re: #399 Dark_Falcon

Didn’t know I needed backup. But thanks anyways.

If anything the NFIP is proof that the government insurance isn’t a cureall either. It’s got a budget and it too can get overwhelmed (the latest $9.7b bailout suggests as much). It too can raise premiums to cover costs to a point where insurance becomes prohibitive and reduces development in flood zones - which is arguably a sound environmental and damage mitigation policy, but bad for economic development when we treat coasts as assets for exploitation (and where most people like to live and where property values tend to be higher for the views and access). Many coastal and river communities would disappear if insurance took a hard look. It’s a policy choice to continue extending the flood insurance.

The NFIP is under pressure to extend insurance to areas, even though it makes more sense to remediate back to wetlands those areas that have repeatedly flooded - like along the Passaic River after TS Floyd, Lee, Irene, etc (and seemingly after every lesser storm that rolls through).

In the end, the government insurance would still have to decide whether to continue extending insurance or not - at reasonable rates or not - and if it extends insurance at reasonable rates that can’t recoup flood damage costs, then the costs are borne by taxpayers who have to bail out the program.

Alternatively, insurers could be required to provide the same flood insurance, but as part of their standard policies (since the #1 cause of claims is flooding nationally) and increase everyone’s policies accordingly - but spreading the risk and increasing the size of the risk pool.