TODAY'S DEBATE: TAXPAYER MONEY SPENT ON FLOOD CONTROL; TAXPAYERS LOSING BATTLE (USA TODAY VIEWPOINT)

Our View: Taxpayers repeatedly pour money into rebuilding in flood zones. That doesn't make sense.

Across low-lying areas of Louisiana and Mississippi, hundreds of people are picking their way back to flood-ravaged homes and businesses this week, looking so repair and rebuild -- yet again.

It's a ritual of suffering borne not just by those who live in flooded areas but also by taxpayers whose money is misused to perpetuate the cycle of flood and relief.

With the year's flooding nearing record levels, federal taxpayers will spend $2 billion or more on flood aid. Part will go for emergency relief, land that's money well spent. But a far larger chunk will go for emergency relief, and that's money well spent. But a far larger chunk will be used to rebuilt or "protect' flood-prone locations.

Small-business loans, federal flood insurance and money to restore bottomland roads, airports and other facilities are just the beginning. The Army Corps of Engineers is synonymous with massive river projects -- and their repair and enlargement when flooding nevertheless occurs.

Flood-plain property owners and developers often expect the taxpayer to protect their "right" to build -- or rebuild -- in spite of the risk. And they succeed because legislators are re-elected by bringing home work, particularly in times of crisis.

Since January's floods, developers in the San Joaquin Valley of California have won approval for construction of hundreds of new homes in areas that were just under water. Now 58,000 homes are planned or under construction in areas of California that flooded this year. A state law even requires communities to permit rebuilding of multifamily dwellings in a flood plain.

But in a few spots, times are changing. After devastating floods in 1993, the entire town of Valmyer, Ill., moved to higher ground. All 900 residents rebuilt their homes and shops 1 1/2 miles to the east on a bluff overlooking the river.

At least 11,000 other homes and businesses, most of them along the Mississippi, have relocated since '93. Development has been pulled back from riverbanks to give nature more room to do what it's going to do anyway. Federal and state money helped, but it took local leadership to resist repeating the errors of the past.

Federal law now denies flood insurance and other aid for new building on undeveloped land in coastal flood zones. Why not apply the same principle to rivers?

A proposal by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and others would refocus federal incentives toward those who move out of the most flood-prone areas. It would also provide funds to buy riverbank land and set levees back so rivers can swell more safely during storms.

Americans want to help those victimized by unexpectedly flooding. But repeated bail-outs of the same flood-prone areas, encouraging more risky construction, must stop.