How to pick a location for your homestead - Part 2

To listen to our podcast for this blog post check it out here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bepreparedchannel/2013/09/14/how-to-pick-a-location-for-you-homestead--part-2

In the last post we went over the screening process we used to narrow down locations in the US for our homestead.  The criteria we used so far is:

1. Population density
2. Precipitation
3. USDA Plant hardiness zones
4. State freedom rankings

Based on the criteria we had in mind our list was narrowed down to Texas, Idaho, Missouri.  If your wondering how we came to that conclusion please go back and check out our previous post.

Next we will continue the evaluation locations based on some of the other criteria.

• Proximity to nuclear power facilities
• Proximity to US military installations 
• Proximity to national borders (there could be and already are serious issues living too close to national borders with illegal activities, and will likely get worse as the economy declines)
• Elevation
• Proximity to family and friends
• Railroad transportation corridors
• Water transportation corridors

   
Additional nice to have resources:
    Resources like state and national forest systems
    Access to water resources like major lakes, rivers, and bodies of water

Proximity to nuclear power facilities:

Fukishima is just one example of reasons we do not want to be near nuclear power facilities.  The cost to run and maintain these facilities is very high, and as the economy continues its decline the maintenance and upkeep of these facilities are likely to continue to fall into decline.  Issues of civil unrest, terrorist attacks, electromagnetic pulse, massive solar storms, region wide power failures for extended periods could very easily cause serious problems at these facilities.  The general rule of thumb we have found from our research is you do not want to live within a 50 mile radius of one of these facilities.  You also want to look at the jet streams and the possible ways you will be in the path of possible fallout from one of these facilities. 



http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fallout/

We took these as very serious threats and weighed this stronger than some of the other factors we are going to discuss in this post.

The go to resource for much of this info is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  They have interesting articles, maps, and lists.

https://forms.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

In our case the nuclear facilities are in Columbia MO which is central MO.  There are nuclear facilities in northern AR, and there is a facility south of Kansas City.  So it really pushes our selection area into south west to south central MO area to stay out of the danger zones with the nuclear facilities.

For TX the nuclear facilities are near Houston, and just south west of Dallas.  Our location for consideration would be in eastern TX for the precipitation so nuclear facilities weren't as big a factor in the location we considered in TX.

Proximity to US Military Installations:

The US government increasingly each day has demonstrated it's stance that the people of the US are either a product to be exploited, and/or are terrorists to be hated, spied upon, controlled, and it appears much much worse.  As long as we continue to see this pattern and behavior in our own government we chose to consider US Military installations possible sources of problems.  We decided to consider these facilities in the same way we considered nuclear power facilities.  We are choosing to keep a 50 mile radius from major installations that we are aware of and consider the very scarey proposition that those facilities will be used against our own people.  This may sound like paranoid thinking and nothing pains me more to give this thought any validity given I am a vetran myself, but I think we have to face the facts and try to consider all possible and likely scenarios.  You can check out maps of US military installations and get familiar with the possible influence those installations might have on your area.

http://mymilitarybase.com/base-finder/

Major military installations in MO were Ft Lenardwood in the central part of MO. 

In Texas it is JRB Fort Worth, and the Red River Army Depot.  Neither of these installations would directly impact our choice of location.

   
Proximity to national borders:

I probably don't have to say much on this topic.  I think the threats are pretty obvious, but there are also the not so obvious threats to our freedom which is the buffer zone the US government has erected at our national borders where it is basically consider a constitution free zone.  This encompasses major bodies of water, and our national borders.  Anyone living in these zones which is the vast majority of the population of the US lives on the coasts and near major bodies of water and river systems. 

For more information you can check out the below map and the link the explains how these zones work.

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

This is a concern with Texas given the ramping up of hostilities with the border, illegals, drug trafficking, etc.  This was a negative strike against TX in our list even though our location area would have been away from direct border or constitution free zones.  We have to wonder if Texas is going to have the nerve to stand up and defend herself and her borders from these invasions and tell the Federal government what they can do.  It wouldn't surprise me if Texas doesn't succeed from the nation as we continue down this path and it was one of the things in the back of our minds when looking at locations.  But in the end we decided we could not make that judgement call on a maybe.  So for the time being TX border issues and the problems with the Federal government weighed on us as a negative.  Could the situation with the border become a positive for Texas in the future?  I think it could depending on the events that unfold and just how Texas chooses to handle itself.  For right now we just have to file it away in the back of our minds as possibilities.

Elevation:
Given the threats of global warming, weaponized weather technology, and unpredictable behaviors due to quakes, tsunami's etc we felt it was important to consider elevation above sea level as a possible threat.  Honestly we took mental note of this particular item, but I don't know that it became a game changing factor in our deliberations, but it was something that we considered as one of the factors.

So we looked at 3 generalized areas within the 3 target states on our list go get a general idea of the elevation of each state in the area of the state we were considering.

