Well, duh. Why should taxpayers repeatedly subsidize people's folly and unsustainable lifestyles?
65
"'We expect government will behave maturely, and sometimes that means taking an approach that is difficult but wise.'"
Imagine that.
78
I say you have to have a 1 strike rule for houses built in serious flood planes; let insurance bail them out the first time their house is ruined, and leave the decision on taking the cash and leaving or rebuilding to the owner. After that first instance all insurance and bailout money is gone, period.
*I would also like to add a risk fee to developers building in flood prone areas. Maybe have a built-in guarantee for the viability of a building site that goes away after say, 10 years. Force some accountability from builders who recklessly create developments in low-lying areas.
26
Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing homeowners and developers who choose to build in floodplains in the first place?
32
There is no scientific link between weather and global temperatures, none. The "beach" cottages up and down the East Coast, built in areas that should be given back to nature are the problem.
The hurricane of 1938, a Cat 3, crossed Long Island and funneled up Narragansett Bay pushing 20 feet of water into the City of Providence. 600 died, there was no warning.
Today the McMansions literally hang over the edges of the Bay, all of them would wind up in the Providence River, with the taxpayers on the hook for more funding injected into the Flood Insurance program
Providence would be spared as the hurricane barrier was built in 1963, after a decade of too many hurricanes hit the city, long before anyone thought of global warming.
10
"If people deliberately rebuild in danger zones, at some point 'they are going to have to assume their own responsibility for the cost burden...'"
period.
48
An interesting idea worth further consideration. The journalist should be reminded that "words matter". At first I thought he was referring to recent immigrants. These days ... A quick comment: Is the compensation and other subsidies fair?
1
O Canada! Yes. They have some backbone there. Must be the winters.
35
If private insurers will not accept the risk, the public should not be on the hook. We have a Cabin on Lake Superior. The Lake is very high compared to a few years ago. If our place is inundated, do other readers think it is their responsibility to bail us out? I doubt it. Get rid of governments paying to allow people to escape the consequences of their decisions.
36
@Robert - While I agree with you in principle, there are many people who are naive when it comes to building/buying a house. They assume that developers and the local governments do the right thing. That is, developers won't build subdivisions in marshy areas or other areas that are prone to flooding, and the local government won't allow developers to do that. Bad assumption.
16
Canada has been doing this for a long time -- see Raymore Park in Toronto, which was created out of a formerly residential area flooded by Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s.
11
Just one more example of how government interference in the market results in often-devastating unexpected consequences. Virtually no one would build or rebuild where flooding or other natural destructive forces often occurred if they had to find private insurance or live without any insurance.
Progressives beware: the almighty state lacks but one thing: common sense.
5
@Ned Netterville. To be clear, you are recommending that the federal government/ FEMA no longer provide financial assistance to rebuild homes and communities after natural disasters, but rather leave it to the private sector and the marketplace to sort it out? Sounds nice, but millions of people will be wiped out as the cost to get there.
Canada is trying to get there but soften the blow.
16
When private insurance refuses to insure, the public should take that as wisdom and not overrule it with centrally planned ignorance to maintain a status quo that will mean more death, more destruction, more losses in the future.
18
As a confirmed Libertarian, I would be opposed to mandatory buyouts. However, offering people a choice between a buyout or no more financial aid if you stay is well within my philosophy, and I wish that the same choice were offered to those affected by flooding, fires, earthquakes, and other disasters here in the US.
16
"We expect government will behave maturely, and sometimes this means taking an approach that is difficult but wise."
Wow! They expect a lot up in Canada. Who knew?
30
All construction along highly prone flood areas should cease. For decades flood insurance subsidized by US tax payers have rebuilt homes. I am sorry. One of the oldest cathedrals in the US, in New Orleans, St. Louis Cathedral, has survived floods and hurricanes. Why? They knew to build it on high ground. We would all love to live on the cape, on the sea, etc etc., but it is not feasible. But, they continue to build in Florida, Carolina's, Jersey shore. Crazy.
26
@Ray "We would all love to live on the cape, on the sea, etc etc., but it is not feasible."
Not so!! Living in these places means accepting death-danger risk, when there's no compelling reason to do so.
Many lack the capacity to judge risk, so do things "for entertainment", that necessarily involve death-danger risk, e.g., down-hill skiing, cave diving, rock-climbing, wilderness hiking in the dead of winter, etc. I realize many do these things without suffering any harm. But should things "go wrong" the damage can be truly catastrophic.
As an American, I cherish the freedom to do these things and want everyone else to be free to do them.
But I do not want to subsidize those, whose preferred entertainments result in suffer severe injuries.
Those kinds of entertainment are for the wealthy, who can shoulder the costs of long hospital stays or life-long incapacity to manage one's own affairs.
6
@Ray. Hey Ray! Well said. Why do the rest of us have to pay for someone's beach house?
9
Good idea. However people love their water view even when sometimes it in their living room.
9
Because the US government officially doesn't accept that the climate is changing, it has chosen to regard weather-related disasters as singular, logically unconnected phenomena. I suppose a Constitutional Amendment will be necessary to declare that the weather has changed since 1776.
19
As the photo reveals, Some Gatineau houses stand on land barely two yards above the Ottawa River, even when it's not in flood.
In current climate conditions, let alone future ones, low riverside banks are not good places to build. High River was called that for a reason.
14
The article seems not to address what happens to renters in these mandatory buyouts. Those folks may be at high economic risk, especially as housing options diminish due to demolition, with no compensation to them. The article also seems not to address whether mandatory buyouts differ for investors versus owner-occupants. For sure, the emotions around mandatory buyouts would differ as between someone losing a home owned by her or his family for generations, versus a landlord with a rental property.
4
@george
The article said there was a flat amount 250,000 per house no matter the value. Yes emotionally difficult for anyone that was living in the house to move, but going through a flood is much worse in every way.
7
As is said, there is no education in the second kick of a mule, nor is there any in a third flood, allowing for the "hundred year" exception.
7
Good. Too bad the US doesn't institute the same common-sense policy.
36
I am all for stopping the U.S. Fed Gov Flood Insurance program. You build in a known flood plain, it is all on you.
I am all for making Banks, Lenders and Builders financially responsible if they knowingly engage in construction in known flood areas.
The question is this. What do you say to your grandmother when her house sitting in the heart of Florida, Charleston, or the Coast of Texas gets hit with another hurricane, the fifth in a row?
What do you do about the Coastal Military Bases and the people stationed there? Do they all have to live in barracks and their families live elsewhere? Greater Jacksonville Fla for example has as many as 1 million people whose very existence depends on the bases....what do they do?
What about all the people who live on a river like the Mississippi? average income people have homes that line the river for hundreds of miles. Same with the St. Johns and every other river in this country.
Canada has few direct hits from Hurricanes so their solution can work in their geography, but does it really make sense in the U.S.
3
@mike
Thank you. Finally some real common sense.
1
@mike
“As of last year, the United States had 36,774 houses and other buildings the government describes as ‘severe repetitive loss properties,’ homes that have flooded and been repaired AT LEAST TWICE, according to data from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Almost 10,000 of those are in North Carolina; the average such home has been flooded FIVE TIMES.”
Does THIS make sense, ANYWHERE?
(Pardon the all caps, but I think Trump's tweet style is finally getting to me)
28
I’ve learned from various public sources that the command staff overseeing military bases along the east coast have already plans in place to move or reinforce such bases based on the certain rise of sea levels. Not knowing much more detail than that, one can presume they have also taken into consideration the housing requirements for their service people. The responsibility of what to do or what happens to the surrounding support system of the nearby communities rests with those living and working there, sadly.
6
Whatever they are smoking up there in Canada, it seems to have a side effect of being able to think sensibly and logically.
We need some of that down here.
41
@Harish Sangani
The recent legalization of marijuana saw very little change in consumption. In Canada we still believe in science and climate change is no longer debated.
Mike Pompeo may be the smartest man in Trump's inner circle but in my bible the Book of Jonah says God can and does change his mind and even if you believe the absurdities Biblical prophecy is an insane obsession.
In Canada the experts carry more clout than the pundits and the ideologues are not in conflict with the scientists, economists or any of the people who actually know what they are talking about.
Today's picture of Crazy John Bolton with a tribute to Edmund Burke tells it all. Burke was a liberal and a Whg member of parliament hardly the stuff of your ideological and zealous right wing.
If you want Americans to think sensibly and logically math and science beats the book of Revelations every time. There is a lot to fear but authoritarianism is far more frightening than socialism. When I remember the Alamo I remember that Davy Crockett was a House Member who was a democratic socialist before they had a name for it.
To think sensibly and logically fear must be acknowledged not acknowledging that old white males like myself are overwhelmed by the fear of losing it all.
Here in Canada when the government says don't build your house on a flood plain we know the Federal government is there to help. The belief that low taxes and small government is always the answer is like believing in the tooth fairy.
19
This is a remarkable display of good sense from the Canadian government. Their thinking should be extended to other hazardous environments such as forests. Many people refuse to recognize that forest fires and floods are natural processes and that choosing to live in areas subject to these events is inherently risky. Flood insurance, which is available only from the government because commercial insurers understand that premiums consonant with the risk would be unaffordable, may appear expensive but are in fact just another subsidy of a chosen lifestyle.
16
Moving and Rebuilding in the “new normal” of climate change makes sense only if we understand that this “new normal” will not be a constant. It will get worse.
Far worse.
15
@Bob Dass woooooooo, I'm really scared. Where is your evidence. I know, 97% of climate scientists (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) agree that we have a climate and sometimes it changes.
Come on, proof. Love doesn't make the world go round, proof does. SO cough some up.
The problem in the US is federally subsidized flood insurance. It removes the natural decision making when deciding to live at water’s edge. Historically much of the Florida coast and the barrier islands along the Eastern seaboard were not inhabited by permanent residences. The distortion of common sense is caused by Free Government Money. Three words that should rarely be next to one another.
26
@mark It is far from free government money. Depending on the risk, annual premiums can be quite pricey, as they should be. While not living in a currently defined flood zone per see, my property is adjacent to a river, so I voluntarily purchase flood insurance.
5
@mark - "Free government money" isn't that what the next presidential election is all about, at least on one side?
3
Flood insurance premiums may seem "pricey," esp compared to earlier rates. However, they still do not reflect the full actuarial cost. Lawmakers have struggled to reform the program. In 2012, Congress passed changes that would impose premiums that reflected the full risk for homes, only to back down two years later in the face of intense public opposition. Claims often outpace premiums, saddling the program with a debt that topped $30 billion in 2017. Currently, both Dems and Repubs are exploring ways to reduce that debt, but not together, of course.
11
Our risks and solutions will be different from Canada's, in part because their very large country will be getting more habitable while parts of ours become less so.
