There is little that's more idiotic than placing families in harms way and using government subsidies to foster the lunacy. If Carolina voters stopped electing global warming deniers to run things, their lives would improve. But of course clinging to their disastrous ideology is obviously more important to them.
Other than the large homes on the outer banks that belong to the foolish very wealthy, I have to wonder what the average income is within the surrounding area, inland. I suspect it is low, land prices are likely extremely low, and banks have not kept up with problem areas. What ever happened to no loan if there is no flood insurance? I had to have it on my prior home in the middle of a hill cornfield in Kansas!
What we also see is the hardening of the shorelines of our coastal harbors, entry canals and along the courses of our rivers. This "hardening" walls of marshes and swamp lands that are nature's sponges for surging waters.
When the great engineers create barriers to the horizontal free flow of water, they establish conditions where the water has nowhere to go but up.
The flooding of lower Manhattan, including the inundation of subway tunnels needed to transport millions of commuters on a daily basis, was a direct result of water rising until it found a way to go sideways.
Man can be monumentally short sighted, particularly when it comes to the powers of massive quantities of water.
We should seriously consider not allowing people who willfully put their lives and the properties at risk from flooding damages to purchase flood insurance for their properties. We should not be in the business of subsidizing their lack of attention to their own risks.
1
As a construction defects specialist, I would point out that the man in the photo has NO REBAR in the foundations of his house. Fell apart like a house of cards. Folks, you might want to try grouting your concrete masonry walls, and using joist hangers and tie-down clips on the wood framing. You'd be surprised how much it helps.
5
Not enough people buy flood insurance. Insurance is all about pooling risk. If your bank doesn't require it people don't buy it.
1
Yes, where people live is a problem, as they move into risk zones. However, there is a second issue, how they live there.
Structures can be more or less resistant to damage. I doubt anything can be proof against all damage, but too many of these seem to be inviting disaster.
People living in tornado zones of the mid west used to have storm cellars. People living along the flood zone of Hawaii's Oahu North Shore built their homes on stilts reinforced to withstand the water to depths expected.
Of course now we see structures can be more proof against earthquake and hurricane, but that is a matter of degree with risks taken in basic design that mere roof straps cannot entirely overcome.
People always lived along that coast. They used to build for it, at least some of them did.
4
What is the definition of “live along a coast”? How far inland does this apply? 30% of the population seems too large, but it depends how the author defines “along”.
"Along the coast" should mean those areas that would be subject to flooding if a storm surge should present along the shore line.
Pick a number for the height of the surge...And make it realistic by accounting for the steps that man has taken to eliminate the marshlands that have, historically, protected shoreline developments.
Note: Drainage canals and the like are fine as long as the water is flowing down hill. When the direction of flow changes, they become funnels for huge quantities of raging mountains of H2O
1
Back in the 1950s, my rich uncle (he was a corporate lawyer) had a company share in a beach house on the Isle of Palms in South Carolina, and sometimes my mother, father, sister and I would be invited to spend a few days there. It was a beautiful mid-century modern place with a big screened porch facing the ocean, and there was even a cook who arrived to fix breakfast and prepared lunch as well. (Her incomparable cornbread was a secret family recipe, which neither my mother nor my aunt could pry out of her.) There was plenty of space around the house, and the nearest neighbor was an ex-governor. It's still one of my go-to places for peaceful, happy memories. But a few years ago, my sister and I drove through the area and it took a while, but we spotted it--crammed between two newer houses, its sea-view porch cut back, looking drab and little different from everything else. I wish we could have taken some videos back in the 50s--and I wish I had that cornbread recipe.
1
The map shows growth on the sandbars, but those well-inland urban centers have exploded, so we must be doing something right.
I agree about building at sea level or on a mudslide-prone hill--especially for Chinese citizens. But a 50-mile buffer is ridiculous. Only a couple of days ago, Florence was going to erode the Smokies. Fires, you can write off everywhere west of the Rockies. Recent earthquakes hailed from Mineral, VA, and Oklahoma. Nowhere is totally safe.
Beyond overall population growth, what places like Atlanta and NC's Triangle have going for them are relatively inexpensive housing and solid jobs. California actually built a lot of housing during the '90s, but well inland where there's still little more than farmland and big-box distribution centers.
America will shift back towards suburban when the jobs relocate, and when telecommute and independent contracting become more the norm. Meanwhile, will be interesting to see where Amazon H2 winds up.
1
Couldn't the same story be told about people who build in tornado prone or seismically active areas?
3
Over the last 40 years Houston has been an epicenter of major Hurricanes: Allen (not a direct hit) & TS Danielle ('80); Alicia ('83); Bonnie [less that 90 miles to the east] ('86); TS Allison [just SW of Houston] ('89); Rosa ('94); TS Allison ('01); Rita [indirect hit] ('05); Ike ('08); Isaac ('12); TS Cindy and Harvey ('17).
___
It's a strawman argument when the pundits on FOX say over the last 50 years the hurricanes haven't been as bad as the 50-years preceding. Technology is much better and warning systems allow for better mass alerts.
Nonetheless, the allure to re/building and living on the coasts in many areas is the economic benefit often outweighs the risk. Unfortunately, most people DON'T plan for/can't afford the worst case scenario and it boils down to how many spent shells are in that revolver with one or two holes?
