# Building and rebuilding on flood plains



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Canada overall has done a poor job at every level of government to make clear when a property is located on a flood plain. When someone goes to buy a house, it is very difficult to determine whether or not that house is on a flood plain area. They have also done a very poor job of stopping development in flood plain areas. We see on the news, all the evacuations going on but I don't see anyone saying 'This has to stop'.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5206284/bad-flood-map-canada/

I don't blame any homeowner who did not know their home was located on a flood plain. I blame all levels of government for that. But I DO blame any homeowner who decides to move BACK to a flood plain area once they have become aware that is the case. 

In Quebec right now, the provincial government has offered to buy people out for $200k if they want to move elsewhere. That is what I think should be happening everywhere, not giving people money to re-build in the same location. Of course, how much money each homeowner should be paid is always going to be an issue as people will say, 'my home is worth more than that', etc. Some way of coming up with a market value has to be found and then I think the choice has to be, 'either you take this money and move or we will provide no assistance whatsoever if you choose to return to rebuild in that same location.' Government at every level needs to bite the bullet.

I as a taxpayer do not object to helping people who got into this situation through no real fault of their own. But I do object to spending good money after bad by repeatedly giving them money to go back again. I as a taxpayer am interested in a SOLUTION, not allowing a problem to continue on year after year. 


What are your thoughts?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> I as a taxpayer do not object to helping people who got into this situation through no real fault of their own. But I do object to spending good money after bad by repeatedly giving them money to go back again. I as a taxpayer am interested in a SOLUTION, not allowing a problem to continue on year after year.
> 
> 
> What are your thoughts?


Sort of similar, but I'd restrict it to provincial governments and their taxpayers paying for buyouts, not Canadian taxpayers. It is provinces and their municipal governments which permitted development in the first place on flood plains. I think buyouts could be based on municipal market assessments, at least as a starting point for negotiation. After all, if MVAs can be purported to be directional in terms of value, then MVAs are the basis for buyout negotiations.

There have been buyouts in select areas in the last several years, High River, AB is one example of some areas where homeowners were bought out though I never followed the details/specifics. And there is the long ago example of Inuvik replacing the bulk of Aklavik due to Mackenzie flooding. And I believe there was another example or two in TO with the Humber and Don floodplains after some major hurricane in the 1950s or so. 

One can fault individual homeowners for building on stream banks through the early decades due to wanting waterfront property, i.e. there is no excuse for not understanding the dangers of waterfront property, and before the time of development restrictions, but one has to fault municipalities like High River that permitted wholesale development on flood plains in more recent times, e.g. since the 1950s perhaps.

As an aside, Canada's problems are miniscule compared to the US where rampant development happened everywhere along waterfronts. Whole areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts will have to be abandoned some day. It is so absurd how much money is spent rebuilding beaches, seawalls, etc. after every hurricane. Never mind continued problems along the Mississippi.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I remember one city where they expropriated all the houses on the river’s flood plain. Once the city had all the houses, they then proceeded to sell the land (different election) to a developer who turned it into high end housing. Huge profits for both the city and the developers, not so good for the original homeowners who got a poor buyout relatively speaking. 

All in the name of solving the flooding issue of course...


----------



## Gruff403 (Jan 30, 2019)

Southern AB 2013 flood was an eye opener. As a teacher my job was to call each of my homeroom kids to make sure they were ok. Heartbreaking stories to hear. Priority should be updating these maps and make it known to homeowners you are on a floodplain. One article I read said that 90% of homeowners should now be able to get overland flood insurance protection. This insurance did not really exist before. If you are on a known flood plain you must buy overland insurance. If you chose to rebuild on a flood plain and can't get insurance you should get no assistance. We helped a friend who had built beside a small creek during the flood. The high water mark was three feet up the drywall on his main floor. Alberta Gov't bought him out but I can't remember how much he got. He moved and bought on higher ground. One family post flood rebuilt on same spot and then built a massive flood wall around their property. We joked the wall was worth more than the house. If you live in the forest can you get forest fire insurance?


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

There is usually some level of personal responsability. I live 3 km from the Saint Lawrence and I still checked the elevation before buying the place. Granted, it's probably easier to do today than it was 30 years ago but still... some of the places people build are ridiculous.

