Many of the people who live in eastern North and South Carolina were flooded out of their homes and businesses during and after the arrival of Hurricane Florence, which dumped up to 50 inches of rain on them. After they have returned to their properties, surveyed the damage and salvaged what they could, it will be time to rebuild. Right?
This is the natural impulse of residents attached to their communities. But it’s not necessarily the best response after you’ve survived a massive inundation. As climate change produces higher sea levels and more intense weather, coastal regions in particular are increasingly exposed to natural disaster. Houston had three “500-year storms” in three years. But instead of retreating from vulnerable areas, Americans are flocking to them in growing numbers.
One reason is that the federal flood insurance program encourages people to disregard the risk to property. Its premiums are set below the level needed to cover the claims that keep piling up. Last year, Congress had to write off $16 billion of the program’s debts, while voting for $120 billion to pay for disaster aid.
Even more perverse is that the National Flood Insurance Program pays homeowners to rebuild their flooded homes in the same low-lying spots, over and over. Before Hurricane Harvey, Texas had nearly 5,000 homes that had flooded an average of five times apiece, only to rebuilt each time with federal money. One Louisiana house worth less than $60,000 has been restored 40 times, at a cost of $428,000.
Such “severe repetitive loss properties” account for no more than 2 percent of structures covered by the flood insurance program – and nearly a third of the claims. Last year, the House voted to limit total payouts for a home to three times its value. But the measure died in the Senate.
Added to this bad incentive is that some people would rather relocate but can’t, because it usually takes far longer to get funds to move than to rebuild in the same spot. “We spent all this money to rebuild these homes, and we spend very little money helping people get out of these homes – even when that’s what they want,” Natural Resources Defense Council analyst Rob Moore told Bloomberg. Reallocating funds would save money and avert heartache.
State and local governments also need to discourage building in vulnerable areas. But even after Harvey, the Houston City Council approved a new 900-home development in a flood plain. A city official’s excuse? “The city is going to grow and we just have to figure out how to regulate that.” OK in theory, but a lax approach is always tempting for municipalities eager to expand their tax rolls.
In 2010, a North Carolina state commission projected that sea levels could rise more than 3 feet this century. “Rather than inspiring terror or action by the local community to protect themselves,” reported Business Insider, “the projections sparked outrage among local business owners and developers, who saw them as a threat to future development along the Carolina coast.” The legislature responded with willful blindness, barring use of this forecast for regulatory purposes.
Florence should stimulate new thinking, in North Carolina and beyond. Hurricanes and floods are natural disasters whose impact can be limited or multiplied by human decisions. It shouldn’t be a hard choice. We can delay action, but nature isn’t waiting.
— Chicago Tribune
