Few studies compare flooding and pollution risks. At the most, we find mention of differences in the literature (Slovic 1987, W. Freudenburg 1997). Freudenberg pointed out that the chronology and spatiality of the phenomena at stake vary greatly. While manifestations of floods are clearly identifiable, the damage caused by toxic substances is more difficult to grasp. This is why the former tend to reinforce social ties (solidarity), whereas the latter have corrosive effects on the social fabric (conflicts can break out and social relations be undermined). This paper aims at comparing data from ethnographic surveys carried out in rural areas of Southwestern France subject to either flooding (Lattes and Béziers or the Aude region) or pollution (Salindres and Viviez). We will examine individual and collective strategies used to deal with risks. How do local residents prioritize the problems they face? How do they adapt and with what costs? Particular attention will be given to personal practices developed to cope with risks (e.g. changes in practices). We will compare them with official strategies, often based on technical solutions. We will also examine how choices are made, according to different socioeconomic criteria. We will illustrate how the adaptations chosen fuel the corrosive or bonding nature of risks. We will then elaborate on resilience in Southwestern European societies which are exposed to risks –or even overexposed to many of them because of the excesses of capitalism-. Doing so we hope, to learn about new possibilities for “living on a damaged planet” (Tsing 2014).