I think there's a whole continuum from "it was reasonable not to worry about flooding when you bought" to sheer stupidity. While I agree we should stop paying to rebuild in the same location and help people move instead, I strongly disagree about buying out some places at market or municipal value. An upper bound seems reasonable as there are very few places where people can claim they were not aware of water nearby. Most of the time, they moved there in part because of that very water (at least in Quebec, I don't know how things were in Alberta).

I have a hard time feeling sorry when I see this and this. I have more sympathy for the people further inland who got flooded because the whole area sits too low. But it's not like that body of water wasn't there 50 years ago.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

off.by.10 said:


> I have a hard time feeling sorry when I see this and this.


Indeed. That is the definition of 'stupid', or at least 'you are on your own - quit your bitching and don't ask for help'


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

In the USA, many coastal areas are prone to flooding from both rivers and hurricane surges. Each jurisdiction has it's own building codes, but many require at least new homes to be built with main floor high enough that it won't be flooded. Some call them stilt houses. 

I recall one small town on the ICW where home owners could get government grants to raise their houses. We saw some of that going on. They jacked the entire house up about 10ft and then supported them. Seems something that could be done here instead of buying out the homeowners. 

In Louisiana, there are areas that are well below the level of the Mississippi river and Lake Pontchartrain. Levees keep the lake/river water out and they rely on large pumps to continually remove storm water. Some of those failed a while back. Don't know why people live there. More stupid than our flood plain dwellers.

I see no problem living close to water if homes are built to accommodate occasional flooding. Our house is about 20ft from Lake Ontario! But high enough that it would never be flooded. Some near us were flooded a year or two ago when Lake levels were extremely high.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

FEMA in the USA have a program for disaster relief, and we hear about that. But they also have a program for natural disaster mitigation. 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1904-25045-0186/fema_mitigation_ideas_final508.pdf

Funnily enough, the picture on the cover of the mitigation guide shows a home on stilts:










Maybe we could learn something from them.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Flood plain information does not help when new records are hit with respect to water levels. It just raises up the height of the flood plain, going forward, but one cannot really fault the people who bought a property that was above the older flood plain level. These new levels, at least in Ottawa, have never been seen before. At least not on record.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Gruff403 said:


> If you live in the forest can you get forest fire insurance?


 The building code should be changed. In the past there have been towns where all the houses have burnt down except for a few houses. The one thing they all had in common was metal roofs if memory correct I think slate roofs also. Metal roof with vegetation away from the house plus a gravity fed sprinkler system will increase the odds of house not burning.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Flood plain information does not help when new records are hit with respect to water levels.


It does if used sensibly. If your land is low level and adjacent to rivers that are known to flood, make sure the living level is *well* above the maximum known high level. Maybe 10ft above or more, like the house pictured above. A lot of low level waterfront homes used to cottages. Usually up on low level posts. Then those were pulled down and expensive homes built on same footprint. This without thought of flooding. These days, at least in our area, there are codes for new construction that prevent that. 

I am puzzled by the problems the Kashechewan Cree have:



> Kashechewan is a Cree community on the James Bay coast. Every spring, its residents evacuate temporarily to escape the flooding Albany River. The 2,500 members of the community are staying in Timmins, Kapuskasing, Cochrane and other towns in southern Ontario until the flooding subsides.
> 
> The evacuations, funded by the federal government, cost between $18 million and $22 million every year, according to Solomon.


When they originally chose to live on that low level land, did they not know it could flood? Or were they given that land by the governments of the time and did not chose it themselves? Is that why the government takes responsibility? 
Before settlers came and took their land, presumably the indigenous people were more transient and lived in more temporary accommodation? And just moved to higher ground when the floods came?


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

With less than five minutes google searching ... it does not seem to be a first nations choice but TPTB.



> In 1957, *officials forcibly relocated* the Anglican group to the northern shoreline of the river, *despite it being flood prone*, as journalist Alexandra Shimo described in her book “Invisible North.”


