9 ms·

In Ontario, you simply are not allowed to build in a flood plain. This is in response to Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s, who's floods killed people. Even further

by mabbo 9y ago

In Ontario, you simply are not allowed to build in a flood plain. This is in response to Hurricane Hazel in the 1950s, who's floods killed people. Even further, if your home is destroyed in a major flood, you aren't allowed to rebuild it- clearly, wherever you are it's not safe from flooding. It's a very effective system. The only problems is has these days are A: people who fight it because they bought property they want to develop, but can't, and B: the fact that where flooding occurs is changing due to climate change and geology/geography changes in the last 50 years. Texas may want to consider such a system.

scarface74 9y ago
That will never happen in Texas. The minute that someone tries to make a law, people will start yelling about “big government” and “freedom”. From the article: “This is not dumb, bad planning,this is very well-thought-out, bad planning.””
- norikki 9y ago
  Well at least you didn't blame Trump for it.
- mcguire 9y ago
  As the article alluded to, Texans have had issues with government "taking" property indirectly since the early '90s, at least.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    So people should be given a choice - either accept a government set amount to buy up your property and to help you relocate or pay for your own repairs. Why should other people keep paying to rebuild homes in flood plains?
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      Flood insurance can be revoked in the way you describe but it is a federal matter not a Texas one.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        There's some strange rules around flood insurance. I don't have a mortgage but I do have pretty fancy insurance from a private insurance company. Flood insurance is mandatory, or at least mandatory per their policy. They admit that there's pretty much zero chance that I'll flood, but they want me to be insured against it anyhow. My elevation is 3800' and I'm pretty much on the top of a mountain. If it floods and impacts my house, there's not going to be anywhere to file an insurance claim. I'm not sure it's even physically possible for me to flood. I don't think the planet has enough water. But, no... They want me to pay for flood insurance. Yet, I lived very close to the water in Winston-Salem, NC and had minor flooding most every spring. My house was mortgaged there and flood insurance was mandatory. The flood insurance was less than it is here. This house is worth more, but it's not going to flood. Blizzards, ice storms, and really strong winds are all probable. Flooding is damned near impossible. The snow cap could all melt at once and I could wash away, but I don't think that counts as a flood. I don't get it.
        Retric 9y ago
        A lot of what you might think of as storm damage is classified as flooding. Still, you may just want to shop around for a different private insurance without the flood policy requirement.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Huh... I wonder why they'd classify it as flooding? I suppose that, at least theoretically, my basement could get water in it from the snow melt, but that seems unlikely. There were drainage channels put in just in case. I only get 12' to 14' of snow per year. The valleys flood. They flood every year. They are quite far below me. The difference between here and the top of the mountain is maybe 150' in elevation. Hmm... I dunno? I do know this insurance group covers pretty much everything, which is nice. I have a couple of large events and guests that come during hunting season. So long as I'm not charging admission, they cover all that.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      The whole of the NJ shore is a "flood plain." But as long as it's the playground of the wealthy, the whole of NJ taxpayers will subsidize such nonsense.
      - oh_sigh 9y ago
        Have you ever gone to the shore? Some of the trashiest people in NJ live and vacation there. Some of the richest too - it attracts all types.
        chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Vacation? Irrelevant. Live? Again, doesn't matter. The thing that matters is ownership. And as long as rich people want to put massive house on the beach, the whole lot will be underwritten. "Stronger than the storm"? Or come on now. And the taxpayers paid for that spin as well. After Sandy there was zero sense of "wait a minute, maybe we should think about this?" Instead, the politicians did what they do best. They bought votes with taxpayers' money. Yeah, all types are there. But who benefits the most?
