If you want to see people get excited, start a conversation about flood zones with a developer who wants to build there or a homeowner whose property has been washed downstream. This scene was repeated in North Carolina after Helene’s devastating floods.

Many developers, real estate agents and real estate speculators in flood plains would like to see flood zone regulations less strict. In contrast, emergency managers and community planners do not believe the limits are strict enough to prevent catastrophic flood damage.

As is often the case with environmental monitoring, this problem is caused by both poor understanding and today’s wild misinformation. With that in mind, let’s look at some history and explanation.

The National Flood Insurance Act was passed by Congress in 1968, in recognition of the difficulties property owners faced in obtaining private flood insurance. The associated insurance program was intended to protect property owners most at risk of flood damage, but also to reduce future flood damage.

When floodplains experience severe flooding, many wonder why communities have developed in such high-risk locations. It turns out that early settlements along rivers had notable advantages. River valleys presented naturally easier travel routes.

The abundant water provided not only drinking water, but also water for industry. In the past, it was also an inexpensive way to get rid of the polluted water produced by these industries. Pittsburgh, Johnstown, and a host of Pennsylvania steel and paper communities were prime examples of such places.

Water flowing into these lowlands is already a problem, but we amplified the problem by paving and building on what became the surrounding suburbs. On a local scale, this included filling wetlands for development (as happened along Plank Road) and channeling or otherwise constraining urban streams (as we did with Brush Run between Valley View and Pleasant Valley boulevards).

Scientists and engineers now better understand flood dynamics and how features such as wetlands and artificial retention areas slow runoff and reduce flooding. Laws have changed to reflect these lessons.

The construction industry often complains that strict standards hurt profitability. This became a concern in North Carolina, where new home construction was booming. North Carolina lawmakers’ weakening of building codes over the past decade likely amplified flood damage, according to a New York Times report.

Ironically, most FEMA regulations were put in place because of the high cost of flood recovery for individuals, insurance companies, and the federal government.

The situation has only gotten worse since FEMA’s first regulations. Warmer oceans provide much more precipitable water. And if the weather-influencing winds aloft cause this very humid air mass to become blocked (as Helen did in North Carolina), the precipitation amounts can be staggering. Accuweather calculations put the figure at 42 trillion gallons of precipitation and the damage at $225 billion.

Yet another factor contributed to Western North Carolina’s nightmare. Neither previous experience nor FEMA hazard maps could reflect the magnitude of the event.

Already criticized by a wide range of anti-regulatory interests, FEMA was walking a regulatory tightrope even before climate change became a major concern.

“These strategies to protect us from flooding are based on the past,” says Anna Weber, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “All of these systems that we rely on in our daily lives were created for a climate that no longer exists.”

John Frederick (www.johnjfrederick.com) writes twice a month on science and the environment for the Mirror.