Those decisions reflect the influence of North Carolina's home building industry, which has consistently fought rules forcing its members to construct homes to higher, more expensive standards, according to Kim Wooten, an engineer who serves on the North Carolina Building Code Council, the group that sets home building requirements for the state.

In 2009 and 2010, lawmakers from the state's mountainous western region wanted statewide rules to restrict construction on slopes with a high or moderate risk of landslides. Their legislation failed in the face of pushback from the home building and real estate industries, according to Pricey Harrison, a state lawmaker who supported the restrictions.

Efforts to weaken building standards in North Carolina picked up steam after Republicans won control of both houses of the state legislature in 2010.

In 2011, lawmakers proposed a law that limited the ability of local officials to account for sea-level rise in their planning. The comedian Stephen Colbert panned the change, quipping: "If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved."

Two years later, lawmakers overhauled the way North Carolina updates its building codes. That change attracted far less attention than the sea-level rule - but would be more consequential for Helene.

Rather than make elevation mandatory in flood zones around North Carolina, the state decided that the requirement should only apply if local officials chose to adopt it.

The decision most likely left more homes exposed to flooding, according to Chad Berginnis, executive director of the national Association of State Floodplain Managers.

Now do California, ----.

Did it get devastated by torrential rain from the remnants of a hurricane 300 miles inland? Did it have entire towns washed away and destroyed due to homes being constructed under lax regulations preferred by the construction industry and its lobby, spending tens of millions funding Republicans who enshrined a law demanding that climate change CANNOT be considered when new building code legislation is passed and overrode the governor's veto multiple times?

Since the answer is a resounding NO, why should anyone look to California in search of explaining why North Carolina Republican supermajorities exacerbated an already intractable problem hitting people living thousands of feet above sea level, now dealing with catastrophic flooding heretofore never seen in the region?

That's kind of weak. Why can't he say "definitely" rather than "most likely"?

Because he's giving an early, but informed, comment knowing that until a full forensic analysis of the event is complete there is a possibility that other factors may have contributed outside of lax building codes.

In essence he's articulating a theory, understanding that it's possible the theory may not be operative as the sole proximate cause as more data is gathered and analyzed.

If you have evidence either party has drawn the flood plain maps the National Flood Insurance Program uses.....then please cite it.

I'm not referring to NFIP. I'm referring to lax building regulations the GOP voted down because the construction lobby paid them to.

Correction: I'm referring to lax building regulations the GOP voted for because the construction lobby paid them to.

You brought in the flood insurance part...not me.

Secondarily - If this wasn't enough for devastated North Carolinians... 'this' being having already lost their homes and possessions, which were not insured for flooding, so they'll have no insurance claims for the damage.

As I understand it, nothing was stopping these people from buying flood insurance had they chosen to. They would have received low rates because they didn't live in a documented flood zone.

And they didn't live in one - until the moment they did due to a historic tropical storm dropping unprecedented amounts of rain on their mountains, washing away their towns and buildings.