Springfield, Missouri ... Elevation, 1,299 ft
Dallas, Texas ... Elevation 450 ft
Sandpoint, ID ... Elevation 2096 ft

The issue here is that for ever 1000 ft rise in elevation you move down one plant hardiness zone.  Looking at average low temperatures in light of our need to produce food we could see that most of Idaho average low temps were actually very low with only a couple of months where average low temps were above 50 degrees.  Given these temps and the elevation it actually weighed against choosing ID.  When we combined that with our next topic of proximity to family and friends we found ourselves ruling out ID.

Proximity to family and friends:
This factor was not as heavily weighed as you would think.  It is a combination of the other factors that were primary in our focus.  Sure if family or friends are close by that would be a bonus, and if they are awake and on board with prepping and taking care of their own that would be a huge bonus.  Sadly most of our family and friends just nod politely and agree with us when the topics come up, but they generally are not doing anything so they really cannot be trusted when the SHTF or I guess I should say when it is obvious to THEM that the SHTF because you will just have a lot more mouths to feed, and shelter.  I don't know about you, but this is hard enough trying to prep for my own family let alone those that choose to do nothing until it is too late.  That is just the harsh realities of the situation.  Don't mean to sound cruel or heartless, but you had better think this through. 

So having family and friends around could be a HUGE asset in the right circumstances.  However if they are not on board, and actively doing something now for their own then you may be opening yourself to even more headaches than you can imagine.  Just give it some thought, do a mental checklist of those people and what they bring to the table before you let them get too close to what your doing, and what is going on. 

Regardless we cannot play the lone wolf and try to do this all on our own.  We all need like minded people on board to help us.  It would be fantastic if those people were family members, but honestly don't count on it.  Be logical, rational, and try to keep emotion out of it when deciding who you let into your circle of trust.  I would just say keep it in the back of your mind that the area your considering may have family or friends there.  Only you can decide just how important that is to you and what role those folks might play if you moved to that location.

In our case we had family in MO, and knew a couple of people in the area we were considering in TX.  We did an inventory of the skills, and level of preparedness they were taking in their own lives and deemed that in both locations we would not likely be able to rely on those folks in their current state of preparedness or action.  So it didn't swing our votes either way.  ID did not have family or friends, and frankly it would have moved us further away from family and friends.  While that wasn't a huge factor in our plan it was something that added to the temperatures in ID that made us decide that ID was likely not going to be the best fit for us.

Transportation Corridors(rail and water):
We feel as the economy continues this slide, and the dollar continues to be printed until it is destroyed the cost of energy and transportation systems is going to become a factor in transportation of goods, and essential supplies across the US.  Proximity to the most efficient transportation corridors that are likely to be maintained even in a post collapse situation will be rail and water.  These forms of transportation are the most energy efficient ways of moving things.  So we looked at the rail and water systems in the areas we were considering.  We feel these will become central hubs once again for trade.  So these two factors were considered.

There are two things to consider.  Navigation capable water ways, and freight density of existing routes.  The same is true for rail.  You can look at a rail map for a state and see the routes, but it is the freight density map that may be the most enlightening when considering these routes. 

Now how close do you want to live to these water and rail routes?  That is a good question.  We wanted to know that there were methods of transport in the general area, but we did not chose to live on one or more of these routes.  We do think that at some point in the future we may find ourselves having to make way to these cooridors for trading, medicine, and other needs so it is something to think about just how far away you might be and just how you might get to one of these locations. 

To be honest we looked at the areas we were considering in MO and TX and both had rail access in the general area, and the rail density was high.  But those locations were in in dense population areas.  So it remains to be seen how that will play out or if these can be utilized.  I guess only time will tell, but it is something we considered in our decision making.  In the case of MO there is major river water route cutting through the central part of the state, and that there is a rail hub in Springfield.  However population density is a problem so distances from these places will be an issue.  Finding other possible places along those routes where a train may stop could become important, but as of this time I am not aware of any.  It would be good to know the smaller rail carriers that run the short lines up to the main hubs may become a factor once again.  Many of those routes and lines were pulled up years ago and made into bike and running trails etc.  So it will be interesting to see what happens and if there is a revival of rail in the US to serve more rural areas.

Conclusion:
There were other factors we weighed in our decision process, but these were the main ones that had our attention.  In the end we did make a decision that was a compromise because there is no such thing as a perfect location.  We chose to move to MO.  We relocated last May.  We are now in the general area where we hope to find some land and begin setting up our homestead.  We felt it was important to get into the area so that we could see, learn, and understand the area, the landscape, the challenges.  So we are here now and the search begins again, but now on a very narrowly focused area with new criteria.

I hope you found this long winded post informative.  There is just so much data, charts, maps, graphs, articles etc that I could post and this would have become a book.  I hope I have provided enough info so that you can begin your own search, or just evaluate your current location in light of some of these criteria.  Of course our criteria could be very different from your own, and our selection based on specific guidelines may be more harsh or far more lenient than you may be when doing your own search.  What is important is that you begin this process a quickly as possible, and then determine if your in the area you need to be.  Then start thinking about the process for your homestead site selection.

As always, stay safe, keep your powder dry, and take care!

Longsnowsm