Does it make sense to live in a flood-prone area?
Posted at 5:00 AM on March 17, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(36 Comments)
Filed under: Environment/Energy, Security
From Fargo-Moorhead to downtown St. Paul, residents and business owners are bracing for spring floods. In some areas, such floods are becoming a regular occurrence. Today's Question: Does it make sense to live in a flood-prone area?
Comments (36)
why do people choose to live in disaster prone areas?
Well i have a question, why do people stay there if it mostly floods every year? I'm doing a report and i cant find anything that can help me. I mean i wouldnt still be living there if it floods every year cuz i dont like losing things and you would have to get new things every year.
Can anyone help me find a answer?
While some might feel that ignoring modern knowledge about climate and weather patterns that produce disaster after disaster, like flooding or tsunami's, earthquakes, or volcanos, the practicality of those problems suggests that subjecting generation after generation to those events is not rational when relocation may be the wisest choice of humans who are known to be relatively mobile.
Perhaps islands were meant to be resorts, not year round living areas to prevent the hazards of climatic conditions that humans cannot control. Respect for Mother Nature amounts to common sense in not defying her capacity to destroy humans and anything built in her wake. If Japan has had more than 1 destructive event in any person's lifetime, it seems more probable than not that such location is not a habitable zone for humans.
Human habitation that is unsafe is more folly than not reducing the chances for survival.
Modern knowledge, unlike ancient knowledge, can measure and evaluate where habitable places on the planet are, and work toward not establishing high risk locations where they should not be located.
Is it not irresponsible to do otherwise?
Does it make sense to live in a region that is below zero for half of the year?
Does it make sense to live in a desert?
Does it make sense to live in tornado alley?
Does it make sense to live in an earthquake zone?
Since early humans moved out of the tropics, we have had to respond to an environment that is trying to kill us.
Flooding is a natural, even required phenomenon for farming. Eastern North Dakota and Western Minnesota are areas where farming is a major occupation. When you consider that the farmers must live where the crops will grow, it follows logically that cities will begin to emerge in flood zone areas. Farmers cannot live by themselves in isolation. Infrastructure and support networks are required, including personnel such as schoolteachers, lawyers, computer programmers, business analysts, and others. So, in considering this, it seems somewhat naive to simply state that the government should spend money moving people out of flood zones. The fact is, the nation needs people in the flood zones. 90% of all Durum Wheat (used in pasta) grown in the United States is grown in North Dakota, in the flood regions. 85% of sunflowers harvested in the United States are grown in North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, and 90% of Spring Wheat is grown in this region. These are important crops, and require people living in the flood regions.
Nobody has mentioned the cost/benefit ratio. Gov't usually funds insurance and rebuilding if there is some money to be made through taxing the profits of the industry on the land. I would like to see those figures run along with the current flood information. It might help us understand why we continure to act so counterintuitive.
Personally, I think we need to bring individual responsibility into the argument, especially in regard to tax dollars used to rescue those who choose extreme 'sports.'
Today it makes little sense to live in a flood zone. Those who choose to do so should not count on taxpayers to bail them out when the flooding comes, as it regularly does. The government would do better in the long run to use tax dollars to encourage those who have homes in the flood zone to move out.
Maybe the reason I don't get the need to live in a flood-prone area is because I have never lived anywhere, a region or specific home, where I just couldn't bear to live anywhere else. There are a lot of beautiful places and really nice people in the world, but there isn't one place I have to be in order to be happy. I'm perfectly content visiting my favorite places and people.
"Shoule people live in "tornado alley"? Should people live in hurricane prone, coastal areas? Should people live along a fault line? Heck, should people live in areas where the temperature dips to 30 degrees below zero or more? Almost every geographic region is threatened by some potential natural disaster. We all need to take responsibility for where we choose to live and take steps to prepare for unsavory consequences."
I agree with your last sentence. However, floods really are different from other natural "disasters." Namely, floods are very predicable and the locations are very well known. That's how engineers design appropriately sized and located bridges, culverts, etc.
I've lived 30 years in tornado country and never been hit. I've lived 20 years in earthquake country and never been seriously hit. My relatives have lived >80 years in florida and never lost their house to wind or flooding. In that period of time, the Red River has flooded, predictably many, many times, including the record years of 2009 and 1997 (only 12 years apart!) and 1969.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/fargo_geology/fldphotos1897-1996.htm
I live in Fargo and I answer the question as follows:
No - it doesn't make sense to live in a home that is at or below flood level. Neither does it make sense to have a home at the moderate flood level.
