Natural Disasters - 1

"Communities and individuals who chose to build, or allow to be built, houses in areas liable to flooding, or other natural disasters, have only got themselves to blame and can not expect government or donors to cover the costs of to their risks."

Why do so many people live, rebuild and move to areas that are threatened by flood waters? To answer a big part of this question, we have to go back decades and even centuries when the land was first being settled. Just about every major city in the nation and throughout the world for that matter is located along a river, lake or seacoast. Way back when, water was the primary and most economical means of moving people and goods. The action of floods brings in sediments and nutrients necessary for crops to grow.
Advancements in technology, including flood control and development of "wasteland," have lured many new people into flood-prone areas. No doubt we all need a place to live and the growing population in itself has resulted in housing developments where "no man has gone before," or at least where no man has resided before. Indeed, storm drains, pumps, runoff ponds and levees all make many neighborhoods more flood-proof. Levee systems are engineered to contain a certain flood, say a 100-year event for example. However, eventually a flood will come along that exceeds the 100-year event. So even if houses are protected by levee, there may along come a flood that tops the levee.
Out of history there are areas around rivers, which have been developed and should be protected. For example the old town of Steyr. Individuals in such areas should not be blamed for living and working there, as those areas are a cultural heritage and should be protected by government. On the other hand it is not necessary anymore to move close to rivers, for economical reasons. If individuals move in such areas, they have to cover the costs of their risks.