New York Times:
No doubt someone will claim that this managed withdrawal is a response to coastal subsidence and not sea level rise.
Flood zones have been a problem for decades. This proposal would be a follow up to the failed Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1968. The history of this Act illustrates how well-intentioned laws can backfire.One intent of the law was to discourage construction on places that flood regularly. Engineers did a big job of figuring out the risk of flood in each location. E.g., at one time I lived in a 100-year flood zone in Palo Alto. The Act made flood insurance available from the Government, based on the risk. However, over the years, owners of property in flood-prone zones lobbied to get lower insurance rates from the government. Current rates are less than the risk would justify. The result is that subsidized property insurance now encourages construction in flood-prone areas.I wonder whether Barack and Michelle Obama had this law in mind when they purchased an $11.75 million beachfront estate on Martha's Vineyard. Insurance costs could have been one factor they considered. Cheers
Post a Comment