This well written, non-political, article covers key issues regarding re-authorization of the NFIP, including the inertia by the US Congress that previously resulted in incomplete corrections.
The expansion of the market is important, for the short term, and for the long term objective of phasing out NFIP for all but the most imperiled risks. A federal program such as NFIP cannot implement certain risk mitigation measures that will ultimately lead to the goals of coverage for all who need it, and solvency; i.e. risk mitigation by migration of risks out of frequently flooded areas. Local legislation is needed for the mitigation-migration goal, so NFIP changes should consider incentives or requirements for local governments to take more responsibility and action to move local risks out of flood zones and replace them with parks, water-impervious/ resistant commercial warehouses, etc.
Should not the “most imperiled risks” be removed from the equation by abandoning or demolishing? The whole “you should not have built there” philosophy needs to be addressed. The best way to do so is no longer insuring those who are too risky to adequately insure at an economical price.
Yes, remediation is viable in some instances. But stilts are an imperfect remediation, unless they are hyuuuuge stilts.
‘Should not have built in a flood plain’ is a by-product of settlers settling near a river or lake, for ease of transporting supplies and for commuting to and fro. They likely didn’t know the risk of flooding when they built their dwellings. With modern transportation, such as autos, those locations are no longer necessary, and should be abandoned… and used for parks, water-impervious commercial warehouses with vacant 1st floors, etc.
This well written, non-political, article covers key issues regarding re-authorization of the NFIP, including the inertia by the US Congress that previously resulted in incomplete corrections.
The expansion of the market is important, for the short term, and for the long term objective of phasing out NFIP for all but the most imperiled risks. A federal program such as NFIP cannot implement certain risk mitigation measures that will ultimately lead to the goals of coverage for all who need it, and solvency; i.e. risk mitigation by migration of risks out of frequently flooded areas. Local legislation is needed for the mitigation-migration goal, so NFIP changes should consider incentives or requirements for local governments to take more responsibility and action to move local risks out of flood zones and replace them with parks, water-impervious/ resistant commercial warehouses, etc.
Should not the “most imperiled risks” be removed from the equation by abandoning or demolishing? The whole “you should not have built there” philosophy needs to be addressed. The best way to do so is no longer insuring those who are too risky to adequately insure at an economical price.
OK; better wording would have been ‘most imperiled REMAINING risks’.
Better?
I can’t disagree with you 100%, but I believe some risks just need remediation rather than just abandon (stilts, etc)
Yes, remediation is viable in some instances. But stilts are an imperfect remediation, unless they are hyuuuuge stilts.
‘Should not have built in a flood plain’ is a by-product of settlers settling near a river or lake, for ease of transporting supplies and for commuting to and fro. They likely didn’t know the risk of flooding when they built their dwellings. With modern transportation, such as autos, those locations are no longer necessary, and should be abandoned… and used for parks, water-impervious commercial warehouses with vacant 1st floors, etc.
Great article!