Here we're very quickly running up against some things that many Americans will try very hard to ignore. Our self-image of being able to live anywhere, despite the conditions, started out as being based on a combination of government handouts (free land!) and then rugged self-reliance.
That's turned into this century - literally less land as sea levels rise, while the self-reliance has become a memory.
We have millions moving into the desert states of our west, complacently depending on over-allocated river water and the old expectation of abundant mountain snowpack - as that turns instead to drought and mountain rain and winter floods. So fires and contention over water use are the predictable future there.
There's also the issue of people who aren't actually moving into harms way, the harm is coming to them as seas rise and as warmer air lifts, then drops, more water in fewer storms. Flooding may increase in depth and frequency for anyone who lived along a coast, a river, a creek that now see 500-year risks become 100-year risks.
FEMA and emergency response teams will be overstressed regardless of what we do, but much more so if we don't rein in the expectation that "insurer of last resort" means you'll get a policy from taxpayers no matter what bad choice of location you make to build or rebuild.
18
I live near the water. In its seventy-some years the home has been through a few minor hurricanes, without any insurance claims needing to be made, nor government support requested. So I wonder how much more likely it is that my home will be damaged than a home in an area prone to have tornadoes, or wildfires, or mudslides, or... But if it is damaged one day, will people say I had a view, I must be wealthy, so I should be on my own? What parts of the country are free from the possibility of natural disasters of any kind?
9
It is not only the homes of the wealthy on the ocean that are at risk of flooding. Some of the worst flooding occurs inland from rivers overflowing their banks when water has no place else to go. Homes in these areas are generally owned by the less than wealthy.
We’re living on a barrier island on the marsh, about 2 miles from the ocean,and I don’t know about others, but we could never have gotten a mortgage without having flood insurance. Also, our house is raised, 15-16 feet up, as is all new construction here wherever there is a flood risk.
11
“You’ve got to make the decision for the greater good of the community,”
That is an idea that has been lost in the United States. It needs to make a comeback before greater disaster occur, as they inevitably will.
36
The Canadians are right on this issue. If you knowingly live or build in a flood plain, then any property loss is your responsibility and your insurance company's, not the taxpayers.
A prime example is the coastline of South Carolina. The Grand Strand was once "THE" Grand Strand and views of the ocean were available for everyone to see and enjoy the beaches. Since the massive development since Hurricane Hazel, even with the devastation of Hurricane Hugo, the development is still going on and there is no longer an ocean view except for a very few locations along the ocean front streets and roads. The public access points are not close together and parking is impossible.
This is a prime example of poor planning and no regards for the future and impact when a disaster hits. Flooding, destruction, rot, mold, and over the top expenses for taxes and insurance. One would think the high cost of living on the coast would discourage development but considering the money to be made and the gerbil mentality of people wanting to live close to the ocean, until hard choices and difficult restrictions are passed and enforced, it will continue and you and I will continue to end up paying for it.
This is not exclusive to the Grand Strand, it happens on every coast line or desirable exclusive enclaves at the waters edge in this country.
29
As this excellent article notes, “It’s taking government action to obligate people to make better decisions.”
Gee. I wonder if it will turn out to have been a bad idea to dismantle the American government? Republicans are certainly getting their wish to get the dang gummint off ah backs.
The liberty to make terrible decisions is cherished; the notion that no one is coming to help you cope with the results of those decisions will, I suspect, be less empowering.
23
@Jennifer
To some extent, what this is in reality is the government not taking action, thereby obligating people to take responsibility for their decisions.
What they are in effect saying is that if you want to live in a dangerous place, you're on your own, We'll help you get out, but stay at your own risk. This is what a responsible government should do, insist that people decide things and live with the consequences.
5
The bottom line: You are seing the difference between governments which believe in science like the government of Québec and Canada, and governments which do not believe in science like the USA federal government and Brazil.
35
That being said, science is not a matter of belief. That's what distinguishes it from religion. Or superstition.
11
Very wise decision by Canadian government! We should follow their example in the mainland USA as well as in the USA territory Puerto Rico.
17
Finally, some common sense from government. These people might finally wake up to the true costs of living in flood-prone places once the subsidies go away. After Katrina, the U.S. federal government spent enough money on dams and levees around New Orleans to put every resident in a $250K home in a neighboring (and dry!) county. Insanity.
22
@Csmith Every time we add another levee or flood control construction upstream from New Orleans that restricts the ability of the water to flow onto flood plains we exacerbate the problem downstream by sending more cubic acres of water downstream in a shorter period of time. They are called "flood plains" for a reason and serve a vital function in the grand scheme of things. Someday we will appreciate that.
14
The clear message of all this is that climate change is happening and it is causing increasingly volatile weather that in turn causes increasing amounts of damage to exposed human habitats. It is time, through our governments, to collectively think of broad-based protective solutions wherein practical considerations may indicate the need to relocate whole communities, or make room for massive public works to protect them from flooding. Doing this however must begin with a leadership that accepts the science-based facts of the situation.
16
The idea is interesting, but I’d be curious to see the stats on equity of the payout. A policy like this will surely favor people who already have the means to uproot somewhere else. 250k sounds like a lot but will quickly get used up in both buying a new property and moving. At least in the USA, we have some serious socioeconomic and racial wealth gaps and I’d be concerned that a blanket policy like this one would exacerbate those issues.
For instance, after WWII the government offered very low interest rate mortgages to veterans to stimulate the economy. However, 1 million black veterans were mostly denied this benefit. Unless there is deliberate action on the part of the government to avoid it, I imagine something parallel happening in the US with a policy such as the article described.
13
As usual, Canada is more efficient at facing the future. Of course it's not optimal for government to be allowed to force citizens to abandon their homes, but sometimes the greater good demands this of a homeowner who isn't willing to face reality. We in the USA need to heed reality and follow Canada's lead. Speaking of reality, can we expect congress to do anything about this wasteful process? Probably not...
26
@Airpilot
It also needs to be addressed why the builders were allowed in the first place (to build in high risk areas, substandard infrastructure, etc). “Planning” seems to have been wholly handed over to developers with no regard to the the future homeowners or community costs at large.
An ounce of prevention is worth $$$ of cure.
7
@Airpilot
I agree with you about forcing people to leave, but telling them that if the stay they will be ineligible for any further compensation is not forcing them to leave but making them responsible for the effects of their decisions.
3
Cities I'm familiar with like NYC, Baton Rouge, Mississippi, New Orleans, aren't exactly on safe ground. Even without climate change, a serious storm could destroy billions if not trillions worth of property in those cities. Houston well it sometimes depends not where you live but how much it rains. Even then you can't write off the whole city. Some neighborhoods but not the whole city.
I keep asking my punitive friends where do they live? Where on this planet is totally safe? You wouldn't build in San Fran or LA because of earthquakes or fires? Forget Florida or anything near the Mississippi River the list goes on. Natural and unnatural disasters happen.
I'll admit you can't build everywhere but better building techniques need to be applied. For instance, they are building private homes on stilts in Galveston Texas. Manhattan Island might spend billions to protect itself from flooding but how will that affect the communities around Long Island Sound? Think of all the Depression era flood controls that need repair and improvement now.
8
@JoeG When examining a potential property, locate the closest railroad bed, even an abandoned one. Never buy a property below the elevation of those rail beds. With few exceptions you will find the folks who laid out the railroads had a grasp of potential flood levels.
10
@JoeG
It is true that no place is entirely safe.
But the mandate in Canada is to buy out houses that have been repeatedly damaged - they have set a guideline. Flood plains are prone to flooding.
I am unfamiliar with tornadoes - I assume they are erratic, unpredictable. So different situations call for different guidelines and solutions. This is where science comes in.
3
@Anna Gustafson
I'm not sure if insurance actuaries are a scientist. But why lecture me on science? Science is not infallible. Are you referring to the philosophy of science? The insurance actuary is hard at work recommending the best solutions. Hopefully Greenpeace activist doesn't get to make the final decision which would not be based on science but would be philosophical.
All that needs to be done here in the U.S. is no more government help with flood disasters after the first one. The insurance companies will price all those that are not the super wealthy to not own a home in a flood zone.
9
@randall That's why government flood insurance exists at all. All of the private companies got out of the business because it was costing them too much money in payouts.
11
I won`t. bore you with the details; but in my home town; which sits around a huge flood plain at the end of the Bay of Fundy; there lies a huge swath of land that lies empty for one very simple reason. Despite the fact it floods nearly every spring and yet there are those who stubbornly refused to realize no one in their right mind should build there. PERIOD. And finally it came down to local politicians basically to ban building in this area. Instead our local Agricultural College is allowed to plant huge amount of crops there; knowing that it must be harvested by certain dates; and if not those crops will be lost. Bottom line; there are simply areas that are NOT FIT for people to build homes in. Einstein`s lesson remains. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again; and then expect a different result.
51
Some of these comments refer to the fact that though it may not be prime, sunny, beach property, there is plenty of land in the US that people can build on without such great risk and expensive repair.
This makes me think the US should be increasing population instead of closing borders. Fix immigration by sending newcomers to new communities. This would raise the tax base, create new jobs and and stimulate the economy. Human resources are the most valuable resources.
12
@rixax Not so!!! If vast numbers of U.S. residents need to move from flood-prone areas, the spaces - that you would have immigrants fill - are those to which U.S. residents should move.
In most countries, public affairs are managed by those negligent at best and murderous at worse. If the U.S. opened its borders, several hundred millions - out to better their lot in life - would be quick to up-root themselves.
If the U.S. had closer to a billion residents, it would not be nearly as pleasant a place.
5
@Jay E. Simkin I'm not talking about open borders. Almost no-one in both parties is. I'm talking about legal, constitutional, due process for refugees and qualified immigrants that some people (you?) wish to do away with.
2
This Canadian innovation seems sensible. And although it won't be adopted in the United States, it certainly should be.
I grew up in an area that keeps getting wiped out by hurricanes and keeps rebuilding at taxpayer expense: Southeast Texas near the Gulf, close to Louisiana. My hometown, barely above sea level, was established on a swamp. Many thousands of tons of sand and soil were brought into the swamp in the early 1900s so it could be settled. But swamps have a way of remaining swamps, and even before the storms came, a settler had to be willing to breathe mosquitos. My father had malaria as a child. The mosquitos were so thick they smothered cattle.
Why opt to live like this? One word: oil. The oil industry needed workers, and even today the most likely job there is refinery work.
And that's why nothing will change. Big Oil is also Big Money. And our country has always listened to money first. So coastal areas that drain tax money for continual rebuilding or repairs will be allowed to do so. And a hundred miles west, Houston will continue to erect expensive but shoddy construction that will later be flooded. The taxpayers essentially are working to keep America prosperous for big companies.
I've lived in North Carolina, too. That state's coast is a bit different. Aside from the barrier islands, the rich own the coast. They build in unwise areas, then cry "Help!" when the inevitable happens. And we do what we're told to do. We help.
28
I can see the logic in this but what happens when homeowners are faced with tornadoes or fires? Both which will likely increase in frequency in the future. Where will be the safe zones according to the government?
1
@LV You start with one problem at a time. You can bundle similar responses, but we cannot afford paralysis by citing other potential disasters and then getting overwhelmed by false logic.
16
@David D Thanks David, I get your point. But giving the GOP one more reason to tell Americans that the government isn't here to solve our problems just reinforces the mindset that government's purpose is only military protection. With Trump's tax cut and astronomical deficit, he has already laid the foundation that it shouldn't cost the taxpayer much to live in the greatest nation on earth. No, he is selling us off at basement bottom prices and giving the GOP more reasons to not invest in we the people. Pony up the cash people and stop the fire sale. We have allowed the GOP to decimate our public schools and the ignorance is telling. Never forget, trump got elected. We have miles to go before we sleep.
5
So the message of “The Big Wave” by Pearl Buck is “at your own risk”. Even when I read it as a kid I couldn’t really fathom the idea of moving back to the same danger where your family perished. But if you do, it should be at your own risk.
21
The U.S. should do this without question.
25
Just a fun fact: In the late 1960s The Duff Roblin government of Manitoba began construction of a water diversion project to protect Winnipeg. It was disparaged by opponents as "Duff's Ditch". However, since its completion, it has paid for itself many times over, an example of forward, if sometimes unpopular thinking. Readers might enjoy reading about it.
Rather than some grand building as a monument to his glory, Mr. Roblin settled for Duff's Ditch.
22
Common sense...do not build near probable disaster areas !
14
This is what intelligence looks like.
27
Reminds me of "They signed a treaty and our homes were taken. Loved ones not foresaken, they gave a dang" <-- lifted from the band, acadian driftwood, of course...
1
@Jay E. Simkin
If disarming citizens promotes genocides, why haven’t there been any genocides in Canada?
And if arming citizens promotes safety, why are there more gun homicides per capita in the US than in Canada?
Where on earth are you getting your information?
18
@Bob Bunsen Canada has not been so stressed that a politician embraced genocide.
But say Francophone Quebec declared independence, and at once expelled all Anglophones. Quebec police officers would seize Anglophones (anyone who does not speak French), take them to the Ontario border, and there leave them, out in the open, with whatever clothes they had on.
The Government of Canada, rightly outraged, then ordered the reciprocal expulsion of all Francophones nationwide.
This is horrendous, but not the worst outcome. Post-independence Francophone extremists in Quebec could decide to to annihilate Anglophones. As Canadians are largely disarmed, the Anglophones will be murdered.
An example. In Rwanda, some 800,000 were murdered in just 119 days (7 April-19 July 1994). The Rwandans didn't build Nazi-style murder facilities. Village-level murder squads used machetes and nail-studded clubs to murder on-the-spot any Tutsi (the targeted group). Adult Rwandans' national identity cards stated the bearer's ethnicity.
The victims were defenseless, thanks to Rwanda's "gun control" law, Decree-Law No. 12/79, 7 May 1979, "Journal Officiel" (Official Journal), 1 June 1979, pp. 343-346, in French and Kinyarwanda. This law - as amended by Law No. 13/2000, 14 June 2000 - is in force.
Those, who write about Rwanda's genocide, don't explain how so many were murdered so fast. I just did. Many, dazzled by "gun control's" false promise of "safe streets", can't see the heaps of corpses.
1
Yet one more reason to be envious of our Canadian neighbors. Rather than poutine, can’t they just ship us bottles of sanity?
28
Toronto is one of the safest cities in the world when it comes to natural disasters. There are no earthquakes and the city is protected from huge snowfall by hills (Niagara Escarpment)
Its rivers have their regular banks and then a fairly large floodplain to where they were in the time of glaciers.
The last great disaster was Hurricane Hazel in 1954. It took a path unheard of which wiped out a street through flooding and everyone who lived there.
The response was to forcibly buy out anyone with property on the floodplains and turn it into a park system.
Yes, there are times when the rivers overflow for a few days and the parks have to be closed but no more deaths except for idiots playing in the rivers and you don't have to pay for flood damage.
24
@sheldon Yes, good floodplain restrictions generally, but I fear what might happen at the foot of Toronto’s Don River someday. So much construction there since Hurricane Hazel.
3
It’s the difference between Toronto might flood in the next 50 years versus Miami Beach WILL flood in the next 50 years.
7
It's common sense.
7
Let's see if I've got this American perspective correctly, but disclosure - I'm in agreement with this Canadian approach. As an American I demand (yes, demand) the right to do what I want where I want and when I want. It's my right! But I get to run shrieking to the government should I experience any negative blow-back from anything I do? Yeppers....that's what it means to be an American don't it? Privatize all pleasure and profit, socialize all payments, taxes and pain. What a country.
John~
American Net'Zen
22
@John - You left out the right to pay taxes that are too low to cover the actual cost of government.
19
Many commenters here have mentioned how sensible some of Canada's policies are. Here's another one. Today marks the beginning of our federal election. 21 October, 6 weeks away, marks the END. Our weeks are your years, apparently.
31
Canada's approach is the start of a world-wide inevitable wave (pun-intended).
5
@Rethinking I think the Netherlands has you beat.
1
Actually there are much more extreme and earlier examples of this in Canada. After Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s killed people living in ravines, the government expropriated the land, forbade people from rebuilding in simmilar areas, and created the conservation authorities to manage and protect the watersheds
12
I have been thinking for years why do we keep allowing developers to build communities along rivers that flood every year, beach homes that are blown away. Then there is the hauling in of sand to rebuild beaches that get washed out to sea every year. Insanity.
15
TIMES, please keep reporting on this. We taxpayers are owed continuous news coverage to stop the outflow of tax dollars to the most selfish among us, taking these funds away from infrastructure reconstructions that would benefit us all. Please keep beating this drum until more and more people realize what is going on.
57
In the U.S., national flood plain insurance all but guarantees that people will continue to build or rebuild where it has flooded for decades if not centuries.
It is particularly galling that my taxes pay to rebuild the billionaires' palaces on the barrier beaches of the east coast.
51
How many tax dollars were spent rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina, including new levies, a City under sea level? Made no sense then, or now.
36
@Me
Worse. Louisiana gets hit worse because of the devastation that the oil companies did to the environment. What do the oil companies pay for their destruction? Nothing. Taxpayers subsidize the costs. Privatize profits, socialize costs.
7
And all those levies, dams and concrete channels exacerbate the problem by decreasing downstream sediment thereby eroding the coastline further.
3
Back in the ancient 1970s, Illinois Governor Richard Ogilvie got tired of paying to rebuild farms devastated by floods and financed the removal of such farms with positive results. Sounds like a good idea.
26
Where I live in France, the policy is that any property consciously built in a flood zone (since the 1970s) which then is flooded may NOT be rebuilt as before - and notaries will not sign off on sales and loans for such projects. Also - a town just downriver on the Seine, following the past few years' flooding, is buying out properties in the flood zone. This is simple good sense, and also responsible protection of both the environment and of the population ... and will doubtless become more and more necessary with climate change.
43
I think this is fantastic - disaster assistance for home owners has a feel like a wealth transfer. For example, when someone builds an ocean front home and its hit by storm surge and then the government bails them out. I don't think households in the bottom half based on earnings are owning beach front houses.
28
@Tom
" don't think households in the bottom half based on earnings are owning beach front houses."
but you are wrong in that thought.
The coastal barrier islands are chock full of regular people who live there. The coasts of FLorida, Texas and Georgia are mostly inhabited by people of middle class incomes.
It is nice to pontificate that only the Elite have beach homes but it is flat out hyperbole and incorrect.
The sheer stupidity of not only building, but rebuilding, in a flood plain is a cost that should only be borne by the fools that do so. As the coastal and river flood plains become ever more vulnerable to climate change, developers and homeowners who insist on living there should not be able to foist the costs of their bad decisions on taxpayers. For those who have availed themselves of government-sponsored insurance programs (and their unrealistic premiums), give them their payout, let them do with it what they will, but make clear that the programs are no longer available to them and are going to be discontinued. You want to rebuild in the same place? Find private insurance to cover your risk.
43
The definition of crazy is to do the same thing and expect different reults. Another way to say rebuilding in flood prone zones is nuts.
15
@Harris silver
Taxpayers picking up the tab for millionaires is worse than nuts, it is normal for this country.
5
Simplre, straightforward, intelligence-based. The approach to resettling people who were somehow duped into buying a property vulnerable to natural disaster is one that is admirable and one that could for those reasons never work in the USA. The land of greed and stupidity will see billions of the little people's revenue poured out to reconstruct places like Ocracoke, NC that should be abandoned.
21
Canada, and esp Quebec, sees the future and responds accordingly. When will that happen in the US? Ever?
26
Yet another area where Canadians are wiser, this must be embarrassing to their southern neighbours; add this to the list of: health care, low gun violence and crime, retirement, etc.
35
I guess this means everyone living on the Gulf Coast and East Coast (i.e., in the path of hurricanes) needs to relocate and rebuild on higher ground away from the coasts.
I mean, it was really stupid of anyone to settle and build in these areas because hurricanes have been around for centuries; we obviously should have known better.
Ditto for those living on or near earthquake or fault zones, and river flood zones.
And who is going to pay for this, and how? Some enterprising reporter should calculate the cost of relocating all those living in the hazard zones noted above; much more than Medicaid for All, free college tuition and reparations put together, I suspect.
6
@Mon Ray Leaving, once, will cost far less than rebuilding repeatedly.
11
@Lydia M. Yes, but leave where, and move to where? Presumably San Francisco should be abandoned and demolished, and Los Angeles, because of possible earthquakes. No one should live on the Oklahoma plains, lest they risk their homes being destroyed by tornadoes. Nantucket will eventually wash away, so no one should live there, nor on most of Cape Cod. But they should not move to much of Vermont, where inland flooding has caused great damage in recent years. The southwest cannot sustain its water needs, so folks should move out of that region. New York City is at high risk of sea level rise, so we should have most of Manhattan pack up and go … yet not to their Florida condos, because we need to write off that state too.
2
I just love Canadian rationality and pragmatism. It just makes sense. Kiss the Caribbean goodbye. Au revoir to the southeast coast in the US. These hurricanes are here to stay (and likely get worse) because we are doing nothing about global warming.
24
The US government doesn’t give individual home owners all that much money to rebuild. And these disasters are among the very few instances in which insurance companies actually have to pay. Like so many ideas, the Canadians are way ahead of us on this one. I would point out that people living in beach communities, along the shores of the Great Lakes and on rivers’ edge are usually better off financially than most of us to begin with. It’s those usually rural areas on the way to the shore that house poor people in already substandard housing or close to it. Moving them out would help change their lives. But this is America, so don’t hold your breath.