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-you-need-to-know-about-kashechewan-1.3350150
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/...n-evacuated-every-spring-17-years_a_23719051/


There is supposed to be a commitment to relocating them ... but if it goes anything like the Manitoba first nations whose land was intentionally flooded to save Winnipeg and surrounding non-First Nations properties, I seem to recall the first active relocation was about a decade in.

Mercury cleanup in Grassy Narrows starting in 2018 for mercury dumped in the '70's and earlier with the Ontario gov't knowing that mercury was visible in the soil in the '90's does not give me much hope there will be action on the relocation anytime soon.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...y-narrows-for-decades-but-kept-it-secret.html


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

agent99 said:


> It does if used sensibly. If your land is low level and adjacent to rivers that are known to flood, make sure the living level is *well* above the maximum known high level. Maybe 10ft above or more,


What if the river rises 11 feet above the previous flood plain? Where does this end. Every foot of height now requires stairs. If you are like me, and most are, less stairs in life is almost an objective in itself.

I am just saying we are being Monday morning quarterbacks on this. It is easy to look back and be brilliant. If a person had a house/cottage above the previous flood plain, lets pipe down the blame, when Monday morning we noticed a new historical river level was produced. This was a biblical flood. Let's give some of these people a break.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Manitobans have been leaders in flood management. Thank you, Duff Roblin, for your vision! 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...ts-solutions-work-in-eastern-canada-1.5117566


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> What if the river rises 11 feet above the previous flood plain?


11ft??

My comments were meant to be forward looking. What governments and owners can and should do to cope with unusual flood events. 

For those who wish to live on properties that could be flooded, having to walk up stairs or a ramp is a small price to pay. Hundreds of thousands of coastal homes are elevated to cope with potential flooding. It just makes sense. But if stairs are a problem for you, then that would be a good reason not to live in a such a home or even in a typical 2-story home or a house with a basement.

FEMA published this guide to retrofitting existing homes. They use a 500yr flood level as a guide to height needed. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/rebuild/mat/sec5.pdf
My thoughts are that these techniques might be a less costly and more acceptable alternative to buying out homes in flood prone areas when owners really do not want to move.

I tried to find a program in Canada that would be equivalent to FEMA's natural disaster mitigation program, and particularly wrt to flooding. Couldn't find much. Just the NDMP which appears to have minimal funding as is due to end in 2020. Maybe others know of other initiatives? https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/index-en.aspx

Added. Good info on Manitoba HeyJude.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Reading through the comments so far, I see just what I expected to see. Comments concentrating on who is to blame and why, rather than comments on what should be done about it. Anyone can have something to say about the problem, but where are the comments about a solution?

Government at all levels have a responsibility to the people to do what is in the best interest of all people, regardless of whether or not an individual agrees with that or not. For example, even when under MANDATORY evacuation orders, some people still refuse to move out of their home for various reasons. So why call it 'mandatory' if you are not prepared to enforce that? People put their own lives at risk but also then the lives of others who end up having to go in and rescue them. That has to stop, people should be forcibly removed if necessary.

If you look at areas where floods have occurred in the past, it is reasonable to say that regardless of whether it was a 'once in a lifetime' flood supposedly or not, it has been proven that the area can flood. Yet you see the majority of those flooded, returning to the same place after the flood subsides. That has to stop. A flooded area should be declared by government to no longer be suitable for habitation and that enforced. No returning even if someone is willing to pay out of their own pocket to rebuild. The people should be given an assessed value for their property and that's the end of it.

People do all kinds of things that are not in their own best interest. It is part of governments jobs to protect them against themselves. Why else do we have speed limits on highways for example? Do we need to tell people how fast it is safe to drive because if we didn't they would drive too fast and kill themselves? YES, that is why we have to tell them a limit, to protect them from themselves, NOT just to protect others. 

But what we have are governments that are afraid to lose votes and campaign contributions by telling people, NO, you cannot build your home or a developer build a subdivision, near the water. NO, it doesn't matter if you want to, it isn't safe and we are not going to let you build there anymore than we would let a child play unsupervised by the edge of a swimming pool. If you are going to act like a child, we are going to act like a parent. You don't get to decide for yourself. That is part of the job of a government's (at any level) job, to stop us from doing stupid things.

