The National Trust and the Technical Advisory Panel looked at nine options that had been suggested as part of the initial study of the issue. Some were variations on the same theme. In addition to the options currently under consideration several others were reviewed and then dismissed including:
- Leaving the house in place and letting it flood, followed by clean-up after the flood event. This was rejected as too damaging to the historic materials and not a good example of stewardship of an iconic landmark.
- Erecting a barrier wall around the house (either permanently or temporarily). This was rejected due to the visual impact on the site (with both options), the need for a large, disruptive foundation for either option, the need for extensive labor to erect the temporary barrier (sometimes with only two hours notice). Since the ground water is between six feet and seven feet below grade, there is also the likely complication of water seepage from below.
- Protecting the house with a buoyant ring that would “float” the house during a flood event. This was rejected due to the intrusive nature of the system on the landscape.
- Moving the house off-site. This was rejected due to the significance of the context of the site to the house and design.