11
Well . . . since both the US and Canadian federal governments subsidize oil companies, it seems only sensible that both these governments buy out homeowners at current market rates BEFORE the particular flood that prompts the action. Perhaps the money could come from cutting the oil subsidies. Yes, the price of gas and diesel would go up, but the pain would be spread around at a cheaper rate than the current inequitable subsidy system.
5
@WalteCutting the subsidies would cause much higher prices only if it reduced the expansion of distribution capacity. In Canada, it would undoubtedly raise prices a lot. In America, where the market is much more competitive, not so much. So long, that is, as a government committed to maintaining competition and fighting corporate collusion is put in place.
1
This is a correct & sensible approach. If you choose to build/rebuild/or live in a flood zone you do so at your own risk or that of the flood insurance you pay for. Public money will assist your relocating but will not act as an insurer of last resort. The single caveat is the flood-zone maps must be accurate and up-to-date.
21
America will proceed haphazardly, with some States doing the smart thing and following Canada’s model.
In the Outer Banks near me, which I refer to as “suburbia by the sea,” North Carolina and the climate-change denying Feds will make a futile stand.
Again and again, until something like what just occurred in the Bahamas happens.
10
As an American living in Christchurch, New Zealand, this is exactly what happened to most of my neighborhood following the 2010-11 earthquakes.
The land along the Avon River sunk a full meter and is now prone to flooding. Other land was deemed to risky to rebuild on due to it being prone to liquefaction in another quake.
There was a big buyout and whole neighborhoods were demolished. It was very hard on a lot of residents, but I'm not sure it was much harder than on those who were not placed in the "red zone" and had to deal with years of fighting with insurers.
We ourselves were relatively lucky in that our damage was not excessive and our land was deemed okay. While I am glad of this, if I had been in the position of dealing with a rebuild or a buyout, I think I may have taken the buyout.
14
I don’t understand the logic of rebuilding in flood prone areas and having the government underwrite a percentage of the cost. Essentially, all taxpayers have an interest in these homes but not the right to use them.
22
I live in a wooded fire prone area. I have done everything (and much more) that my insurer has asked to mitigate the danger. Not so my neighbors, which puts me at some risk. I'd love to see a little government intervention, here.
20
My thought isn o more coal, oil, gas, methane or pollutants should be mined, drilled or used anywhere on the planet and to take drastic steps to reverse the destruction of planet Earth.
People, it may already be too late to save the planet from mass extinction, include man, the invasive species causing the seas to rise and ice across the world to melt.
So man gets to continue to march to extinction without a whisper or heed that no life will exist when food does not grow, trees are scorched and earth covered in water.
6
Here is a thought; why not, in the first lace, build houses with concrete basements, brick foundations and walls? There seem to be in the US and some provinces in Canada, houses built with wooden frames, no basement and generally, cheap, light, materials. It goes without saying that these structures cannot survive floods, hurricanes or other natural disasters. I understand that in many cases it is a financial issue - who can afford a properly built, brick house? But in the long run, these houses survive better and longer. On the other hand, I applaud the decision to buy the people in flooded areas out and have them move elsewhere, since there really is no point in living in a repeatedly flood prone area.
3
@Anne, the best type of home and foundation construction varies by region, climate, and specific natural threat. Homes must meet the minimum standards set by state and local building codes which factor in such elements. Many older homes meet the code requirements for when they were built, but as codes become more strict and are reissued every 3 years, do not meet the current codes. Would you require them to tear down and rebuild every time the code is reissued?
3
@Anne
You've obviously never lived through an earthquake. I'd take a wooden house over brick any day. It depends on location.
Also, how does a concrete basement help in a flood?
5
"Unlike the United States, which will repeatedly help pay for people to rebuild in place"
Generally, the US requires people to rebuild in place, paying for repairs with proof of the cost of them.
Even if it did not, the land could not be sold for enough to buy new land on which to build. Insurance on the structure damage alone won't cover it.
6
"The American approach “is much more generous to the property owner,” Dr. Phillips said. For example, a couple in New Jersey were awarded $330,000 this year after the government built protective dunes on beachfront property after Hurricane Sandy, on the grounds that those dunes hurt their ocean view."
What insanity. The taxpayer pays for having the dunes erected to protect property prone to damage. The taxpayer foots the bill for subsidized insurance that will pay for damage to that property AND the taxpayer is hit with a bill for ''damages" BECAUSE dunes were erected to protect the property and minimize losses?!?!
Only in America.
If you insist on building in flood prone areas you should bear the risk and the cost yourself. You are 'entitled' to do so but you are NOT entitled to government bailouts.
We took vacations on the Outer Banks for a few summers, renting a house built on 16 foot columns. I vividly recall seeing a motel where the first room was 12. All lower numbers had been swept away by storms over the years.
51
@cynicalskeptic — this is why I don't vacation down on the NC coast any more. I just see damage everywhere: natural forests ripped out to build homes (the forests hold down the sand of these fragile islands), nonnative species in the house plots, "hardening" of the coastline, trucked in "beach replenishment" sand, expensive sand-removal from roads after storms, dredging of inlets, etc. We in inland NC are subsidizing the tourist industry out east, wealthy second home owners, and property developers.
6
In looking at the comments by many Americans on this string, it seems they are just looking at--no surprise--the individual and her/his option.
What all of this tells me is that our governments--local, state and Federal--are going to have to set limits, and ENFORCE them.
We need to come together to decide collectively what acceptable limits are for each jurisdiction--if you leave this to politicians, you'll get rich folks to buy access, and we all know how well that has worked.
This is going to require a MASSIVE cultural shift in our country, because as everyone knows, there are not supposed to be any limits on Americans as long as they can pay for it.
Pick the desert in Central Arizona, where I'm from originally. It cannot naturally support 6 M+ people in the Phoenix area, plus their golf courses. They do it because of air conditioning, and many people live in a/c homes, cars, and shopping malls. But a/c is dependent on water from the Colorado River, which is dependent on snow fall on the western side of the Rockies, and weather patterns are changing & Lake Mead, for one, is under 40% of capacity. What's going to happen when they can't run the turbines to create electricity because of insufficient water...? Most people cannot survive in that heat without a/c.
Maybe we need to think of stopping problems BEFORE they develop, as climate change is showing they will do. Take "development" out of profiteers' hands NOW! We can live or we can profit--we cannot do both!
62
@Kim ScipesI believe that the "mighty" Colorado does not reach the sea any more, due to the level of abstracti
ons..
3
I am generally not one of those Americans
who constantly praise other nations at the
expense of their own, but Canada does
seem to act in a more commonsensical
way than America does. whether it is
health care or the way it is helping these
people to move to higher ground,Canada
sees a problem and acts on it.it doesn't
take a hundred years to act.it acts.our so
called leaders have a lot to learn from our
neighbor to the north. if only it wasn't so cold!
53
@Frank
"[We] have a lot to learn from our
neighbor to the north. if only it wasn't so cold!"
.
1. Who says that Canada wants a bunch of Americans immigrating to Canada?
2. It won't be very cold there for long...
9
I sold my dream property on Biscayne Bay in Miami 3 years ago because of raising tides and water scarcity. I love the city and miss it terribly, but the consequences of climate change are undeniable (except for the delusional) and irreversible. I’m buying an apartment in Manhattan now and my number one criterion is that it is well away from flood zones and flood evacuation zones. In a storm the magnitude of Sandy, everyone on the island will be adversely effected, but I am betting that my building won’t be made uninhabitable.
There are so many unpredictable and uncontrollable variables to consider when choosing where to live, such as the risk of terrorist attack (highly unlikely) or the probability of having noisy neighbors (much more likely), why ignore the known and statistically certain risks? The time will come when real estate agents are required to disclose flood risk - until that time, buyer beware.
34
One of my grandmother’s best pieces of advice: “Buy on high ground!”
33
What is not clear is if there is such a legal principle as "eminent domain" in Canada. I am guessing from the article that it does not have such a covenant or principle.
The other question I have is, what about flood, fire, and other disaster insurance for the homeowners?
Here in California, after having two years of catastrophic fires, throughout Northern and Southern California, and at the border of Oregon (Oregon had its own fires in 2017 too), our major energy supplier is in bankruptcy, will not be involved in the delivery of gas as energy - or it will sell that part of the business, cannot compensate for the loss of more than 80 deaths attributable to electrically started fires in the Paradise area, and still has to deal with the huge fires in Santa Rosa and other neighboring towns which destroyed more than 300 homes.
And the insurance companies are either dropping fire insurance altogether or doubling the price of fire insurance for many Californians in "fire prone zones".
But we have floods - I live in a flood zone - almost all of the Sacramento area, though free of possible earthquakes is a flood zone, and then elsewhere
there are extraordinarily horrific killer mudslides, which take lives and houses in a flash.
not to mention the imminent earthquakes.
California MIGHT become a wasteland if we did not rebuild, as we are always doing it.
But to Canada, shouldn't we be collectively working on rebuilding the polar ice caps to prevent the flooding?
1
certainly canada has the principle of eminent domain. I believe that in Canadian law underlying the notion of land ownership is the principle that the Crown ultimately has final ownership and stewardship of all lands; those lands unowned are Crown Lands, those owned stay permanently in that state but may be taken, with compensation by the Crown. This difference with our southern neighbors has also complicated things like the chronic softwood disputes; our system of allowing logging is represented in the US as a subsidy.
6
@RR No eminent domain = no taking = no reimbursement by government. Let the market forces do their work
@RR
Yes, this concept exists in Canada
2
Since moving to Canada from the US, I've been greatly impressed with how well run Canadian government generally is.
92
In America there exists a narcissistic romance with selfish entitlement that increasingly lowers the quality of life for our society in general, one already severely strained by its costs.
Not My Problem, people insist- I want my gun, my house in the flood zone, my disaster aid for it; and my SUV, my retirement to be funded by the impoverished young, and so on. Me first. And so we sink, and will sink farther with these attitudes.
90
Referring to the floods in southern Alberta in 2013, not only was Canmore and High River flooded, but so was downtown Calgary and further into the suburbs. Not sure if the population of large city can be moved.
As well, the Alberta Government spent a great deal of money on the kananaskis golf course after that flood.
By the way - High River is aptly named as the river does get very high and flooding is not uncommon.
10
@Dana Scully - The YYC flooding was downtown, as you say, however, not a huge population there, but many office buildings. That said, I noticed when there a few weeks ago, the new condo towers being built ever-so-close to the river. Interesting.
9
I live in Colorado. My state gets on average 15 inches of precipitation a year. It's semi-arid. Climate Change is making drought more common so we might only 11 or 12 inches of precipitation a year. Yet people still move here.
At what point do I move? How many years of drought in a row is going to make the American West uninhabitable? Will it be in the next decade, twenty or thirty years?
