Maybe It's Time To Stop Rebuilding In Areas Prone To Regular Flooding

The lessons of 1993 have been forgotten.

What exactly am I talking about?


Back in 1993 there was major flooding along the Mississippi River, in many cases wiping entire towns. A large number of these towns had been rebuilt more than once over the years. So what did the federal government do?

They told those living in those towns that if they decided to rebuild again in their original location that they would no longer be eligible for flood insurance.

It made no sense to have to shell out millions upon millions of dollars every few years to rebuild – again – in an area that sees floods on a regular basis. So a number of towns or sections of towns prone to regular flooding were moved to higher ground. One last payout and the government wouldn't have to pay out the next time the Mississippi River overflowed its banks and flooded those same towns again.

And so it should be with those communities built in areas that are flooded out by storm surges every time a hurricane or Nor'easter drives the ocean water over barrier islands and low lying coastal flood plains.

Why should taxpayers be hit with the bill for rebuilding expensive homes in areas that are known for being flooded on a regular basis whenever hurricanes, tropical storms, or Nor'easters hit? (A 'once-in-a-century' storm is one thing, but this is ridiculous.)

It's time to end the endless taxpayer bailouts for those who insist on building homes in places that are regularly swept by damaging storms.