2007SMU Law ReviewOpen access

Mississippi River Stories: Lessons from a Century of Unnatural Disasters

Christine A. Klein, Sandra B. Zellmer

Open full text 9 citations

Abstract

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the nation pondered how a relatively weak Category 3 storm could have destroyed an entire region. Few appreciated the extent to which a flawed federal water development policy transformed this apparently natural disaster into a "manmade" disaster; fewer still appreciated how the disaster was the predictable, and indeed predicted, sequel to almost a century of similar disasters. This Article focuses upon three such stories: the Great Flood of 1927, the Midwest Flood of 1993, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005. Taken together, the stories reveal important lessons, including the inadequacy of engineered flood control structures suchas levees and dams, the perverse incentives created by the national flood insurance program, and the need to reform federal leadership over flood hazard control, particularly as delegated to the Army Corps of Engineers. Setting forth what we call the theory of "double takes," this Article argues that property owners in flood-prone areas "take" taxpayer dollars through two sometimes overlapping mechanisms. First, a package of subsidies -- including flood control structures, federal flood insurance, and after-the-fact disaster relief -- enables and even encourages construction in high-risk areas. As a consequence, many floodplain residents are lured into harm's way. Second, landowners denied permits to develop floodplain and coastal property can "take" federal or state dollars in the form of compensation awarded under the Fifth Amendment. At times, the same landowner -- or even the same parcel of land -- may benefit simultaneously from both mechanisms, as in the case of large-scale developers enjoying subsidized levee protection for portions of the land and receiving Fifth Amendment compensation for other portions where development is precluded. Such claims for compensation are fostered by the 1992 decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in which the Supreme Court endorsed the view that coastal areas are "valueless" in their natural state -- a dangerous misconception laid bare by the post-Katrina awareness that wetlands and barrier islands instead perform an invaluable flood-taming function. We conclude with suggestions for reform of federal flood hazard policy, the national flood insurance program, and the regulatory takings doctrine.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the nation pondered how a relatively weak Category 3 storm could have destroyed an entire region. Few appreciated the extent to which a flawed federal water development policy transformed this apparently natural disaster into a "manmade" disaster; fewer still appreciated how the disaster was the predictable, and indeed predicted, sequel to almost a century of similar disasters. This Article focuses upon three such stories: the Great Flood of 1927, the Midwest Flood of 1993, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005. Taken together, the stories reveal important lessons, including the inadequacy of engineered flood control structures suchas levees and dams, the perverse incentives created by the national flood insurance program, and the need to reform federal leadership over flood hazard control, particularly as delegated to the Army Corps of Engineers. Setting forth what we call the theory of "double takes," this Article argues that property owners in flood-prone areas "take" taxpayer dollars through two sometimes overlapping mechanisms. First, a package of subsidies -- including flood control structures, federal flood insurance, and after-the-fact disaster relief -- enables and even encourages construction in high-risk areas. As a consequence, many floodplain residents are lured into harm's way. Second, landowners denied permits to develop floodplain and coastal property can "take" federal or state dollars in the form of compensation awarded under the Fifth Amendment. At times, the same landowner -- or even the same parcel of land -- may benefit simultaneously from both mechanisms, as in the case of large-scale developers enjoying subsidized levee protection for portions of the land and receiving Fifth Amendment compensation for other portions where development is precluded. Such claims for compensation are fostered by the 1992 decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in which the Supreme Court endorsed the view that coastal areas are "valueless" in their natural state -- a dangerous misconception laid bare by the post-Katrina awareness that wetlands and barrier islands instead perform an invaluable flood-taming function. We conclude with suggestions for reform of federal flood hazard policy, the national flood insurance program, and the regulatory takings doctrine.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 9 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the nation pondered how a relatively weak Category 3 storm could have destroyed an entire region. Few appreciated the extent to which a flawed federal water development policy transformed this apparently natural disaster into a "manmade" disaster; fewer still appreciated how the disaster was the predictable, and indeed predicted, sequel to almost a century of similar disasters. This Article focuses upon three such stories: the Great Flood of 1927, the Midwest Flood of 1993, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005. Taken together, the stories reveal important lessons, including the inadequacy of engineered flood control structures suchas levees and dams, the perverse incentives created by the national flood insurance program, and the need to reform federal leadership over flood hazard control, particularly as delegated to the Army Corps of Engineers. Setting forth what we call the theory of "double takes," this Article argues that property owners in flood-prone areas "take" taxpayer dollars through two sometimes overlapping mechanisms. First, a package of subsidies -- including flood control structures, federal flood insurance, and after-the-fact disaster relief -- enables and even encourages construction in high-risk areas. As a consequence, many floodplain residents are lured into harm's way. Second, landowners denied permits to develop floodplain and coastal property can "take" federal or state dollars in the form of compensation awarded under the Fifth Amendment. At times, the same landowner -- or even the same parcel of land -- may benefit simultaneously from both mechanisms, as in the case of large-scale developers enjoying subsidized levee protection for portions of the land and receiving Fifth Amendment compensation for other portions where development is precluded. Such claims for compensation are fostered by the 1992 decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in which the Supreme Court endorsed the view that coastal areas are "valueless" in their natural state -- a dangerous misconception laid bare by the post-Katrina awareness that wetlands and barrier islands instead perform an invaluable flood-taming function. We conclude with suggestions for reform of federal flood hazard policy, the national flood insurance program, and the regulatory takings doctrine.

Key concepts: Flood myth, Flood insurance, Supreme court, Flood control, Political science, Emergency management, Law, Public administration

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Mississippi River Stories: Lessons from a Century of Unnatural Disasters — Research Paper | ScholarLens