However, the entire city is in a lake bottom. For the homes in the major flood plain as many homes are, the chances of flooding are smaller. Then the question becomes, what's better? A home threatened by hurricanes or mud slides? What about homes threatened by earthquakes? Where is "safe"? At some point, we need to balance the dangers and the opportunities.
Right now, ND is one of the best places for getting a job in this economy. Its a great place to live - but changes are still needed to make it better.
It's fine with me, as long as they take responsibility for all the costs involved, and don't look for help from the rest of us. It's not like the flood plains aren't well defined!
If you can't get flood insurance -- there's probably a really good reason for that (probably that your 10-year probability of getting flooded is 1.0 (100%).) Everyone else should not be picking up the tab for people that knowingly build in flood plains.
I don't have an issue with preserving historic downtowns etc. (using levees for instance) but new building in the way of predictable floods? No way.
Shoule people live in "tornado alley"? Should people live in hurricane prone, coastal areas? Should people live along a fault line? Heck, should people live in areas where the temperature dips to 30 degrees below zero or more? Almost every geographic region is threatened by some potential natural disaster. We all need to take responsibility for where we choose to live and take steps to prepare for unsavory consequences.
What about the real-estate agents that sell these homes to people?
I know, "buyer beware", but I did want to point out that this problem is not just in the hands of the people that buy or buid homes on flood plains.
Let's also ask, why county or city zoning allow homes to exist on known flood plains at all?
Couldn't the flood planes of the Red River, for example, be left as green spaces? The public could enjoy the area and stay clear when it floods in the spring.
Finally, I'd like to see a demographic analysis of people that live on flood plains. If it's mostly low income, I think we'll see that is common to any place that people live despite significant health and safety risks.
With apologies, this is not a question that leads to useful answers because people will take risks to live in a desirable place if the risk seems manageable. Since the devastating Red River flood of 1826(!), documented by the Hudson's Bay factor at Fort Garry in his official journal, people have known what the risk was. The question he asked then still is the relevant one: if people are going to live in the RRV, how should they adjust to the inevitable floods?
Of course not. Nobody should live in a flood plane, nor in an earthquake prone area, nor in tornado alley, nor where there is a threat of hurricane, or typhoon, or tsunami, nor high on a hill where you can get struck by lightning, nor where you can get caught in a blizzard, nor where there is threat of drought, nor near a volcano. Let's all get in our steel reinforced waterproof bunkers.
Wow Clark, what political acuman you have. If everything is the Democrats fault, why do the Republican Govoners Minnesota keeps electing, fund the prevention and clean up of floods on an on going annual basis?
Sure... If you don't mind loosing everything every once and awhile. Stupid is as Stupid does.
DTOM
In most cases living in a floodplain is an act of foolishness, and one that neither the government, nor insurance companies, should insure.
HOWEVER, the Red River flooding is a completely different situation, where the entire surrounding landscape over a vast area becomes flooded on occasion. The local relief is so low (less than five feet per mile) that you really can't get away from the high water without investing in huge levees and river bypasses.
No they are called flood planes for a reason.
The answer is to stop developement and restore wetlands that have been drained over the last 150 years.
No, people should not build in flod-prone areas. When we looked for our current and previous houses we considered this. The question was not are we in a government designated flood plain. The question whether there is a possiblity of the nearest river flooding and destroying our home, even if it hasn't happened here before. And to answer Phil's concerns, we still found homes that met those criteria. Due to the modern technology, those homes did have running water. And since we are no longer dependent on travel by steam ship or canoe, transportation routes to and from them were available.
Looks like this is moving into a discussion on the Red River Valley instead of flood prone areas in general. So in that vein, lets look at a brief history of flooding in the RRV.
Looking at historical data from the RRV (see Red River Basin Decision Information Network http://rrbdin.org) the RRV has had a "major flood" (defined as a gage height and discharge of over 40' and 30,000 cfs at Grand Forks, and over 25' and 8000 cfs at Fargo) every five years.
I don't know about most people, but I call that flooding on a very regular basis.
NO. The government should not be involved in any way supporting this behaviour. It makes even less sense than living on the side of a volcanic mountain or a beach prone to hurricane.
And based on the comment that you know where the river is ahead of time...
You really expect that, in the course of human history, we won't live along rivers? Do you know how human settlement works? Do you understand the nature of transportation prior to the 20th century, and the continued importance of rivers even today?
If you are suggesting on everyone moving away from rivers to avoid flooding, I'd be really impressed to see where you think we should live. And how we're going to get water for our daily needs.
