I read all this talk about flood areas and flood plains and building in areas subject to flood and yet there are very few places, if any, in the country not at risk of a flood. Floods happen along rivers and they happen inland where there are no rivers. Even desert areas have been subject to floods on occasion. And, if we're suddenly going to say don't build where floods are a potential, then what about tornadoes, and hurricanes, and earthquakes, or droughts?
I understand having building standards based on location. For instance, earthquake standards in San Francisco, Hurricane standards in Miami, Flood standards in Slidell. I believe there are perhaps a few places where lakes are used for flood control that their shores shouldn't allow building. There are areas where standards for new construction need to be changed. But it is impossible and undesirable to say we're not going to build in any area that has the potential of natural disasters.
I understand having building standards based on location. For instance, earthquake standards in San Francisco, Hurricane standards in Miami, Flood standards in Slidell. I believe there are perhaps a few places where lakes are used for flood control that their shores shouldn't allow building. There are areas where standards for new construction need to be changed. But it is impossible and undesirable to say we're not going to build in any area that has the potential of natural disasters.