Rebuilding in a flood plain

This article, brought to my attention by jen-k, is from yesterday's New York Times. It deals with the Catskills, but the concepts discussed relate to the Adirondacks, Vermont, New Jersey, and a lot of other places. Obviously this is an emotional issue, and a very tough time to be asking these questions, but it will never really be a easy time to face these issues.

On Flood Plain, Pondering Wisdom of Rebuilding Anew

PHOENICIA, N.Y. — For all the destruction and heartache left by Tropical Storm Irene in the Catskill Mountains, the storm was only the latest to cause catastrophic flooding in the region in recent years. With each one, residents have cleaned up, rebuilt and moved on, as resolutely as ever. Now, though, some are asking a once-unthinkable question: Should the rebuilding come to a halt?

Alan White, of the Catskill Center for Conservation and Development, said tough, emotional questions must be asked.

Even a local state assemblyman, Kevin A. Cahill, a Democrat, said that allowing this cycle to continue, at least in some places, seemed increasingly foolhardy.

“Are there communities that simply can’t be protected adequately and should be relocated?” Mr. Cahill said. “I hope and believe that rational thinking will prevail, as opposed to emotional thinking.”

“Building on a flood plain — there ought to be some serious thinking about that,” he continued. “When you look around at communities with the toughest building codes, you will see that they are significantly far less hit. Common sense works.”

Full NYT article

There is a section of AuSable Forks oddly called Jersey because the bride is called Jersey bridge.  It has flooded multiple times this year and was devasated by Irene.  Its close to the river and the lowest spot in town - clearly a historical flood plain that has likely flooded thousands of times over history.  There was some talk locally about a possible buy out (not sure if state or Fema) for those that didn't have flood insurance to get them out of that area of town.  This seems like a really good idea to me

I don't understand how if you live in a flood plain you don't have insurance - doesn't the mortgage company require it?

Well, strange how this storm, the storm that most insurance companies were fearing for decades, left most of it's damage in some of the poorest places in the east, rather than the coastline, home to the rich and trillions in real estate value. Just imagine if that thing hit Long Island with 120 mph winds after shaving down the Jersey Shore on it's way up. Maybe then the American taxpayer would learn how they back up flood insurance in all of those places, and wake up to how the rich are getting another subsidy. Most could care less about Vermont and the Catskills. Although it would be absurd for certain places to use tax dollars to rebuild some towns in these areas that serve no commercial purpose anymore, but, I wouldn't be surprised.

Btw, I read today that Vermont is second to Maine in total vacation homes, and in Dover, home to Mt Snow, 87% of proprty tax bills go to out of state residents. I'll bet that's pretty similar in other Vermont ski towns.

Reading Insurance rags daily and being in the business, I note the following:   Don't quote my exact figures, but I am close enough for this forum.

Premiums by all who purchase flood insurance are 75% subsidized by tax payers.    Hope this changes soon...yes rich and poor should pay what it costs.   That is the sole reason the private market does not sell flood insurnace....they cannot charge or people would not pay adequate rates to break even, let alone make a profit, God forbid.  

14% of all funds paid by NFP (National Flood Program) claims are on property that has flooded "multiple" times.  

Mortgage companies do require purchase of flood insurance when underwritten.   Problem: NFP maps were wrong (go figure)--both ways.  But that is widely due to politics....land developers, banks and home buyers DONT WANT their property on flood plain maps because this would lower the value and require purchase of a flood policy.  Politicians and elected officials do their "do" as only they can...maps somehow change.    Then people (likely innocent home purchasers) complain and sue when the map is wrong.      5 yrs post Katrina, just Google the complaints in La about neighborhoods fighting the new maps....they dont want to be in a flood plain now????   Wait until the next flood, the same people will be suing or crying.  

I have copies of real-estate ads from Wva to La where people advertise the number of times their home floods/10 yrs.   the right property can be a real money maker.      Purchase a 100k building and 100k contents policy for $500/yr.   Every 5 yrs make a claim.   No requirement you actually live there.  Just clean out the mud, fill it with Good Will  used furniture and contents and wait. The govt will come pick up your wet trash from the front yard.     Collect and start again.   I know of one home that has flooded yearly for 13 yrs.    

