As Sandy's Tab Comes Due, It's Time to Rethink Flood Insurance Everywhere (Including Dallas)

Categories: Schutze

SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Two experts from the Monterrey Institute of International Studies have an op-ed piece in The New York Times this morning advocating the abandonment of the National Flood Insurance Program, which is about to stick us taxpayers for $57 billion in rebuilding costs from Hurricane Sandy. If the experts want to know the full story, they should get away from the coasts and come to Dallas.

See also:
- The Power of Lobbying: Trinity Levees Are Unsafe SUPER Safe, the Corps Says Now

The argument is that the flood insurance program incentivizes risky real estate development and then sticks the taxpayers for the tab when the dice roll bad. With climate change loading the dice big-time, the flood insurance game is bad for us taxpayers all the way around.

sandy wave.jpg
Wikimedia
Hey, love your house, but we don't really want to buy it.
But if somebody took a hard look at our Trinity River project, they would see that the game gets fixed long before it ever gets to the question of flood insurance. In 2009 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that the Trinity River levees through downtown Dallas had degraded so drastically that the corps could no longer certify them as providing even minimal flood protection
.
The city of Dallas did what it could to repair problems the corps had found in the levees, but an even bigger parallel campaign was launched to lobby Congress and the corps for some kind of a break. It didn't take long.

Even though the corps had "decertified" the Trinity Levees for flood protection, it announced it was taking itself out of the Trinity River levee system recertification business, turning that over instead to the city of Dallas, which would be allowed to recertify its own levees. Gee, thanks.

At the same time, the corps announced it was kind of rethinking the whole business of flood safety standards, just sort of rejiggering it in a way we probably could never understand, don't you know. Assistant City Manager Jill Jordan let slip at a meeting that the new standard for the levees was no longer what the corps used to call an "800-year flood standard" and would be more of a "500-year flood standard" instead.

I was there, and I was struck by her statement, because back when I was in grade school, 500 was less than 800. When I asked her after the meeting if that did not mean the standard was being lowered, she said, "Well remember, 800-year and 500-year are pretty daggum close. It sounds significant but it has to do with probability and statistics."

Daggum! Who needs probability and statistics?

Later we saw a heartwarming display of bipartisanship in Dallas when Republican U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Democratic Congresswomen Eddie Bernice Johnson joined hands across the aisle to exempt the Trinity River from large portions of federal environmental law. They did it with a legislative sleight of hand, sticking what are called "riders" onto a defense appropriation act.

So the bill was: "X many billion dollars for troop pay, another X many for helicopters, X for helmets, and, oh yeah, the Trinity River in Dallas is exempt from federal law." The good senator's husband, by the way, makes his money -- a lot of money -- as a bond lawyer on big public works undertakings including the Trinity River project. What a way to run a railroad, eh?

I could go on. The Federal Flood Insurance Program is under the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When it came time for them to weigh in on providing insurance for properties near the levees, they told me it wasn't their job to figure out if the levees are really safe or not. They just take everybody else's word.

Try to imagine that in the world of private insurance. Waldo wants car insurance; he looks drunk; he smells drunk; he walks drunk; but he's got a letter from his mom saying he's not drunk. OK, Waldo, we got you covered!

My point? This whole question of flood insurance isn't really about flood insurance. It's about national land use policy: We don't have any. Even more fundamentally it's about our political will as a people.

We have to tell developers, "If you want to build a condo tower in a flood zone, go for it, but do not call us for money when you get wiped out." And that means do not call our senators and Congress members.

We'll get there. We just need to get hit with a few more $57 billion tabs.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
12 comments
holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

so should the taxpayer compensate the poor, hepless victims who have succumbed to the "Sandy Cough"?  After all.  It's our fault.

lisa.dawn
lisa.dawn

So it matters not how reckless the city officals are, they can determine an "emergency" on a whim to get millions in funding whether it is a TRUE emergency or not....all it takes is an OK from Mom. When a private investor executes a Ponzi Scam, laundering money over and over and over again, and is finally caught by the scammed investors, what happens to the scammer?  He goes to prison!

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

I presume FEMA will rebuild it every time it floods.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

As long as we aren't paying the tab nationally, we don't NEED a national land use policy.  Given how everything else the feds touch turns to shit, I don't want a national land use policy.

Sotiredofitall
Sotiredofitall topcommenter

Gee you almost sound like a "fiscal conservative"

The federal program collects about $3.5 billion in annual premiums. But in four of the past eight years, claims will have eclipsed premiums, most glaringly in 2005 — the year of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma — when claims totaled $17.7 billion. Private insurance companies have long avoided offering flood insurance to homeowners.  But the program is still a moneymaker for the private insurance industry. Even though these companies bear none of the risk, they take, on average, $1 billion a year of the premiums the government collects, as compensation for help in selling and servicing the policies. Federal auditors argue the payments are excessive.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

So we're going to have to pay for an unnecessary horse park all over again?

ScottsMerkin
ScottsMerkin topcommenter

but the developers develop in those place bc the cities give them huge tax breaks to build crap in those flood plains.  Its a vicious cycle and the only people that get fucked are the common man like you and I 

cynicaloldbastard
cynicaloldbastard

Socialize the loss, privatize the profit. Isn't that what government is for?

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

@Scruffygeist No, FEMA subsidized insurance should rebuild it everytime it floods, if only the city would buy insurance.

JimSX
JimSX topcommenter

@Scruffygeist

All horse parks are by definition necessary.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...