1
I support this op-ed's comments about making the homeowners who build in flood- and storm-prone areas liable for their actions. I remember visiting Sullivan's Island off the coast of Charleston in the spring of 1990, months after Hugo, and looking at the pile of rubble that had once been peoples' homes. An elderly gentleman was picking his way through it, and so my husband and I stopped to ask him if he had been one of the unfortunate homeowners. He said, "yes, it used to be right over there". We were all sympathy for him, until he added "and I am gonna build a bigger one, in the ocean-side lot right next to where it was. Insurance will cover all of it!"
2
Huh, lot of comments about not wanting to pay for the myopic (though legal) decision of their fellow Americans to live in flood zones.
Funny how those same people have no problem shouldering the financial and social cost of 15 million illegal immigrants...
1
I know people who have flood insurance on the west coast. They live in an urban area in one of the highest-risk locations for floods. Their flood insurance, the most comprehensive available, would pay a maximum of $40,000, about 10% of the current value of their home.
So, there isn't even a pretense of their insurance protecting them in the case of a severe flood.
1
Actually, the population growth in coastal and flood-sensitive areas has another consequence. It increases the paved over area of land, severely reducing the soil's ability to absorb water and creating ready made channels, immediately adjacent to homes and businesses, for torrents to surge through. All this is pretty obvious when you think about it, really. Odd that so few people do.
10
Okay, then, I should move to the Mid West. Oh wait; every year I'll have to contend with tornadoes. So, the Southwest then. But there's the scorching heat and water supply issues secondary to increased growth. West Coast? Drought conditions again, wildfires, mudslides, and that pesky Haywood Fault, which is overdue. Back to NY? Maybe to Williamsburg, where I can get a cheaper place with the L line being out courtesy of Sandy. Then New England, where I can run the risk of an accident or heart attack driving in or shoveling snow. I give up, Mr. Strader, what's your perfect solution?
2
Great. You just discredited every climate change scientist who believes -- with good scientific reason -- that the frequency and intensity of storms will increase due to climate change. You say the research you've done proves Hurricane damages are because of development. Every climate change denier is now going to quote the NYTimes. Repeat after me: climate change is real.
2
I have family in the Carolinas with ancestry that goes back to the first humans to inhabit the area. Our family has survived over the centuries because we had enough common sense to respect nature. It's similar to the markers in Japan that were set centuries ago to warn future generations not to build or live beyond the markers. Of course they have been ignored in Japan too and resulted in needless death and destruction. It's called arrogance coupled with stupidity.
3
Interesting Forbes article based on research showing that about 1/3 of all NFIP claims are from TWELVE US counties, and that many of these claims are for properties worth considerably more than national averages (= not poor/working class). I wonder if the faux-conservative/libertarian owners refuse to file claims or accept subsidies out of principle... https://www.forbes.com/sites/zillow/2018/09/13/12-counties-account-for-a...
5
Excellent... those that insist on living in high risk areas need to take on the risk, not pass to the taxpayer.
2
For decades Americans have been inundated with commercials and reality TV shows where they are told that the ultimate retirement or leisurely life is one that consists of a beach-side house. It has always seemed odd to me, especially given the large number of Americans who are just couch potatoes and don't really take advantage of their natural surroundings anyway. There are countless seaside retirement communities where 99% of the residents never dip a toe in the ocean. Heaven forbid you relax on a front porch in a nice inland community, or hit a cabin up in the woods for nature, or go to a lakeshore or river bank for a water view. The beach is sold as the place you move to when you've "made it," whether it makes any sense or not.
6
So true! Most Americans eat and watch TV, retired or not. Where they live is irrelevant to this lifestyle.
2
Immigration advocates say, the United States is large enough to fit hundreds of millions of additional people. The fact is there were reasons people didn't live in certain places. It is interesting to see that the author makes no connection the growth of 100 million people due to immigration since 1970 and the expansion of development in threatened areas. The government should stop subsidizing development in environmentally unsustainable areas.
2
Excellent thank you. Of course the main problem discussed here without mentioning it is exponential growth. Can't continue. Economic growth is part of the problem as is capitalism.
I might add this quote to the discussion:
“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Kenneth Boulding
6
Only two ways to slow or reverse population growth - decrease the birth rate or increase the death rate. The fertility rate (or replacement rate) is indeed decreasing, more so in industrial nations. But we are also rapidly increasing our longevity. Just read about any edition of the NYT and it will have wonderful articles about how a disease has been conquered or some other medical breakthrough has occurred. As long as there are reasons for people to die, there will be efforts to overcome those. The theoretical end point is that all diseases, including aging, are solved and people never die. So ultimately it is not the birth rate that we need to worry about, it is our inherent desire to cure all diseases and to live as long as possible. The latter is not going to change, it is who we are as humans. I have no suggestions here, but future generations will have some serious challenges with population dynamics.
3
I watch HGTV and see people willing to pay a million dollar premium for an ocean view, People are obsessed with the ocean. Let them take on the risks for this view. We need to phase out the national flood insurance program by refusing to offer it on new development. These people can either try to get private insurance or self insure at their risk. For homes already on the program, any payout would be one time, either a payout for relocation or a rebuild with the understanding that their policy is terminated upon rebuilding.
8
When when Hazel hit Long Beach Island, there were -375 man-made structures on the island and about 50 survived. Yesterday there are -4,000 such structures. Don’t know what Florence has left behind yet,but had it stayed a Cat 3, probably only 50 structures.
