Originally published by NYU Press. Reprinted with permission.
The flood season is upon us once again. Beginning in February, parts of Mississippi and Tennessee were deluged by floods described as "historic," "unprecedented," even "Shakespearean." At the same time, Midwestern farmers are still reeling from the torrential rains of 2019 that destroyed billions of dollars' worth of crops and equipment, while wondering whether their water-ravaged farmland can ever be put back into production. All this while the Houston area continues to recover from three so-called "500-year floods" in as many years, back-to-back in 2015, 2016, and, most notably, Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
As one tragedy follows another, they barely qualify as national news anymore. Instead, record-breaking floods and destruction are becoming commonplace. Why do the sequels barely warrant top billing? How have our national policies failed us, and why do they continue to fail us?
In Mississippi River Tragedies: A Century of Unnatural Disasters, we traced the historic foundations of federal flood control policy: a wobbly three-legged stool consisting of federal dams and levees, disaster relief, and flood insurance—all heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers. Since the book's publication in 2014, some problematic policies and habits have remained stubbornly in place.
We continue to cling to the myth that we can build anywhere, without consequence. Just a few months after Hurricane Harvey devastated Houston, the city approved a new 800-home development within the 100-year floodplain, reassured by the false comfort that the building lots would be elevated by infill to a supposedly safe level. Likewise, federal officials continue to promise financial solvency for the National Flood Insurance Program, which is now $20 billion in debt, but repeatedly postpone raising premiums to full market rates that reflect the true risk of flooding, responding in part to pressure from congressional representatives in flood-prone states. And as we continue to build in vulnerable areas buoyed up by federally-subsidized insurance, we cast blame on the Army Corps of Engineers when the floodwaters inevitably come. In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, for example, flooded landowners sought to hold the Corps accountable for their losses, claiming faulty construction and operation of a network of federal dams, levees, and reservoirs. The cases continue to work their way through the courts, with complicated and sometimes-contradictory results.
Despite these troubling events, we are beginning to learn some lessons from past disasters and a few hopeful signs are emerging.
We have begun to develop a sense of humility, acknowledging that we cannot always control nature. Last month, a federal judge dismissed one of the Hurricane Harvey lawsuits, declaring that neither state nor federal law guarantees "the right to perfect flood control" and concluding that "no entity could entirely control" flood waters. Coupled with that humility, we have acknowledged our own role in changing the climate, which in turn leads to more intense storms and flooding in some cases. Climate change has been the topic of discussion (albeit briefly) in the 2020 Democratic Party primary debates, and the Trump administration appears to be slowly reversing course in its avoidance of the subject. This is not surprising, given that recent polls show that 58 percent of Americans over age 65 say that climate change is a crisis or a serious problem; for Americans between 18-29, the percentage rises to 70 percent.
These changing views bring us full circle: As described in our book, the 1968 Congress that created federal flood insurance intended to subsidize premiums only in the short term. In exchange for temporary federal subsidies, Congress expected state and local governments to enact land use regulations to "constrict" the development of risky land and to "guide" future construction away from floodplains. Half a century later, we have returned to this charge with new urgency, as we begin to consider the "R-word"—retreat. Sea-level rise over the next 30 years could force some 50-150 million people worldwide to retreat to higher ground. Where will those people go? As New Orleans residents Steven Bingler and Martin Pedersen argued last month in a Washington Post op-ed, "We must continue to wage the political fight to rein in and eventually eliminate fossil fuels, while at the same time remaining clear-eyed about what needs to happen should our best efforts fail." Hard-nosed, non-political actors have begun to lead the way, including energy companies, the insurance industry, the Pentagon, and others engaged in risk management. Let us hope that Congress and the federal agencies follow suit. It's time to revive the wisdom of the 1968 Congress that tried to keep the nation safe from flooding: Even the might of the entire federal government cannot keep us safe unless we stop settling in risky, flood-prone areas.