Climate change is happening as we all know and these kinds of things are only going to continue. The 'once in a century' floods are now becoming the 'once in 2 years' floods. Doing more of the same always produces more of the same. Expecting people to behave differently when the evidence is right in front of us that they don't, they just go back again, is not going to change anything. Government's have to act differently if the people will not.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

agent99 said:


> 11ft??
> 
> My comments were meant to be forward looking. What governments and owners can and should do to cope with unusual flood events.
> 
> ...


I see the apparent logic in your proposed solutions agent99 but also have some difficulty with 'stilt' houses from a practical standpoint. If an area is likely to flood, why allow any building at all? Suppose you are sitting high and dry in your stilt house when the flood comes. Then on day 2 you have a heart attack. You know the fire department, ambulance, or anyone else is not coming right? You agreed to that when you built on stilts right? You do not expect them to risk their lives for you right?

So the flood comes and you are sitting high and dry. Do you have enough food and water to sit for a week? Are you OK with your car left parked down below being a write-off? Are you OK with it being perhaps several weeks before you can get out of your house? Does it not bother you that you cannot flush your toilet? What arrangements have you made for those eventualities?

Putting a house on stilts may be fine IF you are not living in it when the flood comes but there are still a whole lot of practical problems that will arise if you are living in it. It is better to just not build there at all. You suggest this as, "might be a less costly and more acceptable alternative to buying out homes in flood prone areas when owners really do not want to move." I see that as an 'out', a supposed compromise. But one that when examined in practical terms, just doesn't work well. An attempt to avoid 'biting the bullet' and doing what WILL work regardless of circumstances.

A clear and simply policy at all levels of government is needed. Stop new building, do not allow any returning after flooding where houses already exist. The only 2 things that need to be done, to solve the problem.

I as a taxpayer am prepared to pay my share to move those who would need to move but I am NOT prepared to pay for people moving back to anything build new after today or for people moving back to existing houses after today. No new building, no returning.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

heyjude said:


> Manitobans have been leaders in flood management. Thank you, Duff Roblin, for your vision!
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mani...ts-solutions-work-in-eastern-canada-1.5117566


Not sure everyone would agree with some being displaced for around eight years or so.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-residents-now-feel-forgotten/article5621936/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_St._Martin_First_Nation
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/evacuees-set-to-return-8-years-after-flood-486219861.html


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

agent99 said:


> 11ft??
> 
> My comments were meant to be forward looking. What governments and owners can and should do to cope with unusual flood events ...
> FEMA published this guide to retrofitting existing homes. They use a 500yr flood level as a guide to height needed ...


You are aware that the dam in Quebec that is of concern has already exceeded the 1,000 year flood level, right?



> ... the dam at Chute Bell was built to withstand what he called a millennial flood.
> “That means a flood that happens every 1,000 years,” he said. Hydro workers discovered earlier in the day the millennial level of water had been reached.


https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/...00-year-flood-happening-in-quebec-1004162482/


Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

agent99 said:


> 11ft??
> 
> My comments were meant to be forward looking. What governments and owners can and should do to cope with unusual flood events.


I understand that but you are assuming this current level is it and it won't go more then 10 feet higher in the future. If it does, even what you suggest will be insufficient. That is what I am saying. We are simply looking back and feeling like these home owners are idiots and we are incredibly brilliant. 

This was a record, all time flood. It has never been higher. Of course, if it needs to be 10 feet higher, then using stairs for 10 more feet is required, but if it only needs to be 3 feet higher, that would be a much more enjoyable property when it comes to stair. We cannot know what mother nature throws at us in the future. The higher the better for that. The lower the better for everything else. There is no correct number but "higher then current flood plain". That is all we can go by...and most did.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

off.by.10 said:


> ... I have a hard time feeling sorry when I see this and this. I have more sympathy for the people further inland who got flooded because the whole area sits too low. But it's not like that body of water wasn't there 50 years ago.


I partly agree. But some municipality gave the owner or developer permission to build there; and the provincial governments direct the municipalities on what they have to do for land use planning. The original owners/buyers may have had no reason to think they were in a flood plain.

