At last, someone with a rational opinion about the floods. Thankyou, I've been waiting for a comment like this.

People who are writing about all the devastation and the need to prohibit building in flood zone are forgetting that people *choose* to live where they do. If you bulid on a low lying area close to a river then flooding is an obvious risk that you face. This risk is something that a rational person, who does their homework, will take into consideration when calculating how much to pay for their house.

If two identical houses, one built on a flood plain and one on a hill, are sold-- then the flood prone house will sell for less. The money you save on the riskier house offsets the potential future damaged done by flooding. So the cost of the damage done by flooding is likely to be already paid for-- this is something that commentors are forgetting for when they quote the damage repair bill.

WOW! and not a moment too soon. Yes, some innovative new ideas are needed badly, considering the on-going changes that our wonderful planet will by definition, "the human survival V,s the big round thing:)"

Now one idea I liked, was the pontoon effect. What? some might say, well you drive four to six huge poles into the ground, then seal and conceal the bottom of your house to simulate the perverbal Noah's ark so to speak, and just float up with the rising waters.

Admittedly, your house will look like a little castle or a rocket base, however you and your everything's will be high and dry.

I still cant figure out why you would want to live with death at your door at any given time, but who ever said humans were logical.

Personally I'd move, my family is worth more than a town and a few mates, but then again.......some old habits are hard to quite.

Good luck.

BLUE

Ah, the "my body my choice" argument.

Unfortunately, where you live is not a level playing filed, if you'll pardon the pun.

Try spruiking "caveat emptor" to the 500 or so washed away in Brazil, or the residents of haiti one year on, or survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

Not everybody is in the position to make a "rational choice" based on their "best interest", armed with "all the information".

Sometimes, I am glad someone else has gone before and put up a sign saying "danger", or built a massive great dam at the people's expense to save us from all being wiped out.

Your understanding of human beings as individualistic economic units nauseates me.

It's all very well to say that developers can do what they like if fully informed, but how long does the average developer own the land? Once a building is put up it could be sold several times, each time to a person less likely to know the flood risks.

You are wrong in your assumptions of personal rights in this matter. There is a lot of public interest that comes into it, including protecting and rescuing people and their properties in those areas, who assert their rights to build in flood-prone areas. Such resources might be better spent on preventative measures, including no-build zones, land management, and not to forget curbing our consumerism which creates the greenhouse gases that warm our oceans that cause the excessive rains that cause floods. At some point it will force us to change our individualistic behaviour. But maybe it will take a bit more climate change medicine for that to happen. Lets think creatively and carefully about this, involving ordinary people, beyond just big business, before we rebuild homes that are in the path of the next flood.

I certainly agree with the article in most respects. Margaret Thatcher, John Howard & probably all members of the present Federal Opposition etc would also (to name a few). It is broadly traditional conservative thinking & follows christian ethics that underpin our society.
Fabian Socialists & similar mainly will not, because this article is contrary to their basic creeds and aims when in positions of power.
Those who do not value the importance & sancity of the 'individual' & the fundamental importance of the family unit & also property rights over that of the State will firmly disagree also.
When it is all boiled down & thought through it is most likely that over 90% of good red-blooded Australians would support the arguments & way of thinking in this article, so well done & let there be more!

Viv,
Your concept is fine PROVIDED those who put themselves at risk are TOTALLY independant and self sufficient.

In other words you would not expect or accept help to evacuate or accept donations from other people or the government to repair or restore your home. You would refuse community help to clean up after floods and you would gladly pay for the infastructure repairs to community assets after the floods are gone. What happens if you are flood bound and one of your family needs urgent medical treatment, would you refuse a medivac helicopter?

Our SES and Bushfire Brigades put themselves at risk to help others and we have an obligation to see that they are as safe as possible when doing their work. I have see fire fighters put themselves at enormous risk just to check if some one was in a house that was going to burn anyway.

Some people do not think and Councils have an obligation to see that at least minimum standards apply when building. This includes clearing for fire hazards and building in a no flood area.

No building in flood prone land, big order. How big a flood are you talking about. Towns would be all over the place.
Council had the situation covered by predicting a 1 in 100 yr cycle.
With climatic changes the predictions may not be worth anything.
Floods in 5 states, not a good picture. We will have to pay more taxes for disaster slush funds.

Thats all fine as long as the people building in these areas pay for their own full flood insurance and aren't asking gov't to bail them out.

Your right to live anywhere you like needs to be balanced by your financial responsibility for the consequences. How many people in these areas are underinsured or not insured at all?

People who are determined to rebuild in flood endangered areas need to agree not to seek compensation from the gov't for any future losses.

So, those risks associated with flood-prone land. They would be accepted by all who benefit from it?

The developer will accept a lower margin for developing (probably with cheaper materials)?

The state government will require less stamp duty?

The council will assess lower rates?

services provided through cheaper but more easily replaced infrastructure will charge less accordingly?

employers able to pay lowest possible wages since housing near them is cheap, but incidentally flood-prone?

Obviously all of these will adjust their transactions accordingly....

I think not.

Rusty

As someone who has been involved in this area, I can say there are very good reasons for not allowing people to build in flood prone areas, particularly in cities.

This selfish viewpoint fails to take into account that if you put obstacles in the path of the water, you can increase flood levels back up stream, thereby impacting on other home-owners who may well have chosen to build above the calculated flood level. If such selfish action were widespread then such indivuduals should be responsible for paying for flood damage to other people's houses caused by their wish to build in flood prone areas.

Stop just thinking about yourself and be part of a community!