Subsidized Flood Insurance Makes Storm Damage Worse
It's high time for Congress to end a program that routinely goes into debt providing subsidies to wealthy people living in high-risk areas.

Hurricane Idalia made landfall this morning along Florida's Gulf Coast as a Category 3 storm. It's expected to make its way up the East Coast as far north as North Carolina.
While the damage and potential losses will be tragic, it's also worth noting the federal policies that end up exacerbating these hurricanes' damage.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was created in 1968 to help homeowners in flood-prone areas afford insurance. Federal law requires that mortgaged properties in designated flood hazard areas carry flood insurance, but insurance premiums in oft-flooded areas are significantly more expensive (if they're even offered at all). The NFIP offers federal backing for policies that private insurers would not otherwise touch or that would be too expensive for most people to afford.
Today, the NFIP covers over 5 million policy holders and provides nearly $1.3 trillion in coverage. The program is nominally funded through insurance premiums, and if necessary it can borrow money from the Treasury to be paid back with interest.
But providing insurance to an otherwise uninsurable market comes at a price: A 2011 report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 22 percent of NFIP's policies were issued at subsidized rates, about 40–45 percent of the cost of an unsubsidized policy. Between 2002 and 2013, the NFIP collected between $11 billion and $17 billion fewer in premiums than the market would have dictated.
As a result of charging premiums below market rate, the NFIP often runs over budget: In 2017, the program owed more than $30.4 billion to the Treasury, the maximum amount it's allowed to borrow. In order to cover payments for damage caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria that year, Congress canceled $16 billion of the NFIP's debt. (The NFIP has made no further payments since then and currently owes more than $20.5 billion.)
The policies themselves don't make financial sense. NFIP policy holders are not limited in how many claims they can file or how much money they can receive. As a result, more than 150,000 properties nationwide have flooded multiple times and received NFIP reimbursement each time. According to statistics compiled by Pew, these so-called "repetitive loss properties" account for just 1 percent of NFIP policies but 25-30 percent of payouts. By 2009, about 10 percent of repetitive loss policies had received payouts worth more than the properties themselves.
An insurance company's refusal to provide coverage in a high-risk area provides a disincentive to anyone who chooses to live there: When the inevitable happens, you'll be responsible for the damage yourself.
But when the government assumes the risk on an insurer's behalf and makes insurance cheaper than the market would dictate, it creates incentives for people to live in dangerous areas more likely to be battered by extreme weather events.
There is evidence that NFIP's artificially cheaper policies have done exactly that. A 2018 study by Abigail Peralta of Louisiana State University and Jonathan Scott of the University of California, Berkeley, found that after a county joins NFIP, its relative population "increases by 4 to 5 percent" as residents stay in high-risk areas as opposed to moving away.
But for subsidized insurance policies, market forces would be driving people away from living in dangerous areas.
NFIP policies are also more likely to benefit wealthier people with more expensive properties. A 2007 Congressional Budget Office paper found that the median value of an NFIP property was as much as 2.5 times higher than the national average; it also found that 23 percent were not the owner's primary residence. Nearly 80 percent of NFIP policies are located in counties that rank in the top 20 percent of income. And a 2016 study in the Stanford Law Review found that "people who live in wealthier zip codes, receive larger subsidies, both in absolute magnitude and as a percent of their premium."
Two decades ago, John Stossel relayed the story of his beach house in the Hamptons, built on the edge of the water and insured for just a few hundred dollars a year through NFIP. It was fully or partially rebuilt multiple times over the years before finally getting washed away in a storm, with taxpayers footing the bill each time.
As the 2023 hurricane season gets underway, it's high time for Congress to end the NFIP—a program that goes billions of dollars into debt providing subsidies to keep mostly wealthy people living in high-risk areas.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“NFIP policy holders are not limited in how many claims they can file or how much money they can receive.”
Are you sure about that?
