I was inspired by James Carse, Finite and Infinite Games, and I see a valuable cross section with the field of flood risk management.

“There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite; the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning.”

To be a flood management leader, we have to understand some participants aren’t playing the same game. We have to influence some to see the measures we should be pursuing.

“If a finite game is to be won by someone it must come to a definite end. It will come to an end when someone has won.”

Who will still be around when that big flood hits? Who sees profit over people and isn’t interested in a thriving community that is resilient to that flood?

Considering Carse’s points, if we only see the finite game, then we’re not really caring that somebody owns the risk, and becomes a loser. Those not owning the risk are the ones who got out of the game.

“…an infinite game [is played] for the purpose of continuing the play.”

Our communities pursue the infinite game in spite of others playing the finite one. In the infinite game, we keep the community aware of the flood risk and show them the responsibility of owning that risk. Those communities hope to attract developers that are willing to invest in the area and follow the applicable land regulations, building codes, and zoning.

We don’t want to be in a position where no one knows their flood risk. The planners and engineers know this is not a game.

Maybe this is heavy-handed, but I believe we need a federal law on real estate disclosing flood risk to buyers before they buy. That seems in alignment with an infinite game and thriving in the long-term.