I work in he fisheries conservation field and Vermont recently had another epic flood event, not the first and not the last. We compare the recent mudline to historic lines on infrastructure that survives. Back in the 70's after one event, one biologist was saying we should add wood to streams, stop gravel mining in stream, etc. We stopped gravel mining in streams.It speaks to the laziness, cowardice and myopia of the debate that you can't even whisper the plain and obvious upstream problem, human overpopulation, without being immediately shut down. The two political extremes will accuse you of being either a baby killer or a fascist endorsing genocide if you so much as whisper human population as a variable in environmental destruction.
The refusal to confront human population further originates with a fundamental psychological rejection of any perceived menace to the ego. That is, people hold their own personal selves as some kind of ultimate, supreme value and by extension reject any challenge to limitless human population growth. This is quite a crude, flawed, incorrect and simple-minded way to conceptualize the world and humanity, but it runs deep.
We've even extended this subconscious notion to some of our material things. Two or three decades ago, there was quite a lot of alarm about destruction of wildlife habitat and open space as consequences of urban sprawl. But now you can hardly mention this issue because of a perceived threat to human dwellings and by extension humans in general along with the individual ego. The same goes for agriculture. In the US alone, millions of acres of wildlife habitat and elbow room for people are degraded or destroyed every year by development and agricultural intensification. Yet this is completely ignored by media and policymakers. Even professionals who work in conservation are timid to discuss habitat destruction out loud. Human conversion of land to farms and cities is just taken as an inevitability or inviolable right, even while numerous options for better use of land area exist....
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/seeing-fewer-mule-deer-turkeys-and-ducks-thank-americas-habitat-crisis
.
Fast forward to Irene. Soon after the event the previous Governor waived all stream alteration permits to get Vermont infrastructure moving again. Someone recently mentioned the "Dredge Baby Dredge" attitude from that event.
That isn't happening this time around. You still need to get a stream alteration permit and have officials assess what you plan to do. We are also putting out news articles about how valuable large woody debris is to streams and leave the streams alone to recover mentality.
Of course much of the destruction that has happened in Vermont is due to historic encroachment to floodplains whether it is the quaint little mill town you visit in October or the road you take to get there.
At lease since Irene building near or in floodplains is either greatly restricted or banned outright. Most of my property is in Zone AE, ( my house is Zone Z) and I'm restricted on what I can do with that section of the property.
Buyouts do happen on impacted structures, but many times they are less than they are worth. My town was seeking to have a dozen properties bought out since they are in a flood area, many were still livable. The town didn't want to continue to rebuild the road and ensuring resident safety during flooding could be impacted. Some people took the buyout, some didn't.