Showing 2,818 results
Christine Klein, Sandra Zellmer | March 11, 2020
The flood season is upon us once again. Beginning in February, parts of Mississippi and Tennessee were deluged by floods described as "historic," "unprecedented," even "Shakespearean." At the same time, Midwestern farmers are still reeling from the torrential rains of 2019 that destroyed billions of dollars' worth of crops and equipment, while wondering whether their water-ravaged farmland can ever be put back into production. All this while the Houston area continues to recover from three so-called "500-year floods" in as many years, back-to-back in 2015, 2016, and, most notably, Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
Matt Shudtz | March 5, 2020
From the farm fields of California to the low-lying neighborhoods along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, structural racism and legally sanctioned inequities are combining with the effects of the climate crisis to put people in danger. The danger is manifest in heat stroke suffered by migrant farmworkers and failing sewer systems that back up into homes in formerly redlined neighborhoods. Fortunately, public interest attorneys across the country are attuned to these problems and are finding ways to use the law to force employers and polluters to adapt to the realities of the climate crisis.
John Leshy | March 5, 2020
With the help of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has had a long and proud history of tackling pressing challenges through responsible and inclusive management of America's public lands. One might expect it would continue that tradition as climate change has become a major challenge confronting the nation. Not so. In fact, Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt has been doing more than any of his predecessors to promote fossil fuel development on America's public lands, all the while dancing around the issue of whether he has an obligation, or even the legal authority, to address climate change.
Karen Sokol | March 2, 2020
Earlier this year, on the heels of the Earth's hottest decade on record, a coalition of former government officials, fossil fuel companies, car manufacturers, financial companies, and nonprofit organizations renewed their endorsement of a national carbon tax as "the most effective climate solution" (emphasis added). And by "the," it appears that they mean "the only." The catch is that the coalition's legislative plan also calls for preventing the federal government from regulating carbon emissions and from taking any other protective measures "that are no longer necessary upon the enactment of a rising carbon fee." Given the scale and complexity of the planetary emergency that we face, it would certainly be nice if the solution were that simple. But that, of course, is too good to be true.
David Driesen | February 27, 2020
On March 3, the Supreme Court will hear a plea to invent a new rule of constitutional law with the potential to put an end to the republic the Constitution established, if not under President Trump, then under some despotic successor. This rule would end statutory protections for independent government officials resisting a president’s efforts to use his power to demolish political opposition and protect his party’s supporters. Elected strongmen around the world have put rules in place allowing them to fire government officials for political reasons and used them to destroy constitutional democracy and substitute authoritarianism. But these authoritarians never had the audacity to ask unelected judges to write such rules, securing their enactment instead through parliamentary acts or a referendum.
Noah Sachs | February 26, 2020
Environmental groups faced a skeptical bench during Monday's argument in two consolidated cases, U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association and Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, as they fought to preserve a 2018 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that had halted an $8 billion, 600-mile natural gas pipeline. At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 permit granted by the U.S. Forest Service to allow the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to cross the George Washington National Forest.
Joel A. Mintz | February 24, 2020
In recent months the Trump administration has intensified its assault on federal environmental safeguards on several fronts. It has proposed drastic reductions in the scope of protections against water and air pollution, lagged in the cleanup of hazardous waste contamination, allowed the continued marketing of toxic herbicides, narrowed the scope of needed environmental impact reviews, ignored and undermined legitimate scientific studies and findings, and dismantled government attempts to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis.
Noah Sachs | February 19, 2020
On Monday, February 24, the Supreme Court will hear argument in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association and Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. These consolidated cases pit a pipeline developer and the U.S. Forest Service against environmental groups that want to halt the pipeline's construction and protect the Appalachian Trail.
Daniel Farber | February 18, 2020
The Little Ice Age wasn't actually an ice age, but it was a period of markedly colder temperatures that began in the 1200s and lasted into the mid-1800s, with the 1600s a particular low point. It was a time when London winter fairs were regularly held on the middle of a frozen Thames river, glaciers grew, and sea ice expanded. That episode of climate disruption may give us some insights into how current global warming may impact society.