I strongly recommend that you read Ian Bogost’s piece at the Atlantic on the reasons for Houston’s flooding. It has plenty of words of wisdom like these:
Accounting for a 100-year, 500-year, or “million-year†flood, as some are calling Harvey’s aftermath, is difficult and costly. Stiftel confirms that it’s almost impossible to design for these “maximal probable flood events,†as planners call them. Instead, the hope is to design communities such that when they flood, they can withstand the ill effects and support effective evacuations to keep people safe. “The Houston event seems like an illustration that we haven’t figured it out,†Stiftel says.
Many planners contend that impervious surface itself is the problem. The more of it there is, the less absorption takes place and the more runoff has to be managed. Reducing development, then, is one of the best ways to manage urban flooding. The problem is, urban development hasn’t slowed in the last half-century. Cities have only become more desirable, spreading outward over the plentiful land available in the United States.
and that has happened at least in part because we’ve subsidized it. It’s what insurance companies call “moral hazard”. There’s money to be made in land development and if in addition to the money that’s naturally there you subsidize it, particularly if you subsidize the development of areas that would likely remain undeveloped, all the better.
In terms of flooding, its probably best to distinguish flooding caused by rivers, coastal storms and urban stormwater systems. Houston’s problems are a mixture of all three, and this article wants to focus on the last group, but few cities are at risk of 50 inches of rain.
I think the article is probably wrong to insinuate that the National Flood Insurance Program allowed people to build on the floodplains of rivers. If they build there, they are not in the program or their grandfathered or they don’t meet the definition of floodplain. If rivine flooding resulted in damage, the government forced them to relocate even if grandfathered. The program has worked pretty good for this set.
In cities that flood from rainfall events, new construction (and substantial repair work) will require the house to be elevated. Better city stormwater systems are viable options. More green space may help, but it might encourage more sprawl as well.
When applying this concept to coastal areas subject to storm surges and extreme winds, the elevation requirements really make no sense. The NFIP should not be involved here.
I understand the point you’ve been making about subsidizing overdevelopment in vulnerable areas, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me.
These cities developed because they’re deep water ports and they’re close to oil resources. New Orleans also has a rich cultural history. The rest of the country benefits from these things.
Have the cities managed those resources well, and spent the needed money for mitigating the risks? Hell no. But is it really only a local responsibility to do so? I’m not sure I’d agree with that.
There’s also the human empathy part, and maybe I’m sensitive to that because my dad moved our family to NO in the 70s because the recession had left him out of work for a year. Should he have considered the risks and avoided looking for work there? Now he did have the sense to look at the floodplain maps and bought our home in Algiers (West Bank) sitting at all of 5 ft above sea level, so that Katrina completely spared it (as well as my two siblings’ homes in the same neighborhood.) But had those homes not been available, or had the storm surge actually topped the levee there, it would have all turned out much worse for my family.
All to say that some people don’t have the luxury of weighing the risks of natural disasters, and I’m not willing to condemn them for it.
If federal money needs to come with strings attached, for reduction (maybe even a period of cessation) of new construction and increased local spending on flood control measures, I’d support that.
@CStanley, I visited New Orleans about a year-and-a-half ago, and there are areas down river from the Quarter that have never come back. The people left, and IIRC disaster relief money (not flood insurance money) paid more money to rebuild than to take cash, but people without means took the cash. A lot of people moved to Houston.
Part of the problem is that in the areas away from the river, enclosure in the levies is causing the land to drop. The elevations in New Orleans East have dropped two feet. Also the coastline is getting closer. The City needs a tighter, more defensible foot print, and one cannot expect the City to do that.
I still have family there so I’m aware of all of that. It’s a much different city than it was pre-Katrina (though some things never change.)
A major problem is the degradation of the wetlands. The levees and controlled spillways up the I-10 corridor prevent the natural replenishment with sediment and fresh water so the delta land mass keeps decreasing and vegetation dies from the increased salinity. Adding insult, the oil industry has dredged a huge system of canals that have killed off large areas of the swamp.
The entire country benefits from Chicago, too. We have a natural disaster here every year called “winter”. Are you arguing that Californians should be paying my heating bill?