    - mcguire 9y ago
      Sounds like an interesting get-rich-slow scheme, if you're a property developer. 1. Develop a property near a waterway, but not in a known flood-prone area. 2. Go upstream and develop another property, putting more drainage pressure on the waterway near the first property. 3. If the first property sold, you made money and the problems are someone else's. If it didn't, accept the government buyout. Lather, rinse, repeat.
- mabbo 9y ago
  Oh, I agree, they'll never do it. It's sort of like gun control in America- it's too late to actually do things right, but at least the rest of the world can show Texas how it is done right.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Worse. What - anecdotally - seems to happen is that these are areas reserved for lower income neighborhoods. The well to do reap the benefits of having cheap labor nearby, pat themselves on the back for their generosity and kindness, and only lose occasionally if there's a flood. On the other hand, such floods devastate those areas for years if not decades. The destroy/rebuild cycle is simply breakeven. It pairs so well with poverty. A pairing the well to do rarely see.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    That wouldn’t be a bad idea - as long as there is full disclosure. To save money, I might rent in a place like that and make sure I have no valuables that I couldn’t take with me in my car. It’s rare that flooding in those areas happen without enough warning to get to safety.
    - yk 9y ago
      Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard. Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      You might. If you have a choice. That's often a pretty big if. Furthermore, any aid is often to rebuild not relocate. It's hard to break that cycle when the systrm promotes it.
    - scarface74 9y ago
      Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard. Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities. That’s why I specifically said “rent”. If you only rent, don’t keep a lot of valuables that you can’t move at the drop of a dime in your car, what would the harm be? This also pre-supposes that the government is willing to help with temporary housing. If they are willing to help the owners of $500,000 plus homes, why not spend much less and help the poor with temporary housing assistance? In my case, when I first graduated from college and living on my own, why would I have cared if my apartment flooded? I could have put my clothes and my computer in my car taken the rent money I was paying and stay in an extended stay until I found another place. I wouldn’t care about my 20 year old bedroom set, my sleeper sofa, or my computer desk I bought from Walmart.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  As has been pointed out many times in recent weeks, they then want the "big government" to fund their rescue and recovery when that mistake bites them.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    Through the National Flood Insurance Program "one percent of homes have been responsible for more than 25 percent of the claims." In various ways the program is not allowed to deny issuing policies. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episode-797-flood-money http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episo... Though the podcast doesn't mention it, I'm sure politicians have blocked consideration of climate change in any overt way. Edit: excerpts repackaged in text form (the podcast is much more in-depth) http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-loses-money-on-selling-flood-insurance http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-l...
    - Retra 9y ago
      I'm not sure what the relevance of insurance claims is. Flood insurance would be a scam if they only insured low-risk homes, and it would be horribly inefficient to only insure high-risk homes. When 99% of the insured cover the 1% that make claims, that looks like it's working as designed to me.
      - dv_dt 9y ago
        In the podcast IIRC one house has had $4M worth of claims across 4 floods over 8 years... the claims should be paid on existing policies, but new policies shouldn't be issued for that house unless major changes are made.
        zaroth 9y ago
        Coverage limits make that impossible.
      - acdha 9y ago
- beached_whale 9y ago