Federal subsidized flood and fire insurance has allowed developers to build in flood and fire prone areas. That is the negative consequence of a program that was supposed to mitigate Federal bailouts for disasters. My home is a 75 min drive to the beach at Atlantic Beach. My foundation is precisely 25 feet above sea level and about 1/4 mike from Swift Creek that feeds into the Neuse River. I have flood insurance and I have taken all of the art and photographs off of my walls and shelves and moved to my son’s house in Durham. The area flooded after Floyd, but that was a 500-year flood, a fluke, and so we built our dream home. If the home is damaged, I will use my insurance to restore and move back in. Had I been told that I could not obtain insurance due to the risk, I would have seriously considered a different piece of land. If my home is totaled, I should not be allowed to re-build period.
Not to worry, the developers of the NC Coast got the legislature to pass a law that sea level rise will not exceed 8”. Problem solved, at least until a storm like Florence comes along and there will be more.
4
I sure wish the federal government would back earthquake insurance like it does flood insurance (to the tune of $25B owed from the NFIP to the federal government). Although this wasn't the case when the NFIP was started, it has morphed into welfare for homeowners. Let's call it what it is, and decide to do, or not to do, something about it.
2
Part of the problem is greed. Local planning and zoning boards should have done the right thing and prohibited development but they along with others chasing the almighty dollar allowed development. Part of the problem is risk. The federal government took on risk with the national flood insurance program that is underfunded. Taxpayers pick up the difference. The national program was developed because private insurers knew the risks better than the government. If property owners and developers want to build in those areas, let them pay the full cost of any insurance and no federal disaster bailouts.
9
I wish living on the coast was a true free-market situation. The government has created a moral hazard that people will obviously take advantage; coastal homeowners do not bear the true cost of living on the coast since the government subsidizes their true risk cost. If flood insurance charged the actuarially fair price rather than being subsidized by the US government (and our tax dollars), the free market would take care of the problem - less people would live in flood prone areas. Why do you think insurance companies do not sell flood coverage? They know better.
9
Got it prof. We shouldn't be living there. I suspect there will be a chorus of "I told you so," "there are too many of us," and "we shouldn't be doing this in the first place," followed by the by now familiar - 'oh my lord, global warming." None of this matters a whit to people drowning.
Global warming is here, it is accelerating, tides will get worse, oceans will rise, southwest will get no rain, northeast will be wetter, water will be in short supply, oil will run out, refugees will come over the border. We have crossed the point of no return on most things that maybe we could have prevented, but did not.
Ergo: we need to adapt fast, and put an end to our blarney.
There are construction technologies that have produced stadiums, bridges, skyscrapers, and others. Yet, we live in stick built houses that regularly go poof for one reason or another. We have great arguments for it (wood is cheap, plentiful, easy to transport, is tensile, blah blah). The insistence on living in homes designed for 1700, while facing the environment of 2018 - may well serve as a definition of insanity.
The authors should consider that the most threatening environments have produced industrious, developed economies with happy people (see Northern Europe, Quebec, Minneapolis). Predictable, warm climate areas are largely dirt poor - barring a few exceptions that prove the rule (see the zone between Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn). Let's adapt.
5
Yes, Kalidan! I often rant about how we insist on living in homes that are essentially built with wooden sticks and covered in plastic (vinyl). They can be compromised by wind, fire, water, rot, insects, and mold. It's insane. If I ever had the money to build a house it would be with modern concrete methods; I would happily shave off some square footage to afford the better construction. It drives me even more crazy when I see large 3-4 story condo and apartment complexes being built in cities out of wooden studs. I always imagine the builder saying "Don't worry, the drywall will cover the studs and make it fireproof!" Instead of building 3,000 square foot McMansions with the worst materials possible, we should be building 1,600 - 1,800 square foot homes that are tough, resilient, and will last.
11
Thanks for an article that finally points out what should be obvious. It makes no sense to build massive housing developments on narrow strips of sand that are prone to hurricanes every generation or so. I’ve been shocked to watch the boom in development along the Carolina coast over the last 15 years, while at the same time seeing the climate scientists’ consensus grow that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent and intense. It’s as if most of the population lives in a bubble based on what’s happening now and has amnesia for the past and a lack of imagination for the future.
2
I live on the water in a 100 year old house which I bought some time ago. It has survived several hurricanes. I do not fly much, I drive a gas efficient car and drive less than 5k a year, we have made our house energy efficient. Is my choice to live where I live the problem or the choices that other people are making visa vis their life style (big cars, lots of AC, etc) a significant part of the problem?
I also pay thousands of dollars a year in flood insurance and increased insurance rates. In 20 years, I have never put a claim in on my homeowners insurance. If I put 3k a year into a mutual fund for 30 years, it would amount to about 250k which is what flood insurance caps out at. From what I have read it is a fairly small percentage of houses covered by flood insurance that account for something like half of the payouts. These houses get rebuilt several times in some cases. I agree that more prevention needs to be done but this opinion piece is way way to simplistic
2
Nature always wins eventually.
2
Professor Strader is wasting his breath. All over American people are buying and building homes in places that are especially vulnerable to storms, floods, and fires. We are not happy unless we're "developing" some place or other, especially some naturally beautiful place that is vulnerable to periodic natural chaos. It's what we do, and will continue to do. We seem unable to help ourselves. We are disaster artists.
7
Mine is just a passenger-seat observation.
My family has been vacationing on Hatteras Island for the past 25years. It is heaven. No honky-tonks, no boardwalks or amusements, just fishing villages and unspolied beaches.
