Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Sunday, February 19. 2006

More on Floods and Flood Insurance

By way of follow-up on our piece yesterday on flooding and flood insurance, a piece came out yesterday by the AP's Bridges noting the increase of development in flood zones:

Concentrated development in flood-prone parts of Missouri, California and other states has significantly raised the risk of New Orleans-style flooding as people snap up new homes even in areas recently deluged, researchers said Saturday.

Around St. Louis, where the Mississippi River lapped at the steps of the Gateway Arch during the 1993 flood, more than 14,000 acres of flood plain have been developed since then. That has reduced the region's ability to store water during future floods and potentially put more people in harm's way, said Adolphus Busch IV, a scion of the Anheuser-Busch brewing family who is chairman of the Great Rivers Habitat Alliance.

Similar development has occurred around Dallas, Kansas City, Mo., Los Angeles, Omaha, Neb., and Sacramento, Calif., said Gerald Galloway, a professor of engineering at the University of Maryland.

Read the whole thing in the Houston Chronicle. Wish we could get some congressmen interested. Who wouldn't have a chat over a free Bud with Adolphus?

Posted by Bird Dog in Natural History and Conservation at 12:04 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Flood plain encroachment is a thorny problem. On the one hand, we want to protect people and their property. On the other, we don’t want to let government be intrusive and encroach on property rights. The only workable solution seems to be a compromise. The statutory flood plain limit is the depth & width of the 100-year flood. People living outside this statutory limit should be able to get insurance just as they do for other disasters. Those within the flood plain limit should be “on their own”. When rescue is needed, it should be billed to the individuals and damages should be the responsibility of the individuals living in flood prone areas. Incidentally, there is nothing magic about the 100-year flood plain limit. But its determination is repeatable by accepted engineering practices; it is easily understood and thus amenable to statutory definition, and it is enforceable. Finally, the 100-year flood implies a 1% chance of flooding in any given year and is seen by most hydrologists and engineers as an acceptable risk.
#1 LomaAlta (Link) on 2006-02-19 19:40 (Reply)
Flood plain encroachment is a thorny problem. On the one hand, we want to protect people and their property. On the other, we don’t want to let government be intrusive and encroach on property rights. The only workable solution seems to be a compromise. The statutory flood plain limit is the depth & width of the 100-year flood. People living outside this statutory limit should be able to get insurance just as they do for other disasters. Those within the flood plain limit should be “on their own”. When rescue is needed, it should be billed to the individuals and damages should be the responsibility of the individuals living in flood prone areas. Incidentally, there is nothing magic about the 100-year flood plain limit. But its determination is repeatable by accepted engineering practices; it is easily understood and thus amenable to statutory definition, and it is enforceable. Finally, the 100-year flood implies a 1% chance of flooding in any given year and is seen by most hydrologists and engineers as an acceptable risk.
#2 LomaAlta (Link) on 2006-02-19 19:40 (Reply)
Who wouldn't have a chat over a free Bud with Adolphus?

Beer lovers?
#3 Charles Martin (Link) on 2006-02-20 12:49 (Reply)
hahaha
fair enough
#4 bird dog on 2006-02-21 05:16 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.