• fresh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They do this in the US. I’m torn though. Doesn’t this just incentivize building in high risk flood areas?

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most towns are already built on flood plains because historically it was good farmland. Look at the Fraser Valley in BC. Nearly two million people all living on one big flood plain.

      Look at the towns around you. Are they built in a wide, flat bottom valley? That’s probably a flood plain. Every town I can think of around me is built in the valley bottom first, then only goes up the hills as development grows over time.

      • fresh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a good point. Maybe subsidized insurance should be available for existing developed areas. But should we subsidize new sprawl in flood plains? It’s also a vicious cycle because the more wet land we pave, the worse flooding risk is for everyone.

    • yannic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Maybe, but certainly does help the unfortunate souls who already live in areas where the provincial governments have purposefully diverted flood waters, who wouldn’t otherwise have been flooded.

      They’re fine taking the bullet to save hundreds or thousands more homes. They’re not fine footing the recovery bill.