That is probably the issue; today they set aside land in developments to allow rainwater to actually reach the soil, and this might be rectifying that situation.
I live to the north between two rivers that empty into the ocean (Passaic and Hackensack), and we don’t have issues unless there is a “Hundred Year Storm”. When Hurricane Sandy hit, there were areas flooded that nobody had ever seen flooded before, and haven’t flooded since. They didn’t raze any housing over it.
I am sll for buy out of land historically and consistently flooded. It should be less expensive to taxpayers than the demands for government assistance recovering from and rebuiling after the flooding in such places.
I am also not for human rebuiling of “shoreline” damaged by major stores. I am for the shoreline being held to what nature develops it to be and that includes the storms that nature brings. Shoreline areas should be visited and “the public” can make them places to visit.
But I think if someone wants to have a house sit on the shoreline, they should be told they are on their own.
I note that historically along the Atlantic coast few Native American settlements sat on the Atlantic shoreline. They were nearly always inland, behind the wet lands and land and trees that protecyed their villages from the worst of the storms that moved up the Atlantic coast. It may have taken them centuries to develop that safer mode of settlement. Why should it take us moderns any time at all.