More woes for nation's flood insurance program

[Moe DeLoughan]

It might be time to change the program's approach in handling flood claims. Areas that are prone to repeated flooding should get a one-time payout; after that, if they choose to rebuild, it's at their own risk.

Thousands of Homes Keep Flooding, Yet They Keep Being Rebuilt Again By Katherine Bagley

More than 2,100 properties across the U.S. enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program have flooded and been rebuilt more than 10 times since 1978, according to a new analysis of insurance data by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). One home in Batchelor, Louisiana has flooded 40 times over the past four decades, receiving $428,379 in insurance payments. More than 30,000 properties in the program, run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have flooded multiple times over the years. Those homes, known as ?severe repetitive loss properties,? make up just 0.6 percent of federal flood insurance policies. But they account for 10.6 percent of the program?s claims ? totaling $5.5 billion in payments.

Of the 30,000 homes analyzed by the NRDC, the average cumulative payout per property as a result of repeated flooding was $181,444. Nearly half of these repetitive loss properties have been paid more in flood insurance money than their houses are worth, the NRDC found.

According to FEMA records, Louisiana homeowners with flood insurance have poor track records when it comes to preparing for the next storm. The state leads the nation in severe repetitive loss properties, with more than 7,200 of the NFIP?s 30,000 multi-flood homes. Since 1978, these Louisiana houses have received $1.22 billion in flood insurance payments ? 22 percent of all repetitive loss claims, according the NRDC.

Full article at

[Ralph Mowery]

I am all for the one and done on the flood payouts. I just can not understand how stupid the people are to keep rebuilding back at the same place and someone rebuilding them back. Read that as the government or insurance companies doing that.

If someone wants to rebuild it should be at their own expense and if they get flooded again, no resque effort for them either.

There is a nursing home near me that almost several times a year they hae to move out due to a slight rain storm. This is near the middle of NC where there is seldom any super heavy rains. Looks like they would move out and rebuild somewhere else.

[Gordon Shumway]

Welcome to the Republican party, Moe!

[Frank]

Never heard of the federal government getting involved in any program making it cheaper. Shumbuddy blames the republicans but libs are the big government people.

[Moe DeLoughan]

Part of the role of government is to provide or administer projects deemed beneficial for the public good that the private sector won't touch because they are not profitable. Public transit is one example. Nuclear power plant liability insurance is another (the private sector will only cover a tiny amount of potential liability, so the gov't had to step in and cover the rest.) The flood insurance program is still another. Ironically, many of the same southern Republican politicians who denounce Obamacare as gov't overreach have been calling for a massive increase in the federal property insurance program, because so many folks in their areas simply cannot get property insurance at an affordable price, or at any price at all. So they're all for government to provide or subsidize property insurance, but not for the government to provide or subsidize health insurance. It all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

[Moe DeLoughan]

I have no problem with the gov't stepping in where the private sector cannot or will not provide a necessary good or service. The thing is, flooding is a growing problem as sea levels keep rising and the number of extraordinarily heavy, flooding rainfalls increase. If it's cheaper to acknowledge reality and just relocate the homeowners, let's do it.

In the late 90s my side of town experienced an extraordinary flood event in part of a subdivision built on what had previously been marshland adjacent to a large lake. The local government decided to be practical. They bought out the homeowners, razed the houses, and turned the area into a park. There were two homeowners who refused the buyout. They're still there, but they can't get flood insurance. They've assumed the risk, not the rest of us.

[Gordon Shumway]

I do have a problem with the government providing goods and services just because they have found another way to buy votes. If the practice of buying votes ended today we could easily begin to pay down the massive debt our current incompetent idiot has engineered in the last 8 years.

[KenK]

Frank wrote in news:nq4jcf$454$ [e-mail]:

I dropped my flood policy when they jacked up the prices $250 each on my rental and an adjacent shop/computer office.

[Micky]

FWIW, it had never flooded before where most of those who were flooded in La. this last time. OTOH, most of them didn't have flood insurance because there was no incentive to get it, since it never flooded. So this comment is irrelevant to your thread!

About 45 years ago I was driving around a lightly wooded area south of New Orleans where the streets are paved with broken sea shells (clam shells?) and there are no curbs. And about 5 out of 6 houses were on stilts, 10 feet high iirc. But 1 out of 6 houses was built right on the ground, or a couple steps up, and they weren't the older houses either. They looked as new or newer than the ones on stilts. How could someone go look at an empty lot with neighbors all on stilts and then build a house at ground level!!

I tried to find this area with google maps and satellite, but it's been 45 years, I don't remember our exact route, or even the approximate one, and I'm sure it's more built up now. I thought I could use street view to find a street just like I describe, but I think I never got to street view because the area didsn't seem right.