Millions of Americans live near the oceans, and as Hurricane Earl headed up the East Coast last week, we were reminded once again of what a problem that is. It’s not likely that we’ll do much about it in the foreseeable future. It would be difficult to load Washington, D.C., New York, Boston and Miami onto flatbed trucks and move them inland.

But what about the people who live beside rivers?

A drive through the flood-damaged areas of Colfax last week made it clear just how awful a flood can be. Stacks of filthy possessions and piles of ruined building materials sat everywhere. The dirty high-water mark on houses and the blackened lawns were like a chalk outline of a crime committed by Mother Nature.

It’s a lesson that’s taught in Iowa all too often. We have spent decades trying to tame rivers, but the rivers won’t be tamed. Ignoring that fact, we keep building homes, businesses and public entertainment venues where water likes to go. Then the floods come, and then the state or the federal government spends money to help in the recovery.

If the taxpayer is going to be on the hook, it would make sense for the Legislature to limit development in floodplains.

While that battle is fought, it would be more than sensible for cities and towns to take steps on their own. If a town isn’t located entirely on a floodplain, if there’s higher ground available, retreating would be a good long-term objective. The typical Iowa community is not densely packed and starving for development land. Acting across a reasonable span of time, leaders could find ways to help people move up the hill without moving away.

Naturally, the first instinct would be to seek government assistance. Some level of help might be justified. Let’s pay now instead of paying again and again in the future.

A state facing fewer flood threats would be just a bit more financially stable, and clearly a better place to live.