  I am surprised the insurance company didn't know. But they can be an answer and it's free market. One needs mortgage insurance or may want insurance otherwise. Well, in the flood prone areas it gets prohibitive because the risk is higher. People will move away or eat the risk(with full knowledge)
  - 1stranger 9y ago
    Given standard homeowner's policies don't cover flooding, do they even care? They still get to collect the premiums but aren't exposed to any additional risk.
    - beached_whale 9y ago
      Interesting the banks holding the mortgages don’t insist then. Didn’t people just walk in 2008 when their homes were worth less than mortgages, seems it would be a comparable situation. Maybe not, but there are a lot of ways to discourage risky ownership. One could improve standards too
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  Fine build it, but no insurance. Should be self-regulating, and FEMA /FedGov should not subsidize them.
- kodablah 9y ago
  In many areas of Texas you cannot build in a 100 year flood plain. In others, flood insurance is a requirement as are certain construction limitations, e.g. in Harris county [0]. Now, according to you these laws can't exist in Texas, but they do. Maybe you shouldn't say these things you don't understand, especially about a very liberal area. 0 - http://www.eng.hctx.net/Consultants/Floodplain-Management/Floodplain-FAQs http://www.eng.hctx.net/Consultants/Floodplain-Management/Fl...
  - scarface74 9y ago
    In others, flood insurance is a requirement $500 a year for flood insurance is still heavily taxpayer subsidized and the article you point to also says Can I build on property in a floodplain? A: Yes. However, floodplain development restrictions apply to grading, new construction and some renovations. Contact the Harris County Permit Office at (713) 956-3000 for more information on these requirements.
- zeamaize 9y ago
  Texas: “SMALL GUB’MENT! FUCK HANDOUTS! FREEDOM! I DO WHAT I WANT! DON’T MAKE ME PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S BAD DECISIONS!” Hurricane: “ORLY?” Texas: “WHO IS GONNA PAY US OUR GUB’MENT MONEY! A HURRICANE DONE DESTROYED MY HOUSE! THE GUB’MENT NEEDS TO PAY FOR THIS TO HELP US!”
  - sctb 9y ago
    We just asked you not to post unsubstantive inflammation again, and then you posted it again. We've banned this account, and we're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Even after a bad storm (death) in France, people were reluctant to move or change the system.
mcguire 9y ago
Ontario is the most populous Canadian province, which I didn't know, with about 14,000,000 people. That is a bit more than twice the population of the Houston metro area. The problem in Houston isn't construction in a flood prone area (the whole place is flood prone) but that construction upstream puts more drainage downstream. With Ontario's policy, construction of a suburb 50 miles away may make an existing neighborhood worthless.
- mabbo 9y ago
  > construction of a suburb 50 miles away may make an existing neighborhood worthless That would only happen if that suburb were being built in an existing flood plain. Ontario's policies aren't just about being near cities, it's the whole province. The little I know on the topic is because I married a water resources engineer. Her previous job was up north of Toronto, working at a conservation authority, telling developers that no, they can't build at all on that part of the land and also the part they can build on, they must add additional stormwater management ponds. The entire province is working to protect everyone.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    "That would only happen if that suburb were being built in an existing floodplain." Actually, it isn't. Take a look at a map of the area around the reservoirs in question: https://encrypted.google.com/maps/place/Barker+Reservoir/@29.7862475,-95.7190335,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8640d9562dc792f7:0x643beed24e124577!8m2!3d29.7696735!4d-95.6463348?hl=en https://encrypted.google.com/maps/place/Barker+Reservoir/@29... They are both completely surrounded by Houston. When they were built, everything upstream was prairie. Rain falling on that area would mostly be absorbed or cause localized ponding. The rest would enter the river in question, Buffalo Bayou, I believe. (Wikipedia has a dandy map of the Buffalo Bayou watershed: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bayou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bayou). It's interesting to note that it's almost entirely contained between the 99 "Grand parkway"(?) and Houston---I'm old, I remember when there was farmland between Katy and Houston.) Now, much of the area upstream has been converted to less permeable urban use, with the result that more water becomes run-off and ends up in the bayou. None of that construction is in any particular danger of flooding, itself. The article describes some of the legal and political fights that were involved in trying to say, "no, you cannot build any more net-impermeable in the Bayou watershed."