However, we have also seen, in these 25 years, massive development. Mostly mega-beach houses. Most financed and owned by REITs, not individuals.
So, you have massive growth, as far as structures are concerned, but still little population growth. How does this factor into the statistics cited in this article?
2
Let's talk about the rip-off that flood insurance has become.
I live nowhere near a flood zone. Indeed, it would take perhaps 10 feet of rain in a single day to even begin to flood my home due to rising water. I also live on a gentle incline -- steep enough so any rain runs off easily, but not so steep so as to cause erosion.
I have always carried flood insurance and for only one reason. Should an inundating rain create a flow that pushes up to the back of my house where the crawl space door is located AND should the door seal fail while sump pump fails (along with my whole house generator) it would be possible to short out my air handler. That is the only thing in the crawl space that could suffer damage from flowing or rising water.
In years past, my premiums were about $125 per year, well worth it given the cost to replace the air handler against the improbability that I would ever flood. This year, premiums rose to over $1,400 per year. Three years of those premiums would buy a new air handler/furnace. Clearly it is not worth it.
But I am being forced to pay for the shortsightedness of all those who build in flood plains, right on the shore, or on barrier islands that overwash in the meekest of storms.
My annual fee should be based on my specific situation and not those of others. I'm tired of paying for other people's ignorance, so I don't.
6
Very well done, thanks. We must remember however this is America your writing about. A nation that is broken and has no will to make thoughtful though difficult decisions. We have no national consensus about the role of government. We are not capable of long term planning and problem solving. We are all about quarterly earnings and self interest.
21
High risk... everywhere is high risk. Fires, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, mass shootings, war, Donald Trump! Everywhere is high risk.
There is no such thing as sustainable development anymore. There is no mitigation which will make existing and future development better able to "withstand disaster" (a curious phrase in any event).
4
In general, the problem buildings along the coast are the older ones built to ground level. Most counties have to follow FEMA flood insurance rules that require buildings to be upgraded to new code standards after a loss damaging 50% of the structure.
As for the folks moving down to the Carolinas, while they come from all over the country, my experience has been the number of folks from NY, NJ and OH predominate - it doesn't take a climate specialist to figure out why.
1
I remember Hugo well, stationed at Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia right on the Georgia/South Carolina line. The Hurricane struck the night before I was scheduled to start a leave where I was planning to spend in Charleston, S.C.- essentially ground zero for Hugo. I can clearly remember the howling wind and rain storm outside and the coverage on TV inside despite being well inland and well to the left side of the storm.
Needless to say, I spent my leave elsewhere.
What I also remember is that South Carolina had enacted a law that limited new development on barrier islands and other vulnerable places. After Hugo, if memory serves, the developers lobbied to rescind the law despite fresh evidence of why it made sense in the first place.
This seems to be the pattern in all levels of government these days- money always overrules common sense and the common good.
16
Thanks for making this connection and providing their informative graphical expansion. I just read *The Water Will Come* and the evidence is overwhelming that we need to learn to live with and in our world. Being a wholly owned subsidiary of marketing is disastrous. Earth has the only seat at the table and it bats 1000. Reality is catching up with our exploitation, looting, and dumping.
6
Welcome to South Carolina, where property in the coastal zone is finite but people willing to buy, developers willing to develop and state/local governments willing to put their imprimatur on the destruction of our most valuable natural assets seems infinite.
7
What I get from the map is that most people in the Southeast are careful to live a safe distance from the coast. That blurred orange line on the map is the I-85 corridor: Atltanta, Greenville-Spartanberg, Charlotte, and the Research Triangle. It's only when we reach Virginia that we start seeing big cities on the coasts: Norfolk, Baltimore, Washington, and of course New York and Boston. Imagine which cities will fare better when sea-levels rise and flood the coast.
1
After Guam was devastated by Typhoon Pamela in 1976, the Federal Emergency Management Agency required that the building code be changed if the U.S. Territory wanted future disaster assistance. Since then, only structures designed for Category 5 wind resistance (155+ MPH) and Zone 4 earthquake resistance (6.0+ on the Richter Scale) have been permitted. These strict requirements should be applied on the U.S. mainland, especially on the coasts. The higher construction costs would help to discourage higher-density development in those more dangerous areas.
8
Back in 2012 the Tea Party controlled N.C. legislature, aided by GOP Guv Pat “I’m not a scientist” McCrory passed legislation that threw out a highly regarded state agency prediction based on models developed at UNC regarding the next 100 years of sea level rise on the NC coast due to global warming.
Real estate big money interests in the state feared the report would effect property values and future development that would return a handsome profit, so it was nixed.
However, after my home in a very desirable area of Uptown New Orleans had 5 ft of water in it for 13 days in Katrina, I learned that property values are set by market-fact based forces in urban areas that are flood prone when Mother Nature decides to show mankind whose boss, despite the best efforts of magical thinking charlatan politicians.
5
Uh, wrong.
The study in question was predicated on a number of worst case scenarios combined with models that took full advantage of them extending out over decades. Implementing those figures would have cost homeowners huge sums of money in increased insurance payments.
The NC Legislature decided to install some rationality into the actuarial tables and mandated that estimates could only be calculated on (if I remember correctly) a ten year plan. That has saved residents untold millions of dollars.
