[Vision2020] Makes Too Much Sense To Be Politically Viable

[Art Deco]

Rebuilding after Sandy is too big a risk
By *Carl Safina*, Special to CNN
updated 8:00 AM EST, Tue November 13, 2012
 [image: Debris from Superstorm Sandy is seen on Thursday in Long Branch,
New Jersey.]
Debris from Superstorm Sandy is seen on Thursday in Long Branch, New
Jersey.
 *
STORY HIGHLIGHTS*

   - Safina: New York, New Jersey has been hit with two hurricanes in two
   years
   - He says the two choices are to barricade the coast or retreat
   - Safina: Rebuilding with federally subsidized insurance puts lives,
   investments in danger

 *Editor's note: Carl Safina is a MacArthur Fellow, Pew Fellow and
Guggenheim Fellow, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University and
president of Blue Ocean Institute. He is the author of six books and many
articles about nature and the sea, and hosts "Saving the Ocean with Carl
Safina"<http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/13/opinion/safina-rebuild-sandy/index.html?hpt=hp_t3>on
PBS television and online.
*

*(CNN)* -- Superstorm Sandy has caused more damage, death and homelessness
in New York and New Jersey than any climate-related event in living memory.
Yet with two damaging hurricanes two years in a row, and with what science
is telling us, this does not feel like a once-in-a-lifetime event. It feels
like a trend.

With what we know about rising sea level and what we understand about the
rate of world warming and how tropical storms pull their strength from the
temperature of the ocean, Sandy feels like a very harshly spoken word to
the wise.

And so the answer to the question "What should we do next?" may be
difficult, with truly profound implications. I think we really have only
two viable long-term building options: 1) Barricade. 2) Retreat.

Rebuilding is not a viable option. And what would we barricade? The whole
Long Island to southern New Jersey area? Boston to Washington? The East
Coast?

The Netherlands relies on dikes to keep out the sea. There are gates in
England to close rivers to storm surges of the kind that last week blew
open my friend's garage door on 22nd Street east of 11th Avenue in New York
City, suddenly washing him to the back of his studio, submerging him
briefly, floating tons of his art-making tools and ruining decades of
drawings and the tools of his trade. Others fared worse, of course.

One of my neighbors nearly drowned trying to walk from her home to higher
ground half a mile away; two unknown heroes in survival suits wading in
waist-high water appeared at the height of the storm and pulled her and her
swimming dogs into a canoe and walked them to safety. Her house remains
habitable, unlike many others along the coast of Long Island, New York and
New Jersey.

By flooding areas that few suspected were within the reach of seawater,
Sandy told us that the "coast" is a wider ribbon than we thought it was
last week.

So for the hard questions: Should people rebuild? Should the whole country
pay for it?

I certainly love shoreside living. I love walking the beach in the morning
with my dogs. I love my boat and the people at Montauk's Westlake Marina
where I keep it.
I love many facets of the always dynamic water borderlands, the birds and
fishes, the turtles and dolphins and other creatures who, in their seasons,
draw tight to our coastline. There is magic. And part of that magic is its
timelessness. And part of the timelessness is that as the coast changes,
the coast is what remains. And yet it moves.

I have federal flood insurance, thank you. But really, it's time you
considered cutting me off.

I am not against people taking their chances along the shore. Risk is part
of what draws us. But the risk should be ours to take and bear if we want
to.

Federal flood insurance is a counterproductive way for the rest of the
country to subsidize people -- putting billions of dollars and millions of
lives at continuous risk, encouraging wholly inappropriate development. And
it encourages larger, more expensive homes (often second homes) than fewer
people would build if their insurance premiums reflected real risk.

In fact, few private insurers will touch most of these places. Let us think
twice, fully comprehend that the stakes are ours alone, and then let those
of us willing to risk it take our chances.

The government should at this time help victims get their lives back on
track. But no federal dollars should magically appear for rebuilding in
flood-prone areas. The spots that flood will take repeated hits. Everyone
knows this. To help people rebuild in those places is to help put lives and
investment in harm's way. It's foolish.

Where I live, the houses that stayed dry are the ones just high enough to
let water flow around into the extensive, protected wetlands. The houses
that flooded stand where water goes on its way to wetlands.

Wetlands are wet for a reason. We would be wise to rebuild in ways that let
water flow around dwellings into restored wetlands. Then, two things would
start happening:

One: Wetlands, recovered oyster reefs, fish nurseries and wildlife would
all be part of a revitalized coastal protection strategy that
simultaneously includes recovery of valuable living resources.

Two: The taxpaying public could begin to regain access to the coast for
recreation, access too often denied by private development that is largely
enabled by taxpayer-funded federal flood insurance.

Eliminating taxpayer-funded flood insurance to people now insured in low,
flood-prone areas (including where I live) can be done compassionately,
honoring existing insured persons with funding in the aftermath of this
wreckage.

But importantly, insurance that would up to now go for rebuilding should be
redirected toward relocation and resettlement. That is easier said; for
many, relocation would be wrenching. But losing your home or you life can
be wrenching, too.

Insurance for new building in flood-prone areas should be ended. People who
really want to take their chances should do just that, or pay real
commercial insurance premiums if they can find a willing insurer.
Eventually even Lloyd's of London will likely decide it's had enough.
Insurers must be realistic about risk in ways politicians don't have to be.

Will we choose a wiser course that recognizes that we're still in the path
of the next big storm? I wouldn't bet on it.

The nonviable option -- to keep rebuilding all the time -- is what people
will likely choose. From a decision-making viewpoint, it's easier to make
no decision. But the frequency of big storms appears likely to increase in
the Northeast. It's not a time for easy decisions, because we won't be
faced with easy events.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121113/49b68ca6/attachment.html>