The following is an Op-Ed I wrote for a class assignment, and subsequently revised with feedback from my professor.
It
seems odd in this period of drought to discuss the state of our flood
management policies. Drought, however, is just another natural state of the
hydrology of our water systems. Water levels rise and fall with the seasons,
and though there is a natural equilibrium to the ebb and flow, impending
climate change will only cause the differences to be more drastic.[1]
Current flood management policies try to prevent floods, but if we let the
rivers “do their thing,” but control the location, we would save the government
(and our citizens) money and improve the ecological conditions of our rivers.
The
more we channel and our rivers and build up our levees, the worst flooding will
get. In light of this, it’s important to address the way our government manages
these inundations. Through a complex system of dams and levees, the Army Corps
of Engineers channels our rivers such that they cannot spread into the vast
majority of their flood plains. Ideally, these walls would keep the river
contained, bur realistically, the higher we build the walls all along the
river, the higher the water levels rise. Levees, then, can only be seen as
temporary. They are destined to be overtopped or breached.[2]
In
acknowledging that there will be great floods that spite our best efforts, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) put in place the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). Residents in participating areas (ones that have been
mapped appropriately) can purchase flood insurance coverage. Such policies can
grant them up to $250,000 worth of building damage coverage. Residents that
live in the base level floodplain—what’s known as the 100 year flood plain—are
required to purchase the coverage if they have a loan that’s backed by the
federal mortgage system.[3]
The
problems with this system are numerous. First of all, not everyone in the flood
plain opts into the insurance program, even if they are in the 100 year flood plain.
When the areas inevitably flood, an increased amount of disaster relief is
required. As a result, the NFIP has borrowed over $19 billion from the U.S.
Treasury. Floods are the most expensive disasters in the world. [4]
Why
do so few people opt into flood insurance, even though they are warned of the
risk? Because the risk isn’t always apparent. The Corps of Engineers builds a
system of levees that should not fail, and then FEMA uses terms like “100 year
flood” which imply a lower risk than exists in actuality. Residents simply
think that the likelihood of a flood is so improbable, that the insurance is
superfluous.[5]
Since
our system currently assumes that people living or developing in the 100 year
flood plain will purchase flood insurance policies, building codes intended to
mitigate flood damage are tied to them. But many of the buildings within the
flood plain are not flood proofed. Old buildings that were built in the flood
plains before the NFIP was put into place can be grandfathered in and, despite
their higher risk, pay the same rate for their flood insurance policies as new
constructions that follow code.[6]
Thus,
we have an inappropriately dense concentration of development ill suited to
withstand floods. This results in significant payouts from the government, such
that buildings are rebuilt in the same way, only to be paid for again at the
next flood. Even if these buildings were constructed properly, it is the development
itself that is problematic. When we build in the floodplains, we’re not just
putting ourselves at risk, but we’re causing an exponentially greater rate of
damage to water ecosystems than we would otherwise. The more we build in the
flood fringe, the more displaced the flood waters are when they come, and the
higher the waters will rise.[7]
The
root of our flooding problem is that we see it as a problem. In fact, flooding
is only a problem when it intersects with human development. With this
perspective, levees are not just built for urban areas, they are also built for
rural areas. The whole river system becomes channeled, which raises the water
level and increases the velocity of the water, so that when the waters get
loose, and they do every year, the damage is far greater than it ever would
have been if we had never meddled at all.[8]
At
this point, to shift from a system of flood prevention to flood management
seems like a daunting, expensive task. In light of the high costs of flooding
and levee construction, however, it is certainly financially prudent to
consider a more long term, sustainable fix. Instead of viewing floods as
problematic, we should see them as what they are: natural processes that
rejuvenate soil nutrients, water tables, and create critical habitats for
endangered species.[9]
If
our government bought up the land that floods the most frequently, particularly
upstream and downstream from major urban developments, and then restored it as
closely as possible to natural riparian systems, we could prevent urban
flooding while allowing rural flooding. Natural systems, especially wetlands,
have unique ecological benefits and flood water retention capabilities. If we
allow the river to flood, particularly upstream, it will decrease the flood
pulse, slow down the velocity of the waters, and lower the risk of downstream
flooding.[10]
By
ensuring that floods will happen, but managing the location, we decrease the
likelihood that our developed flood plains will be at risk. This alters the
necessity of flood insurance and levees. The inevitability of floods will also
force residents of flood plains to accept that floods can happen, that they
should happen, and, ideally, would discourage more intense development of the
floodplain that is allowed by our current system.
[1] N Poff, “The Natural Flow
Regime,” BioScience. 47, no. 11 (1997): 771.
[2] Ibid., 774.
[3] E Michel-Kerjan, “Redesigning
Flood Insurance,” Science 333, no. 6041 (2011): 408.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 409.
[6] Ibid., 408.
[7] Raymond J. Burby, “Flood
Insurance and Floodplain Management: the US Experience,” Environmental
Hazards 3, no. 3-4 (2001): 112.
[8] Thomas Birkland et al.,
“River Ecology and Flood Hazard Mitigation,” Natural Hazards Review 4,
no. 1 (2003): 48.
[9] R. A Haeuber and W. K
Michener, “Natural Flood Control: To Control Flooding, We Need to Work With the
Forces of Nature Instead of Simply Trying to Eliminate Them,” Issues in
Science and Technology 15, no. 1 (1998): 74.
[10] Birkland et al., “River
Ecology and Flood Hazard Mitigation,” 52.
