NationStates Jolt Archive

In the wake of Katrina, hundreds of thousands of homes have severe flood damage. Entire homes in St. Bernard parish were washed away by the storm surge. New Orleans fared little better. The floodwaters are gone, and the city is slowly getting back to normal. But in addition to water damage, mold has developed, requiring many buildings to be razed.
This didn't need to be. Since the end of WWII, the US has inched closer and closer to the coasts, now constituting 52% of the population. Those not on the coasts are either near lakes (such as myself) or in river valleys, all prone to flooding. There are many reasons for moving to the coasts. One is that it is cheaper thanks to a subsidy known as the National Flood Insurance Program.
Since 1968, the NFIP has provided flood insurance paid partly by premiums, but mostly by taxpayers. Congress created this out of sympathy, for no private insurer will cover flood damage. They have good reason for this, for risk is far too high. There's no way to prevent a flood the way one can prevent fires or heart attacks or car crashes. Yet a public program gave the American public a green light to develop on our coasts.
Guess what? Developement made it worse! We all know that wetlands are hurt by development. Well, those same wetlands help mitigate floods. If it existed on a private market, premiums would skyrocket. Yet the government distorts it by keeping prices down.
Last year, we had four major hurricanes that hit Florida. This year, we had Katrina. What may next year bring? If the trend continues, more hurricanes may hit, and if sealevels rise significantly, that will damage coastal areas. It will not only be a drain on taxdollars, but will also endanger lives. That is why the US government should end this madness, and dump the insurance program now.

Agreed. And while we're at it, we should get rid of the rest of government subsidies and idiotic pet projects.

You stole that argument from Gary Becker, didn't you? :D

You stole that argument from Gary Becker, didn't you? :D

Doesn't matter where he stole it from. It's still retarded. People have always lived near coasts whenever it was possible. That's why New York is sitting right between two rivers. The subsidies are in place because it has historically been cheaper (or more profitable) for the nation as a whole (if not that portion of it currently floating out to sea) to build near water and use it, then periodicly rebuild when it all gets washed away, than it is to build far from the water and try to exploit it at a distance. With cheaper transportation, that may no longer be the case, but no one has done any studies to check. They've just opined based on nothing more than their ideology, i.e. refined ignorance.

For example, has anyone checked how many tourist dollars come into America to visit Florida every year? How much does the country spend on rebuilding from hurricaines? If we get more tourist money than we spend on repairs, then it's worth it. That sort of balance is struck all the time with all of these subsidies. Yes, sometimes they find their way into the hands of corrupt politicians looking to make their friends rich at the expense of the taxpayer, but the answer is more oversight. We don't ban cars because of the number of accidents every year, likewise, we don't abolish government programs that we, as a society, deem necessary for the continuation of something that we, as people, feel is important.

New York has fared fairly well with potential floods, though surrounded by water, because so much of Manhattan is solid stone, and the parts of the other boroughs that used to be marshland were built on piles. Even with the oceans recent spirited attempt to retake New York by air drop, it escaped with only a few flooded basements in houses foolishly built at the bottoms of hills without proper drainage (like my former place of employment). The same was true of Chicago. It used to flood every year, so they built a higher foundation so that the city was above sea level all year round.

Until now, no one bothered to make such an investment in New Orleans because they always thought that a slightly better levee system would suffice. Perhaps now that a rebuilding effort is needed they'll set up some piles like they should have done the first time.

You stole that argument from Gary Becker, didn't you? :D
A. I didn't steal. I borrowed. If I copy and pasted the arguement, I would have stolen, but I didn't. My writing is not good enough to come from a website.
I don't remember where it originated from, but I do remember seeing a Fortune writer on CNN reiterating this. It made perfect sense to me.

Perhaps now that a rebuilding effort is needed they'll set up some piles like they should have done the first time.

Perhaps they will use their brains and not build below sea level. Why anyone wants to live in areas that are prone to flooding is beyond my comprehension.

Perhaps they will use their brains and not build below sea level. Why anyone wants to live in areas that are prone to flooding is beyond my comprehension.
Well, they manage in the Netherlands.
But not so well in Bangladesh.

Perhaps they will use their brains and not build below sea level. Why anyone wants to live in areas that are prone to flooding is beyond my comprehension.
Because having water (if too much at various points in time) is MUCH prefferable to NOT having water.

Nevada usually doesn't have flooding issues, but we reguarly go through massive droughts that also strangle the economy.

Well, they manage in the Netherlands.
But not so well in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh, when all is said and done, manages relatively well.

Because having water (if too much at various points in time) is MUCH prefferable to NOT having water.

Nevada usually doesn't have flooding issues, but we reguarly go through massive droughts that also strangle the economy.

There are many places that have enough water and are not flood prone. Oh sure, some of them may flood every 100 years or so, but they don't flood every few years. I don't understand why people would choose to live in places where there isn't enough water either.

Your telling me this after my basement got flooded in 6 inches of water in a huge rainstorm. Yeah, I'm gonna agree with you. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why people would choose to live in places where there isn't enough water either.
320 days a year of sunshine. :D

Well, that and having the third largest gold reserve in the world and being home to the largest silver strike in history (oh, and being the main producer of kitty litter) probably has something to do with it.

320 days a year of sunshine. :D

Well, that and having the third largest gold reserve in the world and being home to the largest silver strike in history (oh, and being the main producer of kitty litter) probably has something to do with it.

The kitty litter I can relate to, we have two cats. :)

Perhaps now that a rebuilding effort is needed they'll set up some piles like they should have done the first time.

This is the most retarded thing I have heard all day. You don't even know what a pile is, do you?

Well, they manage in the Netherlands.
But not so well in Bangladesh.
The Netherlands had a few problems during drainage. Didn't their dams burst a few times in the past few centuries? Granted, technology then isn't as good as these days, but it's the same idea that they have some failures before successes.