New maps reveal post-flood migration patterns across the US

41 pointsposted a month ago
by toomuchtodo
(kinder.rice.edu)

12 Comments

ljsprague

a month ago

>The maps also show which people relocated by accepting a federal buyout and which ones relocated on their own. Nationwide, we see the vast majority of movers, about 14 out of every 15, are not participants in the federal buyout program. They are neighbors who relocated through conventional real estate transactions.

Doesn't that mean someone else moved in?

bell-cot

a month ago

Sure sounds like it:

> Our new national maps of who relocates and where they go after a flood show that most Americans who move from buyout areas stay local. However, we also found that the majority of them — including thousands across Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties — give up their home to someone else, either selling it or leaving a rental home, rather than taking a government buyout offer. That transfers the risk to a new resident, leaving the community still facing future costly risks.

bahiaFC

a month ago

>The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been funding such efforts for decades through its property buyout program. It has invested nearly $4 billion to purchase and raze approximately 45,000 flood-prone homes nationwide, most of them since 2001.

D___R___

23 days ago

Really nice analysis. Did you notice if seasonality behaves differently across unit types or price segments?

ggm

a month ago

Surely some FEMA buyback is also fire risk? Not that most isn't flood related, but there are other reasons people get asked not to rebuild.

defrost

a month ago

FEMA flood buyback schemes ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN11911 ) operate under a broader umbrella: FEMA Hazard Mitigation ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46989 )

Hazard mitigation for flooding is essentially to not be there on a flood plain when the water comes.

Sure, some might take a Queensland Australia approach and build houses on stilts for the water to run under. Some locations might benefit from water diversion.

In general, though, there's too much dirt to shift, to much water to pump, etc. to realistically do anything other than be flooded or be elsewhere.

New Orleans flooded despite having an army build levees.

Fire hazards are generally easier to mitigate - enforce fire breaks, enforce fuel load reduction schemes, etc.

Give this time - where I live the moisture content levels of the forest floors are at an all time low in recorded history - the fire hazard is rising and the suitability of adjacent land for cropping is falling.

As that trend continues I'd expect to see some state or federal assistence toward relocating productive agriculture to regions formally too wet and boggy to crop.

toomuchtodo

a month ago

Original title "FEMA buyouts vs. risky real estate: New maps reveal post-flood migration patterns across the US" compressed to fit within title limits.

throw__away7391

a month ago

This article claims that that FEMA’s buyout investments “pay off” at roughly $4–$6 saved for every $1 spent. It includes a link to a study, but nowhere in the study does it say this. Instead this is an aggregated estimate for hazard mitigation overall, not a result specific to the FEMA buyout program.

ulrischa

a month ago

[flagged]

defrost

a month ago

Fairly typical university public outreach "propaganda" in which grant recipients are encouraged by various means to write about their work in plain language for a general public and to be copublished both on a university public blog and elsewhere such as (say) the New Scientist, or (as in this case) The Conversation

* https://theconversation.com/fema-buyouts-vs-risky-real-estat...

nephihaha

a month ago

Well, I was thinking it was going to be about Noah. But apparently not. ;)