View in: Desktop
Copyright @2024 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Posted by
Message
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by lafloodcert on 9/15/21 at 12:13 pm to man in the stadium
quote:
man in the stadium
I mostly agree except for how it appears that this will be affecting zone X, historically low risk properties...if what is being reported is correct.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by man in the stadium on 9/15/21 at 12:29 pm to lafloodcert
But "historically low risk" is not an actual standard we should rely upon for several reasons:
1) people can argue until they are blue in the face about why climate is changing, but it is changing. Barry Keim at LSU and many others have done great research on the changing nature of rainfall in LA and I am sure there is equivalent research in other areas of the country. There is no disputing the nature of rainfall is changing here. It is raining slightly more each year, but storms are becoming much more intense (lots of rainfall in short bursts). Another example is the City of Houston: Harris County Flood Control District had NOAA re-analyze rainfall intensity/duration guidance in recent years and what was understood to be the 500-yr event is now understood to be more like the 100-yr event as a result.
2) Our statistical understanding of rainfall probabilities, in both duration and intensity, is based on ~150 years of observational data. There is Army Corps research that notes more like 300-400 years of observational data is needed before annual exceedance probabilities stabilize with each new observation (storm). Another way to think about it is this: we haven't observed enough dice rolls (storms) to fully statistically define the chances of rolling snake eyes. Thus, each new roll (storm) can redefine the statistical probabilities.
3) Flood mapping has advanced immensely in recent decades with gridded radar rainfall products, high-res lidar, advances in numerical flood modeling.
So, just because a house has historically been in an X zone maybe doesnt mean it really should be due to poor historic understanding of risk and due to changing climate. How many X zone properties flooded in South LA in 2016? Thousands.
1) people can argue until they are blue in the face about why climate is changing, but it is changing. Barry Keim at LSU and many others have done great research on the changing nature of rainfall in LA and I am sure there is equivalent research in other areas of the country. There is no disputing the nature of rainfall is changing here. It is raining slightly more each year, but storms are becoming much more intense (lots of rainfall in short bursts). Another example is the City of Houston: Harris County Flood Control District had NOAA re-analyze rainfall intensity/duration guidance in recent years and what was understood to be the 500-yr event is now understood to be more like the 100-yr event as a result.
2) Our statistical understanding of rainfall probabilities, in both duration and intensity, is based on ~150 years of observational data. There is Army Corps research that notes more like 300-400 years of observational data is needed before annual exceedance probabilities stabilize with each new observation (storm). Another way to think about it is this: we haven't observed enough dice rolls (storms) to fully statistically define the chances of rolling snake eyes. Thus, each new roll (storm) can redefine the statistical probabilities.
3) Flood mapping has advanced immensely in recent decades with gridded radar rainfall products, high-res lidar, advances in numerical flood modeling.
So, just because a house has historically been in an X zone maybe doesnt mean it really should be due to poor historic understanding of risk and due to changing climate. How many X zone properties flooded in South LA in 2016? Thousands.
This post was edited on 9/15 at 12:30 pm
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by CitizenK on 9/15/21 at 1:04 pm to lafloodcert
There certainly was money made off of Flood Insurance claims pre Katrina. Ex bro in law's inlaws took a trip to Europe from the claim they made with a camp north of Lake Chuck. All they had to do was hose it out and open up until dry.
My mother in law made money annually in Uptown NOLA with her ground floor art studio which flooded maybe an inch or two twice or more annually. She looked for rental property to buy which had previously been flood prone.
My mother in law made money annually in Uptown NOLA with her ground floor art studio which flooded maybe an inch or two twice or more annually. She looked for rental property to buy which had previously been flood prone.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by Astrosfan on 9/15/21 at 1:14 pm to deathvalleyfreak43
quote:
The system is broken- Insurance/government no longer provides a service of any value but we still have to pay out the arse for it. The day of reckoning is coming.
Nope..... You will pay it and enjoy paying it!
quote:
Discouraging people from living where it floods is a good idea.
I still get shite from a family member for agreeing with the position that wealthy folks should be paying their actuarial value when insuring expensive property next to water.
Biggert waters had some things right.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by lafloodcert on 9/15/21 at 2:07 pm to man in the stadium
Ok, how about "Preferred Risk." As in, "My home is in zone X, so I have a Preferred Risk insurance policy." Regardless, I get what you are saying and I presume you understood what I meant, as well.