From FEMA: Q: What is a repetitive loss property? A: A Repetitive Loss (RL) property is any insurable building for which two or more claims of more than $1,000 were paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period, since 1978. A RL property may or may not be currently insured by the NFIP. Currently there are over 122,000 RL properties nationwide
When our house flooded in Ida, we were determined to be a loss. In our neighborhood there were a number of severe losses (>50% of the appraised values), a few RL and 2 or 3 Severe RL. My neighbor, a SRL can’t be insured.
Also, our premiom for NFIP ~4400/yr, a non-trivial amount. I hesitate to say it is market price, but it is 3x our homeowner's and flood are a lot less likely to occur the fire or wind, in my experience.
In St. Louis they just rolled out a program where properties that fell under that 'repetitive loss' designation could get a 1-time buyout, and the land would not be allowed to be developed in the future.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/st-louis-county-funding-fema/63-7eb9fc37-5dd5-44cb-9d0a-797bc77047ff
+1 common sense. Maybe the US Gov't could turn them into public access beaches.
They are doing that in our neighborhood as well.
I might be wrong, but re: insurability, if the house was pre-FIRM, it needs to be brought up to FIRM (i.e., come into compliance with flood mitigation plans and special code requirements (electric panel X ft above flood, lowest level of house X ins above certain elevation, etc,) I live in a twin and some of the options aren’t available or covered by insurance.
Also, re: no max, I have to assume he meant lifetime max, because there sure as hell was a on my claim, and it was only 45% of the cost of repair. And doesn’t count personal property loss.
Yeah, I don't live in a location that is prone to flooding, so I haven't paid too much attention to it. Some of my neighbors do, though.
Which is odd, because if you read the literature from FEMA, there is no flood proof location. Everywhere is at risk! (OSHA, coincidentally, doesn't believe that there's a safe distance away from the edge of ANY roof) However, I'm on top of a hill, so it's pretty unlikely. My neighbors would all be several fathoms underwater, and I'd be building an arc out back at that point.
Technically, flooding is two or more units with some consideration of basements. So an apartment building can flood if two or more units are damaged, and then the homeowners insurance can go, ‘Oh, well, it’s a flood!’
So it isn’t just river / creek / storm flooding. But that flood insurance is like $150 / yr. It depends on the flood zone of the the land and/or an elevation certificate.
I live south of Houston in League City, about 20 miles from Galveston. I'm in the 1 in 500 yr flood plan. I was flooded with Harvey. I know a lot of people that were flooded. Some didn't have insurance, some did.
Anyway, I know people that were a total loss. They wouldn't get money till they raised their houses. For me, my premium has doubled. NFIP is the insurance of last resort. Some people couldn't even afford that.
(For me I dealt with All-State, who dealt with FEMA. I had FEMA come out. Since I was only flooded 8 inches, they would only pay for sheet rock up to that level. They also wanted exact measurements of everything. I told them I had insurance and they just left.)
"But for subsidized insurance policies, market forces would be driving people away from living in dangerous areas."
Calling crap on this Joe. How many people lost homes in wild fires, or tornadoes? Did they move? Is New Orleans empty?
No. People live where they want to live. Should we just get rid of Florida since it all can be flooded?
Btw, nice Reason - Florida gets hit with a major hurricane. Basically, you are saying suck it up, it's your fault for living there.
Well, I do live in a flood plane. And I have flood insurance. So I am an informed homeowner. Can’t say everyone else is.
Then again, of the 150 homes flooded in our stretch, 30+ have sold at really good prices for the original owners. Lots of people moving out of NYC / PHI into my NW suburb on the Schukyll River. Dunno what to say, the cost of the house + flood is less than (D) run cities (for whatever definition of cost you want to use).
WTF?
Live where you want! And the author here isn't asking for any kind of prohibitions for where people can live. He's just saying why should other people subsidize the cost of those living in high-risk areas? Why don't you try answering that question instead!
The solution to this problem is simple. Build sea walls.
.
Galveston, Texas has a 10 mile long, 17 feet high sea wall.
.
Galveston paid for the sea wall itself - no federal help.
You realize that the Texas coast is more than 10 miles long, right?
OK, snark aside, what Galveston did more than a century ago was not just build a sea wall but then raise the ground behind it. But doing that few several square miles is much less daunting then raising thousands of square miles.
