Recently, the news includes stories of hardship and sandbagging along the Red River of the North (not to be confused with the Red River between OK and TX). It was just 1997 (less than 10 years ago), when massive flooding along the Red River produces disastrous consequences, especially for Grand Forks, ND. This year, snowmelt combined with impending spring precipitation is creating a flood problem along the RRotN once again. How many times does it take for it to sink in (pun intended) that having their cities include development within the flood plain of a flood-prone river is ... not very smart? The whole nation will help to bear the cost of massive flood-prevention efforts that may or may not suffice to prevent inundation of property and perhaps even create casualties. And the whole nation will have to underwrite much of the costs incurred as a result of flood damage. Why should we pay for the stupid choices of someone else?
This is very much comparable to rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina - that city will continue to represent a hazard so long as it remains where it is. And New Orleans is far from the only storm-vulnerable location along the Gulf coast and the East coast. Furthermore, Katrina was not the dreaded "big event" that still remains over the horizon for New Orleans. The worst is yet to come and no one knows how much longer New Orleans can continue to be as lucky as they've been for many decades.
Unlike New Orleans, however, cities along the RRotN have much more frequent reminders of the foolishness of flood plain development in which they've participated. They have even less of an excuse for ignoring the very plain messages that the RRotN has been sending every few years. And there are many other cities along many other rivers all over this nation who are equally to blame for what is going to happen to them when their rivers burst out of their banks and inundate their floodplains. Flood insurance is not the solution to this problem - it simply allows stubborn people to replace their vulnerable property and stay in the same place! We need to develop land use regulation that will move us away from this precarious position, so widespread around the nation. The RRotN is perhaps only one of the most frequent reminders of our shortsighted policies for land use.
---------------------
Reply to comment by Aaron Kennedy:
I'd be disappointed if you chose not to be completely honest! Narrow? In what way is my viewpoint narrow? I believe I understand the history of why cities wound up on rivers, but if we've learned anything in 100+ years, it should have been that developing the floodplain with structures is a costly mistake. In some years, even agricultural use will result in catastrophic losses to the farmers. Sure, floodplains are fertile, but why ask those not farming a floodplain to help pay for your losses? [Insurance companies spread their costs around all their policyholders via increased premiums.] If you took the risks, you should have to pay for it with the profits you made farming that fertile land in non-flood years.
Regarding GFK, if they've used Federal money to move out of the floodplain as a result of the 1997 flood, good for them. That's a much better use of external underwriting (either directly from the government or from insurance companies) than putting it into rebuilding in the same location after the floods recede. When we abandon developments within floodplains, we won't be paying that price repeatedly for recurring damage. If you use your flood insurance to repair and rebuild in the same location after you've been flooded, then indeed - shame on you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
To be honest, I think your viewpoint is somewhat narrow. Why not consider why towns are even located along rivers? At least in the past, rivers provided the most economical way of transportation and moving goods (Mississippi,Missouri,etc.). While that certainly isn't true of the RRotN these days, it does provide one of the most fertile plains for growing crops in the country. That's why people even live here! Before federal flood insurance even existed, people decided it was worth the risk to live here. I believe our home has been flooded at least 2 or 3 times since it was built in the 1880s.
It's interesting to see the national take on the news. Living in Grand Forks, the flood is more of a curiosity and slight inconvenience than anything else - and that's with a crest that will be within several feet of 97. The city reclaimed most of the land that is most prone to flooding and has turned it into green space. Dikes were built and moved back to provide a larger channel. Development these days is occurring in areas with higher elevations. Not sure what else you can do to minimize the risk from flooding. The city took the advice the Army Corp to prevent a 500 yr type flood.
Of course all of this was with the assistance of federal money. Where do you draw the line? I could go on, but I'll just admit my bias after living in a nice community for a few years. If for whatever reason it does flood, I won't be asking for sympathy - although I will take advantage of the flood insurance I kept on the home. Shame on me!
The main issue with the government and the flood insurance program is failure to increase rates for properties that routinely flood. The original goal was to either a) force people to simply leave or b) communities to work together with the gov. to remove themselves from the floodplain and prevent another flood.
Another issue is with the calculation of risk. I'll be first to admit I've questioned what the heck a 100 yr flood is if we've had two within a 10 year span. Is this just bad luck such as a person getting hit by a tornado twice in their lifetime? Or is the risk simply changing with time due to varying climate?
Great stuff! Thanks.
Regards,
clipping path
Since we are talking about flooding it is worth pointing out here that the tragedy that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was also, by in large, a side effect of a large number of people living in poverty in New Orleans. Most of whom were probably disconnected from life saving weather advisories not to mention the opportunity of moving to another location in advance of this tropical cyclone. Or even living somewhere else other than at a location near mean sea-level. Policy makers should make eliminating poverty their top priority.
Post a Comment