Posted by
Message
lafloodcert
LSU Fan
Wrong side of town
Member since Sep 2021
8 posts

re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!
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.


man in the stadium
USA Fan
Member since Aug 2006
1323 posts

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.
This post was edited on 9/15 at 12:30 pm


CitizenK
McNeese State Fan
BR
Member since Aug 2019
2654 posts

re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!
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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
Astrosfan
Houston Astros Fan
Nowheresville
Member since Jul 2021
226 posts

re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!
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!


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
10
TSLG
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2014
5045 posts
 Online 

re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!
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.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
lafloodcert
LSU Fan
Wrong side of town
Member since Sep 2021
8 posts

re: Risk 2.0 - FEMA Finnda Eat!
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?


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram