When tornadoes hit far inland such as tornado alley, and you live in a normal structure home or even if you live in a mobile home, it is best to also create an underground shelter. In this area you can expect destruction. Devastation in Houston by Harvey happened. Houston is only 50 miles from the coast Galveston. In 1900 Galveston storm killed over 8,000 people. When warned of impending doom, be quick and get out of Dodge. By a river or by the sea has to be the most dangerous places to live. If you must live there because of your job, leave as soon as you are warned of incoming danger. If you just like the water, fishing, the ocean, etc., leave as soon as you are warned. Expect to lose your property but save your life and your family. New Orleans and New York City are by the ocean and under sea level?

We read about homes build in flood prone areas being flooded repeatedly with financial aid from the government to rebuild, costing several times the value of the house. Wouldn’t it be smarter to move those people away from flood prone areas? It’s only going to get worse with global warming!

We are supposed to help Trump voters who hate us? Oh please!

There's no need for Rural America to worry. Didn't they all vote for Donald Trump. I'm sure he's going to help them. Right!

About that headline: The "dec" of "decimate" means ten, and the word basically means "kill one out of ten". By extension, it means "inflict 10% destruction" or, by further extension, "reduce severely". Even stretched to that limit, it's not quite the word you want. How about "Devastated by Hurricanes,..."?

Help sustain communities that are situated directly in the path of natural disaster? Why not insist on their relocation to what we can only hope is a more viable geographical situation? Don't admonish wannabe benefactors to give without thought or regard to the long-term outlook of their purported recipients. We all need to face the consequences of manmade climate change and global warming with its innumerable examples of disruption and destruction, not to be told by this paper or anyone else to play ostrich games about them.

I'm following the president's lead and sending Thoughts and Prayers. That and $3 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Maybe if these individuals stopped voting Republican they would have a Democratic government more responsive to their needs.

Very well done article by some very astute people from North Carolina. It was very predictable that we would see another article like this, following the recent flooding. What I don't understand and for some reason was not noted in the article is why did North Carolina ignored these same writers in 2012. The only state to officially state that climate change can not be used to modify future building in the state. From my vantage point it seems important to look at your own behavior to start to mitigate future disaster.

I think from the comments here people are missing the point. Millions of people live close to the poverty line, much of it vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow, the Great Depression of the 1929 and the 30's, and the Bush Great Recession, etc. These people don't have the financial resources to move or rebuild. Some people don't have $100,000 to 250,000 to rebuild. We haven't had storms of this magnitude move so far inland creating the havoc that they do. Mobile homes which dot the country are not able to withstand these storms, neither are homes built 70 years ago. Harvey and Florence have flooded areas which have never been flooded. And some businesses, employers are never coming back, so where are you going to get a job to get the resources to get back to where you were?

GEE I guess that the supporters of Trump in rural America, where the storms have created destructive devastation, will get a better idea of the person for whom they have voted: Trump. In some ways, Puerto Rico received favorable treatment from him, compared with his support of the flooded, destroyed areas in the rural USA. After all, in Puerto Rico, at least he went to a meeting where he threw paper towels at those in attendance. So much more sanitary than embracing the traumatized people who had lost everything. Topping off his support by stating that the US would not be staying very long. At least the people in Puerto Rico got paper towels and notice of the intended abandonment by the US president. In rural American, Trump has been AWOL. Now his supporters there will see the intent and character of the person they helped to elect.

Each hurricane, storm surge, tropical storm represents another occurrence where tax money from the north, midwest, and far west heads to the south yet again. The same region that constantly complains about "big government" yet receives a disproportionate share of federal assistance. Again and again.

How can you fix a problem, when you are not addressing the causes but only the symptoms? People do not live nowhere for fun. These calamities are all the result of people not being able to afford to live anywhere else. It's a place where you can't get there from here. You have to be born there or the bus stopped there. You have to feel sorry for these people, even if they voted overwhelmingly for Trump, who will bury them, long before the Russians do. As a society, we really do not care about these people and are reminded of them only in disasters like this. We do nothing. We help them rebuild and that's about it. It's a cottage industry. People make money from it. There is no plan to change anything. This will only continue to get worse and the American people, not the people making money off of it, will have to pay the freight. We have failed to address it and have only allowed it to get worse, in magnitude and cost. It's now uncorrectable, unless the major causes are addressed, climate change, the inequality in our economy, and properly defined building regulations. Do you think one of these houses actually had a hurricane tie attached to their roofs? Let's have a national seashore with no buildings.

I (knocking on wood as I say it) live in as area 200 feet above sea level. My area has so far, suffered little major damage from weather related wind and rain. Okay, that's me. The United states has thousands of miles of coastline that must somehow come to terms with the rising water and increasingly frequent and destructive hurricanes. We are talking about millions and millions of homes that are in danger. The income distribution maps included in this article are daunting in terms of what the inhabitants can afford but mostly not afford to do. The only solution is a Federal Government that gets deeply involved. The individual states will never be able to afford the necessary steps and changes. We are talking about America pitching in. It is a lot to do and the proper tax distribution and funding is at the Fed level.

I feel empathy for the Grahams. That said, the place to which they are emotionally attached is unsafe to occupy and, unless they are prepared to insure their own emotional attachment, they will continue to pay the price. Government flood relief funds does not change the fact that they choose to live in an area which is subject to periodic inundation and that government cannot afford to keep them safely living there. Free choice has a cost.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. These disasters work to their benefit and the rich are all set to take advantage of these disasters.

The Republican politicians in the areas most susceptible to hurricanes and floods work hard to destroy government until disaster hits and then of course they turn to government as the only logical source of help. Once the disaster passes they will do nothing to implement policies to move people out of catastrophe prone areas and continue to deny things such as climate change and refuse to make the hard choices that may mitigate future disaster. Yet each election their dim witted constituents vote them back in office.

"Rural America" votes for trump he is a multibillionaire, let him help them out of his own pocket.

Well, the comments to this article really shows America for what it is. How many of these comments start with "I have no sympathy for..." I suppose it is only to be expected in the era of Trump. Is it comforting the cruelty seems bipartisan? May you all be treated with the exact same amount of mercy you have shown others when your time comes. That said, there is a persistent myth that POOR rural people made Trump's presidency possible. That seems to be driving a lot of the schadenfreude over a rural area from the left (on the right, schadenfreude seems to be SOP.) This is a myth. Exit polling from 2016 is about same as most elections - people with household income at $40k vote a lot less than people with higher income. Barriers that are no big deal for people with more money become a lot bigger when making rent and feeding yourself is an issue. But when they do vote, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Trump voters' median income is $71k, higher than national median. Being ignorant doesn't mean you are destitute. Being educated doesn't mean you are rich. Don't blame the people getting hurt the worst by this. Moreover, mass dislocations in the aftermath of natural disasters have widespread consequences. They damage the local and even state-wide economy, which will have national consequences down the line...especially when they happen in increasing intensity and frequency. So even if you "have no sympathy," take this article seriously for your own sake.

The Americans are rich. I'm sure they'll be able to rebuild the damaged infrastructure in no time.

Rural America elected Trump. No help from me, an East Coast Liberal, an immigrant (yes, legal), a man of color and a Muslim on top of it. Oh, and I have an advanced degree from Stanford that I apply to robotic automation of rural farm jobs. Yeah, the feeling is mutual.

We cannot help without the will in Congress. It is ironic that the states with representatives least willing to help the lower third in wealth need the most help. Vote the rascals out!

What about Puerto Rico then and now?

Experienced 4 hurricanes in my life. Ike and Harvey in Houston, the others in NYC and New Hampshire. Not to mention nor easters and assorted gales and blizzards. Three earthquakes in NY and Japan. I almost forgot two tornadoes. One on the Sawmill Parkway. Oh I almost forgot a forrest fire although 30 miles away made it hard to breath. MyPoint where is it safe to live? Even the west and central part of the country can be wiped out by a volcano. Do we abandon in place New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seatle and anything 300 miles inland of the East and Gulf Coasts or make them pay for whatever disaster hits them themselves? Believe it or not some Houstonians don't want a slight tax increase to cover flood damage and infrastructure improvements for future flood improvement. There's alot of money in infrastructure improvements let's hope they don't spend it all on bullet trains.

Certain areas are going to have to be abandoned. I wish we could help everyone- we can't. Some people have had their homes rebuilt ten times- using subsidized, below cost, flood insurance. Then we have cities like Miami. They are still building there- on land that is going to be gone. Everyone with a cell in their head knows it is going to be gone. They build anyway- for a fast profit now or because they know that the government will, eventually, pay them back their full investment. Whatever policies we make in regards to 'helping' people we need to make sure that developers, who know what they are doing, do not get paid for their foolish buildings. We should, as a nation, start deciding now what cities along the coast we are going to fight to save and which we are going to let go. New York or Boston. Philadelphia or much of coastal Maryland. Florida or- wait Florida is gone.

They can get in line behind Puerto Rico. If you don't help Puerto Rico, then I really don't care about anyone else--do you?