My life is here. My job is here. But when will it get to a point where I won't be able to sell my house because finally, no one will want to move here because of the lack of water? (No water, no skiing either).
Where do I go? Not everyone can fit in the water-rich Great Lakes states.... and who wants all the ticks that go with that?
Buckle up, folks. None of us can out-run climate change.
39
@the quiet one
Plenty of affordable property left in Detroit. Population is still in decline. Flint has some real deals on property as well.
I could do without mosquitoes, but I haven't ever had an issue with ticks.
18
@the quiet one
But IT IS possible to rebuild the polar ice caps with inventions to deflect the sun's rays, and it IS possible to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and IT IS possible to reduce CO2, and methane gas, through all kinds of actions, but in America, it has to come down as an ORDER.
14
@the quiet one It is very hard on the people to deal with those disasters and enormous change in their life.But, being be involved since more than 30 years in a CO2 removal project, I have to tell you that we are too late now...We will have to live trough those sad times.God bless you
12
If you want to live in an area prone to damaging hurricanes and flooding, or low sea level areas that cannot survive extreme weather because you like the view or for some other reason, do so at your own peril and financial expense. Taxpayers should not pay you to rebuild. Get your own insurance and assume the risk.
125
It’s so easy to say that, but exactly where do you prescribe we all live? Where is the US is free from the risk of natural disaster?
3
@Summer Smith
Where to go that is relatively safe from natural disasters? Pennsylvania, mostly between Pittsburgh and Philly. Tax friendly to seniors to boot.
4
@Summer Smith Upstate New York
2
This sounds incredibly difficult, fraught and just in general, very hard. And yet is so sane. I envy the Canadians.
82
@Sharon M
If the effected Canadians could just move the house - then the imperative can be acted upon.
1
News articles about US people heroically rebuilding their homes and their lives in places that should never have been developed make me so sad. But so often these flood, fire, earthquake or slide zones are exactly where building is the most profitable. Builders make their money, and homeowners get to heroically rebuild with public money after the inevitable disaster. Attempts to control building in such areas are often met with developer lawsuits, and communities give in.
Canada seems to have a better way.
81
The Russian River in California is one of these places with nice homes with a pleasant river-side setting, at least during fair weather. Then the storms hit and the local Member of Congress gets to work badgering FEMA to rebuild. Your taxes at work.
31
@publicitus
Spell it out publicitus - not even the original Russians who settled that area of Northern California lived near the Russian River. They settled more inland.
That area is just doomed and should NOT be rebuilt.
5
Canada is NOT testing a very different idea.
From the NY Times
"As Floods Keep Coming, Cities Pay Residents to Move"
July 6th, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/06/climate/nashville-floods-buybacks.html
It is odd that NY Times writers do not read their own newspaper.
10
Forced and capped buybacks.
Federal government (CA) involvement
Forfeiture of future help.
4
@talesofgenji. Although the ideas are similar, a city is a smaller entity. Canada is a country, and it’s policies can affect each province, giving people a one-time choice. Nashville’s program is a voluntary one.
12
@talesofgenji
That is more of the exception. The author uses the example of the Outer Banks, which is a perpetual loop of more building where it shouldn't, of course at taxpayer expense. And serious discussion of New Orleans was ruined by charges of racism and classism when a lot of that territory will be nailed again some day.
8
finally, sanity. Live in a known flood area at your own rick.
35
Canada is as right on de-populating floodplains as it is wrong to forbid its residents to own most common firearms. No one has a monopoly on truth and insight. De-populating flood zones saves lives. Disarming civilians promotes genocides, and so puts in lethal peril, millions of lives.
It is one thing to build - on a seashore or on a river's banks - a "shack" using framing timbers, plywood sheets, and roofing made of tarpaper. In such a "shack" one can get shelter from the sun or rain, change clothes, and enjoy a meal cooked on a barbecue. If a storm surge or floodwaters wash away such a shack, it is no great loss.
Every place that has zoning, should have a map showing areas wherein flood risk might exist. In such areas, no building permit can be issued for any structure that is other than a "shack". No licensed insurance company should be permitted to issue any policy for any structure in such an area. And no public funds may be expended to cover the costs of re-building anything built in such a "prohibited area".
If someone wants to buy property "on the beach" or on a river's banks, they should be free to do so. But if anything they build in such a place is destroyed by a storm, the loss is solely on the owner's shoulders. In practice, only the very rich will build all-season homes in "prohibited areas". That's fine.
Those, who wish to build or to buy a permanent dwelling" on the beach" or on a river's banks, should do so at their own risk.
8
Life in Canada seems pretty good—and a lot more safe—despite the lack of guns. In fact, dozens of democracies seem to be doing totally fine without easy access to firearms. How is that possible? Doesn’t America do everything best?
45
@Jay E. Simkin - I agree with some of your idea about shacks.
But this?
"Disarming civilians promotes genocides, and so puts in lethal peril, millions of lives."
No, it doesn't.
Reread the Militia Acts of 1792. They were designed so the armed citizenry could be put to use BY THE PRESIDENT to put down internal insurrections or to fight off invaders. Not so the populace could revolt against the American government. The people who passed the laws were the ones who signed off on an amendment that began: "A well-regulated militia"
20
@Jay E. Simkin. Canadians simply don’t have the same mentality toward guns as many Americans do. We’re quite happy and secure knowing hand guns and semi automatic weapons are not readily available. And, those Canadians who do carry are required to register their weapon. I don’t personally know of a single person who has a gun or desires to get one.
27
It seems that those who have had homes continually decimated by natural disasters have the responsibility to either rebuild homes to withstand said weather events or move on.
The U.S. government should not be in the business of insuring those in well-known disaster zones...especially flood plains. And private insurers should limit the times they will reimburse homeowners for repeat claims in these areas.
As someone who owns a coastal property, I do not expect either the U.S. taxpayer or my insurance company to continually bail me out. I’ve chosen to take that risk, have done everything possible to minimize any damage, and take full responsibility for my actions if storms continue to reek havoc.
As my millennial kids often say, “ That’s adulting” or “ using your brain.”
38
@It's About Time
As a note, the US government DOES NOT provide back up help for home/business owners in the Sacramento / Yolo County areas - probably Butte and others, but I am not certain. In Yolo and Sacramento, all home owners in real flood zones HAVE TO CARRY FLOOD INSURANCE. And home owners fight it, because they claim that their homes ARE NOT in flood zones.
But the government does NOT have people's backs in California, I can tell you that. And when a great earthquake happens all of us are going to lose, and the insurance companies will help out with a fraction of what is really lost.
In Iran, and other Muslim countries, no insurance is sold. You plan, you have a back up, you duplicate, and you lose, when and if a disaster happens.
2
Wait! You mean there is government to looks ahead and does the smart thing?
65
What shocking common sense.
26
Isn't this common sense?
27
@Beverly Miller
No, this is nonsense. There is no reason for anyone who has chosen to live by the beach to have their house rebuilt, even once, by the taxpayer.
4
It would be climate CHANGE if it had not flooded before the big industrial emissions of the last 50 years.
In that case, they would not have been called FLOOD PLAINS. A century ago.
According to NOAA, in the last 50 years, as in the 50 years before those and as in the 50 (nonindustrial) years before those, sea levels in Eastern Canada rose by about 3mm/year, i.e. 1/2 ft/50 years. Western Canada lifts, so seas mostly recede there.
1/2 ft is not what a flood plain makes. Sea rise sure won't be stopped by the Green New Deal, since it was happening 150 years ago at the same rate. To go back at the population and industrial levels of 150 years ago is impossible unless you make 90% of the industry and 90% of the population disappear. And then, sea levels would rise STILL at the same rate.
See NYC according to NOAA
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
In Quebec waters are RECEDING for 100 years
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=970-071
In Vancouver they grew a total of 1 cm in a whole century
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=822-071
You don't have to believe me. The only thing you should believe in modern science is the measured data. And if you go to these, at NOAA, you can click on any station around the world. That is ALL the data there is. Anything else is politicians lying.
By the way, the measured data, simply by a floater on the sea, is the wiggly blue line.
4
The article was actually pretty light on any climate panic. Do you understand 1) that Gatineau is on a river so sea level rise is little connected, 2) the concept of a 100-year flood, and 3) that two 100-year floods have occurred in Gatineau since 2017?
22
@CB "Do you understand the concept of a 100-year flood?"
I sure do. Here is how it goes.
Take say 3000 US counties, and for each county 5 events, drought, flood, storm, heat, rain.
You will get 3000 x 5/100 = 150 times a year a countywide 100 year event. Normally. And 15 times a year a 1000 year event. Normally.
So that lets you report every other day a 100 years climate event in SOME county.
You can this way scare the statistically challenged that the world is ending. And the guilt prone that it is their fault. And both that if they pay all that will change.
PS To understand the statistics better, think about winning the lottery. If you look at the winner AFTER the draw, the chance is 100%. That is what the lottery ads show, the winners.
If you choose someone, e.g. you, BEFORE the draw, the chance is very very small.
So if you choose the county and the type of event AFTER it happened, the chance of a 100 year events is 100%. If we ask you, @CB, how many 100 years floods have happened to YOUR house in the last year, the answer will very likely be 0.
I happen to be a mathematical physicist, QFT, so I work with data.
3
@novoad
Unfortunately you are wrong! A huge difference between the same place getting so called rare flood events too frequently (And similar happenings in many places) and your example of combining all sorts of events into one example is nothing but misleading an already confused population!
7
Bravo, Canada! I'm glad to see people acting intelligently in response to climate change. Spend relatively small amounts to get/keep development away from flood-endangered areas; plan ahead, don't allow building there, etc. So much better than hare-brained planet-girdling schemes to lower world temperatures 1 degree or so in a century by shutting down whole needed industries, requiring worldwide dietary changes (no meat), and other goofy ideas that will only result in economic chaos leaving millions unemployed and on the dole. And not even to mention the impossibility of monitoring compliance and gaining control of the entire world's political structure for enforcement. In America, which political party is pushing these cuckoo ideas?
15
@Ronald B. Duke You are right. In the Soviet Union, everyone was employed. But they had people paid to push the buttons in every elevator.
So the green energy can produce a lot of employment. What it cannot produce is inexpensive, reliable, baseline energy.
And the many employed could have been much more productive elsewhere. So the net result will be that the whole US becomes less productive and more poor.
That is what happened in the Soviet Union. And now in Venezuela.
This story reminds me of a horrific video I once watched: There is a mass of people loitering in a dry river bed. The camera pans upstream and a wall of flood water is roaring toward these people. They hear and see it and scatter, but incredibly, a lot of them ran downstream! They were consumed by the raging flood of watery muddy debris...
3
This is a tough message but it's the right one, you can't fight mother nature, you can slow her down but in the end she will win.
16
A tough but ultimately wise move.
