent disaster in the Midlands is not one of those events.

All the same, I’m going to hazard that if we look at some snatches of recent history — and by “recent” I mean less than a century — the picture is a bit different.

How much water does this place get?

Seasonal fluctuations in water levels are normal, and so are variations from year to year. Sometimes summers are wet and winters are dry, sometimes it runs the other way around.  We are used to the rivers and creeks doing their thing, going up and down.  It entertains.  In recent memory, however, there has been nothing like the overwhelmingly massive flooding we are seeing now.  The evidence, unfortunately, is that this is because we are forgetful.

The Lake Murray Dam was completed in 1930, and one of its purposes was flood control.  If you look at river flow records on the Congaree, you’ll notice some very high-water years prior to the building of the dam.  But note: This year’s record high during the floods at 155,000 cfs was exceeded by a long shot in 1936 at 231,000 cfs.  Take a look at the data — there were yet other big-flood years since the dam was built.

For data from this year’s flood, check out the feed at the Congaree Riverkeepers Facebook page.  Side note: The Gervais Street Bridge was completed in 1928, which means it’s already survived 300,000+ cfs.  Don’t fail us now, little bridge!

The geography of the city underscores this point.  In the past twenty years there has a been a flurry of development along the river, as if someone suddenly noticed there was a major scenic area right there in the middle of everything.  But if you had shown up in 1990, here’s what you would have found on the riverfront: A chicken factory (still there), a couple of water treatment plants (ditto), and a prison.  The scenic Vista tourist area just up the hill from the river (around the recently-built Columbia Convention center) was all industrial property — factories and industrial-supply houses.

(In 1990 there were two pioneering apartment complexes — but nothing at all like what you see today.)

Part of this was due to the river’s history as a transportation pipeline and as a power source for mills.  Likewise, there’s obvious logic to laying out the state capital farther up on the more buildable flat lands at the top of the hill.  But if you look at the siting of the mill villages on either side of the river, you’ll notice that all the historic development leaves plenty of elbow room for flooding.  Not only is the obvious floodplain kept clear, but there’s a bit of extra cushion before you reach the historic structures.

We who are living in 2015 are surprised by so much rain and what it does to a river or creek.  Someone building in 1915?  Either they knew to expect massive floodwaters, or else the evidence of their ignorance has since washed away.

Just how old is this place, anyway?

The City of Columbia has been around for ages, but what we overlook in thinking about the present floods is just how new most of the residential areas are.  Forest Acres, on the eastern side of the city where the most disastrous flooding is occurring, was only developed into neighborhoods from the 1950’s forward.

What did 1950’s southern suburbia look like? My great aunt, who bought a brand new home on the other side of the river in the avenues of Cayce (West Columbia), explained how Knox Abbot drive — one of the major arteries feeding the city — was then a dirt road.  Urbanization as we know it is new.  Very new.

We think of sixty-five years as being a long time ago, but in terms of weather cycles and flooding probabilities, it simply isn’t.  Unless you mean your city to be disposable, it has to be built for the weather you can reasonably expect during the lifespan of the homes and neighborhoods you hope to keep.

What place for dam-protected neighborhoods?

The pond-dam system of flood control is what makes large portions of creekside land in central South Carolina arable and habitable.  Without the dams in Forest Acres, the neighborhoods as we know them could not function — so they will almost certainly be rebuilt.  Alongside a wild creek is not a good place to put a tame neighborhood.

Something to understand before asking petulant questions about why the dams in Forest Acres and farther afield weren’t made to handle more water is that there is much more room for error in a rural, undeveloped setting — which is where most dams were situated, for lack of urbanization, until only very recently in South Carolina history.

Dirt roads are prone to erosion, which is why asphalt is so popular.  But when you have a dirt road, you can see the dirt wash away.  In contrast, the terrifying sudden collapse of paved roads happens because the dirt below has eroded, and the pavement gives way only when it is no longer supported.  In other words: Until recently, the roads that got washed out by the odd dam-failure didn’t necessarily do so in a way that took anyone by surprise.

Likewise, in a rural area there’s more room for absorbing floodwaters.  Build your home on higher ground, and if the dam goes you’ll lose some crops, but it isn’t, if you do it right, your entire life’s everything.  The Forest Acres floods have been so catastrophic because pavement serves as a channel and funnel for water, not a sponge.

How do you build a disaster? Put your history on backwards.

We have a disastrous paradox going on in the Midlands:

  • Portions of our pond-and-dam systems are built as if water levels we’ve experienced historically aren’t going to come around again.
  • Our infrastructure, which radically affects how floodwaters impact our lives, is the thing that has radically changed. A mostly-paved city experiences water runoff in a fundamentally different way than farm and forestland does.

Essentially we’ve pretended to control the thing we can’t change, and have failed to account for the thing we can and have changed.

It’s an error, and hopefully it’s a once-in-a-thousand-years error.  But if we do not correct ourselves, we will see this again.

File:Gervais Street Bridge, Gervais Street spanning Congaree River, Columbia (Richland County, South Carolina).jpg

Photo: Jack Boucher [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Browse Our Archives