Where to live?

Regarding the recent flooding in Cumbria, the question is again brought to my mind: how do we understand our 'right' to live where we want?

In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?

So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?

If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?

Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.

At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?

The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.