And Houston did not have a deep water port until it was dredged. That was a century and a half ago.
Let me get this straight, the offshore drilling oil rigs and production platforms, refineries, and chemical plants are to be moved to the Great Lakes, the California and East coasts, and the Mississippi River is to be dredged from the Gulf of Mexico to the Ohio River to the depth for seagoing ships.
I have a silly question. Why not take them right now? Oh yeah, nobody else is stupid enough to allow it.
Again, I believe that the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina was a disaster. Rich white progressives used the flood waters to cleanse the town of the poorer and darker citizens.
To be clear, this was a politically motivated. Democrats wanted to spend as much as possible, and the Republicans wanted to spend nothing until the political forces caused them to sacrifice their precious “principles”.
I will also note that the number of Republicans whining about “free government money” were suddenly quite when Sandy hit the Northeast. I am still waiting for the calls to move New York City, possibly to Naples, Florida.
Let me be clear, the violence in Chicago is a national problem. The places flattened by tornadoes are a national problem. Health care is a national problem. The pension crisis is a national crisis. The national effort should be voluntary. Like @PD Shaw pointed out, the national flood insurance program has strings attached.
After Katrina I argued, based on the historical experience with recovering from disasters, e.g. Chicago, San Francisco, that federal assistance, while invaluable for short term emergency relief, should not be used in the rebuilding of New Orleans. I believe that experience has proven me right.
The entire country benefits from Chicago, too. We have a natural disaster here every year called “winterâ€. Are you arguing that Californians should be paying my heating bill?
C’mon. Winter doesn’t destroy infrastructure. I’m not talking about costs of living in a particular climate (heating bills vs cooling in the South would be a wash anyway.)
But is there any point at which you’d say that massive infrastructure which facilitates vital parts of the economy should be funded at the federal level?
To me the problem isn’t that we do this, it’s that we do it so recklessly and look at short term needs without projecting long term outcomes.
You’re kidding, right? It’s why we repave our roads as frequently as we do, why there are codes that cover how roofs are built, etc. Basically, all you’re saying is that people along the Gulf Coast don’t prepare adequately for the damage that hurricanes will inevitably cause. That lowers the cost of building infrastructure. At least California is taking earthquakes more seriously and ratcheting up their building codes (one of the reasons that housing is so expensive there).
When the barrier islands adjacent to North and South Carolina were vacation spots where people built flimsily-constructed vacation homes under the assumption they’d be destroyed by a strong hurricane, it was one thing. Now that people are trying to live there year-round it’s something entirely different.
Everybody I guess except for me thinks that their disasters are worse than anybody else’s and most deserving of aid.
Basically, no. Those are state issues. The federal government funds the departments of Defense and State. Those are its responsibilities. Rebuilding houses in Houston is not.
The federal government has also undertaken paying everybody’s pensions and is in the process of paying for everybody’s health care. When you subsidize everything you subsidize nothing.
Basically, all you’re saying is that people along the Gulf Coast don’t prepare adequately for the damage that hurricanes will inevitably cause.
No, what I’m trying to say is that there is no way for individuals to prepare and the community wide preparation needs are more complicated than building codes. The Army COE created the Old River Control Structure in the 1950s-60s. If nothing else there ought to be a Pottery Barn Rule applicable to NO.
As for road upkeep in cold climates, ok but aside from rainy day funds I’m not sure how you can similarly provide for infrequent massive destruction as opposed to ongoing wear and tear replacement needs.
[…] Winter doesn’t destroy infrastructure. […]
They have blizzards, and the federal government helps pay for prevention and recovery. I do admire the ability to take government “free money” while denouncing the idiots who are too stupid to outlaw offshore drilling even after the BP disaster.
My advice for people living in above average corrupt areas is not to allow any of the offshore or onshore oil, gas, and chemical industry an opportunity to influence your politicians. Just a suggestion.
Basically, no. Those are state issues. The federal government funds the departments of Defense and State. Those are its responsibilities. Rebuilding houses in Houston is not.
I am persuadable to that argument but I don’t know how we’d roll back the federal government at this point, and I don’t think states can levy enough taxes to shoulder these responsibilities under the current amount of federal taxation.
