Today I went to a presentation about how our region could become more resilient in order to be prepared for future natural disasters. Funded by a grant, a panel of urban land-planning experts from all around the United States spent four days interviewing various community leaders and touring the flood-damaged areas. I didn't know how much they could learn in such a short time, but was impressed with how much of what they said made sense.
They depict our river as an ecological corridor as opposed to a place people should be living, and suggested an aggressive program to remove the structures along it that are in the flood plain to get them out of harm's way. This would mean providing incentives to the landowners in the form of buying them out and paying for them to find new homes in a less-risky area (town). And also dis-incentives such as flood plain fees to be paid by the owners of homes and businesses in the risky area. The proceeds would either fund the buy-out program, or provide a sort of insurance fund that would be paid out for future flood recovery.
I am one of those who would be paying that fee, but I can see that it makes sense because why should the taxpayers in the other parts of the county have to carry the burden of our decision to live in a high-risk area? To be fair, they should have to pay a fee for living in areas prone to tornadoes.
Unfortunately, I also live in a wildfire-prone area, so there could be a fee for that, too.
This wasn't the only suggestion made, and whether any of the advice is taken will be something to look out for in years to come.