As it panned out, even the projections for the past six years over-exceeded reality by a large margin. So it turned out that the politicians were right and the doomsaying climate change mavens can slink back into their federally funded cave to recalculate until they perhaps one day get it correct.
along with the left and democrats, the nyts has been a tireless advocate for immigration (ok, minimal borders and basically unlimited immigration legal or otherwise) and now you're surprised that people are moving to desirable places, often to escape our increasingly crowded cities and hinterlands. The u.s. population has doubled in the last 60 years, driven mostly by immigrants and their offspring. We're losing open space to the unsustainable development that this increase demands. Instead of preserving areas like coasts and forests they now are lost to development, fires and storms. At the same time the u.s. Carbon footprint, driven by increasing population, just gets bigger and bigger, The so-called environmentalists on the left have a lot of explaining to do.
4
@ Al Idaho - So far you are alone here today as the representative of all comment writers who believe that every problem in the USA is caused by the arrival of people from somewhere else. Yesterday at https://nyti.ms/2NdppYI
"U.S. Has Highest Share of Foreign-Born Since 1910, With More Coming From Asia" by Sabrina Tavernise, your fellow close-the-door comment writers were out in force with high Reader recommend rankings.
I am sure you know perfectly well that the US has lots of space and that if US population growth ended the US would be in deep trouble. (I agree that world population growth is the puzzle that nobody knows how to solve).
Oddly you seem to oppose increasing the carbon footprint, but the present US government, run entirely by Republicans, not Democrats or so-called environmentalists, is doing everything possible to increase that carbon footprint. It is that government that "has a lot of explaining to do".
Aren't you being a little inconsistent?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
4
Totally agree AI;
When I stumbled upon this article, I thought perhaps I had been redirected to some other site.
Just strange that NYT would argue for avoiding coast and flood prone areas when many NYT articles are quite irritating in that they pander to have more immigration, especially from South America; many people are squeezed out of the metropolitan areas because the population has doubled since the 1960's.
We are importing too many people, especially people who do not give a hoot about how many offspring they produce, wether they can afford it or not.
We need to think of the long term cost of overpopulating the country and burdening our future citizens as well as our resources.
4
@ JRS - Now we have 2 readers who see immigration as the source of some/many/most problems in the USA. I do admire your phrase creativity, Al: Times tireless advocate for immigration, JRS: NYT panders to have more immigration, especially from South America.
You both are concerned with the doubling of the population in 60 years, one of you stating that this is mostly due to immigrants and their offspring. I doubt that but cannot take the time to study the data. Curious about that statement that most come from South America, that I seriously doubt.
In my reply just below yours is a URL that will take you to a few 100 comments, many of them expressing views similar to yours.
You are both off topic since the article and the map shows changes in building an population density. The geographer who presents them probably knows how to access databases that might reveal percentage of first generation immigrants in each census unit but I am not sure that USCB data are that good. Here in Sweden such data are of high quality and they show that Sweden has a greater percentage of first-generation immigrants than does the USA. When I was in the USA in New England I saw an awful lot of open space and really not that many people visibly 1st generation immigrants.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
I'm not a fan of the development on the coast, but by the animation it looks like it's no more than a reflection of overall population growth in the state. Is there any evidence that the coastal growth rate was higher in this period than the growth rate in Charlotte and the Triangle area?
5
I watched the animation and thought the same thing Lisa.
1
See my comment and responses above. Apparently population growth according to the left has only good effects. Anybody with a calculator knows this is not true. The path way to human happiness and economic and social stability is not paved with ever more people occupying the same space. PC thinking may advocate tying to catch China and India, the only two more populous countries on earth, but a quick visit to either country should dispel that idea as a good one. Idaho is now the fastest growing state. Many of the people coming here are from...California. At 40 million does anyone really wonder why they are leaving?
Your map and story is ridiculous. The article is about North Carolina but most of the state is covered by the text box. I see more of Georgia. Was this put together by your Georgia office? More to the point, North Carolina has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. Floyd in 1999 was the costliest natural disaster in the history of North or South Carolina. Fran in 1996 nearly obliterated Raleigh. What's changed is that 5.5 million of North Carolina's 11 million residents were born in places that aren't vulnerable. The New York Times' coverage of this storm reveals a deplorable lack of knowledge about the country's 10th largest state.
4
Actually, North Carolina is the nation's 9th-largest state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_pop...
But your point is very well-taken.
2
thank you for being a voice of reason -- it's so obvious and yet here we go again. as many of the other comments say: if we really "can't" restrict development in these KNOWN flood areas then at the very least force homeowners to carry better insurance. ridiculous
6
'More than a decade ago, 10 leading climate experts felt compelled to issue a statement saying the debate then about whether global warming was intensifying hurricanes was a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.” The problem, they said, was the continued “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places.'
Let them buy -- or try to buy -- insurance.
6
America is the worst-planned country in the developed world. The result of decades of reckless "free market" development encouraged by planning, zoning and building policies that put developers first and social and economic impacts last. As a professional planner I have watched for three decades as lesson after lesson is not learned. The uniquely American "I can do whatever I want with my land" mentality has cost dearly, and cost lives. Many lives. It was avoidable if only there had been some backbone among politicians who did know better. Developers would still have made *a lot* of money building more efficient and safe projects, and the American people could have
spent a lot *less* cleaning up after them, through lower taxes and insurance premiums.
The "free market" in America: privatize profits, socialize losses.
23
So all of NY and Boston should be abandoned? Miami , Tampa, Houston and New Orleans too? Author seems to forget storms that hit outside the Carolinas. Far more costly ones.
2
Reply to Allan Swire:
The writer from New Zealand's comment about America privatizing the profits and socializing the losses is accurate regarding real estate development.
Here is a link to USA Today. The title: Dear Texas, how many times do we have to rebuild the same house? (You're next Florida)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/01/harvey-proves-flood-su...
The flood insurance program money keeps getting paid out over and over to people building in places where development was unwise and should be curtailed. No new construction on barrier islands should be allowed and destroyed properties on them should be bought out and the property set aside as a coastal buffer.
1
While you can't leave enough areas unpopulated to avoid all big storms, we could let the markets place a real price on insurance and stop subsidizing building in the most vulnerable areas.
10
Contrary to the claims of some, initiatives that address climate change will cost billions. And the largest percentage of expenditures will have to address coastal vulnerability to more extreme weather and increased ocean depths. To date, the number one regulatory issue regarding our coastlines is where we can and cannot drill. As a result, the millions who will eventually be submerged will be inundated with clean water.
2
I have watched the same house condemned and rebuilt on Fire Island at least four times after storms. Others have gone into the sea, but the owner of this house is politically connected and every time it almost goes into the ocean, it is revived with taxpayer money. It isn't just in North Carolina that this goes on.
22
I own to waterfront properties in Charleston county, SC. Both are over a hundred years old and have never had flood damage or a hurricane related insurance claim...Because they were built by people that wanted to live there rather than wanted to flip a piece of waterfront property. The Charleston Harbor property was chosen by by a father stranded on Sullivan's Island in a storm in 1888 who, during the eye, noticed a high bluff in Mt Pleasant that was dry during the surge. He bought the property and built houses for his for daughters. One is mine, all still stand after many hurricanes without water damage.
But we're surrounded by properties with developer houses built on swamps that no sane owner would build a house. And development is the coin of the realm. Mega mansions have been built on reclaimed land. And have been insured .
My cross to bare is outrageous insurance rates to live in a house that has never had a claim for 110 years. But, of course, that is the nations cost to bare because liability for idescriminate development of costal properties for the profit of the few.
14
FEMA has 10 classifications of flood zones, from mild to worst. Your insurance costs vary based on the zone where your property is located. You probably know this, and you probably know that a simple letter to FEMA can initiate the review process. So why are you talking to us about a grave injustice when any reasonable person would be talking to FEMA?
1
Let us know how things work out this time. Good luck.
Save your pets:
Mark your animal, somewhere, maybe on his belly, with your phone number and area code. Magic Marker could be hazardous to your pets health. Surely, your veterinarian has some tips.
(I read this on FB today; seems like a good idea.)
3
Hasn't implanting microchips in pets been widely practiced for years? And it should have been done when said pet was first acquired, since there are all kinds of ways pets can get separated from their human companions, not just natural disasters.
5
Your pets should have chips, they are implanted with a syringe like a shot and any vet or shelter can scan them. They are not expensive.
5
I have a puppy about to get chipped. My Vet says any time after 6 months.
It costs less than $50 and every shelter in the US has a reader.
1
If folks want to build in high-risk areas they should be free to do so, but with two important stipulations: (1) they should pay the full cost especially insurance and not expect the rest of us to subsidize them (same logic applies elsewhere, for example to heavily forested and fire-prone areas in the west especially California), and (2) there need to be strict and well-enforced building codes to help minimize losses when natural events strike as they eventually will. That second point is usually left out of articles like this one and comments sections; current codes are far superior to those that were in effect when Hugo and Andrew came visiting, and structures that have been built since are far stronger. For example, in Florida you must use impact windows and doors (at significant expense) if you build or remodel in proximity to the beach, and codes relating to tie-downs and other strengthening measures in building structures are much more stringent than previously. In many areas, you need to build on stilts if you are near the the beach. Potential future damage can be mitigated -- it's not necessary to ban all development. But we do need appropriate codes and strong enforcement.
23
If people want to build...it's only OK if it is 100% ON THEIR DIME and they do NOT expect the taxpayer to bail them out and rebuilt their "folly" McMansions.
"It is not a matter of whether a disaster will strike, but when for individuals living in many of these regions."
And your point is... what exactly?
I can't think of a place anywhere that isn't at risk of natural disaster. Personally, I live about a thousand miles from the nearest coast. I also happen to live on a gigantic tectonic fault. The Wasatch fault is also connected to the Yellowstone Caldera. A major earthquake is expected to not only liquefy the ground upon which our house is built. We might also experience a major volcanic eruption blanketing most of the continental United States in a layer of ash while altering weather patterns globally. Scientists say we're about 200 years over due. Not if but when
Another fun one is geomagnetic reversal. This happens every couple of hundred thousand years. The earth's magnetic fields decide to change places every once in awhile. The North pole becomes the South pole and vice versa. Scientists don't really understand what will happen but we're about 200,000 years overdue for a flip. Not if but when.
So what's the point again?
We know climate change increases the incidence of natural disasters. We should probably work on reducing climate change. However, there will always be natural disasters. Not if but when. I don't see how you can mitigate the natural course of human development with a housing development plan. If not here, there. Telling people to build away from the coast is like telling a child not to look at the stars.
1
the point is that people knowingly move into areas that are KNOWN to be flood-prone, and insurance policies do NOT discourage this...and taxpayers pick up the tab -- again and again. maybe if we can't restrict building near the coast we at least force those homeowners to carry a lot more insurance...
