Houston also let a lot of people build on areas that were almost sure to flood later, without any accompanying regulation around insurance or meaningful notification on subsequent sale. So some of that more liberal policy didn't work out well.
Most metropolitan public transit systems receive only about 50% of their income through ticket prices, the rest come from subsidies in various forms. That doesn't mean those public transit systems are dumb and useless, they add a lot of economic value to their cities, it's just they can't recover that value add through ticket prices alone.
Now, back to Japan's privatized railways, they also get about 50% of their income through ticket sales, however, crucially, the railways own the land around the stations, where they run hotels, grocery stores and whatnot in addition to renting. This allows them to capture some of the value add of the railways through higher land values, and enables them to work without subsidies.
This is nice and all, but probably quite hard to replicate in other countries; What you gonna do, have the government expropriate the most valuable land in the cities and give it to the railway companies? Yeah, that will go down really well...
All I can find is this:
https://www.floodsmart.gov/flood-insurance/requirements
>Homes and businesses in high-risk flood areas with government-backed mortgages are required to have flood insurance.
Which makes sense. I've never seen a government requirement for insurance for a loss only the asset's owner will incur.
"If you receive disaster relief funds following a disaster declared by the president, that money often comes with a caveat that you buy flood insurance to cover the cost of repairs or a replacement building if it is in a high-risk area for flooding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency requires that you maintain flood insurance on the property for as long as you own it. You’re also required to notify the next owner of the requirement if you sell the property. If you fail to cover your home with flood insurance after you receive federal disaster aid, you’re ineligible to receive future relief."
Most of the issues as-of-late have been areas that didn't previously flood. The areas which flood change as development increases.
Houston also has pretty substantial regulation around flood mitigation and such these days. I'm not sure how that relates to this article in any way, which is focused on zoning, minimum lot size changes, and neighborhood-based opt-out on loosened regulations.
Most flood mitigation regulations are essentially zoning/planning/building permit related. They include restrictions on impermeable surface area, lot grading, etc. Let's say you cut lot size in half and are essentially doubling impermeable surfaces. That water has to go somewhere. This can increase the amount of run off and the chance of flash flooding. It can also complicate grading since existing houses might have been graded on the assumption that their runoff can go to the other side of the lot... where the new house now exists.
So they are connected.
natural ground cover is beneficial in many ways over impervious surfaces so incentivize the former and disincentivize (rather than prohibit) the latter. if you want to cover your whole lot with concrete, go for it, but expect to pay for the negative externalities of that.
"but expect to pay for the negative externalities of that."
But what do you think that money will actually do? Is it going to prevent issues? I don't think so. It won't even cover the costs of actual damages in many cases.
It happened. Lots of the flood plain homes that were destroyed in Hurricane Harvey were not flood insured. One of the reasons cited was lax updating of maps, another was builders gaming the system, another was loopholes for land near flood management reservoirs, etc. Things that happen less often if the local government is active around land use regulations.
And, in fact, Houston and Harris county did enact a bunch of new ordinances around all of this after Harvey.
https://wga-llp.com/blog/city-of-houston-adopts-new-floodpla...
I could go on, not sure how much of this is really Houston's fault, the only flood insurance program is federal and they exert so much influence because they do establish the requirements for ~everyone who has a mortgage. Feds should probably take the lead on this.
Also Houston is just really flat to begin with, basically at sea level.
[1] i.e., the land that is intentionally flooded to prevent worse floods from happening downstream.
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-flood-zone-floodplain-...
I live in Uk, and this sounds downright fraudulent. Its basically knowingly selling defective product.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf
Venice isn't just dealing with sea level rise, it's also sinking into the sea due to ground water pumping.
As sea level rises we are probably going to have to find ways to get water back into the aquifers faster. Both to stop subsidence and to keep it out of the oceans. More the former than the latter, but here are some numbers:
The surface area of the oceans is about 361.9 million square kilometers. Since a millimeter is a millionth of a kilometer, every millimeter of sea level rise is over 361.9 km^3 of water. The USGS pegged our aquifers as down 800-1000 km^3 in 2008 an the rate per year is over 25 km^3, and different sources seem to say we're now globally somewhere around 300-400 km^3 net loss in ground water. Per year.
And in the worst places the ground is sinking 2 feet per year due to pumping.
Is that number accurate? Thats would be bonkers, any kinf of infrastructurr or houses would crumble it it's foundations move at that rate.
Just checked here in Austin and it was last updated in 2016. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/availabilitySearch?addcommunity=...
I'm never buying a house that isn't on a hill. I want to literally be able to see where any water would run away. I don't know why anyone would buy a low-lying house now, except if they were financially constrained.