NFIP budget is less than 0.1% of the US budget...or about 5.7 billion a year, running a deficit of 1.4 billion dollars a year. What it covers is far less than the national average cost of a home (about $400K): " The NFIP covers up to $250,000 for residential buildings and $500,000 for non-residential buildings damaged by flooding.
Of the 5 million residences and businesses insured, the average of the deficit is $280.'
Compare this subsidy of 1.4 billion to the 7 trillion that oil and gas companies get globally, or the 1.3 trillion in the US. Most of this is externalized costs. " Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year;" These massive subsidies are going to the richest corporations in the world, with soaring profits: "Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Shell all reported record profits in 2022 — a year in which Russia's war on Ukraine collided with the post-pandemic economic recovery to drive oil prices to their highest levels in history.
Together, the four companies saw $1 trillion in sales last year, a sum greater than the total economic output of Colombia, South Africa or Switzerland. TotalEnergies and BP are set to report their 2022 financial results next week.
The record profits come after a year of skyrocketing gas prices....Shell on Thursday reported a nearly $40 billion profit for last year. That's more than double the prior year's results and the most money Shell has ever made in its 115 years of existence. Chevron, the second-largest oil company in the U.S., posted record earnings of $36.5 billion last year, while refiner ConocoPhillips doubled its profits to $18.7 billion, the highest in the 10 years since it spun off its refining business.
Exxon, the largest U.S. oil producer, this week reported an epic $55 billion in profits for 2022."
Why then are we lying about what NFIP offers and suggesting that subsidies of 1.4 billion to 5 million citizens for flood insurance while ignoring the trillion in subsidies to the richest corporations in history?
The most heavily taxed industry in the world gets subsidies? Sure, because all money belongs to governments and any money they allow anyone else is a subsidy.
It’s high time for Congress to end a program that routinely goes into debt providing subsidies to wealthy people living in high-risk areas.
This is the usual prescription against cronyism here. Name no names. Make sure that the goal (end the program) has no meat on it and is purely structured to lead only to some rhetorical chanting rather than action. No proximate action or legislation even though the obvious timing for this article is that NFIP authorization expires in a month which means Congress is about to extend it for another year. Meanwhile at least one special interest group NAHB is already mobilizing the media/critters to extend NFIP via both fearmongering and legitimate issues that would be part of any dismantlement plan with meat on its bones.
Might as well pee on your shoes. Useless libertarian notions of governance.
After Hurricane Katrina, I remember talking with a green about how it was almost entirely NFIP subsidies that would lead to the rebuilding of New Orleans below sea level. They immediately realized that and their goal before we started talking was ‘why the fuck are we going to rebuild NO below sea level?’
There could be an alliance of co-interest between environmentalists and libertarians here. Instead there is and will always be nothing. Environmentalists will become more watermelon instead of eco-capitalist. And libertarians will just pee on their shoes like a rather useless idiot.
At least the feds passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, exempting aloft 700 miles of low-lying shore areas from eligibility for federal insurance and support. They did not ban development on private land, but we taxpayers are not liable to bail out dumb home builders.
From the inception of the program through 2013, despite super storm Sandy and Katrina, the NFIP had paid about 50 billion out in claims and policy holders had paid about 50 billion in premiums. Yet the program was 20 billion in debt. Odd. Only 6% of that was paid to Floridians who accounted for more almost 40% of policy holders. Again, odd.
NFIP program is setup to provide a windfall for insurance agents to write policies and assume no risk.
I don't know how many times I have seen this article over the years and yet I never see anything done about the problem. There is a lot of talk about cutting spending and yet this small item never gets a mention. Why? Because while people and politicians love to talk about cutting spending no one actually what to do any cutting.
Lived 300 yards from the Gulf, home 12 ft over flood. Saw the streets flooded many times, only one time was water threatening to come in the house in 30 years. Paid for the flood insurance and never had a claim. Lucky me. It's shared risk, and the money taken in usually is more than paid out, that's how insurance works.
Except the money coming in is less than the money going out. It's a government program rather than private insurance that has to make a profit, and it covers many properties that are much closer to the water level than yours.