Wiser would be for Trudeau to combine this and Canada's commitment to the Paris agreement with additional measures to head off the climate attack in the first place—like, say, NOT approving pipelines that'll boost the economy but kill the people who make the very concept of an economy possible. But under the loser and oil tyrant putin, I'll take what I can get.
7
So is flood insurance for all more important than [something like] Medicare for all?
6
This would be a good thing for the GOP to get behind but, unfortunately, they don't believe in climate change.
9
Dear Canadian neighbors, spot on! Officials aware of the climate change reality are taking effective measures to help citizens resettle rather than rebuild in exposed and vulnerable areas. Some here in the U.S. did the same--they moved entire homes (antique Victorians). Maybe that same company is for hire.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/house-moving-from-seward-park-to-bainbridge-on-barge/302765523
14
I've watched rich people's second homes being rebuilt on Fire Island for years. Once and done. The Canadians have it right.
41
The key phrase in the article: "Limiting aid after disasters"
17
This is the most intelligent and logical solution. Continuing to build and rebuild in areas prone to flooding is actually approaching a level of illogical approaching mental illness. As seas continue to rise and climate change causes more flooding and weather related destruction, logic over emotion is going to become crucial.
27
It's changing slowly in the US, as what was essentially a flood insurance subsidy by FEMA is going away. (When buying a house on the Oregon coast about 5 years ago, I was struck by a really innovative one with a gorgeous view of Alsea Bay. My realtor audibly gulped when I asked about it; her response was "if you want to see it, OK, but not until I find out what the insurance costs are." She was right: I would have been paying an additional 50% over my mortgage payment for flood and tsunami insurance that any lender was going to require.
(I ultimately bought on higher ground.)
21
Milwaukee has a very progressive system of buying out homes that flood and then adding those properties to the riverfront parkland. There are long fingers of greenery providing wildlife corridors that run deep into the city.
42
The most expensive property in places like Florida, Long Island and Martha's Vineyard are on waterfront. The wealty owners of this property believe strongly in climate change or do they.
11
This is the only answer - heeding the warnings of climate change and NOT spending precious resources on the fool's errand of rebuilding.
16
seems to me that if people choose to rebuild and live in an area that has repeatably flooded they should be able to do so---ON THIER OWN NICKEL. taxpayers should not be forced to provide the money.
34
Several comments assume that the people who live near the water are rich people. That is only partly true. There are many poor people and middle-class who live near the water because that land was cheap. Much waterfront property was cheap.
12
@Thomas Zaslavsky
In California, along the coast, whole houses have been condemned in advance of their demise by Code Enforcement. The home owners weep as if a family member has been killed as the demolition teams tear down the precariously situated house.
3
Typically Canada understands how to deal with major issues.
I have another complaint that is only tangentially related, as to remediation of storm damage. We have 5 states on the Gulf Coast, 3 of then, the 3 poorest have a state income tax, the 2 richest, Texas & Florida do not. I would like see the policy be that if a state has no income tax of a reasonable % they would be ineligible for Federal relief.
Both of these welfare states boast about no income tax inducing businesses and people to relocate hyping that benefit. Establish an income tax and at least help yourselves to get other taxpayers to contribute.
37
If only we in the US would learn more from Canada and other countries where pragmatism surpasses dogmatism.
37
@morphd
Sorry to disappoint bud but we still have idiots here building mansions on flood plains and on land susceptible to wildfires.
12
@John
No place is perfect.
Speaking of Canada, I just completed a solo driving trip from my home in the Midwest US up to Maine then took the ferry at St John NB to Nova Scotia. Spent nights in Yarmouth, Antigonish then to North Sydney to take Atlantic Vision ferry to Argentia NL. Three nights on Newfoundland (was able to drive up northern peninsula) then to Port aux Basques for ferry back to North Sydney. One night on Prince Edward Island, one night in western New Brunswick then back home via Quebec & Ontario. Got to see lots of beautiful country and listen to multiple Audible books. Approx 5470 mi/8800 km driven. Loved it!
12
Canada gets called "socialist" by the right but we're really more communitarian on some issues, more democratic socialist on others, and plain pragmatic on most things. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Don't build your home on a floodplain.
74
We must move New York City, probably to Poughkeepsie. The cost will be staggering. But we have no choice.
6
@Francis McInerney
Dutch engineers came to New York to discuss building sea walls as the they do in the Netherlands.
Despite Hurricane Sandy’s immense impact, the city has been slow to adopt protective measures that would safeguard residents from future storm-related disasters. A 2018 report that evaluated storm preparation ranked New York 12th out of 16 Eastern coastal states, behind both New Jersey and Connecticut. But on Tuesday, New York finally secured funding to begin addressing that though the Staten Island Levee Project, a $615 million seawall that will be built to withstand a “300 year storm.”
3
@Agnate This solution is temporary. The entire harbor must be sealed off from the Atlantic. Dealing with Long Island and the Sound will be immensely complex.
FINALLY. Yes, if you want money to rebuild, move to dry ground - no sense throwing money down the drain (literally!)
15
Ahh capitalism, the ultimate socialist system - getting the people to bail out the wealthy when they run into problems ... over and over again.
Canada doesn't have that problem.
42
I am all for not supporting other people's waterfront dream with my tax money. But then again... what about wildfires? Why should we pay for that? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? Earthquakes? Where and how do we draw the line? This conversation is only just beginning
8
@Sophie K: Flooding isn't comparable to the other natural disasters, mostly because the primary ingredient is right there as a potential (and possibly annual) cause of flooding.
In addition, we now have several years of data showing that certain areas have been flooded more than once *and* that certain areas are far more vulnerable because of climate change. No comparable predictions can be made with regard to areas vulnerable to tornadoes and wildfires.
Also, people choose to live near the water -- it's desirable -- but no one chooses to live in areas that might be more vulnerable to wildfires and tornadoes. Finally, neither of those are repeat devastaters.
5
@Doro Wynant
Actually, you are incorrect. California has what are called the "Santa Ana Winds". They are about to arrive, again. And they bring fires again and again to areas of Southern California, but the origin of the fires, is probably, arson.
3
France has such a program for some time.
Disagree with the writers comments on climate change
Would be nice to have the climate of N. Carolina up here.
3
“'We have to go all the way,' Mr. Pedneaud-Jobin said. 'If you ask people to leave, you pay the money that needs to be paid. And you force them to leave.'”
That's just common sense - but it makes too much sense for America. For us, what makes sense is to pay for people to rebuild over and over again. We have freedoms that say individual rights supersede the common good.
Like lax gun laws that result in outrageous carnage, paying for people to rebuild in a flood plain is the price of freedom.
19
Yea, my country finally gets it. Now, to put limitations on where folks can build, in flood plains or slide areas. I am tired of paying over and over for these folks to rebuild.
Finally, someone gets it. Yea Canada!
20
The Québécois are quite motivated to help fellow citizens in times of need or disaster. But they are loathe to see their money wasted. When government provides assistance, there is something about their egalitarian sensibilities that will want to make sure that no one is receiving more than his due in accordance with circumstances. It is also of note that Québec has become the Canadian province with the biggest and most consistant government surplus. Most Canadian provincial budgets bleed deep red.
17
Floodplains are liveable with the proper infrastructure. The backstory to all this here in Canada is that rivers like the St Lawrence and Ottawa have excellent locks and canal systems where it’s advantageous for shipping and commerce. In High River, St Marthe sur la lac, and Gatineau people live/d on unprotected land. Humans will always live waterside. Canadians are just realizing now in this new climate era we better be smarter about it.
4
@ASnell
In Yolo County on the border of Sacramento, many if not many of the weirs have to be rebuilt. We have canals, locks, and rivers, but the levees and the weirs and levees are very expensive and for what ever reason, have to be redesigned and rebuilt. Point is, yes, you can make man-made systems to work with rivers, but those too require high maintenance.
1
I look at the last picture in the article and can see why some don't want to leave. If I had one of those houses, I'd be very tempted to have it raised 8 or 10 feet and use the area underneath for parking, a patio, or storage.
I lived in West Michigan as a kid still miss the lake (Lake Michigan) and that last pic makes my heart ache.
5
Way to go Canada. Always a step ahead of us and yet why just now happening? If we told the wealthy and the poor they can't build in flood plains and right along coastlines, at the government and taxpayers expense to keep rebuilding, then maybe we could do something about our aging infrastructure, build some bullet trains, more chances for more people to get healthcare? The possibilities are endless.
28
@Peter
When you say infrastructure do you mean flood control?
The American people are not used to limitations. That’s why Americans infantile reaction to anything that appears constraining like energy efficiency, climate change actions, recycling, public transit, healthy eating, empathy and public goods are generally disdained here.
This is changing with the younger generations. The baby boomer generation on the whole is not capable of considering a program such as Canada’s. Give America another generation or two. Too many “base” voters.
55
Doing something logical? How refreshing! If the communities and local governments don’t make the call to stop building in this areas, insurance companies will shut it down.
16
Then there's North Carolina whose brilliant State house made it illegal for people to be told the truth about the flood risk now or into the future, at the behest of real estate brokers who saw their livelihood being threatened when people wouldn't but flood prone properties. You can't make this stuff up - literally sink the consumer in every way you can.
100
@E Campbell. This is one of the most outrageous things I've heard.
5
There was a time when US Government used to pick up less than 10% of storm/hurricane damages. Today they pick up nearly 70% of damages. This is tax payer money. Surely we should had some say in whether we should allow people to continue to build in flood prone areas.
68
Canada showing the way. Rising sea levels are a reality, like it or not. If you want a waterfront home then you should be on your own in terms of flood insurance and reconstruction. Why should my tax money go to bail out those who recklessly choose to live in a flood area?
143
@Roberta
- In the Sacramento area, just yesterday it was announced that we are using oysters to improve not only the water quality but water levels as they once did, say near Manhattan.
In the past there were literally islands or a barrier made of shell fish, a wall, that not only filtered the water, but prevented storm waters from damaging the NYC area. But the residents ate the barrier.
7
We live in N C and I fully support this approach. If people want to build on the coast or in an environmentally risky area let them absorb the full cost and risk of doing so. I don’t owe these people my tax money or insurance subsidies so they can have a million dollar home on the Outer Banks which has artificially low insurance premiums or any government support to help them rebuild multiple times.
186
@GlennC
I basically agree with your position. But remember the severe floods inland in eastern NC Most of the residents in the lower lying flooded areas were poor people who couldn’t afford to live elsewhere. A government plan to buy out and relocate these families is needed
4
Good old fashion common sense. A shame we never did it in place like New Orleans.
57
@epmeehan -- originally there were plans, but it was not politically feasible, so places like the Nineth ward were rebuilt and they will flood again, and the taxpayers will be on the hook.
8
@epmeehan
The Dutch can safely live 25 feet below sea level - but then they have worked at it for 1000 years
The US can not. New Orleans flooded because the faulty design of the sea wall that toppled over before being crested. US Corps of Engineers designed it , clearly not competent in soil mechanics.
