<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 />
|