When I do fault the owners is when they persist in rebuilding in the same place afterwards.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

agent99 said:


> .... I am puzzled by the problems the Kashechewan Cree have:
> 
> When they originally chose to live on that low level land, did they not know it could flood? Or were they given that land by the governments of the time and did not chose it themselves? Is that why the government takes responsibility?
> Before settlers came and took their land, presumably the indigenous people were more transient and lived in more temporary accommodation? And just moved to higher ground when the floods came?


I think the long delay in relocating the people of Kashechewan is that the majority of residents refused to move. I think they finally signed a relocation agreement a couple of years ago. But that takes time to carry out because of the buildings and services that need constructing. Given the sad history of forced relocations of aboriginal peoples, I don't blame them for being suspicious. But someone needed to tell them "Wake up and smell the coffee! It isn't going to get any better! And no amount of flood mitigation is going to fix it!" But it took a long time for them to be convinced. And ordering them out was back to treating them as dependents with no rights.

In the meantime we have spent hundreds of millions on repairs that are now almost literally going down the drain; and the Band is suffering from number of public health issues, many of which can be traced back to the water problem.

It's a classic problem in First Nations affairs. The Band members understandably wonder "Is this really the best advice for our future? Or is it just another example of the White Man s****ing us?"


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Built into this particular FN affair is Martin's gov't in 2005 agreeing over ten years to move them 30 Km away. Harper's gov't is reported to have nixed that as moving them 240 Km from wilderness to Timmins, ON was deemed to be better.

If this were Bracebridge ON residents who signed away their flooded home to relocate 30 Km away to somewhere similar but on payment date were told to get paid they had to relocate to Hamilton ON, would you expect them to agree/move?

That's without considering there are reports that the Kashechewan Cree raised flooding as in issue with gov't back in the '70's about the location that was forced on them, against their wishes.


You are right that tons of money is being wasted with this year's evacuation estimated to cost between $20 to $40 million before adding any dike enhancements, water treatment or repairs.



Cheers


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> You are aware that the dam in Quebec that is of concern has already exceeded the 1,000 year flood level, right?
> 
> 
> https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/...00-year-flood-happening-in-quebec-1004162482/
> ...


A lot of places seem to exceed 500 and 1000 year floods on a regular basis, so maybe the people who determine what a 1000 year flood is are not using the correct data.

Or, you can ignore the bad predictions and just blame it on Climate Change...that's an easy out for people who can't do their job and seemingly pull random numbers out of their arse.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> I see the apparent logic in your proposed solutions agent99 but also have some difficulty with 'stilt' houses from a practical standpoint.


The term stilts might be misleading. They are often houses that have raised living quarters with ground levels that are usable, but designed to drain any water that enters. 

You may not like the idea but thousands and thousands of Americans who live in flood prone areas live in "stilt" houses. Many jurisdictions require this type of home for new construction in designated areas. I once visited a small town in North Carolina (Belhaven) that has borne the brunt of flooding regularly for a century or more. More recently, the town has been transformed. Many homes and even municipal buildings like their town library have been raised - mostly by one full floor level . The floods still come, but the buildings remain intact. Residents get sufficient warning, and the smart ones move out during the relative short time their neighborhoods are flooded. Not perfect, but it works and is the solution chosen by FEMA. 

Interestingly, in areas close to coast where hurricane surges are possible, they do require silts. This is to allow the surge to pass under the homes without being held up with resultant higher water levels. In some coastal areas, there is a wall of concrete high rises - just the wrong thing. But even those now have just parking on the lower floors for same reason as stilts. 

We have blizzards, ice storms, droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods... Many live in areas where these occur. You can't avoid them altogether. We just learn to adapt.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

The Ottawa Citizen had a very good article this week on common misunderstandings about flood risk. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/mapping-flood-risk-is-a-never-ending-calculation

Part of the problem is a common misunderstanding of the laws of chance. 100-yr flood height is just an estimate of average frequency over a very long period of time. The probability of having a 100-yr flood is the same every year, no matter if you had one the previous year. It's like rolling dice.

