Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1\4 <br /> <br />ROGER A. PIELKE, JR. <br /> <br />literature is that society has learned through experience what actions will lead to <br />j reduction in vulnerability to floods, but that these 'thoughtful pa~t recommen: <br />jalions of how to attain flood mitigation had never been a~equately ~mpleme~ted <br />'Changnon 1996, p. 312). The central thesis of this paper IS that while exper~en~e <br />has provid~d sufficient knowledge of steps necessary to begin to reduce socIety s <br />vulnerability to floods, society lacks an accurate understanding of the nat~re of the <br />flood problem itself.* Because decision makers lack knowledge of the, policy prob- <br />lem, potentia] policy solutions developed by flood experts are, often lm~lement~~ <br />unsystematically (if at all), overlooked in favor of false solutions, or Without t <br /> <br />leadership needed to ensure their success.. " .' wa of a <br />A number of important misconcepl1ons or falhlcles st~nd I.n the y . <br />better understanding of the nation's nood problem. The tallacles are no~ unl. <br />versal with many flood experts, decision makers, and sectors of the public ~s. <br />capin~ their seductive logic. But enough people ~~ fa~1 prey to these fal1aCle~ <br />of floods so as to create obstacles to improved utIlIzatIon of the ~essons of ~x <br />perience. This paper uses three of these lessons to organize presentatIOn of the nme <br /> <br />fallacies: <br /> <br />We know the wrong things about the nature of the problem (Fallacies I, 2, 3 <br />I. . <br />and 4), <br />2. We don't know enough about why and with what intensity we should act <br />(Fallacies 5. 6 and 7), <br />3, We know enough about what might be done (Fallacies 8 and 9). <br /> <br />Of course, there are other fallacies of floods (and disasters more generally) which <br />would expand the list presented here (e.g., Glantz, 1?76).. . '. " <br />The U ose of raising the fallacies in this paper IS to contnbute t~ a syst.emat~c <br />definiti:n ~f the nation's flood problem. It makes sense that. e~fectlve. ~ctlons In <br />t fl ds ought to be based upon an accurate and realIstic defimtlon of the <br />response 0 00 . . . fl h)' th <br />roblem. While this paper focuses on river floods (I.e., large-scale and as 10. e <br />o oited States, the fallacies have potential broader relevance to th~ extent to wh~ch <br />h . fI ce policy in other flood.prone regions of the world. Simply corr~ctlOg <br />~~~~~e~~neliefs will not in itself 'solve' the nation's flood problem, but I~ can <br />re~ove obstacles to the implementation of previousl~ unsee~ or un~er~ppreclated <br />policy alternatives. It is certain that the challenge ~f Impr~vlOg society s response <br />to floods will face obstacles so long as these fal1acles persIst. <br /> <br />One influential branch of the policy literature views policy solutions ~istinct from, policy prob- <br />. . d certain circumstances. See particularly the garbage can <br /> <br />~:;~l~~tc~:e~:~ ;~~t~;~)oa~~ t~~ ;1.icY ~d problem 'streams' of Kingdon (1984). A review of <br />the problem definition literature is found In Plelke (1997a). <br /> <br /> <br />NINE FALLACIES OF FLOODS <br /> <br />415 <br /> <br />2. Flood Fallacies <br /> <br />2.1. FLOOD FREQUENCIES ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD <br /> <br />Flood experts use the terms 'stage' and 'discharge' to refer to the size of a flood <br />(Belt, 1975). A flood stage is the depth of a river at some point and is a function <br />of the amount of water, but also the capacity of a river channel and floodplain <br />and other factors. Hence, upstream and downstream levees and different uses of <br />floodplain land can alter a flood's stage. A flood discharge refers to the volume of <br />water passing a particular point over a period of time. For example. in 1993 51. <br />Louis experienced 'Lhe highest slagc we've ever had, but not the biggest volume'. <br /> <br />We've had bigger flows, but the stage was different because the water could <br />flow from bluff to bluff. Now we have communities in the floodplain. Every <br />time you do something on a floodplain, you change the flood relationship. <br />Every time a farmer plants a field or a town puts in a levee, it affects upstream <br />flooding. That's why you can't really compare flooding at different times in <br />history (0, R, Dryhouse quoted in Corrigan, 1993), <br /> <br />According to the World Meteorological Organization's International Glossary <br />of Hydrology, 'flood frequency' is defined as 'the number of times a flood above a <br />given discharge or stage is likely to occur over a given number of years' (WMO, <br />1993). In the United States, flood frequencies are central to the operations of the <br />National Flood Insurance Program, which uses the term 'base flood' to note 'that in <br />any given year there is a one percent chance that a flood of that mag.nitude could be <br />equalled or exceeded' (FIFMTF. 1992. p, 9-7), The 'base flood' is more commonly <br />known as 'the tOO-year flood' and is 'probably the most misunderstood floodplain <br />management teno' (FlFMTF, 1992. p, 9-7), <br />A determination of the probability of inundation for various elevations within <br />a community is based on analysis of peak flows at a point on a particular river or <br />stream. However, 'there is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted <br />which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood <br />potential of any given watershed' (USWRC, 1981, p. I). For many reasons, in- <br />cluding limitations on the data record and potential change in climate, 'risk and <br />uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis' (USWRC, 1981, p. 2). <br />Nevertheless, quantification of risk is a fundamental element of flood insurance as <br />well as many aspects of flood.related decision making. <br />In order to quantify flood risk, in the early 1970s the National Flood Insur- <br />ance Program adopted the IOO-year-flood standard (FIFMTF. 1992, p, 8-2). The <br />standard was adopted in order to standardize comparison of areas of risk between <br />communities. Since that time the concept of the N-year flood has become a com- <br />mon fixture in policy, media, and public discussions of floods. Unfortunately, 'the <br />general public almost universally does not properly understand the meaning of <br />the teno' (FIFMTF. 1992, p, 9-7), Misconceptions about the meaning of the teno <br />