Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

Rebuilding Should Not be the Answer Anymore

855-368-5502

Rebuilding Should Not be the Answer Anymore

By: Adam M. Matheny

To Move or Not to Move?

You would think the people of the small towns of Nicholas and Rosewood would pack up their stuff and move somewhere safer after having their homes flooded out twice in the last three years. The obvious answer is don’t rebuild, move.

The decision is easier said then done. Think of all the time and money you’ve invested in your life in this house, property around your house, and town. Relocating is hard when this house and town is all you have ever experienced in your life. Especially when the cost to leave is compared to the community that you are leaving behind.

As sea levels rise and the climate change is taking effect of the weather; causing more and bigger storms.  Rebuilding on prone flooding property is becoming more dangerous – and high-priced.

Thus, the government shouldn’t keep letting these communities rebuild so easily, when it’s the dangerous and high priced. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) keeps their rates relatively low and this allows communities to keep rebuilding in flood zones, through the help of emergency aid that promotes staying and allow people to live under the standards of what they should be in that kind of area.

Enforcing Regulations On Rebuilds

What really should be happening is the Government as a whole should honestly do whatever they can in their power to promote people into making the safer and more cost-effective decision. Sometimes it be just moving a crossed the town or out of their completely depending on the severity of the usual storms.

The NFIP emergency recovery funds should not go into helping people rebuild constantly. Ideally, the money should be to help encourage people to leave and to start a life somewhere new, with extra funds to help the move.

The NFIP when helping to rebuild the houses weren’t making the necessary renovations to make these houses suited up for a potential flood in the future. Which in the long run has been causing the National Flood Insurance Policy and with the re-building program over $20 billion in debt, across the U.S. Taxpayers. Because someone must pay it and it’s going to be the taxpayers.

Properties that have a history of repeated flooding should not be eligible for federal flood insurance. A solution would be a reform bill in Congress that would make it easier for the government to buy homes which are repeatedly flooding. This is much more of an approachable method and cost effective then repeatedly rebuilding the same homes for them to get washed away again.

Local Governments Need to Step Up

Local governments are also key parts of this project into adapting not just the government. Long term should be how local governments are thinking: Promoting people to stay and rebuild should only happen if they are fortifying against the next storm. There needs to be stricter building requirements if people decide they want to rebuild to protect against the storms and the flooding that comes along with them. On the brighter side already 400 residents have left Nichols after the recent flooding’s.

Fewer and fewer people are declining the truth that our climate have been changing. Some towns have already experienced the impact of climate change and have adapted to the change, such as Lowcountry. Their federal disaster programs and state and local officials are having to redirect the flooding strategies from waiting for the damage to happen to rebuild to “we know it’s coming, lets prepare for the storm with better infrastructures, so we don’t have to build again.” Because eventually recovery over and over won’t be suitable for unrealistic for many communities.

Would You Like To Access Our Programs?