Other problems have to do with how good the data base is that is going into the prediction model. In most places we don't have good historical climate records for 100 years, let alone 1000. Although not entirely analogous, I know that some roof collapses from snow/rain loads (I think in the early '80's) caused NRC to re-examine the climatic assumptions that went into their tables of design snow loads for buildings. They concluded that their probability calculations were based on what had been an unusually stable period of weather for about 30 years or more. When they started digging back through pre-war historical records, they found that much greater variability was the norm.

It is quite possible that the modelling that allows them to create 500-year and 1000-year flood probabilities has fundamental flaws in it. 

Another problem is that we keep changing the environment; draining wetlands and installing hard surfaces that let water run off faster into streams and rivers.

Climate change may enter into it, though the experts tell us not to hastily draw conclusions about local weather from overall global climate change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My view is that if the government is responsible for where the communities are located and where people live, they have an obligation to fix the situation.

On the other hand, if people choose to live in the forest, beside a river or on floodplain...........that is between them and their insurance company.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> My view is that if the government is responsible for where the communities are located and where people live, they have an obligation to fix the situation.
> 
> On the other hand, if people choose to live in the forest, beside a river or on floodplain...........that is between them and their insurance company.


That is true. However, insurance companies need some rules with which to evaluate risk. Such as compliance with by-laws and building codes. Another would be distance from fire hydrant. Along with other factors that are dependent on government laws and infrastructure. 

If for example, the local building codes or by-laws required new dwellings to have their main floor a certain level above the flood plain level (which is already above the normal water level), then builders simply would not get a building permit unless they complied. Insurance would not come into it. If an owner had an existing home in such an area, they may be able to get insurance, at a price. Maybe so high that they would be encouraged to modify there home to meet current codes?

We see this going on in the USA, but even where we live in Ontario, the rules for new homes near Lake Ontario are such that there are what appear to be prime waterfront building lots sitting vacant because it is too difficult to build a conventional home while meeting the local building codes and by-laws. Governments do have a part to play.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

How intelligent does someone have to be to realize that building on a lake bed is not a good idea? Yet that is exactly what was allowed in the case of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac. Anyone remember from their high school French what 'sur' translates to in English? It's ON as in 'on the lake' and in this case it means literally ON the lake, not on the lake's shore.

Now are the people who bought there going to move back ONTO the lake? Should they be allowed to move back ONTO the lake? Why did they buy there in the first place?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sainte-marthe-sur-le-lac-history-1.5118649

It's easy for the home buyer to get fooled even if they do their due diligence to check on flood probability as the following link shows.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mont...-laval-man-homeless-and-20k-in-debt-1.4656114

Note the common reason mentioned in both of those links above. Property tax. Letting a developer build brings in more property taxes to the municipality.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I vaguely recall a massive flood along the Mississippi. I think it was 1993. If I recall correctly, Clinton told flood victims if they relocate to higher ground, you will get federal aid, but if you rebuild on the flood plain, you will get no aid. 

My view is move to higher ground, or you are on your own.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

agent99 said:


> ... However, insurance companies need some rules with which to evaluate risk. Such as compliance with by-laws and building codes. Another would be distance from fire hydrant. Along with other factors that are dependent on government laws and infrastructure ...


Maybe it varies by area?

The insurance company that has my house insurance measured things like distance to fire hydrant and what the house was like before issuing a policy.





agent99 said:


> ... If for example, the local building codes or by-laws required new dwellings to have their main floor a certain level above the flood plain level (which is already above the normal water level), then builders simply would not get a building permit unless they complied ...


Again I am guess YMMV as in order to build his cottage/future retirement home, my former co-worker had to have everything signed off that he was above the 100 year flood mark (above the normal water level).




agent99 said:


> ... We see this going on in the USA, but even where we live in Ontario, the rules for new homes near Lake Ontario are such that there are what appear to be prime waterfront building lots sitting vacant because it is too difficult to build a conventional home while meeting the local building codes and by-laws. Governments do have a part to play.


So what you are saying is that most of the issue is from grandfathered houses then?


Cheers


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

From a historical background perspective of government policy, I have a friend who worked for the federal government in Flood Hazard Mapping in the '70s (I think it was a branch of Environment Canada). But he found it very frustrating because neither provinces nor municipalities would act on their recommendations.


----------