6
Furthermore, the point is that the more we build in flood prone areas, wetlands and barrier islands, the less protection the mainland naturally has from storms. I find it interesting that red states such as the Carolinas and Virginia talk a good talk about self reliance, preventing the redistribution of wealth, limiting government involvement in the private sector, etc. but yet I'm asked to subsidize via my tax dollars a FEMA program so that someone can live on the coast. If you want to build there fine, but I'm tired of paying over and over to rebuild in dangerous locations and encourage future growth. And this goes to blue California/ wildfires too.
10
Our FEMA flood insurance is now 3 times what our wind damage insurance is and goes up every year by almost 25%. We haven't had a claim in over 20 years and since that time the house has been improved upon to make it stronger. In addition our town has financed bonds to pay for beach re-nourishment every so many years. Our problems started when the Army Corps Of Engineers started dredging Beaufort and Morehead City for deep water cargo ships. The tide no longer returned the sand to us because it was being dumped four miles out in the ocean by law. A costly suit proved this and we were allowed to start the nourishment program. In addition we can now buy the sand instead of pumping it from the ocean floor saving our town and all the towns along the coast a lot of money and securing our homes. We take turns buying the sand and paying a company to distribute it. We are now in a situation that the expanded beach area is now growing on its own.
It is in the best interests of the mainland to secure the North Carolina barrier islands. Without it the mainland would take the punishment.
1
Maybe many of the people who move to these increasingly dangerous places have been effectively brain washed by the Koch brother and Rupert Murdoch propaganda machines and don't think climate change and more severe hurricanes are in our future at all.
It is now obvious that Republicans, at some near future date, are going to have to admit that man made global warming is real. It will be a big Oh, never mind- did I even say that? And even as the ocean gobbles up NYC and Miami beach there will be no mea culpa.
Always on the wrong side of every important issue in the history of this country, and yet the culture that now controls the GOP is in complete denial. What's worse, so is a large percentage of the electorate.
16
I'm a D, but let's be honest -- did development in flood-prone/climate-change-impacted areas cease during the last few democratic reigns? Nope, not at all
3
My comment was directed to the changing climate aspect of accelerated threat from disastrous storms, not to the growing populations in threatened areas as my text makes clear. It was honest and accurately describes the GOP that is risking our long term survival for immediate political expediency. Their climate change denial is not just dishonest, it is a threat to our entire species. Let's be honest.
The Netherlands, as its name implies with large parts below sea level and other large parts in river flood areas, because the southern part is a river delta, show that one can live and prosper in a flood prone area in one of the most densely popolated areas of the world. But the water management projects are planned and built for the ages (especially after the Great Flood of 1953 with more than 2000 dead) - now taking climate change into account. The Dutch realize that to be cheap on the short term will cost much more in the long term, and that resolving a problem is much more expensive than preventing it in the first place. Yes, that's one of the drivers of the relatively high Dutch taxes, but it basically protects all Dutch from economic and personal losses from flooding and storms. It also helps that the electrical grid is underground, safe from the elements (including water). A blackout with its accompanying inconvenience and economic losses is a rare occurrence.
40
This being said, the Dutch have no choice but to live where they live. In the USA, the costs of living in flood prone areas should be weighed against the advantages. It may be easier and more cost effective than in The Netherlands to decide not to build (more than already) or rebuild in many flood prone areas.
2
The Dutch, at least for awhile, can continue to pay to hold back the sea. How about Bangladesh? With ~170 million people, 10x the Netherlands population, they don't have that option. They can't feed the people they have now, much less build a sophisticated water management system. The reality of 8 billion people, billions of whom live near the coasts, in a world of rising seas had better start to dawn on us.
1
Al, Yes you're absolutely right. America and The Netherlands are rich countries that can pay for their solutions, but we really have to consider impovereished countries as well and what needs to be done there and what aid they need from richer countries. That's a huge challenge, that needs affordable engineering solutions and the political will to implement them.
1
We are subsidizing development in flood prone areas. Of course that means we get more of this risky development. The only question is how long until the National Flood Insurance Program goes broke. The sooner it does the sooner we will modify it so that people are financially discouraged from rebuilding where they will be flooded again and their home or business destroyed again. As sea level permanently floods large regions we will soon perforce stop paying for rebuilding and instead require people to move, or else have no insurance coverage.
11
The flood insurance program is raising our insurance rates 20-25% a year, but it serves no one when the people who didn't carry the insurance can petition Congress which will vote for the funds to repair these uninsured homes. Think of Sandi and the uninsured homes in New York and New Jersey.
2
Until Katrina and Rita in 2005, the program ran in the black, but since then it has been reliant on taxpayer funding.
The impasse regarding ensuring self reliance of the NFIP is congressional concern regarding affordability.
NFIP tried to give ppl their medicine by sharply increasing rates in 2012, but the blowback was strong and it was rolled back in 2014.
http://propertyinsurancelawobserver.com/2014/03/17/the-house-and-senate-...
1
Wait until next week...all of the bright red, government is the problem, pernicious Republican representatives and senators from North and South Carolina who voted against a relief measure for victims of Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey will be begging at the trough in the Capitol building in Washington for federal money to help replace the oceanfront homes of their constituents.
54
I appreciate the cynical view, but I would attribute opposition largely to grandstanding for votes/reelection.
NC & SC know where there bread is buttered concerning storm recovery and reconstruction.
