The Bush 43 Administration for once put a stop to it. To get flood insurance in this 100 year flood town, you should have had to put jacks on new houses, to hike them up when the rain started.
End it.
Let companies offer flood insurance on their own. It will be expensive. It will no longer be cost-effective to build so much so close to the shore. There will be more sanity and less cost because people will understand and manage the risk better.
"Help" from Congress just muddies the water.
Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.
And liberals expect the government to pay each time.
The Bush 43 Administration for once put a stop to it. To get flood insurance in this 100 year flood town, you should have had to put jacks on new houses, to hike them up when the rain started.
Ain’t it grand that we get 100 year floods every decade or so, 100 year earthquakes every 50 years, and trailer park tornado magnets.
Reinsurance is complicated, but it’s made so that everybody pays. Not just a risk pool. Everybody.
The government should give one rebuild and after that you’re on your own.
Basically anywhere you build is hazardous. The Earth can be very unforgiving. It’s simply a matter of time when your house gets hit by something. Then there’s disrepair,accidents and just plain age. People gotta live somewhere.
It’s not just sea coastal areas that require flood insurance.
Most homes built around lakes and rivers...especially interior reservoirs that are created by utility company dams...require flood insurance. FEMA construction rules apply to any new-built homes...ultra-raised foundations, no ground level living spaces (garage ok), breakaway walls if the foundation is walled in, special internal strapping/bracing to keep the living areas from washing away.
One simple (simple, as opposed to easy) solution is you can rebuild with the insurance money, but you cannot rebuild on any site that flooded.
100 year floods take place more often because there are more structures in the flood plain. It just makes the problem worse.
There are some places not meant for habitation. Most of Houston is one of those places.
This is just another festering problem of the nation aggravated and encouraged by bribes to politicians called “campaign donations”.
I lived in Houston for 30 years and was never flooded. I never bought a house near a flood plain.
The quick simple answer would seem to be to get the gov’t. out of it & let insurance companies do it their way. I don’t understand exactly how this program works,but it seems to me that some of us,who maybe can’t afford our homeowner’s insurance(in a non-flood plain)are having to subsidize others who are building where they shouldn’t be building.
no problem“The National Flood Insurance Program, designed to protect Americans from catastrophic floods, has failed in almost every way, encouraging people to buy and build in flood-prone areas while increasing the cost and magnitude of disasters.”
Okay guys and gals, we will cover you to build and live in flood prone areas and as the continual rebuilding caused by disasters that are prone to that areas use more money that overshoots your premiums just like too many accidents with a car, we’ll change your policy costs. You’ll become an assigned risk and pay top dollar. And if it continues, we can’t afforded you so we cancel you.
This is not new. But just like having too many accidents, if you build in an area that is going to break you, that’s your fault, not the insurance company’s. And you knew what you were getting into when you signed the contract. They are a business, not UNICEF. And you’re a bad risk, dummy, cause it is your responsibility to take care of yourself.
rwood
Insuring people against financial losses is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government.
End it entirely.
L
My father-in-law has lived in his home in North Central Florida since 1967. He is nowhere near any body of water. He is also over 50 miles from the west coast of Florida, and 80 miles from the east coast of Florida. Many times over the years there have been times of high rainfall. There had never been any problem, the rain percolated into the soil rapidly.
In 2004 two days after the last storm had passed over the area, and two days after the last rainfall, someone uphill released water. It flowed about a mile to the lowest point it could find, forming a wave of water and crossing a least one paved street. The lowest point unfortunately was my father-in-law’s home (30” inside the house). The area went from dry to over 30” in the home within 45 minutes. Within two hours the water dropped a foot, and by the next morning, except for puddles in the home, the area was dry. The insurance company took the position that it was a flood and hence they owed him nothing.
Although the city and county got into a legal argument about who had swamped the city's pumping station (located outside the city limits), by pumping water off a major roadway, no took responsibility for the home’s flooding. The king can do no wrong.
He struggled to restore his home, but even then one of the rooms had paneling that couldn't be matched. they dried as much as they could and moved back in.
For over a year he tried to get flood insurance. The powers that be said he was not in a flood zone, and could not get it. Finally he was able to get flood insurance and paid it from approximately 2006 until November 2016. The premium was about $500 per year. In November of 2016 the insurance rate was raise to $2,500 per year. He took the position that he was never flooded in the first place, and that the county/state/city had release water, and canceled the insurance.
This year on September 11th, after the rains had stopped from Irma, he was sitting on his porch, when his next door neighbor came running across the yard letting him know a wave of water was on its way. This time about a foot of water ended up in the house. He ended up getting his truck stuck in the yard and had to hitchhike to his church. Again, the next morning the water had drained.
Again, no one wants to take responsibility for releasing the water, and insurance again took the position that he was flooded. The company did replace his roof. He now again has a shell of a house with walls cut out.
Little by little family and friends have worked at cleaning out the house and putting up drywall. The painting starts soon. He salvaged what he could in 2004, but this time after a second inundation, with threat of mold, very little furniture is left, and he’s homeless until at least January. He is living with us until then.
There was a large county commission meeting last week on “flood mitigation”, but after all was said and done, there is no hope, and no money, for help in alleviating the problem. The only possibility is grants but is “a least a decade away”. His home, along with his neighbors, has now been noted on county maps as a flooded area, and prone to flooding in the future, but are listed as #12 on a list of 14 in order of importance for funding.
He’s 87 and a Korean War Vet, He loves his home and doesn’t want to leave it.
Again, flood insurance is important. If you can get it do so, because regular insurance won’t protect you from other people decisions about where water should be released.
I don’t understand. We live in a “floodway”, which is a step better than flood plain. When we moved in 11 years ago, the flood insurance was $500 per year, and was increasing dramatically. We flooded 2 years in, while we were permitting to have the house raised. If we had not raised, premiums would have been over $5,000 per year now(they are at about $500 still, but we only have a garage at ground level ... and can move things up quickly and take the cars a few blocks away).
How come the repetitive loss houses in Houston are still at $500 when we’re paying $500 for just replacing uninsulated drywall? I can replace it myself for less than the cost of the required annual premium. And we have not flooded in the interim 9 years anyway.