The same houses flood every year and we keep paying for them

[corbe]

The same houses flood every year and we keep paying for them

 By Alice C. Hill and Craig Fugate, opinion contributors - 07/31/17 01:40 PM EDT

There is a house outside Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that is prone to flooding. It’s worth close to $56,000. Over the years, it has flooded a lot — about 40 times — and accumulated almost $430,000 in flood insurance claims.

There is another house in Houston, Texas, with an assessed value of $72,400. It has also frequently flooded and received over $1 million in flood insurance payouts.

In Roanoke Valley, Virginia, there is a 300-unit apartment complex that over a period of nine years received more than $10.5 million in flood insurance payouts.
 
Who has made all these insurance payouts? Property owners who purchase flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and ultimately, when the premiums run short, federal taxpayers.

Congress created the NFIP close to 50 years ago, undoubtedly with good intentions. Those intentions, however, have allowed the program to incur a federal debt of over $24 billion, in part because it keeps on insuring properties that suffer repeated flooding.

It’s time for the nonsense to stop.

Flooding is our most common natural hazard and one of our most costly. From 1980 to 2013, flooding caused over $260 billion in damages across the nation. The NFIP issues flood insurance policies to approximately 5 million property owners in all fifty states.

Repetitive flooding has been a major challenge for the program since its creation in 1968. Just 1 percent of insured properties have accounted for more than 30 percent of the claims paid. Repetitive losses occur in every state, but five states — Texas, Louisiana, Florida, New York and New Jersey — have 10,000 or more properties that frequently flood. The absolute number of homes repeatedly flooding is estimated to be increasing by at least 5,000 a year. And nearly one out of 10 homes had claims for repetitive flood losses that were greater than the value of the home.

A recent analysis of NFIP related data revealed that the owners of approximately 22,500 out of 30,000 repetitive loss properties had not taken any action to reduce their vulnerability to flooding or received any assistance to do so. Unbelievably, those NFIP policy holders, who have incurred repetitive losses, currently face no limit on the total value of payments they may receive or on the number of claims made.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/344607-the-same-houses-flood-every-year-and-we-keep-paying-for

[thackney]

[corbe]

   This is 'Her' Third rebuilt House, the last one on concrete stilts 10 feet high.  The City forced her to sell (eminent domain, probably), she was fit to be tied, no more new homes every 3~4 years.



   Guadalupe River, New Braunfels, TX.

[ABX]

One problem though is that the government has gone nuts in zoning structures as in a flood zone in order to cover liability and maximize revenue into the NFI program. We were lucky and purchased flood insurance before it was officially zoned, so just an extra $900/year. If we had waited a few months, when the zoning was official, that would have cost us $4,000 more per year. (not kidding). We are on a stream, but with the land slope, our side of the stream is higher and a 100 year flood would go away from us (we had one of those last year and didn't pose a risk).

I understand our property risk, we freely chose a property adjacent to a stream/park and know the risk. However, some areas in our city that are zoned for flooding are crazy. One area has houses on very high hills, far from any real body of water besides livestock ponds, and those are zoned for flooding. It has been hard pressed to find anyone around here who isn't now in a flood zone, no matter the elevation or distance to an actual flood risk area.

[Cripplecreek]

To make matters worse, the feds have created flood zones in places that don't flood so we can help pay for those that do.

[Free Vulcan]

I'd normally say that people in a flood plain shouldn't be able to get flood insurance of any kind, but like pointed out above the govt doesn't know how to properly designate flood plains.

[Cripplecreek]

One problem though is that the government has gone nuts in zoning structures as in a flood zone in order to cover liability and maximize revenue into the NFI program. We were lucky and purchased flood insurance before it was officially zoned, so just an extra $900/year. If we had waited a few months, when the zoning was official, that would have cost us $4,000 more per year. (not kidding). We are on a stream, but with the land slope, our side of the stream is higher and a 100 year flood would go away from us (we had one of those last year and didn't pose a risk).

