Every major coastal disaster brings with it a flood of myths concerning the federal flood insurance system. It's a favorite target for coastal naysayers, who bring up these false claims as consistently as the tides.
But just because someone says something over and over doesn't make it true, so we offer some factual responses to the usual charges:
'They're just going to build back what was there before'
No, they won't. In order for coastal communities to be part of the National Flood Insurance Program, they have to agree to abide by certain rebuilding standards, usually along the lines of "higher, stronger and further back," on top of evolving building codes that also reflect the knowledge gleaned from prior storm damage, that mandate stricter standards for a structure's strength and survivability.
Want to see proof?
Look at post-storm photos when there's a mix of building types and ages. The older, at-grade buildings are usually gone, while the newer, stronger and higher structures are usually still standing. That's also why the devastation looks the worst when the coast area that's hit hasn't faced a storm's fury in a while - older structures and older standards wash away to be replaced with better buildings better able to survive.
Fact Box
Ken and Kate Goodersham can be reached at the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association at asbpa.org/news/newsroom_beachnews.htm or call (239) 489-2616.
'Flood insurance is a subsidy for rich people and their fancy beachfront second homes/
No on both counts.
It's not an outright subsidy, since those being covered have to pay premiums and meet certain standards (at least on a community level).
It doesn't offer enough coverage to dramatically entice the spread of multimillion-dollar manses.
The top NFIP coverage is for $250,000 for residential structures and $100,000 for residential contents (non-residential limits are $500,000 in each category).
So NFIP doesn't really benefit someone whose home is worth$2.5 million (although 10 percent coverage is better than nothing) but it can make a big financial difference if your flood-possible home is valued at $250,000 (which is not very much home if you've priced waterfront or water-adjacent properties lately).
'Flood insurance rewards risk, rather than making the coast safer'
Actually, quite the contrary: NFIP works to make coastal dwellings safer, recognizing that people want to live near the water whether you give them insurance or not.
Look at all the structures Hurricane Sandy laid waste to along the Jersey Shore. Many were built long before there was a federal flood insurance program, so their owners were drawn to the coast because they loved the living there - not because Uncle Sam gave them a few bucks in coverage. Now that they have to be rebuilt (and, they will be rebuilt), these structures are going to have to meet higher building standards in order to qualify for NFIP coverage, which will make them stronger and safer, more likely to survive the next big storm.
'Government has to back flood insurance because private-sector insurers won't touch such a risk-laden market'
Not exactly true. Government typically backs flood insurance coverage because:
n It's the carrot (affordable rates) that enables government to apply the stick (better flood mitigation and building standards) to help reduce the overall risk of flood damage to properties.
n If government is going to be on the hook for post-flood disaster recovery anyway, it makes much more sense to have a system that makes property owners pay into it in advance via premiums and meet standards to lessen risk through the NFIP program).
n If the federal government requires flood insurance for properties whose mortgages are guaranteed by federal agencies (a path to home ownership that's been pursued by Washington for decades), then it better have reasonable access to affordable flood policies to make this program work.
Flood coverage is a volatile and seasonal market, one unattractive to a profit-driven, stability seeking private insurer. That's doesn't mean it's not essential coverage to have - and that's where government has to step in.
The NFIP could stand a little reform - a process started earlier this year and one necessary to make the program stronger and more self-sustaining.
'Federal money should not be used to rebuild storm-damaged beaches - that just rewards risky behavior'
The federal government has a considerable investment in a healthy coastline.
It protects citizens and infrastructure; it generates a lot of economic energy through tourism and commerce; it plays a vital ecological role for habitat, protection of unique species; and is an important link in a delicate estuarine system.
Further, it is proven (and clear again, post-Sandy) that millions spent on beach restoration protects billions in property, infrastructure and livelihoods.
The NFIP program is not perfect, and changes enacted in the last Congress to correct some of its flaws are only a first step to making the system more sustainable and more effective.
More must be done, and storms such as Sandy are an impetus to action if the powers-that-be are inclined to put aside politics and put people and pragmatism first.
Protecting U.S. shorelines is simply the smart thing to do. Retreat is never a realistic answer Leaving these properties exposed to the next natural disaster through inattention or inaction - that's the real risky behavior.
Ken and Kate Goodersham can be reached at the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association at asbpa.org/news/newsroom_beachnews.htm or call (239) 489-2616.
