Tempting The Fates And Other Foolish Behavior: FEMA, Floodplains, Environmental Tabs
Could someone remind me, I seem to have lost my copy of Hubris for Dummies during my last move, but building on a floodplain is still a bad idea, right? I mean, it's a floodplain after all; by definition, it is an area that will eventually be subject to a flooding. It might be 50 years from now, it might be next week, but sooner or later, the floodplain will be...flooded. We see this happen every year in the Pacific Northwest -- the rains come, the flood runs roughshod through a region, and we watch helpless as the victims try to recover from having their lives torn asunder.
That's the human cost of building on a floodplain, the environmental cost is more pernicious still. The very act of building on the Puget Sound river valley, for example, has dire consequences on the fish that live in the neighboring bodies of water. In turn, this could affect the orcas and other whales that feed upon said fish; all due to the fact that, according to the Washington Department of Ecology and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the development of flood plains to become residential areas tends to "destroy stream-side channels that fish use when trying to escape rushing floodwaters. It can also change stream hydrology and increase the pollution that drains into salmon-bearing streams after heavy rains." (Seattle Times, "Battle escalates over building in flood plains" 12/21/2011)
It's a little alarming, yet not surprising, to find out that even in the environmentally conscientious Pacific Northwest, exactly this kind of frowned-upon development is not only happening, but running rampant in our region. The Times reports that several environmental groups are filing for an emergency injunction with a federal judge in order to put a stop to a large amount of development currently taking place in the valley.
These groups first tried to halt development in 2008, when it was discovered that FEMA (of "heckuvajob, Brownie" recent infamy) was allowing floodplain development, insuring the companies that powered it, all without first determining whether any of it would be detrimental to the ecology surrounding the land being worked. The court ruled in the favor of the environmental groups, and work was supposed to decelerate while FEMA found ways to circumvent and offset current and future damage. In the three years since, "not one project has been prevented, delayed, reconfigured or reconsidered," according to an attorney from Earthjustice. Ergo, the injunction.
More maddening still is the justification for continuing to build coming from the usual sources. Primarily this amounts to, "think of the jobs lost." Mike Pattison, of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties put it this way: "The effect would not be widespread [...] but those who [will be affected by it] will lose all utility of their property, even for remodels or small changes."
Assuredly a potentially frustrating outcome for the homebuilders in the region who could be affected by the injunction; I can't imagine the amount of agitation it could inspire in people. But next time, refer to the maxim referred to at the top of this column.