I understand our property risk, we freely chose a property adjacent to a stream/park and know the risk. However, some areas in our city that are zoned for flooding are crazy. One area has houses on very high hills, far from any real body of water besides livestock ponds, and those are zoned for flooding. It has been hard pressed to find anyone around here who isn't now in a flood zone, no matter the elevation or distance to an actual flood risk area.

Yeah. I live above the dam and the flood plain is flooded permanently (we call it "the lake") and we've never seen the water rize more than about 2 inches.

[thackney]

I'd normally say that people in a flood plain shouldn't be able to get flood insurance of any kind, but like pointed out above the govt doesn't know how to properly designate flood plains.

People in flood plains, within the 100 year plain typically pay thousands of dollars per year over what nonflood plain property is charged.

We pay for the added risk.

[Free Vulcan]

People in flood plains, within the 100 year plain typically pay thousands of dollars per year over what nonflood plain property is charged.

We pay for the added risk.

I'm thinking more of people who are in one that flood out 2 or 3 times in a say, a 10 year period. Don't see how the FedGov can allow 'insurance' to be purchased by people who actuarially almost a sure thing.

[thackney]

I'm thinking more of people who are in one that flood out 2 or 3 times in a say, 10 year period. Don't see how the FedGov can allow 'insurance' to people who actuarially almost a sure thing.

In some cases, I had a friend trying for this, FEMA will require a buyout rather than a repair reimbursement.  It was dependent on the cost of repairs.  If a buyout, the property cannot be built on again for residential.

https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2014/05/28/communities-plagued-repeated-flooding-property-acquisition-may-be-answer

[ABX]

I'd normally say that people in a flood plain shouldn't be able to get flood insurance of any kind, but like pointed out above the govt doesn't know how to properly designate flood plains.

I had to take a screenshot from Google Maps to show you how out of control this zoning is. This house, way up on the very high hill, about 10 miles from the closest river and only has a small man-made lake about 1/2 mile behind it, and a couple of small livestock ponds down the hill behind it, is zoned to flood. It would take a flood the size of Noah's flood to even come close to reaching this house, and I doubt is in a 1,000 year flood zone, at that a 100 year zone. But the government zoned it flooding due to the distance to the man-made lake down the hill behind it.

[Free Vulcan]

That's what ticks me off about the FedGov more than anything else. The regs are bad enough, but there seems to be no criteria in applying them that will stand up to science and basic common sense, so they get away with doing them willy-nilly like that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

People in flood plains, within the 100 year plain typically pay thousands of dollars per year over what nonflood plain property is charged.

We pay for the added risk.

my house inside 610 was rezoned after Rita and a small corner of my breakfast room was by flood maps contoured into a flood zone that would require me to have flood insurance and the +$1000/yr premium.

I paid a surveyor to measure the height of my slab and found the lowest point of my slab was 0.02" above the flood contour.

That $150 survey saved me a bundle.  I sold the house before it sank anymore.

[Cyber Liberty]

 :thumbsup2:

I remember that....

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What's insane is that it's the richest houses too, as the houses near water are usually worth the most.

It will never change in my lifetime.

[Elderberry]

The death of a subdivision    http://www.texasescapes.com/Wanda-Orton/Death-of-a-subdivision.htm
by Wanda Orton    


In the aftermath of a hurricane, people usually pick up the pieces, repair, rebuild and go on with their lives.

Such was not the case in Baytown's Brownwood subdivision where residents, reeling from Hurricane Alicia's destruction on Aug. 18, 1983, could not go home again.

Some tried. A few homesick residents balked at the city's subsequent ban on future habitation in their neighborhood, but authorities forced all to leave. Homes were bought and bulldozed.

A decade later the subdivision would be re-invented as a recreational, educational haven for bird-watching and fishing, a tourist attraction to be envied by other coastal cities. Turning tragedy into triumph, the Baytown Nature Center emerged from the water-logged ruins of Brownwood.

Once the pride of Baytown with spacious homes fronting Scott, Crystal and Burnet bays, Brownwood in its last days resembled a war zone.

