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
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
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.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.