If the Carolinas are crisscrossed by rivers leading them vulnerable to flooding even more than coastal regions vulnerable to a storm surge from the ocean, what do the authors propose we do? Relocate most of the population of entire states? How does one prepare for forty inches of rain, regardless of where one lives? Money doesn't grow on trees. North Carolina is a purple state with a gerrymandered legislature that wouldn't allow mention of climate change in discussing planning for the future. Ditto for Florida with Governor Rick Scott, running for Senator, who forbid the mention of climate change by the state government. Good luck with that. The same folks that hollered at federal disaster relief funds for Hurricane Sandy because the folks affected were mostly Democrats, ditto for the wildfires in California? I sympathize, but not with my wallet. Those irresponsible GOP politicians have been hurling insults at us while they shamelessly take our tax dollars as blue states give more to the federal tax coffers than they receive, while these red states take more than they give. Millions of us are fed up with this system from the party of alleged fiscal responsibility and that nifty trick of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.

Op-eds like this one drive me nuts because they don’t really say anything other than “we have a problem.” Just in one paragraph of this one we find these phrases: “robust, well-articulated plans,” “technical and administrative support” and “manage recovery funding.” This is just gobbledygook. Do you have any more idea what the author is calling for after you read these phrases than before?

The coasts are in a precarious position and from what I’ve seen people are being stubborn and foolish. They want to be waterfront, regardless of the consequences and rebuild after every hurricane. It’s time for the government to step-in and stop. No more rebuilding without stricter codes. While it seems to be human-nature for many to desire to live by the water’s edge, it is no longer safe to do so. The less well-off are more at risk because they live in the less-safe areas, more low-lying and prone to flooding or damage. It’s just madness and by June everyone has amnesia about what happened in September or January. I’m sympathetic but people have to wake up to the reality that the storms are getting worse. Everyone used to say the bad storms happened every 50 or 100 years but now it’s every 3 to 5 and it’s scary. The areas that flood will be changed drastically in the next 25 years. It’s time to face that reality.

...and the best way to help of course, the world over, is to halt the self-destructive trajectory we are on. When oh when are people going to wake up? Why can't people admit that maybe, just maybe, their own politicians do not care about future generations, but only care about maligning the other side? We thought it great when former Presidents signed into law, various social programs that would guarantee social security, a certain level of education, healthcare, etc. for present and future generations. We thought it great when land was set aside for perpetual public lands that could not be razed or 'developed'. So why is it that we don't seem to care to do the same, with regards to our entire planet and atmosphere? Positively stupefying. And utterly reckless and myopic.

We have arrived at a "new normal" where our unwillingness to deal with climate change/global warming has made vast coastal areas uninhabitable given the storms we've had and those certain to come. A decade or so ago when massive flooding occurred in the Midwest, an effort was made to buyout owners property and relocate them away from the Mississippi flood plain. That's the only viable strategy now, It much cheaper than trying to fortify areas. Instead, coastal areas and adjacent flood plains should be declared national parks of recreational areas. With sea levels rising, hurricanes increasing in strength due to warming of the oceans, and a do-nothing, climate denying federal and most Southern state governments, this is the only viable strategy. The motto should be: Relocate, then rebuild.

Adults, it is argued, have the choice. The children of these adults who choose to live in badly constructed homes in hurricane zones have absolutely no choice at all. The law requires them to stay with their parents, even if the parents are not making acceptable choices. We can't just write off the children who are required to live there. We can't just say, "oh, well, it 's your choice. Pay the consequences." They pay the consequences and they have no choice. What are we going to do?

Article seems to miss the point completely. Absolutely help the poor who are most highly impacted by global warming, rising ocean levels and increased hurricane force and frequency. We help them by providing them with new housing in areas that are going to be less affected by global warming consequences. Areas that have education and job opportunities. The wealthy get subsidized for coastal building via the crazy "flood insurance" programs that poor cannot afford, with low cost loans to rebuild over and over again. Eliminating the real estate/construction industry flood insurance subsidy and putting the money to helping poor move to higher ground (in every sense of the word) is what any rational society would do.

I learned something about insurance when I lived along the Mississippi River in Arkansas. My neighbor was wrangling with her insurance agency because, at age 85, she did not want to rebuild if her house was destroyed; she wanted to move to Little Rock to be with her children if her house was damaged. So she wanted to insure it for less than it was worth since she never wanted to rebuild. I asked her couldn't she take the money with her if she moved? She told me that her insurance company only paid out if she rebuilt in the same place. They won't pay out if you decide not to rebuild. So, what are we to do if the insurance companies only pay to rebuild if you rebuild on the same property? Most people can't afford to move to somewhere safer if their insurance only pays them to rebuild in the same spot. On top of that, if you own the land (and some people in the article lived on the same land since the end of slavery), who will buy it from you so you can afford to move? Between insurance payments, and the inability to sell flood prone land, what are you supposed to do if you're not rich?

