High Water leads to Slippery Slope

[xoxoxoBruce]

Historically, towns and cities grew up along the waterways. Then the suburbs grew up around those towns and cities, so there is a lot of people living near the rivers. It would be a Herculean task to move them all.
And where are we going to get the food that's grown on those millions of acres of flood prone land, if nobody is allowed to continue their farms there?

[Alluvial]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Historically, towns and cities grew up along the waterways. Then the suburbs grew up around those towns and cities, so there is a lot of people living near the rivers. It would be a Herculean task to move them all.

That's all true. One thing that the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is trying to do in the states is to get people to relocate out of frequently flooded homes & businesses. That's a bit different than wholescale relocation of towns - although that's been done too. Here is an interesting publication which showcases some mitigation stories from the 1993 floods in Missouri, including some relocations.

Many structures would benefit from simple elevation. Here is an article about a couple who had their home elevated 10 feet above the original grade. Although the home had suffered several floods, including 53 inches of water from Hurricane Georges, after the elevation it didn't, even from Katrina.

And where are we going to get the food that's grown on those millions of acres of flood prone land, if nobody is allowed to continue their farms there?

I didn't mean to relocate the farms. People living there would need to be protected from flood, although some areas are just so low that you oughtn't put a home there.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Alluvial

some areas are just so low that you oughtn't put a home there.

Like New Orleans?

[Alluvial]

Originally Posted by classicman

Like New Orleans?

IMO a big problem with NoLa is that the land is subsiding. Sure, we could put fill dirt in, or raise buildings, but that would just eventually sink too. So, mitigation there is quite problematic. (I looove that smiley !!)

From a coldly logical standpoint, the port and associated warehouse district are the only necessary things in NoLa. People other than those manning the port & appurtenances don't have a necessity to live there. (Mind you, I'm not suggesting that everyone flee the city).

From a social standpoint, the city is very rich in history and has a lot of cultural significance for the United States. It is irreplacable in that respect.

There are many historical areas in a similar pickle. As Bruce mentioned, people tend to congregate and build around rivers. How do we preserve history and heritage while at the same time promoting better floodplain management? Tough decisions.

Zen, the phenomenon you mention has been a hot topic of discussion in the industry. What happened is that developers were attracted to floodplain lands sorta by default - because the land was cheaper. In effect, the creation of the NFIP and publishing of the flood zone maps made it possible for those developers to make a good living from building things in the floodplain. Today's homebuyer isn't as savvy about what constitutes a 'good building site' as folks in more agrarian days were, and is often completely unaware of nearby flooding sources and the risks of building there.

One small correction: the NFIP isn't subsidized by the government. The NFIP is funded solely by flood insurance premiums.

The National Flood Insurance Program is premium funded and has been operating in the black for years. It has the authority to borrow up to 1.5 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury, however, all such funds much be repaid with interest.

From here.

[xoxoxoBruce]

And those premiums have gone up like crazy for the last few years.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Like New Orleans?

Damm. Here, here.