To those who think flood are predictable, do you know anything about the way data works? The Red River has had three major floods in thirteen years. Prior to 1997, it had been decades. Three data points, and you want people to spend billions of dollars to move, destroying a vibrant community and economy (indeed, one of the few places doing well in this current economic climate). The federal government was not offering buyouts to all of Fargo-Moorhead.
When I moved here ten years ago, they had had one major flood in thirty-odd years. And based on that one data point, you somehow expect us all to know that we were going to hit with a massive flood within the decade, and then another a year after that?
I'm impressed you all have such amazing fortune-telling ability. Too bad you didn't share your wisdom with all of us prior to this second flood happening.
No, it doesn't make sense to live in a flood-prone area. Before you buy your house look at a topographic map. A home is huge investment and is worth the effort.
\\As much sense as living in a hurricane-prone area, or earthquake-prone area, or wildfire-prone area, or tornado-prone area, or mudslide-prone area, etc.
I agree living on directly on the coast in a hurricane prome area is a bad idea. However some of these places, like tornado prone areas, are huge and the destruction is random and unpredictable. Flood prone areas are not comparable. You can see where the river is ahead of time.
For those foolish enough to live in flood-prone areas they should expect to have hardship every year with no surprise and there should be no public tax dollars spent to help these areas.
Farmers are smart enough to avoid land that has water issues for the fact that it can not be worked.
People who choose to live in flood-prone areas should either smarten up and move...or rely on flood insurance to pay for the damages they endure every spring and not the public...this state can't afford helping those who are not smart enough to help themselves.
No one is forcing these people to live in these poor locations...move.
Sure it does, just take the right precautions!
Just like people who live in wooded areas prone to fire have to (or should have to!) get steel roofs and are encouraged to build with non-flammable materials, people who live in flood prone areas should get houses that can deal with varying water levels. The Dutch have been doing it for years - link...
Almost seems like common sense? Even if they were "bailed out" with public money to get thsoe houses, they likely woudn't need to be "bailed out" again?
Here's a suggestion "MOVE TO HIGH GROUND". How about a story detailing the public costs for repeatedly 'bailing' out the same flood prone communities: dikes, rebuilding infrastructure, subsidized flood insurance, temporary shelter, food, medical care, etc. How about public costs/subsidies for endeavors that create/magnify flooding: draining wetlands, agricultural drain tiles, hardcover in lowlands (eg shopping centers), channeling/straightening creeks and steams. Heck, I'd like to know the public cost of 'fly-overs' by public officials so they can get face time on the news.
Steve Wood
As much sense as living in a hurricane-prone area, or earthquake-prone area, or wildfire-prone area, or tornado-prone area, or mudslide-prone area, etc.
If we are going to tell people not to live in areas where natural disasters are likely, there aren't going to be very many places for people to live.
If there are areas in California, that are regularly (read annually) severly impacted by earthquakes, then people shouldn't be allowed to live there. Especially if tax-payers are funding the flood prevention and re-building every year.
If you can find a town in Tornado Alley that is devastated year after year, while towns 20 miles away are never touched, then you can make an arguement for clearing out that town. You won't find that town. But you will find many towns and cities that flood year after year.
I stronly support bsimon's comment regarding fed flood insurance.
Does it make sense to live in an earthquake-prone area? Or a wildfire-prone area? Or a hurricane zone? Only if you build your house in such a way that it can withstand the regular recurrence of whatever natural events are common in your area. In a flood plain, build your house on mound (or stilts in areas where freezing is not a problem). Build the mound first, if necessary.
Building without regard to local hazards and then expecting the government to pay for the inevitable damage is like running a big corporation into the ground and then expecting a government bailout.
Wow, jumping right into the snarkiness this morning. I think it is easy to say at first glance that no one should live in a flood-prone area. But take a step back. Should we also say that no one should live in an area prone to earth quakes? Is California now off limits? What about tornadoes? Should we clear out Great Plains? Clearly, we should be smart about where we live and perhaps there are some locations that should be deemed unsafe for habitation but I don't think we can put out the blanket statement that people shouldn't live in a flood-prone area at all.
not to me.
What makes less sense is that we bail out people who live in floodplains more than once.
I'm OK with the fed flood insurance program, but after a house is flooded once, we should buy it at pre-flood market value & not insure it again.
No! Are my tax dollars involved as well?
Absolutely not.
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Breaking news: The Red River is flooding again, and again, and again.....
No How do you legislate against stupidity unless you are a democrat who believes everyone is a victum?
| March 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock