Lest you think I was being hyperbolic, or overly critical of Americans, in my last post:
Trying to Shame Dune Holdouts at Jersey Shore
'via Blog this'
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Why We Don't Design Our Cities to Withstand 1,000-Year Floods
Why We Don't Design Our Cities to Withstand 1,000-Year Floods
This is a good article. The title is inaccurate, though, since it doesn't explain WHY we don't design our cities to 1,000 year floods, but the Dutch do. FEMA maps are based on 100 and 500 year floods, but design standards and insurance are generally based on the 100 year (or 1% chance floods, I'm glad they're moving away from that terminology).
The Dutch standards are for 1,000 years, or .1% (and the large infrastructure, like the storm barrier at the entrance to Rotterdam, for 10,000 years, or .01%) because they can be, because the Dutch people agreed that they should be after a massive flood in the 50s. The Dutch also have national planning and they don't have the same concept of private land and land rights as the US.
The American cabin owner, most likely, would stock up on guns and/or hire a lawyer and tie up the whole works until he gets a court order, or wins a lawsuit, or puts the project over budget, lest his rights be infringed. To be fair, the American government (Federal, State or Local) likely will not have sufficient funds to purchase, relocate or swap the cabin, and instead will just inform the owner that the flood insurance on the cabin is really high, so he should move. So the cabin owner won't buy the insurance. When the flood does arrive, the cabin owner will still require rescue and demand reimbursement, even though he hasn't offset any of those costs buy buying insurance. Meanwhile, the city floods.
'via Blog this'
This is a good article. The title is inaccurate, though, since it doesn't explain WHY we don't design our cities to 1,000 year floods, but the Dutch do. FEMA maps are based on 100 and 500 year floods, but design standards and insurance are generally based on the 100 year (or 1% chance floods, I'm glad they're moving away from that terminology).
The Dutch standards are for 1,000 years, or .1% (and the large infrastructure, like the storm barrier at the entrance to Rotterdam, for 10,000 years, or .01%) because they can be, because the Dutch people agreed that they should be after a massive flood in the 50s. The Dutch also have national planning and they don't have the same concept of private land and land rights as the US.
"Is the government going to tell people they can't build their cabin next to the stream?" says Axt. "They don't want to be told that."That's it, right there. The Dutch WILL tell people that they can't build their cabin next to the stream, and the law backs them up. If the cabin already exists, and they want to be able to flood that wooded area to save a city, they will say hey, we will relocate your cabin to any of these places, free of charge, or give you a replacement cabin elsewhere, or give you enough money to build a new cabin in a different place. But you're not staying here, or else you are putting an entire city at risk. The Dutch cabin owner, most likely, will say oh of course, let me get out of your way, glad to help, thanks for the cash.
The American cabin owner, most likely, would stock up on guns and/or hire a lawyer and tie up the whole works until he gets a court order, or wins a lawsuit, or puts the project over budget, lest his rights be infringed. To be fair, the American government (Federal, State or Local) likely will not have sufficient funds to purchase, relocate or swap the cabin, and instead will just inform the owner that the flood insurance on the cabin is really high, so he should move. So the cabin owner won't buy the insurance. When the flood does arrive, the cabin owner will still require rescue and demand reimbursement, even though he hasn't offset any of those costs buy buying insurance. Meanwhile, the city floods.
'via Blog this'
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)