There is no entirely satisfactory strategy to mitigate the risks associated with flooding. In Australia, reliance is usually placed on structural measures; however, an appraisal under different criteria highlights reasons for their inadequacy. Insurance is initially advocated as an alternative and appraised under similar criteria. It is shown to be a useful mitigation strategy, although somewhat limited in that it is merely a palliative to the flood problem. An alternative approach to flood mitigation is hypothesized which incorporates insurance as its base and utilizes other measures, particularly structural, where feasible. Such an approach is shown to effectively maximize the beneficial features of both insurance and structural measures. Problems relating to the workability of the scheme are subsequently analysed.