But then why even  purchase flood insurance?    FEMA grants are sweet free money if you decided to take a risk.   I believe I read that NY North Residents may collect up to $25,000 if they were uninsured.     This may not help the  uneducated (to the program) but for those that know how to work the system.... this can be very nice.     Low interest SBA loans are available for businesses....but check out the default rate.

People thwarting the system?  Yep, after being underwritten on your mortgage with flood insurance, some folks just cancel the policy or non-renew.     The mortgages cos are too busy selling new mortgages to notice and fannie and sallie just don't care.    Generally, only those persons who have a real chance of flooding, keep their policy.   Those that are unlikely to flood, dont purchase.   This is why insurance does not work.    The "many' pay low premium to protect the few with large losses.    But in this game, the many stay out of the program.    Maybe more would enter the game if FEMA refused grants, as above.    This is the same for entire Towns or Municipalities too...who try to opt out of purchasing flood insurance and then cry for grants when a surprise storm occurs.    

Good news:  Congress is debating now to renew/extend/rewrite the NFP.     Premium increases of 15% yearly for a while, cancellation of policies if 2 claims are made, unsubsidized rates for 2nd homes and homes over $300,000 are likely to pass.    Look for a vote (or cowardness) this fall.    Swing States like Fla and NC are starting to push their political clout to get more free stuff for their voters, watch it get watered down.        

Why would anyone ever leave a flood plain if the economics were better to stay?  Insurance or not?  

Excuse the rant and I know full well that there are honest,hard working folks who either have or dont have flood insurance and have suffered immensely.  I see it daily.     But until the fraud/abuse are addressed, its just a bad situation and money looser for other hard working fools who decided to not live in a flood plain, close to the beach or near a river/creek.    

Interesting ^^^, thanks for the edumacation!

Ditto. Good read,Skiing! Very well written and very sensible. Hardly a rant.

Very informative

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Very informative

... and depressing. I honestly think we could balance our budget if you could root out this kind of abuse.

There are homes in NJ that have been FEMA'd 8 times in the last 40 years.

heard that FEMA is offering a buyout in Ausable Forks but it is totally voluntary - some of these homes have flooded 3 times THIS YEAR

Yes i suppose you could work the system and make money off this but the heart break that i see these folks going thru I expect many will take the offer and get to higher ground

Any flooded home is bad news.     For the person, the volunteers who muck it out, the volunteers who pick up debris and donate money to the families, extended families helping out. etc.   It shows how great this country and locale is.

When it comes to "taking" money, which is what I feel accepting flood "insurance" money is....remember it is not premium appropriate, flooded once or 8 times, or 13 times.     The Govt should not ask for "volunteers".      If you want a dime to full payment,  you move!   If you want to stay, you get 30 cents on the doller the first flood.   Next flood, nothing.    This is the problem, because FEMA/NFP is political, it wont make rational/economic decisions.      Remember, these are the folks that will vote.    

Regarding my last note about the "uneducated"   Again, I was not saying anything negative about these folks...rather it rarely floods up in NC, so there would be no reason to know (Read Educate) yourself on FEMA/NFP policies and procedures.    

I find it both SAD and Envigorating that this artical just appeared.     The great folks of this NY north country are dealing with this flood and disaster just lilke they know how....they are rolling up their sleaves and taking care of business.     Some will take advantage (which is fine) of this free money and low interest loans.     The word will spread, the next flood, more, then more then more, then folks will get the idea...why buy flood insurance?    30K free, plus a few K to weatherize my home?    Sure, why not?    Only suckers purchase flood insurance!  

In flood prone areas, contractors help their "customers" fillout the FEMA paperwork.    Then they can charge $10,000 to muck out a home, and $4000 for a new front door....etc.    Up here, at least the 30k might be spent on materials (hopfully in Weavertown/Chestertown, rather than Glens Fall's Homedepot/Lowes)and beer/pizza parties for the loyal friends/family/neighbors and local contractors  who are helping with the void this storm caused.    

http://www.denpubs.com/news/2011/sep/18/fema-recovery-center-opens-where-are-afflicted/

I:)skiing wrote

 For the person, the volunteers who muck it out, the volunteers who pick up debris and donate money to the families, extended families helping out. etc.   It shows how great this country and locale is

More evidence in that vein. Gov Cuomo had a call out for volunteers to help and so many people signed up they could not use them all at once. So they scheduled them out on different weekends.