It had been a valiant fight for survival, beginning with Hurricane Carla in September 1961 when residents had the first inkling that something strange was going on. High tides invaded homes that had never flooded before. The bays that had provided so much pleasure with sunset views and hours of fishing, boating and water skiing suddenly had turned on them, making their fishing piers disappear, inundating yards, roads and personal property.

Brownwood is a historic place, settled by early colonists with Mexican land grants, and they had hurricanes back then, and some were monstrous.

What the 19th century locals did not have, however, was the added burden of land subsidence.

After many floods of Dayton Lake Estates, on the Trinity River, many of the property owners were bought out. My cabin was 6 foot up on stilts, and I was used to the floods, so I kept my property.

[Suppressed]

NFI subsidizes building in flood-prone areas, encouraging it.  It does just the opposite of what should be happening.

And flooding problems will be getting worse and worse as areas are developed.  Many groups, such as NOAA and USGS, are making different models (USGS's is dynamic) to better estimate flood areas, but there's been no connection to use these in the NFI maps.

Let the free market handle this.  If flood insurance is too expensive at market rates, then others shouldn't have to pick up the tab of those in that area.  What's really great is that people who can't even afford a house are subsidizing vacation properties for people.

[RoosGirl]

One problem though is that the government has gone nuts in zoning structures as in a flood zone in order to cover liability and maximize revenue into the NFI program. We were lucky and purchased flood insurance before it was officially zoned, so just an extra $900/year. If we had waited a few months, when the zoning was official, that would have cost us $4,000 more per year. (not kidding). We are on a stream, but with the land slope, our side of the stream is higher and a 100 year flood would go away from us (we had one of those last year and didn't pose a risk).

I understand our property risk, we freely chose a property adjacent to a stream/park and know the risk. However, some areas in our city that are zoned for flooding are crazy. One area has houses on very high hills, far from any real body of water besides livestock ponds, and those are zoned for flooding. It has been hard pressed to find anyone around here who isn't now in a flood zone, no matter the elevation or distance to an actual flood risk area.

There is a process to go through to have non-flood areas removed from the flood map.  A professional civil engineer in your state should be able to help you with it.

[RoosGirl]

That's what ticks me off about the FedGov more than anything else. The regs are bad enough, but there seems to be no criteria in applying them that will stand up to science and basic common sense, so they get away with doing them willy-nilly like that.

That's not really true at all.

[Suppressed]

I had to take a screenshot from Google Maps to show you how out of control this zoning is. This house, way up on the very high hill, about 10 miles from the closest river and only has a small man-made lake about 1/2 mile behind it, and a couple of small livestock ponds down the hill behind it, is zoned to flood. It would take a flood the size of Noah's flood to even come close to reaching this house, and I doubt is in a 1,000 year flood zone, at that a 100 year zone. But the government zoned it flooding due to the distance to the man-made lake down the hill behind it.

Who zoned it that way, local--right?  It's not on the FEMA National Flood Map, and though there actually is a creek 250 feet from where that photo was taken, it doesn't seem like being up on that hill would be a flood hazard unless the soils are extremely impermeable!   

[ABX]

Who zoned it that way, local--right?  It's not on the FEMA National Flood Map, and though there actually is a creek 250 feet from where that photo was taken, it doesn't seem like being up on that hill would be a flood hazard unless the soils are extremely impermeable!   

I'll ask. We were discussing this two years ago when we got out zoning letter they got one at the same time. The creek that looks close by though, is nothing. It looks more like a dry road gully.

[Suppressed]

I'll ask. We were discussing this two years ago when we got out zoning letter they got one at the same time. The creek that looks close by though, is nothing. It looks more like a dry road gully.

http://map1.msc.fema.gov/idms/IntraView.cgi?KEY=40081316&IFIT=1

http://map1.msc.fema.gov/temp/44175054.gif

[Suppressed]

After many floods of Dayton Lake Estates, on the Trinity River, many of the property owners were bought out. My cabin was 6 foot up on stilts, and I was used to the floods, so I kept my property.

The whole Houston region has been greedy, unwisely overusing the groundwater and destroying wetlands. Taxpayer money shouldn't be used for bailouts. I'm glad you were safe!