Well stated, and well received. I think we're up against a multiple faceted problem that will require a multi-faceted solution. One of those solutions (IMHO) isn't subsidizing flood insurance to allow people to rebuild exactly where they were before. We should use those subsidies to move them to a place out of those zones, and far above sea level (subtle jab at the re-building of New Orleans). It's not that I'm suggesting people move at their own expense... I'm suggesting we don't allow people to use subsidies to rebuild where we know they're screwed. EDIT: These two floods were not the first time this town has been flooded. 2011 they flooded and homes were damaged/destroyed. A little digging is showing me flooding issues the've known about since at least the 70s. It sucks that this happens. It's frustrating that these storms happened so closely together - caused by climate change. It all sucks...but this place doesn't look like a great place to have a city. We should also be attacking climate change at every opportunity.
Ahhh, I think I might have carried some angst against comments made by relatives over the holiday season into this conversation! Sorry Steve - well said. I agree, we shouldn't be subsidizing new development in danger-prone areas where possible. My addition is this: Part of the multi-faceted solution is going to require some solvency for the vast swathes of land that are going to begin flooding regularly. We can't relocate entire regions of the heartland. A huge part of the problem here is that we lack adequate infrastructure to handle flooding on the scale we've been getting it, and the infrastructure that does exist is crumbling. Attack climate change, and mitigate the results of it where necessary - and with this, I believe it is necessary.