Tom,

They won't let us build a nuclear power plant within the limits of the 100 year flood plain of it's cooling water source, why should the government allow homes to be built within a 20-40 year flood plain? The only thing that will ever stop that insanity is to make the insurance prohibitively expensive (annual premium = house value * 1.1 / flood plain level : a $200,000 home within the 20 year flood plain pays $11,000 per year for the flood insurance ). That land should be restricted to things like park land or agricultural use.

I grew up in Missouri 20 miles from the Mississippi River, every spring there were calls for volunteers to come help sandbag all the downtown areas of cities that are just stupidly close to the river.

I've seen plenty of CA homes built on the sides of hills that aren't still in the location where they were originally built. Yeah, they had a good view while it lasted, but why should my taxes or insurance rates be affected to bail out those people when a heavy rain hits?

>There is no way that I would live in the Sacramento Delta area or any similar place. Why do local, state and federal governments allow properties to be built in a flood plain, on top of an earthquake fault, on the side of an unstable hill or on pillars on a beach? It does help real estate agents and brokers plus financial intuitions and insurance companies (to some extent). Think of all the monies generated by such events. The property tax alone makes it worthwhile.
>
>People have been getting flooded out of homes on the Mississippi Delta for more than a hundred years and in many cases rebuild only to await next years flood.
>
>If the government does not want to be responsible then people had better wake up, which is not a bad idea anyway! :)