Since the 1990s, a majority of flood management experts are promoting new ways of dealing with floods. Formerly considered as a risk to be fought against, experts now call flood managers to adopt policies that would encourage riparian inhabitants to live with floods. At the core of what experts call a “major change” are measures such as floodplain restoration projects. They consist in lowering or erasing flood protection infrastructures in front of particular floodplains, in order to reconnect the river and its wetlands as well as operate water storage. If a majority of flood experts agree on the ecological, economical and hydrological relevance of those projects, it seems that no study has so far been made on which type of science is at the roots of this new ways of dealing with floods. To question the type of science that participated to build such a concept we undertook a scientometric survey. We studied publications promoting floodplain restoration projects. By reconstructing a genealogy of this way of thinking flood management, we show that its promoters are conceptualising the environment mainly through its functions. The relevance of changing the function of a floodplain is considered out of any social and political considerations. In order to go further, we will show through a qualitative survey realised on the Rhône River (France) that redesigning a wetland is a political issue. This river has recently experienced major flood events. The stake of the new flood policy is to restore a floodplain where people live. This technological panacea proved to be a failure locally.