We could hire the Dutch to make New Orleans safer - but this is not the way things are done in the US
29
@John
OK, John, my Dad worked for the USGS. We, the US, the army and geologists knew for decades, or centuries, that New Orleans was a disaster in waiting due to the levees that would certainly break under the force of a likely hurricane. We in the US knew well what could happen and it did.
5
Honolulu
Los Angeles
Phienix
Miami
New York City
New Orleans
@William F
Del Mar, CA
It's a good plan but to make this plan work involves civic mindedness which America does not have. You can see this kind of thinking in Norway and Sweden and, of course, Canada but I don't think Americans can get on board. They just don't get it.
101
@Diane Gross -- no, here it is: "me, me, me".
12
Sensible Canadians. We can learn more than a thing or two from them.
133
Westhampton Beach Dune Road, Does the federal flood insurance still cover homes there? Years ago those houses often had to be replaced. Is it the same now? During recent massive California fires and newscast mentioned there were about half 1 million new homes projected to be built in the same area. What is wrong with these pictures? Maybe the Canadians have something.
26
@Harriet Katz
No, that's not true. It's more like 3000 buildings were burned down in the Tubbs and Atlas fires. Fewer in the Paradise fires.
And as a note, the government, Fed and State, have literally dictated to those rebuilding, on how they may plant trees on their property. OK?
The home owners are NOT just rebuilding a structure. My friend lost four of the buildings on his estate, he built literally with his own hands. Two of them were for his business.
He is rebuilding a shell to cover his house completely in the event of a fire in order to reduce the amount of oxygen that would enable a fire to destroy his house again.
1
that is not my point...they should not be building in such a fragile area. "civilization" sends off sparks so to speak that causes the fires. It is nice your friend built with his own hands etc. but maybe better to rebuild in the decaying cities' areas rather than burn down trees. Do we have to pave over all of nature?
Most of the beach living Americans are too lazy to walk to the beach from a home a few blocks (but potentially safe) away. They want to open their patio door and voila be on the beach. Even original settlers in the 1700s didn't build right on the river/beach front. They knew to be back away from the water edge. We need to bring this intelligent (and selfless) thought back into action. You flood once, you move back from water's edge; go elsewhere or pay for the rebuild yourself. You're wasting government funds that are needed for more important issues than you view of the water.
99
Bottom line: Why is common sense "forceful?" Move or you're on your own, do not expect any further government/taxpayer funded help. Suck it up already and get out. Canada has a ton of territory to move to, it's not like the United States with massive areas of desert not fit to live in. You people living north of the border, you should be thanking God on your knees you don't live here.
22
@Jan N I don't know that it's any easier to move in Canada than it is in the U.S., but I can tell you that I am grateful, everyday, to be living here and not in the U.S.
96
@Jan N thanks Jan for your shout out to Canada. I do feel lucky to live in Canada (minus the cold, horseflies and mosquitos). Tough and hardy we are even though we always complain about the weather.
29
@Jan N
How can you not be aware of the massive areas of habitable land in the U.S., fit to live in and not yet fully occupied?
14
The GOP commitment to socialism for the rich will block a rational end to welfare for beach home owners. And Democrats cannot win in the Great Plains where they are high and dry while paying taxes to replace beach mansions.
29
The Alberta example that's given here is intriguing. Who in his right mind would buy a waterfront house in a place called High River?
19
@witz
Don't knock it until you have been there. It is beautiful.
4
As picturesque and pleasant as some places may be not every place is fit for human habitation.
17
"...what's fair to our taxpayers..." I don't think i've ever heard that sentiment used in the USA. I've heard "tax dollars shouldn't be used for...." but that's different. We use taxes to subsidize huge corporations, or to subsidize entire industries but not once is this considered from a position of "fairness" to the taxpayer. What a novel idea!
161
Decades ago, NYS warned everyone living on waterfront properties that when the building was no longer safe to live in, they would have to leave: Atlantic Ocean, Great South Bay, Long Island Sound, Lake Champlain, and probably Lake Ontario, but I’m not sure. There was panic, some people did their own propping up, but it was generally accepted and life moved on. Every now and then, New York does things right.
In 1993, the first infamous 500 year flood covered miles of the Midwest. When the second 500 year flood came the next year, both the Army Corp of Engineers and the Flood Insurance people intervened, and several municipalities in Illinois were asked to consider relocating. I don’t remember much detail, but one entire community moved up on the bluffs, getting together to draw up a new map of their community, and selecting parcels of land so that most were happy. And I’m sure they were v.e.r.y happy when the third 500 year flood came later, and none of them had a worry (or a sandbag to fill).
It only makes sense to start the planning now, before the next round of floods reminds us that mere mortals cannot completely control nature.
62
All the US has to do is raise FEMA insurance premiums each time a claim is made. That's how regular insurance works, yes? Get in a car accident, your premium goes up.
Most insurance premiums are also based on risk. To continue with the auto insurance analogy: live in a city = higher premiums; new driver = higher premiums; get old = higher premiums.
It's back door legislation. Make it too expensive for someone to live there and only the people with money to burn will stay. It doesn't infringe on property rights and the government isn't taking anyone's property.
35
@B Dawson -- I have a better idea: FEMA won't pay for any area that is prone to flooding. Which leaves private insurance. The people who once lived on the beach, for example, will no longer be able to while the ones owning the mega mansions on the beach will. But they will get no longer a taxpayer's handout; now they'll have the pay the big insurance out of their own pocke.t
8
@B Dawson
Only problem with your plan is that the rich can afford the premiums so it would be the rich on waterfront property, everywhere. And, we would still be paying for them.
7
Thank God! Some sensible reaction to building and rebuilding in flood prone areas.
Next let's talk about earthquake zones.
33
Earthquake zones are not comparable to floodplains. You can predict storms and flooding, you cannot predict earthquakes. In Japan, all buildings are constructed to high standards to withstand typhoons and earthquakes. The same could be done in the US but obviously has not. Houses are destroyed and rebuilt just as cheaply as they were before. Telling someone how to construct their house or commercial building is extremely hard in the hard-headed US.
21
@fme That's about 2/3 of the US.
5
In the USA, we keep the problem going by providing subsidized flood insurance. I hope that our government wakes up and takes the same approach as our neighbors in Canada.
74
Why does the US not have more of this common sense legislation? Those who can afford to rebuild time after time could still stay, and this would relieve another burden on US taxpayers.
31
@Boutros
Greed and entitlement by the excessively rich people and corporation that corrupts all else.
Canada has embarked on a sensible approach that we here in the US should adopt.
52
American homeowners in flood-prone areas, even 100-year flood plains, know that their ordinary home-owners insurance policies expressly excludes water damage from the outside. They are told verbally and in writing. They are given the number to call FEMA and buy coverage. Many, if not most, don't buy it. Why should they? FEMA has been stepping in during these now more frequent disasters and providing coverage.
FEMA is just about bankrupt because of this and now Republicans are dipping into FEMA's money for the silly wall and other things we can't afford.
More disasters are on the way. There should be no FEMA coverage for those refusing to buy policies. And perhaps we should look at refusing to allow rebuilding. I don't know but things are going to get even bumpier on this rollercoaster Republican disaster ride.
52
@Sandra Kay FEMA should shift from a rebuilding focus to a resettlement focus. The Canadian officials statement about protecting the taxpayer was spot on. We are not heartless people, but bailing out homeowners 3,4,5+ times has to stop.
13
Depending on where the property is (the flood zone as determined by FEMA) one may not be able to get a mortgage without flood insurance. I suppose that fact is marginally self-limiting—ie those who don’t want to pay the extra $7500 a year in flood insurance premiums (for $250,000 worth of insurance) will buy houses where there is no such requirement.
2
It is reasonable not to build in endangered areas and it is also common sense not to waste money In firmer Times before insurance nobody would have done it simply by the lack of means so it was a self regulated system nowadays all nonsense is done as Long assomebody else is paying for it.
9
My cell phone broke a few months ago and insurance covered it. It cost about $100. Lost the second over Labor Day weekend (my fault) and insurance covered that with the condition I was on my own for a year. I accept those conditions and know if there is another mishap it will cost considerably more money to replace. Why people who have had claims of four or five is quite astounding.
15
I applaud Canada's initiative in limiting private residences in flood-prone areas - something the U.S. is extremely reluctant to do. In the U.S., it is not the potential destructiveness of the next flood, or hurricane, but the politics of the situation. Forget the science, engineering, and climate change potential. Half of New Orleans shoud have been permanently made into a recreation area rather than re-built after Katrina, for example. We are wasting vauable resources on the same problem over and over again. In addition, in most locations, the prime real estate is along coastal shoreline. we- in effect are subsidizing the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us. What is doing the same thing and failing over and over again? Insanity.
45
We do this some as well with homes that are repeatedly flooded. We should probably do it more and we certainly need to increase the rates we charge for flood insurance so we aren't subsidizing living in flood prone areas.
6
It's instructive to note that the aspiration "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence was changed to "life, liberty and property" in the Constitution adopted seven years later. Property ownership has long been subsidized in the United States, unless you were poor and/or a minority, in which case it was often stolen from you by legal or illegal means. The flood insurance program has long been politicized and subsidized, with science often taking a backseat to real estate political contributors. Perhaps Canada's example can help bring some common sense and equity to bear in the US.
35
The Canadian approach that makes sense is that people can rebuild, but only one time, on government disaster relief. After that, they are on their own to find insurance or take the loss if the property floods again. Or they can sell out.
Imagine the reduction in disaster costs if people rebuild in a flood zone, and after that - for each and every subsequent owner as well - the plot of land is not subject to any kind of flood relief.
Of course, imagine the irate sellers and buyers of beachfront property, who want a lot, but find that it has already been subject to a subsidized rebuild, and therefore any new build is covered by private insurance or private funding, but not FEMA.
And that folks, is why we will keep rebuilding private homes in flood zones. Not because we are good people, but because real estate and property interests want to privatize the benefit of ownership while socializing the risk.
82
...and don’t forget the lenders who won’t give out mortgages if their investment isn’t backed by flood insurance and is at risk of being either impoverished (the homeowner) or swept away (the banks’ equity in the property).
4
@Cathy, I, for one taxpayer, am sick and tired of throwing good money after bad!
5
Unpack the first few sentences. The US government helps restore property lost to flood damage. That is because private insurers will not touch those houses. And what kind of people live right on the seashore? Why, some of the richest people. So, taxpayers subsidize the rebuilding of rich people who chose to live in risky, but beautiful places on the shoreline.
More transfer of money from taxpayer to the rich. We could end it, but that would be "too far left".
242
@gratis
Flood insurance covers a lot more than the coast, but I do think they should increase the rates. There is no reason for the government to subsidize flooding risk.