harikb 9y ago
Isn't it possible to make the building codes such that houses must like the google image search for "flood proof houses" - little boxes that stand on legs? Far better than telling someone their land is worthless.
- itsnotlupus 9y ago
  I remember hearing stories of homes in Houston that had been elevated after previous floods to make them flood proof. They were elevated high enough to survive the highest flood on record. But this one was higher..
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I've always wondered what the marginal cost is for raising a home (e.g. +0.5 meter). I imagine there's some cost, and at some point you run into zoning laws. But if it's your primary residence and is in a flood prone area, why not just put it ~3 meters up and be safe like they do in coastal Florida?
    - stevenwoo 9y ago
      Roughly $75-$80 a square foot without any complications. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-a-historic-house-in-Meyerland-was-elevated-12229328.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/H...
      - ethbro 9y ago
        Cool find! The $75-$80 is the cost per square ft of house though. I'm curious about the cost of additional elevation. I.e. to parent comment's point about "elevated" houses still being flooded because they weren't elevated enough. I'd assume that once it's jacked, adding or subtracting vertical height is basically free.
        WalterBright 9y ago
speg 9y ago
You aren’t? There were plenty of people flooded in the floodplains along the Ottawa river this spring.
microcolonel 9y ago
I prefer the buyer-beware solution to this problem. Educate all you want, but if I want to build on a flood plain (especially now that there have long been contractors which can build flood-proof homes on stilts), I should be allowed to. FEMA should not be encouraging this by always serving people in known floodplains. I'm sure insurance companies already encode this in premiums (except apparently the ones which did not tell the insured about this issue in Houston).
- sunir 9y ago
  However you are not allowed to die for making this decision. Emergency services have to be spent rescuing you. I recognize the American mindset of independence is different than the Canadian one of interdependence. It is too bad most of American society didn't have to survive an brutal overwinter in its formative days.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > I recognize the American mindset of independence is different than the Canadian one of interdependence. You're not the only Canadian here, bud. ;- ) > However you are not allowed to die for making this decision. Emergency services have to be spent rescuing you. That's really the problem here. It needs to be possible to bargain access to these services, or pay for them at a higher rate. The homeowner must be directly exposed to the cost of living in a floodplain and having rescue workers come to them.
    - sunir 9y ago
      We do that with fire services and police services. However that is because the risk is not really loss of life, just property. We decided as society that human life is not cheap and disposable. And while I recognize that argument begs the question.. that "we as society" may or may not include an individual who may disagree, the heart of the point is the individual isn't patamouny to how the world works.
iaw 9y ago
The article makes it clear that these man-made reservoirs aren't considered a flood plain. The article also makes it pretty clear that regional legislation around the issue has been complicated by competing local interests.
eximius 9y ago
You can't tell the entire Gulf Coast that. Harvey flooded things way outside of flood zones. Huge swaths of land that havent flooded in centuries got flooded. Theyre calling it an 800 year flood. I don't disagree with limiting construction in flood plains, but you can't issue a blanket statement saying 'no rebuilding.'
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  Why not?
  - eximius 9y ago
    Because most the the gulf coast of Texas (and other states..) wouldn't be rebuildable?

