A Sensible, Workable Policy on Flooding.

Flooding is becoming a major problem and it's not just in the southern US. British Columbia just experienced a crash course in heavy flooding that caused an entire city to be evacuated, swept away both rail and highway links to the rest of the country, and caused the loss of thousands of farm animals. It could be two years before the damage is repaired.

The United States, however, is the poster boy of irrational flood policy.

The national flood insurance scheme was launched in 1968 and has become the default for millions of Americans unable to get mortgages without flood insurance, which is routinely denied by private providers. The system has been driven into debt, however, with some homes repeatedly rebuilt in the same place only to be flooded again.

FEMA administers the insurance programme.  It has tried to rationalize coverage to bring it close to a break-even operation only to have Congress, whose members fear the wrath of their constituents, block any reform.  In some cases the federal government pays out several times more than the property was ever worth.

With major storm events increasing in intensity, frequency and duration and with sea level rise hitting coastal areas the problem is growing quickly.  Now a group of "flood survivors" is petitioning the federal government for a major overhaul of its flood policies.


“To continue to build in vulnerable places does not make sense and needs to come to a halt,” said Stephen Eisenman, director of strategy at Anthropocene Alliance. “A lot of people are suckered into buying in these places because there’s no federal disclosure laws. This is turning into a crisis, especially for poorer people ...

“We are beginning to see the start of a great American flood migration and that exodus is only going to accelerate in the next decade. To keep building in these areas is just crazy.”

The survivors are calling for a ban on “irresponsible” housing development in flood-prone areas, new rules that would provide buyers with the present and future flood risks of a property before purchasing it and a greater focus on relocating communities and elevating properties away from floodwater rather than simply funding rebuilding flooded homes in the same place as before.

“To continue to build in vulnerable places does not make sense and needs to come to a halt,” said Stephen Eisenman, director of strategy at Anthropocene Alliance. “A lot of people are suckered into buying in these places because there’s no federal disclosure laws. This is turning into a crisis, especially for poorer people ...

“We have developers building on wetland areas that can’t hold water anymore so it just flows off onto us,” said Amber Bismack, a petition signatory who lives in Livingston County, Michigan, which is a part of Detroit’s metropolitan area. Bismack moved to the area, close to a tributary of the Huron river, seven years ago and has seen her neighborhood flood on 15 occasions in this time.

“I know someone who thought their flood insurance would be $1,000 a year but couldn’t find out the true risk until they bought and it was deemed by Fema to be high risk with a premium of $13,000 a year, which is unlivable,” she said. “People are just stuck.”

Worsening floods are just one impact of climate change that most nations will have to tackle. Droughts and food security are another.  Add sea level rise (especially if the Thwaites glacier fails) and the salination of coastal freshwater resources and there'll be unprecedented loss and population migration.

Governments - provincial, state or federal - aren't going to be able to cover these losses. They'll be lucky to cope with the IDP, internally displaced population or refugee, relocation.  Whether it takes 10 years or 30 years, coastal nations will experience a large scale retreat from the sea.

This advocacy group is a breath of fresh air.  The policies they promote are sensible and necessary. Theirs is not a "squeaky wheel" approach.