re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

quote:

---

How would they bail you out? I thought they just people sba loans

---

They get forgiven sometimes.

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:

---

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.