31
@gratis
Some of the richest people in Colorado live in fire hazard zones now, also compliments of climate change.
Should we extend your philosophy to them as well?
24
@B Dawson
Unless we magically acquire limitless financial resources for rebuilding homes in rapidly expanding fire and flood prone areas, that probably makes sense at some point down the line. Of course, if the pace and scale of these disasters expands sufficiently, rich folks won't need much convincing to leave.
19
The United States "which will repeatedly help pay for people to rebuild" is about to learn some painful lessons. What used to be called "100 year storms" because they could be expected to occur only once a century are now happening twice decade. And it's just going to get worse.
Very soon, private insurers will no longer cover properties in several parts of the Gulf coast and eastern seaboard. Because they know the probabilities, they know the costs, and their actions are based on numbers, not politics.
What the government will do is an open question. There are plenty of people at FEMA and even some in Congress who understand what's happening, and who know what we can't continue to pay to rebuild major cities every few years. They also know that even bigger floods are coming as sea levels rise and weather becomes ever more severe. But the government can make up for losses by printing up more money and running a bigger deficit.
Eventually, that won't work. The deficit will become too big, currency will be devalued, the world economy will crash, and then when a hurricane smashes through Florida, people will just have to move. Whether that's in 20 years, or 50, or 100, I don't know, but it will happen.
24
@Joe M.
It's happening in California with fire insurance. Homeowners in parts of California are unable to get homeowner's insurance for fire, which essentially means they can not get a mortgage. We are merely at the tip of a very large iceberg
25
@Joe M.
We had 5 of those"100 year storms" -- in March 2018. Yes. Today, our community it grappling with the concept of moving/removing/abandoning certain coastal infrastructure (read roads, water/sewer mains) because the numbers, the science says that that flooding, the permanent inundation, will begin in 10 years. Really. Will the Federal Gov't help with our dilemma? Not this iteration. But our state government is wisely allocating $$$ to help us try to solve these problems. Meanwhile, I'd say many of us are within hiking/biking distance from Canada.
VOTE!
15
@Joe M.
The physical effects of climate change will most likely be very serious before there is any problem with deficit spending.
4
As usual, Canada shows the way. I applaud their fearless insistence on applying common sense to such an obviously non-negotiable issue. Climate change is here. Time for everyone to deal with it. Common Sense #1 is don't build in a flood zone. Common Sense #2 is, the inconvenience of moving households does not compare to the tragic results of ignoring common sense #1.
122
This will be the hardest adjustment to make with a changing climate. Accepting the reality that the coast is now 25 miles inland and you can’t go home again.
53
@JRB. Hard as that is, I’m sure there will be harder adjustments a couple of decades from now.
10
@JRB
Harder than accepting the reality that if you vote republican (who support fossil fuel and coal burning), you are actually part of this problem????
2
The only responsible way for governments to control the loss of life and property is to put a stop to coastal development and to prevent rebuilding of existing homes once destroyed.
For years this approach to limiting/preventing loss of life and property has been widely accepted and still the state and federal governments do nothing to responsibly address the continuing problem.
Most people who have experienced a loss of property leran their lessons and live inland. But there are always those who need to learn by doing and it is those people who wind up losing everything.
The loss of life in the Bahamas was an inevitable occurrence. I am surprised that it has not happened before now. It is only sheer luck that the islands have avoided disaster up until now.
Given that there was no evacuation plan, no where for Bahamians to go, why did the world turn its head to the inevitable disaster that would befall the islanders?
The Bahamas should not be rebuilt it. The islanders should be relocated and leave the islands to the elements that will surely take them again and again and again.
17
@Alabama
I understand your sentiment, but the Bahamas are a sovereign nation. Who do you think is going to relocate the citizens and where do you think they will be relocated to? You can't just pack up an entire country and move its citizens somewhere else! Situations like this are going to repeat themselves around the world in places like the Maldives and the Marshal Islands (not to mention Bangladesh) The sad part is that at the Bahamian PM noted, they didn't cause climate change, but they are living with the consequences. Perhaps the US, which is responsible for over 1/3 of historical CO2 emissions, should be responsible for providing the people of the Bahamas with a new home.
47
@DWes
Or perhaps the Bahamas should stop encouraging tourists - 80% of which are from the US (Wikipedia). The carbon foot print of all those planes and cruise ships should be factored into their claims of not causing climate change.
From wikipedia: "Tourism alone provides an estimated 51% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs about half the Bahamian workforce."
12
@B Dawson But again - why should one tiny nation, the cause of no significant portion of climate change, bear the burden of total economic collapse for a symbolic (but otherwise ineffective) gesture like forgoing tourism?
12
Why can't our government simply state that if you refuse a buyout, the government will not help with any rebuilding in the future? And that government sponsored flood insurance will not be offered to properties that have been flooded more than once.
There is no guarantee that the government has to pay you again and again to rebuild houses if you are uninsured.
78
@Byron
Because there are still developers (well funded ones) who want to build in all that lovely open space, it is so much simpler than building infill development.
Ka Ching!
12
There was a saying in my civil engineering hydrology class:
"Flooding is a natural disaster. Flood damage is a human-caused disaster."
With climate change increasing flood intensity and frequency, the US needs to follow Canada's lead.
254
@Brian
However, this statement "Since 2005, the province, Canada’s largest in area, has prohibited building new homes, or rebuilding flood-damaged ones, in the 20-year floodplain — areas with a particularly high risk of inundation" is a bit strange. 20-year flood plain means there's a 5% chance of flooding in any given year.
I know of no area in the US that allows new construction in a 100-year flood plain (1% chance of flooding), without raising the structure above the 100-yr flood level.
6
Here in the US, give them one flood. After that, you're on your own. I'm tired of my taxes going to buy people two, three, even four houses because they refuse to leave flood-stricken areas.
I feel the same way about Californians in repetitious mudslide and fire-stricken areas. One time is all you get.
229
@Citizen In most areas, it's not just your taxes that pay for damages from storms, etc., but the ever-escalating insurance payments by the people who own those homes. Maybe the answer is to completely up the ante premium-wise and see how quickly people move!
16
@Citizen
OK, but remember one big wave takes out all of RI
7
@Citizen why give them any? Why should taxpayers bear the burden for rebuilding? People could pay for it themselves if they bought insurance. If they can't get or can't afford insurance, that's because the risk is too high, and why should the rest of us assume that risk for them?
28
The US government has for too long subsidized people living in areas subject to repeated natural disasters. In fact, though, the US government also subsidizes people to live in places where no jobs exist. If a locale is too often visited by natural disasters, leave. Similarly, if you live in a place where jobs are no longer on offer, leave.
93
The U.S. government should simply stop issuing flood insurance policies and let the private market handle it setting appropriate rates for the risk. That will solve the "problem" in the US.
260
@CraigNY Exactly. Subsidized flood insurance paid for by taxpayers must end.
37
@CraigNY - Unfortunately, stopping flood insurance would cause financial disaster for millions of homeowners and would be politically impossible. I think the Canadian method is the right way.
37
@CraigNY
Yes - let the omnipotent "free market" deal with this issue.
13
Does the US bail out (sorry, pun) flooded homes more than once? I thought that home owners had the option of rebuilding once, else using the "rebuild" funds to move elsewhere. This is what seems reasonable to me.
11
Oh no, the US pays to rebuild over and over and over again. Florida & the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama are big takers of the taxpayer's money. Most of that taxpayer's money comes from people in other states.
19
Actually this is happening in the USA also. After Sandy hit in 2012, the city of West Haven, CT worked with FEMA and state officials to buy out almost every home in a flood-prone neighborhood across the street from the beach, and the land has been returned to nature as a salt marsh, which creates a home for migratory birds and other wildlife and a buffer against future storms for the homes that do remain in the area. I'm sure there are other examples but this is the one that I am aware of.
326
This makes perfect sense America has so much land why building in the wrong places?
40
@Daniel Korb It is true that the US has enormous land resources. However, people on the coasts don't want to move inland to places where there is no ocean. We keep the Great Lakes secret so that they won't move here! LOL.
And no one wants to leave the sun for places where it snows and I can't blame them. But we cannot keep rebuilding North Carolina. They have Spring floods and Summer hurricanes. Something has to give.
38
@Dave -- a fine example of what we should do but I am afraid that, at least for now, it won't be repeated here any time soon.
12
Many of the same people who decry government spending in the U.S. have no qualms about using government money to help rebuild (up to five times so far, in some places!) their own houses when they are time and again damages by completely predictable storms. If only we could be as sensible as the Canadians.
511
@Max Farthington I always thought it interesting that if you got cancer without insurance in America, you were on your own. Build in a flood plain, get flooded out without insurance and the government pays for your poor judgement - repeatedly.
90
@Max Farthington,
They are called republicans.
39
This seems extremely appropriate given that most living on the shore are wealthy. As for the poorer people, the Government should subsidize them to move. In Massachusetts we the taxpayers have spent a fortune paying to save the beach houses of the rich and wealthy. Time to change this and make them move taking their losses with them.
315
@Philip W And their taxable income?
2
@Carlos R. Rivera, if they have so much taxable income, then let them fund the repairs themselves.
6
Although difficult for the affected crowd, it is the reasonable thing to do. And the U.S. should follow suit.
140
I think I must have been Canadian in a former life. I've thought of offering people cash to move out of, say, small coal towns in West Virginia so they could buy a house someplace with jobs.
I'm imagining that 10 years from now, insurance companies will have accomplished the same end as the Canadian system, but both the people who did the smart thing and left as well as the stubborn "hangers-on" will be destitute.
Canada rocks.
136
@Andrew "I've thought of offering people cash to move out of, say, small coal towns in West Virginia" The people who don't leave will probably be the most traditional and conservative ones, the state would probably become "redder", the population might decrease, but West Virginia will still get two Senators.
21
@Andrew
So true, Canada rocks !!
16
How is it a violation of property rights in the US for a private insurer to refuse to issue insurance based on repetitive risk?
Even if the insurer is not a private insurer, but the federal government, how is that a property rights violation.
168
@Paul It's not. I lived in South Florida post-Andrew and ALL the insurance agencies pulled out of our area. We finally were able to get insurance through the government, but it cost us over $1,000/month on a house worth only about $75,000 at the time. Luckily I moved from there to Atlanta 10 years ago.
44
@Paul
Not sure if it is a violation of property rights but it may be a violation whatever law created the flood insurance program. What the government could do regardless if people refuse to stop building in a place is just use eminent domain to buy the land after it gets flooded again and then they can't build there any more.
8
@Paul The problem they are referring to relates to prohibiting people from rebuilding in certain areas or conditions after a flood. The government can refuse to FUND whatever it chooses to, but placing restrictions on the use of property is tricky and requires fair value compensation (such a prohibition is considering a "taking" of the potential value of the property).
12