I recall the Mexico City earthquake back in the 80s(?). It was a bad one. Anyway so many American churches, etc sent so much aid within weeks that the Mexican  gov quickly asked them to stop temporarily as they were overwhelmed.
 
Those things I can cheer.

The article Skiing linked states how the FEMA center in Luzerne is getting no visitors and yet it will be manned everyday till the end of October. Crazy. How many towns is this happening in?

The other day, the news had a spot about FEMA employees going door to door downstate to inform people where to go to apply for aid. Those towns have had FEMA centers for sometime now. The news has been reporting on these site locations.  All the town governments would be able to provide this info, as would the internet, local news and good old fashion word of mouth. Do we really need FEMA going door to door weeks after this happened? If ANYBODY doesn't know where to go by now.......

I suppose if the TV ever found one person who claimed, rightly or wrongly, " I don't know where to go for FEMA aid. " then the TV would run it over and over, inflaming people's misconception.

Somewhere in my earlier posts I mentioned or predicted that "people" would soon forget that floods happen (every 1, 5, 10, 50 or 100 yrs) and cancel their flood insurance.     Also that communities and towns cry 1) that the fed govt did not "warn" them of a flood or being put on the flood map properly "after" a flood, but 2) before a flood or soon after flood maps are redrawn, they ACTIVELY fight to get removed from the map.      


Here is the sad proof.    Two senators are actively fighting to "help" their voters save flood insurnace money by removing their towns/communities from the flood maps.     See, you can do this by legislation, forget the science, elevation or location to water of their property, that engineers who drew the maps considered.      What smart politically savy senator would vote against this?   As noted, it made it out of committee already.

Quick read:  The goal would be to exempt those protected by a levee     Really?    That would exempt just about 80% of the flooded homes in La where the levees broke or failed.   And while repairs are underway to rebuild and improve the levees, the Corp of Engineers still advise they are only good for L3 hurricanes.     Dams break.....that is specifically why you might purchase flood insurance.     In Md, we released huge volumes of water from a dam...and towns flooded.     Duh?    Then these same politicians will call for another bail out of these "victoms".      We are becoming a country of sheep...with deaf, dumb, and blind theives as shepards.    

Senators: Areas Protected By Levees, Dams Should Not Need Flood Coverage
WASHINGTON (National Underwriter)--Two Gulf-Coast senators are seeking to remove a Senate flood-insurance legislation provision requiring flood coverage in areas already protected by levees, dams or other flood-control structures.

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark., announced late Monday that they are seeking to have Sec. 107 of the National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Bill deleted from the proposal.

The provision was included in a bill that was reported out of the Senate Banking Committee Sept. 8.

Cochran and Pryor are raising the issue fully aware that the Senate is working under the pressure of another temporary extension of the NFIP, now slated to sunset Nov. 18.

The Senate must pass a bill, then reconcile its version with a somewhat different House bill, H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011 before that date.

Matt Gannon, assistant vice president of federal affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, voices sympathy for the concerns of Cochran and Pryor, but adds that the Senate bill’s Technical Mapping Advisory Council was established to address this very type of issue.

“These communities could be deemed exempt by the map council or have the lowest premiums required by the NFIP due to their robust mitigation efforts,” Gannon says.

Gannon also says “it is doubtful” that flood-insurance premiums would reach a level to slow economic development behind strong, well maintained levees, dams or other flood-control structures.  
But Cochran and Pryor say they are asking their colleagues to join them in signing a bipartisan letter to the banking panel asking for reconsideration of Sec. 107.

This provision would expand required insurance coverage to “areas of residual risk” that are located behind levees, near dams or other flood-control structures.

“The NFIP must be reformed, and I believe the Senate Banking Committee has done yeoman’s work on crafting bipartisan reform legislation,” Cochran says.

But he says Sec. 107 creates new flood insurance coverage mandates on families and businesses that are already protected by strong levees and dams.

“The blanket approach taken in the current bill should be changed in order to ensure fair treatment for those protected properties,” Cochran says.