by mabbo 9y ago

scarface74 9y ago

That will never happen in Texas. The minute that someone tries to make a law, people will start yelling about “big government” and “freedom”. From the article: “This is not dumb, bad planning,this is very well-thought-out, bad planning.””

norikki 9y ago
Well at least you didn't blame Trump for it.
mcguire 9y ago
As the article alluded to, Texans have had issues with government "taking" property indirectly since the early '90s, at least.
- scarface74 9y ago
  So people should be given a choice - either accept a government set amount to buy up your property and to help you relocate or pay for your own repairs. Why should other people keep paying to rebuild homes in flood plains?
  - KekDemaga 9y ago
    Flood insurance can be revoked in the way you describe but it is a federal matter not a Texas one.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      There's some strange rules around flood insurance. I don't have a mortgage but I do have pretty fancy insurance from a private insurance company. Flood insurance is mandatory, or at least mandatory per their policy. They admit that there's pretty much zero chance that I'll flood, but they want me to be insured against it anyhow. My elevation is 3800' and I'm pretty much on the top of a mountain. If it floods and impacts my house, there's not going to be anywhere to file an insurance claim. I'm not sure it's even physically possible for me to flood. I don't think the planet has enough water. But, no... They want me to pay for flood insurance. Yet, I lived very close to the water in Winston-Salem, NC and had minor flooding most every spring. My house was mortgaged there and flood insurance was mandatory. The flood insurance was less than it is here. This house is worth more, but it's not going to flood. Blizzards, ice storms, and really strong winds are all probable. Flooding is damned near impossible. The snow cap could all melt at once and I could wash away, but I don't think that counts as a flood. I don't get it.
      - Retric 9y ago
        A lot of what you might think of as storm damage is classified as flooding. Still, you may just want to shop around for a different private insurance without the flood policy requirement.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Huh... I wonder why they'd classify it as flooding? I suppose that, at least theoretically, my basement could get water in it from the snow melt, but that seems unlikely. There were drainage channels put in just in case. I only get 12' to 14' of snow per year. The valleys flood. They flood every year. They are quite far below me. The difference between here and the top of the mountain is maybe 150' in elevation. Hmm... I dunno? I do know this insurance group covers pretty much everything, which is nice. I have a couple of large events and guests that come during hunting season. So long as I'm not charging admission, they cover all that.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    The whole of the NJ shore is a "flood plain." But as long as it's the playground of the wealthy, the whole of NJ taxpayers will subsidize such nonsense.
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      Have you ever gone to the shore? Some of the trashiest people in NJ live and vacation there. Some of the richest too - it attracts all types.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Vacation? Irrelevant. Live? Again, doesn't matter. The thing that matters is ownership. And as long as rich people want to put massive house on the beach, the whole lot will be underwritten. "Stronger than the storm"? Or come on now. And the taxpayers paid for that spin as well. After Sandy there was zero sense of "wait a minute, maybe we should think about this?" Instead, the politicians did what they do best. They bought votes with taxpayers' money. Yeah, all types are there. But who benefits the most?
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Sounds like an interesting get-rich-slow scheme, if you're a property developer. 1. Develop a property near a waterway, but not in a known flood-prone area. 2. Go upstream and develop another property, putting more drainage pressure on the waterway near the first property. 3. If the first property sold, you made money and the problems are someone else's. If it didn't, accept the government buyout. Lather, rinse, repeat.
mabbo 9y ago
Oh, I agree, they'll never do it. It's sort of like gun control in America- it's too late to actually do things right, but at least the rest of the world can show Texas how it is done right.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Worse. What - anecdotally - seems to happen is that these are areas reserved for lower income neighborhoods. The well to do reap the benefits of having cheap labor nearby, pat themselves on the back for their generosity and kindness, and only lose occasionally if there's a flood. On the other hand, such floods devastate those areas for years if not decades. The destroy/rebuild cycle is simply breakeven. It pairs so well with poverty. A pairing the well to do rarely see.
- scarface74 9y ago
  That wouldn’t be a bad idea - as long as there is full disclosure. To save money, I might rent in a place like that and make sure I have no valuables that I couldn’t take with me in my car. It’s rare that flooding in those areas happen without enough warning to get to safety.
  - yk 9y ago
    Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard. Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    You might. If you have a choice. That's often a pretty big if. Furthermore, any aid is often to rebuild not relocate. It's hard to break that cycle when the systrm promotes it.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    Even with full disclosure, what is a poor person supposed to do? It is precisely the rich who could mitigate the risk, by either buying insurance or by building to a high enough standard. Poor people have to hope for the best, because the savings go directly to other necessities. That’s why I specifically said “rent”. If you only rent, don’t keep a lot of valuables that you can’t move at the drop of a dime in your car, what would the harm be? This also pre-supposes that the government is willing to help with temporary housing. If they are willing to help the owners of $500,000 plus homes, why not spend much less and help the poor with temporary housing assistance? In my case, when I first graduated from college and living on my own, why would I have cared if my apartment flooded? I could have put my clothes and my computer in my car taken the rent money I was paying and stay in an extended stay until I found another place. I wouldn’t care about my 20 year old bedroom set, my sleeper sofa, or my computer desk I bought from Walmart.
InitialLastName 9y ago
As has been pointed out many times in recent weeks, they then want the "big government" to fund their rescue and recovery when that mistake bites them.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Through the National Flood Insurance Program "one percent of homes have been responsible for more than 25 percent of the claims." In various ways the program is not allowed to deny issuing policies. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episode-797-flood-money http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episo... Though the podcast doesn't mention it, I'm sure politicians have blocked consideration of climate change in any overt way. Edit: excerpts repackaged in text form (the podcast is much more in-depth) http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-loses-money-on-selling-flood-insurance http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-l...
  - Retra 9y ago
    I'm not sure what the relevance of insurance claims is. Flood insurance would be a scam if they only insured low-risk homes, and it would be horribly inefficient to only insure high-risk homes. When 99% of the insured cover the 1% that make claims, that looks like it's working as designed to me.
    - dv_dt 9y ago
      In the podcast IIRC one house has had $4M worth of claims across 4 floods over 8 years... the claims should be paid on existing policies, but new policies shouldn't be issued for that house unless major changes are made.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        Coverage limits make that impossible.
    - acdha 9y ago
beached_whale 9y ago
I am surprised the insurance company didn't know. But they can be an answer and it's free market. One needs mortgage insurance or may want insurance otherwise. Well, in the flood prone areas it gets prohibitive because the risk is higher. People will move away or eat the risk(with full knowledge)
- 1stranger 9y ago
  Given standard homeowner's policies don't cover flooding, do they even care? They still get to collect the premiums but aren't exposed to any additional risk.
  - beached_whale 9y ago
    Interesting the banks holding the mortgages don’t insist then. Didn’t people just walk in 2008 when their homes were worth less than mortgages, seems it would be a comparable situation. Maybe not, but there are a lot of ways to discourage risky ownership. One could improve standards too
tryingagainbro 9y ago
Fine build it, but no insurance. Should be self-regulating, and FEMA /FedGov should not subsidize them.
kodablah 9y ago
In many areas of Texas you cannot build in a 100 year flood plain. In others, flood insurance is a requirement as are certain construction limitations, e.g. in Harris county [0]. Now, according to you these laws can't exist in Texas, but they do. Maybe you shouldn't say these things you don't understand, especially about a very liberal area. 0 - http://www.eng.hctx.net/Consultants/Floodplain-Management/Floodplain-FAQs http://www.eng.hctx.net/Consultants/Floodplain-Management/Fl...
- scarface74 9y ago
  In others, flood insurance is a requirement $500 a year for flood insurance is still heavily taxpayer subsidized and the article you point to also says Can I build on property in a floodplain? A: Yes. However, floodplain development restrictions apply to grading, new construction and some renovations. Contact the Harris County Permit Office at (713) 956-3000 for more information on these requirements.
zeamaize 9y ago
Texas: “SMALL GUB’MENT! FUCK HANDOUTS! FREEDOM! I DO WHAT I WANT! DON’T MAKE ME PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S BAD DECISIONS!” Hurricane: “ORLY?” Texas: “WHO IS GONNA PAY US OUR GUB’MENT MONEY! A HURRICANE DONE DESTROYED MY HOUSE! THE GUB’MENT NEEDS TO PAY FOR THIS TO HELP US!”
- sctb 9y ago
  We just asked you not to post unsubstantive inflammation again, and then you posted it again. We've banned this account, and we're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
agumonkey 9y ago
Even after a bad storm (death) in France, people were reluctant to move or change the system.