There's no doubt 1% storm of yesterday is not the 1% storm of today. That should have been re-evaluated long ago and should be updated on a regular basis based on rainfall trends. How long have we been clinging on the that rainfall model? I'm glad to hear that Harris Co. is getting out in front of this.
Why not change the mapping / delineations with better storm models? If previously zone X is now high risk based on more realistic storm curves and surface modelling, put them in AE. This makes sense.
I don't see why this couldn't work within the existing framework, unless FEMA/Corps have no clue what the 1% storm (or any probability storm, for that matter) actually looks like. Maybe this is the big takeaway I should have gotten from your previous comment.
Floor, hag, lag elevations in relation to BFE should still be the single most important factor in determining a structure's risk for riverine flooding. 2.0 is now bringing in this vague notion (poorly defined based on my readings) that proximity to a flood source carries a heavy weight in determining a structure's flood risk. Is this to weigh greater than a structure's elevation? I haven't been able to find an answer to that question. As a matter of fact, I have found very little information on how any given structure's risk will be calculated. How is this flooding source defined? Is it a studied water body? A blue line stream? A roadside ditch?
If you're in the know, as it appears based on your comments, I'd be grateful if you could educate me on how all of this will now be calculated.
If we are seeing reports of zone x properties getting premiums rated several times higher that what they were paying as preferred risk, what does this mean for the folks in AE that are substantially below BFE?
There's no doubt 1% storm of yesterday is not the 1% storm of today. That should have been re-evaluated long ago and should be updated on a regular basis based on rainfall trends. How long have we been clinging on the that rainfall model? I'm glad to hear that Harris Co. is getting out in front of this.
Why not change the mapping / delineations with better storm models? If previously zone X is now high risk based on more realistic storm curves and surface modelling, put them in AE. This makes sense.
I don't see why this couldn't work within the existing framework, unless FEMA/Corps have no clue what the 1% storm (or any probability storm, for that matter) actually looks like. Maybe this is the big takeaway I should have gotten from your previous comment.
Floor, hag, lag elevations in relation to BFE should still be the single most important factor in determining a structure's risk for riverine flooding. 2.0 is now bringing in this vague notion (poorly defined based on my readings) that proximity to a flood source carries a heavy weight in determining a structure's flood risk. Is this to weigh greater than a structure's elevation? I haven't been able to find an answer to that question. As a matter of fact, I have found very little information on how any given structure's risk will be calculated. How is this flooding source defined? Is it a studied water body? A blue line stream? A roadside ditch?
If you're in the know, as it appears based on your comments, I'd be grateful if you could educate me on how all of this will now be calculated.
If we are seeing reports of zone x properties getting premiums rated several times higher that what they were paying as preferred risk, what does this mean for the folks in AE that are substantially below BFE?
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by LSUKTR on 9/18/21 at 9:25 pm to lafloodcert
Here we go, straight from the site:
So, sounds like "if you can afford a more expensive house, we'll charge you more." That's the "equity" they are talking about. When choosing coverage, they have various limits with higher premiums for the more coverage you choose. Think its capped at $250k. This new system sounds more like a "tax" on those with higher value homes.
quote:
Currently, policyholders with lower-valued homes are paying more than their share of the risk while policyholders with higher-valued homes are paying less than their share of the risk. Because Risk Rating 2.0 considers rebuilding costs, FEMA can equitably distribute premiums across all policyholders based on home value and a property’s unique flood risk.
So, sounds like "if you can afford a more expensive house, we'll charge you more." That's the "equity" they are talking about. When choosing coverage, they have various limits with higher premiums for the more coverage you choose. Think its capped at $250k. This new system sounds more like a "tax" on those with higher value homes.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by tiger91 on 9/18/21 at 10:43 pm to Weekend Warrior79
We’re AE I think and pay around $900 per year. Still have a mortgage so not having it isn’t an option and although I feel “safe” from flooding, I guess you never know.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by AllDayEveryDay on 9/18/21 at 10:46 pm to lafloodcert
Unpopular opinion time:
Every home owner should carry flood insurance.
I got fricked living on the coast, had damage from Harvey. Also paid $1000/mo on a $1200/mo mortgage because of flood and wind. Everyone should have some level of flood insurance. Regardless of elevation.
Every home owner should carry flood insurance.