The NC Outer Banks should be systematically depopulated in a few decades. Sorry!
20
Then we'd have storms pounding the Inner Banks (Pamlico/Albemarle sounds, for example.)
The "march to the sea" is exacerbated by climate change denial. They are not mutually exclusive.
9
We could get rid of federal flood insurance (the availability of which encourages construction in vulnerable areas) and let coverage be provided by the regular property insurance market. This would logically put a big damper on coastal development.
60
You do realize that flood insurance in these areas isn't exactly cheap. I lived on a barrier island back when Francis and Jeanne hit and seriously damaged my house. But my flood insurance was $2,000 a year back then. Now it has risen to $6,000 or $7000 depending on location. That's why I fixed the place up and sold it. I knew that the rates were going to skyrocket and they did. So did the taxes. I've been gone since 2005 when I sold but I still miss hearing the ocean quietly rolling in at night.
Spot on! The Federal Government is enabling the phenomena discussed.
The disaster amnesia listed is also just a symptom of general amnesia of the US citizens: recession amnesia ("Dodd Frank is too onerous"), real estate boom amnesia (ever increasing real estate values in major cities), immigrant amnesia ("the good old days were much better" - how quickly we forget how many Irish, German, etc immigrants were looked down on).
3
Your research fits exactly what the unscientific observer sees with each trip, with every airplane ride from Southport, NC up to the Outer Banks--go-go building as if hurricanes do not happen every year. Homes perched on delicate islands straight up the coast. And these are not modest homes for the middle class. These are second or third or fourth palaces on dune tops, with beautiful views of the ocean, and private beaches. The playground of the rich, supported by an insurance industry, a federal government and all the politicians money can buy.
67
I don't know what Outer Banks you go to but almost all the homes here in Emerald Isle or Atlantic beach are cottages 1600 Sq. Ft and under or condominiums. The Sand Castles are built second row or deeper because they won't buy land where the existing house has to be torn down.
1
As the author states, the availability of federally subsidized flood insurance perversely incentivizes people to continue to rebuild flood vulnerable houses in the same exact place--time after time. Unlike any other type of insurance (such as homeowners or auto) there is no premium or underwriting penalty for having a loss.
Moreover, a small group of brokers and agents benefit from selling or managing this government program--which offers no disincentive for insuring poor risks and an inordinately high commission rate (as much as 23% of the premium paid by the homeowner) without taking any risk.
Flood insurance is indispensable. However, simple changes need to be made to bring the program in to line with common sense. Repeated and predictable losses should not be encouraged and nearly a quarter of the available premium should not be directed away from the program into non-risk bearing partners.
Perhaps there should be a single loss limit and an aggregate over the policy lifetime. Or have a second loss trigger a buy out of the property and render it uninsurable under the program.
The current situation is unsustainable and a boondoggle.
57
" there is no premium or underwriting penalty for having a loss."
Premiums are rising 20-25% per year. We are paying for our insurance. Congress though votes for funds to bail out the uninsured like the NY and NJ properties flooded by Sandi.
People SHOULD be able to live in these coastal areas if they choose to do so. People SHOULD NOT expect the rest of the people in the country to bail them out when their homes and infrastructure are damaged or destroyed by these recurring storms. If people want to live in these areas, they need take full responsibility for the risks of living in such places, both financial and physically. Private and unsubsidized insurance or out of pocket payment is the fair and prudent way to ensure that costs are fairly distributed to those taking the risk.
Good luck to everyone in the path of this storm !
48
My grandmother lived in Nebraska. Every year the tornadoes would come through and wipe out the family farm. Droughts brought years of no crops. They finally gave up the farm during the depression.
I guess we need to throw those people in California off their land because of the constant barrage of fires, floods and mudslides. And all those people living near the Mississippi River.
There's no place you can live that doesn't have the same natural disasters year after year.
1
People shouldn't be able to live wherever they can afford it. It just this kind of thinking that has allowed our coasts to become ground zero for the increasingly severe storms that have become the new norm. Hurricane areas like flood plains should be set aside from development to protect the communities they occur in. Growth everywhere all the time is no longer a viable option in a country of 325 million during the age of GW.
4
coastal processes are COMPLETELY different in terms of probability and costs.
NO comparison
3
While the statements that climate change has made Florence a bigger hurricane than it would have been are equivocal, the intense development in the path of these storms is fact. That is the big issue.
12
@ Khalil AKA Khal Spencer - Now there are at least two with connections to the University of Rochester Geology Department (now Earth and Environmental Science) who comment on "un-natural" hazards in the New York Times, me being one and the other Khal Spencer.
Khal the interesting twist to your comment that I support is that you were in Rochester when I only taught such classic courses as mineralogy, petrology, and Introduction to Geology. But your comment presents exactly an element of the thinking that my year in Finland 1967-68 led me to create Geology and Public Policy.
The even bigger issue is population growth, the factor pointed out in 1000s of NYT comments for which no one however brilliant has a policy. A variant of that appears in Al from Idaho's comment that we need to end immigration since it is those immigrants who are pushing us to build along the coast.
When I started that course I never could have imagined that there would be governors (NC Pat McCrory) and even a president who would use their positions to see to it that any use of science would be banned by law.
Not only that but said president had just transferred money from FEMA to ICE (heard on BBC Radio) so will FEMA be able to help.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
The US citizen side of me remembers the 1938 hurricane when I was a 6 year old in RI as if it were yesterday.
2