Would you live in a flood plain?

[glocke12]

Kind of a weird question I guess, but the floods in Austrailia, and severe floods in my are of PA near the Delware river just made me think about people buying land in flood plains.

I know alot of these are "50 year" or "100 year floods", so are rare, but are also very devastating. Leaving out ALL other factors (social and economic) that may force people to live in these area, Im wondering how many people check flood plain maps when they buy land, and buy anyway realizing the land was in a flood plain, and just don't care, thinking that "it cant happen to them", .

Seeing all the devastation flooding causes, Id never buy land or a house near any place that had even a remote chance of flooding

 

[aristobrat]

AFAIK, anyone in the US buying property in a flood plain is required to have flood insurance now. If that's true, they can't not know.

After seeing the types of flood-resistant houses that Brad Pitt's group is building in New Orleans, I don't think I'd be too worried about living in a flood plain, if I had one of those.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Kind of a weird question I guess, but the floods in Austrailia, and severe floods in my are of PA near the Delware river just made me think about people buying land in flood plains.

They are declared flood plains or watersheds for a reason.

Land values should reflect that designation.

Zoning restrictions rarely allow for a 100-year storm, depending on your local council.

You pays your money, and you takes your choice.

It's not fair, but it's equitable.

 

[dukebound85]

I wouldn't. Nor would I live in hurricane country/tornado country ever again

 

[hazza.jockel]

In Australia (not taking in to account major cities) if you take out flood zones, high bush fire risk zones, drought zones, cyclone zones there aren't many places to live.

You got to risk it to get the biscuit.

 

[renewed]

I wouldn't. Nor would I live in hurricane country/tornado country ever again

I live in all 3.

 

[steve2112]

I live in all 3.

I'm moving to such an area shortly. I got a new job at a location on our coast, so I'm moving down there. And, since we're only 5 years removed from Katrina (Despite what the media would have you believe, New Orleans was NOT the only place hit by Katrina), insurance was a major pain in the neck. They also rarely have tornadoes there, but they aren't as common as the northern parts of the state. I'm excited but a bit nervous about it.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I would tried to avoid it. Most areas put pretty heave restriction on living in a 100 year flood plain and do not allow building in them.

Now that not to say that sometimes flood plains get remapped and houses get moved into them and then are required to buy insurances.

If your house is in a flood plains banks will make flood insurances a condition on the loan.

 

[GoCubsGo]

10% of my property is in a flood plain. If you're smart you'd look at why it's in a flood plain. Some are just there because they were deemed to be in a flood plain 50 years ago and fema hasn't updated the zones.

 

[roadbloc]

Thank goodness Yorkshire is full of hills.

 

[Tonsko]

Haha! When I bought my house in Leeds, I remember being happy that it was at the top of a hill.

That said, the flood plain thing - I think it's just population pressure that's forcing houses to be built on flood plains. It's certainly true for the UK, at any rate.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

Thank goodness Yorkshire is full of hills.

The East Riding isn't - we're very flat and a fair bit of Hull is at/slightly below sea level. Our little house is only just above it, a couple of metres.

When Hull flooded a few years back, the waters reached the bottom of our road but luckily went no further – phew! I had to paddle home, mind.

 

[roadbloc]

Thank goodness West Yorkshire is full of hills.

Fixd.

 

[iGav]

Seeing all the devastation flooding causes, Id never buy land or a house near any place that had even a remote chance of flooding

Building on floodplains isn't the problem, the building of unsuitable structures is.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

Building on floodplains isn't the problem, the building of unsuitable structures is.

Equally, inadequate flood defences.

 

[iGav]

Equally, inadequate flood defences.

Indeed, but flood defences often have secondary and tertiary ramifications too, usually relating to poor planning, and worse execution.

For example, those temporary slot-in flood barriers that some towns use, that might reduce or even prevent flooding for that specific town, but can cause more extensive flooding upstream, and considerably more damage downstream... in essence a bottleneck... followed by a popping of the cork so to speak.

What would help enormously is the dredging (not particularly environmentally friendly I know, but sediment has a tendency to accumulate) of some rivers, and re-establishing tributaries and distributaries whilst building suitable buildings in floodplains, or areas susceptible to flooding.

There was a fascinating programme on a few years back, about some houses that had been designed to float in the advent of a flood, they were anchored to metal-cores so that they wouldn't float away, and all services (sewerage, electricity, water) was routed through these cores, so they weren't even affected either. Unfortunately, I doubt that such an idea would float here, given our preoccupation with all things bricks & mortar.

 

[glocke12]

Equally, inadequate flood defences.

Point taken...but time and again Mother Nature has proven that even the best defenses against her can be overcome.

 

[Jaffa Cake]

What would help enormously is the dredging (not particularly environmentally friendly I know, but sediment has a tendency to accumulate) of some rivers, and re-establishing tributaries and distributaries whilst building suitable buildings in floodplains, or areas susceptible to flooding.

Indeed - the River Hull could do with a fair bit of dredging in places, you can see how bad it is when the tide's out. Mind, that probably wouldn't have helped here during the 2007 floods – rivers bursting their banks wasn't the cause of the flooding.

 

[maflynn]

AFAIK, anyone in the US buying property in a flood plain is required to have flood insurance now. If that's true, they can't not know.

I don't think that's true. I live one mile from the beach, in a town literally surrounded by the water and the zone I'm in is considered moderate. I've not been forced to buy any flood insurance.

 

[0098386]

Thank goodness Yorkshire is full of hills.

West Riding here, sat on top of a hill 900ft up. It's windy sure and it likes to rain a lot, but it'll never flood.
No. I wouldn't live in a flood plain, near a volcano or anything dangerous like that.

 

[Mord]

Thank goodness Yorkshire is full of hills.

Not north yorkshire!

The flooding here can get quite bad, a few times I've had to wade through water to get to university.

 

[aristobrat]

I don't think that's true. I live one mile from the beach, in a town literally surrounded by the water and the zone I'm in is considered moderate. I've not been forced to buy any flood insurance.

I'm in the same situation, but only because I bought my house before FEMA redid the flood maps to mark my property in a zone that requires it.

The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on NFIP maps. The SFHA is the area where the NFIP's floodplain management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. The SFHA includes Zones A, AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, V1-30, VE, and V.

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/nfipkeywords/sfha.shtm

 

[R94N]

I wouldn't but I would rent a place.

 

[Tilpots]

I wouldn't. Nor would I live in hurricane country/tornado country ever again

I live in Hurricane Country and in an area that frequently floods. My house is not in a designated flood zone, though. We are basically surrounded by water and it is one of the biggest reasons the population resides here. If I had the money to buy a home that was on the beach, the river or the Intracoastal Waterway, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It would also mean that I could probably afford the hefty insurance premium, too. I would not however, live directly in an area known to be regularly overtaken by water.

I've lived here for 16 years and have witnessed catastrophic hurricanes, record rainfalls, and 500 year floodings. For the most part, the flood maps are now accurate. The danger areas are known. The areas that are prone to extreme flooding will not be built upon again.

I think the biggest problems we're seeing right now are with the areas that are just getting that 100 year flood. The areas that flood are not known or recorded. After each event in this modern area, I can assure you that things will change in the future. Maps will be marked and preserved for future generations. Codes will change and insurance providers will put big red circles anywhere their money is jeopardized. It's not good business to lose possessions in a flood. Not for the homeowner, the insurance company or the town. The most unfortunate thing is that tragedy has to strike to really learn the lesson.

 

[-aggie-]

I live in all 3.

All 5, including mold and clay.