Where to Build, and Not Build
Mitigation is too often thought of in the context of reducing flood risk to existing buildings. This is especially true of members of Congress. Those of us in the flood risk management profession know that mitigation occurs in two contexts: (1) mitigation risk to existing buildings, such as elevating, relocating, flood proofing, or otherwise reducing the flood risk. (2) mitigation of proposed development through mapping, floodplain management regulations, and community planning.
Mitigation of proposed development is mostly about WHERE development occurs. While how it is built can also reduce flood risk, the first and most important factor is where it is built. Perhaps the biggest rap on the NFIP is its failure to help communities and states avoid development in high-risk areas. While the NFIP can show that its regulations, despite being quite minimal, likely save millions of dollars in flood damage each year compared to that development occurring without any regulation, that development is still in the high-flood risk area and any storms at or exceeding the 1% chance rainfall will not only cause damage, but will put people at risk when they need to evacuate or if they drive through flooded roads. Most flood-related deaths are from people driving through flood waters.
Even worse, the flood risk to that development is increasing every year since the mapping and regulations assume flooding will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. We now know that climate change is increasing rainfall amounts up to 45% in some parts of the United States, and coastal storm surge is also increasing.
If federal programs would provide incentives and technical assistance to communities and states to better guide new development, the taxpayers would spend far less in funding for disaster relief and for mitigation to buildings that now exist in areas where it should not have been built in the first place. We are seeing more studies showing how much more flood damages have increased because of development in high-risk areas. Helping legislators and federal agencies understand this paradigm is important.