I got fricked living on the coast, had damage from Harvey. Also paid $1000/mo on a $1200/mo mortgage because of flood and wind. Everyone should have some level of flood insurance. Regardless of elevation.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by Chalkywhite84 on 9/18/21 at 10:57 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
But, since I line in LA I still pay my $450 per year even though I know FEAM would bail me out anyway
How would they bail you out? I thought they just people sba loans
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor to Everyone
Advertisement
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by LSUSkip on 9/19/21 at 12:07 am to lafloodcert
I've been doing quotes. Alot of people are gonna gonna pass. My parent's house in zone x would be about $400 under old rates. Now it's about $1700. You don't even wanna know about AE. There will be people that can't sell their houses because the mandated flood policy alone is gonna be $700/month. I've already quoted a few.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by SuperSaint on 9/19/21 at 12:07 am to lafloodcert
Why can’t the fricking government completely remove itself from supplementing insurance.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by LSUSkip on 9/19/21 at 12:23 am to SuperSaint
There are private flood carriers, no idea on how any of that is though, I have to go through FEMA from what I've been told.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by GreenRockTiger on 9/19/21 at 12:26 am to SuperSaint
quote:
Why can’t the fricking government completely remove itself from supplementing insurance.
Because it makes politicians money
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by TigerDeBaiter on 9/19/21 at 4:07 am to Chalkywhite84
quote:
How would they bail you out? I thought they just people sba loans
They get forgiven sometimes.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by nola000 on 9/19/21 at 8:58 am to BucksnDucks
quote:
Just quoted a flood zone X again- last year was 572.00. New rating with 2.0, 2100 a year
Maybe they've done their CBA but I would imagine this is a miscalculation on their part.
People in flood zone X, who are of very low-risk of floding, need to be enticed to buy flood insurance to subsidize those that are in high-risk areas. Increasing the price this much is going to cause a lot of people in flood zone X, like me, to do without flood insurance. $500 a year is better than $0 per year. Nobody is going to pay $2,000 plus per year. That's a property tax bill. For a product you will likely never need.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by nola000 on 9/19/21 at 9:06 am to man in the stadium
quote:
Give me a break. Fema has talked about this for years and the only reason it didn't happen sooner is Congress keeps delaying it. This isn't some smoke and mirrors conspiracy. The National Flood Insurance Program is broken because people do not pay the true actuarial cost reflective of the risk for the areas they choose to live in. The NFIP runs a multi-billion dollar deficit every year because the taxpayers of America bail out its losses. Taxpayers are bailing out coastal homeowners for building stupid things in stupid places. Local examples include slab-on-grade homes in Lafitte and Braithewait...stupid. Nationally, we have people building on the seaward side of dunes up and down the east coast, Dauphin Island, etc. etc...stupid. This is the story of the three little pigs, except the pigs who built their houses of straw and sticks not only are astonished when they get blown down, but then turn around and expect the other pigs to pay for reconstruction in the same stupid manner in the same stupid location. What happened to personal responsibility? If we want to get into this from an equity standpoint, the NFIP tends to benefit mostly those who are already affluent, since the total value of losses each year is concentrated in assets along coasts, which are often more high-dollar real estate and second homes.
From an analytical perspective, it may actually help many areas in Louisiana, since there will be more accounting of natural features and non-federal flood protection infrastructure in the Flood Insurance Rate Map process, all of which FEMA currently does a dogshit job of accounting for when modeling and making flood maps.
So, in summary, Risk Rating 2.0 encourages more personal responsibility. Think before you build. Pay what you owe in a free market. Oddly, for the current political climate, this is a pretty conservative, responsible, American thing to do as a nation.
Risk Rating 2.0 will have people pay what it truly costs to ensure risky decisions, plain and simple
Nailed it.
quote:
Yep and some of those homes not required because of X will eventually flood from poor drainage during a rain event due to too many mcmansion developments
Good. This puts pressure where it belongs. At the local level. Where there's more accountability from the constituents. Stringent mitigation, please.
re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!Posted by nola000 on 9/19/21 at 9:13 am to belowmebama
quote:
It’s pretty well documented how crappy our current drainage system is, and pumps seem to “fail” constantly but when our homes flood, we have to fight with insurance to restore what we had regardless of the pumps failing and drains being clogged with beads, trash, debris, vehicles, etc. It blows my mind that homeowners haven’t banned together to go after this
You get the government you vote for and therefore deserve.
quote:
Mother in Law's boyfriend had flood insurance in Houston when the big flood happened, but his neighbor didn't. When it was all said and done the neighbor came out better than the one that had insurance.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. I saw this a lot during Katrina. Or I should say, more than I should have
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News