Comments on: The Elephant in the Floodplain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3711 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3711&cpage=1#comment-2798 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:08:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3711#comment-2798 Mark K. and Curious- There are options to present US flood policy. For example, in Europe private insurance companies offer flood insurance. The NFIP is designed not to be actuarily sound, it could be designed not to rely on subsidies. Floodplains could be evaluated on a much finer scale than 100/500-year floodplain. Rates could be adjusted based on factors like ENSO, drought, etc. Lots of things could be done, in principle. Politically, any of this would be difficult. Seems to me however, the first step towards improving flood policy would be a clear-eyed recognition that the current policy framework rests on some flawed assumptions. A discussion is needed to open up alternatives to current policy -- to see what is possible, before deciding that the status quo is the best we can ever do. Thanks! Mark K. and Curious-

There are options to present US flood policy. For example, in Europe private insurance companies offer flood insurance. The NFIP is designed not to be actuarily sound, it could be designed not to rely on subsidies. Floodplains could be evaluated on a much finer scale than 100/500-year floodplain. Rates could be adjusted based on factors like ENSO, drought, etc. Lots of things could be done, in principle. Politically, any of this would be difficult. Seems to me however, the first step towards improving flood policy would be a clear-eyed recognition that the current policy framework rests on some flawed assumptions. A discussion is needed to open up alternatives to current policy — to see what is possible, before deciding that the status quo is the best we can ever do. Thanks!

]]> By: Mark K http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3711&cpage=1#comment-2797 Mark K Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:05:33 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3711#comment-2797 Hi, The flaw you are describing - I am having a hard time seeing how this would change policy much. You are saying that '100 year' line is not a good way to mark where assets should be allocated for flood planning and alleviation. OK, but you don't really say how bad it is, how different would a map look using some other methodology? Somebody has to draw a line somewhere - the maps do need to be changed over time, but do we have a way of doing it usefully now? If not we end up with the same problem - sometime in the future we will need to redraw maps, people won't allocate resources to that until the weather forces them to, and we are in the same situation. So is there a way to either 1 - use some other methodology to more accurately predict, over time, (say 20 to 40 years) where flood planning needs to be done, that will lead to significantly different areas being chosen. 2 - Use some better method that is really cheap in resources so that updates can be more continuous. In either case how different would the maps look? I say this because I lived in an area that everyone knew could flood, but nothing was spent anyway on informing people or on any kind of project to reduce dangers, since there wasn't a flood for years till bingo 2 in 4 years. Then houses were zoned etc. I don't see this kind of response changing. Hi,
The flaw you are describing – I am having a hard time seeing how this would change policy much. You are saying that ‘100 year’ line is not a good way to mark where assets should be allocated for flood planning and alleviation. OK, but you don’t really say how bad it is, how different would a map look using some other methodology? Somebody has to draw a line somewhere – the maps do need to be changed over time, but do we have a way of doing it usefully now? If not we end up with the same problem – sometime in the future we will need to redraw maps, people won’t allocate resources to that until the weather forces them to, and we are in the same situation.

So is there a way to either
1 – use some other methodology to more accurately predict, over time, (say 20 to 40 years) where flood planning needs to be done, that will lead to significantly different areas being chosen.
2 – Use some better method that is really cheap in resources so that updates can be more continuous.

In either case how different would the maps look?

I say this because I lived in an area that everyone knew could flood, but nothing was spent anyway on informing people or on any kind of project to reduce dangers, since there wasn’t a flood for years till bingo 2 in 4 years. Then houses were zoned etc. I don’t see this kind of response changing.

]]> By: curious http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3711&cpage=1#comment-2796 curious Thu, 26 Jan 2006 13:34:48 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3711#comment-2796 Roger, This post was very interesting. How would you recommend NFIP address this flaw? Are there ideas for doing this floating around out there? Roger,

This post was very interesting. How would you recommend NFIP address this flaw? Are there ideas for doing this floating around out there?

]]>