First off, it's simply not true in any practical sense that there are no areas of the US that are safe from environmental disasters. The entire northeast and m

First off, it's simply not true in any practical sense that there are no areas of the US that are safe from environmental disasters. The entire northeast and mid-Atlantic down through Appalachia - at the very least - is reasonably safe from natural disaster. So justifying a decision to live somewhere that is highly prone to one or more types of disasters with a glib assertion that "there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp" is not even wrong. Second, I'm no historian, but I feel confident in asserting that for the entirety of history, a principal criteria for evaluating the suitability of an area for settlement is its proximity to fresh water. This criteria was intentionally, brazenly ignored in building Las Vegas - as well as much (most?) of the Sun Belt southwest. Third, your geoengineering "solutions" are not realistic. Are you suggesting that we're going to move flood waters from (to use your own example) the east coast to the west coast? Or even from the Mississippi River to Las Vegas? In a world where our existing infrastructure is drastically, if not catastrophically, underfunded? Where are these areas of surplus fresh water of which you speak? Lake Mead, Vegas's primary source of water, is 80 feet below historical levels. The rest of the Colorado River, serving seven states, is similarly depleted. Aquifers throughout California are near tapped out. The bottom line is that vast areas of arid land were foolishly (over)developed for the banal reason that somebody was able to make a buck on it. People with money were able to buy government that allowed them to do what they wanted to make that buck. I'm no doomsdayer, but the water wars have already begun, albeit at low intensity. One day, the demand is going to outstrip the supply and it's going to get very, very ugly, at least from a financial perspective, if not outright violence.