mcguire 9y ago

Ontario is the most populous Canadian province, which I didn't know, with about 14,000,000 people. That is a bit more than twice the population of the Houston metro area. The problem in Houston isn't construction in a flood prone area (the whole place is flood prone) but that construction upstream puts more drainage downstream. With Ontario's policy, construction of a suburb 50 miles away may make an existing neighborhood worthless.

mabbo 9y ago
> construction of a suburb 50 miles away may make an existing neighborhood worthless That would only happen if that suburb were being built in an existing flood plain. Ontario's policies aren't just about being near cities, it's the whole province. The little I know on the topic is because I married a water resources engineer. Her previous job was up north of Toronto, working at a conservation authority, telling developers that no, they can't build at all on that part of the land and also the part they can build on, they must add additional stormwater management ponds. The entire province is working to protect everyone.
- mcguire 9y ago
  "That would only happen if that suburb were being built in an existing floodplain." Actually, it isn't. Take a look at a map of the area around the reservoirs in question: https://encrypted.google.com/maps/place/Barker+Reservoir/@29.7862475,-95.7190335,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8640d9562dc792f7:0x643beed24e124577!8m2!3d29.7696735!4d-95.6463348?hl=en https://encrypted.google.com/maps/place/Barker+Reservoir/@29... They are both completely surrounded by Houston. When they were built, everything upstream was prairie. Rain falling on that area would mostly be absorbed or cause localized ponding. The rest would enter the river in question, Buffalo Bayou, I believe. (Wikipedia has a dandy map of the Buffalo Bayou watershed: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bayou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bayou). It's interesting to note that it's almost entirely contained between the 99 "Grand parkway"(?) and Houston---I'm old, I remember when there was farmland between Katy and Houston.) Now, much of the area upstream has been converted to less permeable urban use, with the result that more water becomes run-off and ends up in the bayou. None of that construction is in any particular danger of flooding, itself. The article describes some of the legal and political fights that were involved in trying to say, "no, you cannot build any more net-impermeable in the Bayou watershed."

harikb 9y ago

Isn't it possible to make the building codes such that houses must like the google image search for "flood proof houses" - little boxes that stand on legs? Far better than telling someone their land is worthless.

itsnotlupus 9y ago
I remember hearing stories of homes in Houston that had been elevated after previous floods to make them flood proof. They were elevated high enough to survive the highest flood on record. But this one was higher..
- ethbro 9y ago
  I've always wondered what the marginal cost is for raising a home (e.g. +0.5 meter). I imagine there's some cost, and at some point you run into zoning laws. But if it's your primary residence and is in a flood prone area, why not just put it ~3 meters up and be safe like they do in coastal Florida?
  - stevenwoo 9y ago
    Roughly $75-$80 a square foot without any complications. http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-a-historic-house-in-Meyerland-was-elevated-12229328.php http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/H...
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Cool find! The $75-$80 is the cost per square ft of house though. I'm curious about the cost of additional elevation. I.e. to parent comment's point about "elevated" houses still being flooded because they weren't elevated enough. I'd assume that once it's jacked, adding or subtracting vertical height is basically free.
      - WalterBright 9y ago

speg 9y ago

You aren’t? There were plenty of people flooded in the floodplains along the Ottawa river this spring.

microcolonel 9y ago

I prefer the buyer-beware solution to this problem. Educate all you want, but if I want to build on a flood plain (especially now that there have long been contractors which can build flood-proof homes on stilts), I should be allowed to. FEMA should not be encouraging this by always serving people in known floodplains. I'm sure insurance companies already encode this in premiums (except apparently the ones which did not tell the insured about this issue in Houston).

sunir 9y ago
However you are not allowed to die for making this decision. Emergency services have to be spent rescuing you. I recognize the American mindset of independence is different than the Canadian one of interdependence. It is too bad most of American society didn't have to survive an brutal overwinter in its formative days.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > I recognize the American mindset of independence is different than the Canadian one of interdependence. You're not the only Canadian here, bud. ;- ) > However you are not allowed to die for making this decision. Emergency services have to be spent rescuing you. That's really the problem here. It needs to be possible to bargain access to these services, or pay for them at a higher rate. The homeowner must be directly exposed to the cost of living in a floodplain and having rescue workers come to them.
  - sunir 9y ago
    We do that with fire services and police services. However that is because the risk is not really loss of life, just property. We decided as society that human life is not cheap and disposable. And while I recognize that argument begs the question.. that "we as society" may or may not include an individual who may disagree, the heart of the point is the individual isn't patamouny to how the world works.

iaw 9y ago

The article makes it clear that these man-made reservoirs aren't considered a flood plain. The article also makes it pretty clear that regional legislation around the issue has been complicated by competing local interests.

eximius 9y ago

You can't tell the entire Gulf Coast that. Harvey flooded things way outside of flood zones. Huge swaths of land that havent flooded in centuries got flooded. Theyre calling it an 800 year flood. I don't disagree with limiting construction in flood plains, but you can't issue a blanket statement saying 'no rebuilding.'

RandomInteger4 9y ago
Why not?
- eximius 9y ago
  Because most the the gulf coast of Texas (and other states..) wouldn't be rebuildable?