As the article points out, the effects of these storms are not just property damage, but the loss of culture for communities that cannot afford to re-build and have no insurance. The other article in the NYT today about the people in Florida who couldn't afford to evacuate is a further example of how climate change will affect the poorest people the most in the US and around the world.

The only solution I can think of is to offer a one time buyout of these properties, condemns those that won't move voluntarily, bulldoze them then make area into a. big park. Sorry, but I can see no other solution.

Who could argue with the idea that we should have a more proactive, long-term solution to relocate or 'flood proof' primary homes of average Americans who live in areas prone to increasingly common flooding? What I object to is having my tax dollars bail out homeowners (particularly 2nd/vacation homeowners) who build on fragile waterfronts or beach-front property... and then expect federal aid to re-build when the inevitable happens. There are 100 year flood zones that get walloped by the unexpected and by all means, let's help these folks. But I have no sympathy for those who can choose where to live- and choose a dune facing a warming ocean.

The same people who scream and holler about the size of the federal government and seek to impose their small-minded views on more worldly and wealthy urban populations now want help from the government and these same urban populations. I do not presume rural populations would be flocking to offer assistance in the event of a catastrophe in an urban area such as a major earthquake in the Bay Area for example. A sign of the times I suppose, but I am far less sympathetic to the plight of rural America these days.

This is one reason why we need a strong federal government. Individuals and communities are not capable of handling such devastation by themselves. Yet the people who have been impacted by these storms are often the very same people who rail against big government and have bought into the philosophy that government is the problem. Not only do they desperately need the help that the federal government can and should supply now, but as the article points out they need a government that will deal with and try to mitigate future tragedies caused by climate change. Only a strong federal government can lead the way to a future where we realistically address today’s problems and plan long range to prevent future disasters. Alternative truths just won’t cut it any more. We must fight for the future with facts, science and an educated citizenry who will finally vote in its own interests.

Sorry to be blunt; but if you voted for GOP rep who doesn't believe in science and global warming; shouldn't you be on your own? You have a chance to correct it this November, kick science deniers out of congress and we will rush with more help. Because that's the first help you do (without waiting for anyone else) now to have impact on your future.

I want to start with the proposition that "we" (taxpayers) cannot provide perpetual insurance that persons affected by natural disasters will be maintained or made better in the same status as before. We do not have the resources to do this. Who is going to choose which persons are deemed "worth preserving in their original state?" Nobody mourned my father's factory which simply up and relocated elsewhere, leaving him and thousands of others adrift. I am all for providing financial, taxpayer-provided support for persons and communities affected by natural disasters and climate change. I do not feel that we must "preserve" their communities in some sort of static state. It is our responsibility as human beings to adapt to circumstances. I totally understand that people don't have enough resources to do that, and I want to provide those resources. But I want to provide resources for people to adapt, not to preserve people in situations that are simply untenable for various reasons. The only ones who deserve that kind of total protection are prehistoric tribes where there is no possibility that financial support would actually help in some meaningful way, that something altogether different is needed.

... because none of is safe from the man-made devastation of climate change.

And you think Trump's Congress will come through? He will do just the least he can do, Still climate change denier With the future dire, Our offspring Trump's election will rue!

An intervention is required on all levels with all possible measures. I do not blame those that continually rebuild on flood plains or near the coast. I do not blame those that continually vote against their own interests, and for those that completely disregard climate change. (let alone banning even using the term) I do not blame those that turn around here in the opinion columns and elsewhere to point fingers and lay blame from the above. I blame meself while looking in the mirror. I could do more. We all could. We make decisions (some infinitesimal) each and every day that is contributing to climate change across the globe - everywhere. That may be the use of plastic, not recycling or driving across town to buy that imported product, instead of buying and supporting local. That could be our unsustainable hunger for more and more meat, or it could be wanting the perfect view, or house (where it should not be) to make our living. It is all related. There is no longer such a thing as a ''100 year climate event'' if they are happening every other year. - especially if people have not recovered from the previous event. All of the statistics and slide rule schematics no longer apply. We must be decisive and relentless in dealing with the problem at the front end, instead of continually reacting on the back end. Then we would no longer need columns like this. Just a thought ...

People should not live in flood plains, wherever they are. That is a legacy of subsistence agriculture, people farming the few acres around their homes. No one does that any more. Move uphill or away from low coasts. Don't rebuild in those places.