I also think some engineering projects would require multi state participation, but perhaps that could have been handled on a project by project basis. And for some of this stuff that involves oil infrastructure, the funding should come from the industry. We’d all still pay at the pump but tha t still makes more sense than tax dollars subsidizing the industry.
I still notice that the Northeast is exempt from the requirements of the South.
Overbuilding the New York and New Jersey coasts are no problem. Building basements and underground transportation is no problem as long as it is New York.
Oh, that’s right. They have enough sense to outlaw anything that might affect their pristine environment.
I guess the entire country needs to move to West Virginia. Oh wait, coal.
Keep in mind that I thought that far too much was done in bailing out the financial sector back in 2007-2008 and that paying indemnities to people who lost in the attacks on 9/11 was an error. IMO Steve Verdon’s belief that we should have let the banks collapse has been fully vindicated. My view on the contrary was that they should have been nationalized.
As TastyBits continues to point out to us, it’s ten years on and we still have a lot of insolvent big banks.
Isn’t all of that privately owned? Oil rigs, pipelines, and refining facilities are near-perfect examples of insurable risks. Damage events are rare. If they aren’t carrying insurance, they deserve to go out of business.
No what I meant was that the oil companies should have paid impact fees that could have helped pay for the infrastructure needed to protect the city.
I agree with that completely. That’s how things should work. Instead we have a race to the bottom to attract businesses under the assumption that someone else will support them. There aren’t enough someone elses.
I don’t have a problem with federal assistance as long as there are limits.
Basically, the feds should be able to make available emergency funds and capabilities (like the DoD is doing now with rescues in Houston) during the crisis.
Post crisis federal assistance should be limited to loan guarantees (as long as the guarantee is 100% of the loan) and rebuilding federal infrastructure.
But of course this is a political process, so what anyone wants is irrelevant.
That should be “is NOT 100% of the loan.”
In case that still doesn’t make sense- that whole paragraph in my earlier comment was musing about how the levee system should have been funded if there was no Army Corps of Engineers. The original construction of it preceded the oil boom but as the population grew in the 80s the oil industry should have footed the bill for maintenance and improvements.
I agree with just about everything in that comment, Andy (as amended).
Louisiana Governor “Wonder Boy” decided that lowering taxes on oil production would lure more business. Since he never worked in a lemonade stand, the Republican “free money” did not cause the non-existent oil, gas, and chemical industry to relocate from the places that outlaw them.
I do not include private infrastructure, but there could be loans or some tax write-offs. I would include local as well as federal infrastructure.
I will note that having the local utility go bankrupt from rebuilding is not a benefit to anybody, but as with banks, there could be a federal mechanism to manage, mediate, facilitate the sale of troubled utilities.
As to the bailout for the financial collapse, the private money market accounts could have been brought under FDIC, and the failed mortgages could have been provided with loans after the they went into foreclosure. Pressure could have ‘encouraged’ the MBS owners to sell at a substantial discount. The government loans could have been structured to help but not forgive.
As to health care, it is a national issue. I have advocated a public health system similar to public education. The system could be similar to the military. There would be fixed enlistments, and schooling would one benefit. I would go so far as to include on-site housing.
The US is rich enough to feed the hungry, care for the sick, provide shelter for the poor, provide protection from all color and social level of thugs, and provide education opportunities for everybody. I am not willing to live in a country that is “all for me and none for thee”. I re-examine my philosophical basis, and over time,I have adjusted it.
Our experience with such agencies is that they tend to be notoriously susceptible to regulatory capture. That was the case, for instance, during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. If the various agencies had been doing their jobs, it might never have become as serious as it did.
Allowing financial institutions the ability to create money at will is a really, really bad idea. There is no way to regulate such a financial system, and a US Senator and Representative provided a framework and mechanism to prevent the repeat of 1929 and its repercussions.
Similarly, federal funds should be examined in regard to natural disasters. It may make sense to require anything the federal government funds to be able to withstand local natural/unnatural disasters.
The US highways and interstates could be required to be 5′ above sea level, and this might mean elevated roadways. In colder areas, it probably does not make sense. Federal building codes should be required for anything built or leased using federal funds.
We can expect the usual suspects will howl until their political survival overtakes their unwavering principles. So what.