MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rebuilding After Louisiana Floods Will Require Government Permission Slips

And new federal regulations could add to the cost of rebuilding or force some residents to abandon their homes.

Lee Quimby/newzulu/NewscomLee Quimby/newzulu/NewscomAfter two weeks of devastating flooding in Louisiana that left at least 13 people dead and thousands homeless, residents are starting the arduous task of cleaning up and rebuilding.

President Barack Obama joined the fray on Tuesday, making a visit to some of the hardest hit areas of East Baton Rouge Parish and promising government aid to those affected by the historic flood.

As residents of the area will learn in the coming weeks: that government aid comes with strings attached that could drive up the cost of rebuilding or even prevent people from staying on the same property. Even if that's not the case for others, mandatory government permission slips are required before any substantial work can be done.

"We haven't suspended any of our requirements for permitting," Justin Dupuy, the building official for the city of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish said Wednesday in an interview with Reason. "Before they start making any repairs, they just need to call in and check with us to see what they need."

Any buildings where floodwaters reached the level of electrical sockets will require permits for electrical work and any substantial flooding—situations where more than just carpets and drywall have to be hauled out of the house and replaced—will likely require a full construction permit from the parish government.

The good news is that local officials have waived all fees on permits issued for flood-related damages, but permits are still mandatory because the local government might not allow some of the 20,000 damaged structures in East Baton Rouge Parish to be rebuilt.

In the Baton Rouge area alone, the damage is staggering. The Baton Rouge Area Chamber estimates the final price tag will exceed $20 billion for the 110,000 homes affected by the flood. In East Baton Rouge, more than 32,000 residential units were flooded.

Dupuy said building inspectors will review homes and businesses that sustained serious damage and decide if they meet the city's elevation requirements. Buildings that aren't at least one foot above the federal government's officially designated flood zones will have to be rebuilt on higher ground or will have to be demolished and residents moved to higher ground.

Once residents and homeowners get done with the local government permitting process, they're in for another headache courtesy of the federal government.

As the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, new federal regulations approved by the Obama administration last year will change how federal agencies like FEMA handle post-flood rebuilding plans.

The biggest change would require all projects to be built at least two feet higher than the previous federal standard for flood prone areas. That standard, maintained since the creation of the federal flood insurance program in the 1960s, is based on the one-hundred-year flood benchmark. The Obama administration pushed for the extra two feet because of concerns about rising water levels caused by climate change.

LAURENCE CHU, GAL ROMA AFP/NewscomLAURENCE CHU, GAL ROMA AFP/Newscom

For resident of East Baton Rouge, the dueling standards could creation confusion. All homes have to be at least one foot above the 100 year flood zone to meet city permitting requirements, but the new federal standard of two feet above the flood zone could kick-in if any federal money is used on a specific project.

Guidance published by FEMA last year says future building projects covered by the new set of regulations "may have higher initial costs than those projects not subject to these new requirements," although FEMA believes long-term costs will be lower since the new rules would prevent future damage from similar floods. Anyone who relies on a loan from the Small Business Administration (which issues loans to low and middle income families after natural disasters) loans could become more expensive under the new rules and some applicants may be denied "if the additional cost to elevate (the building) would make the loan unaffordable," according to FEMA's guidance.

"This (new regulation) is the very definition of red tape." said Cole Avery, communications director for U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham, R-Louisiana, whose district includes some of the worst-hit parts of northern Louisiana. "The administration claims this rule will create more savings in the long run, you know, in case another 1,000-year flood happens. But the reality is that about 130,000 Louisianians have experienced flooding this year, and they need help now. Heaping higher expenses and mountains of new regulations on them is not going to help them get back on their feet."

If taxpayers are going to help cover the cost of rebuilding, it makes sense for the govenment to take steps to ensure rebuilt homes and businesses won't be washed away again next year. That would be fine if the flood zones were an infallible system, but this month's flooding in Louisiana demonstrates that those flood zone benchmarks aren't always able to predict what areas are safe or how much elevation will protect against future floods. Many of the worst-hit areas were actually outside the federally defined flood zones, but were flooded anyway because more than 6.9 trillion gallons of rainwater fell on the state in one week and it all had to go somewhere.

In East Baton Rouge Parish there was significant damage outside the flood zones because of the "oddball" nature of this disaster, Dupuy said. Most of the city is actually above the federally defined flood zones. Adding to the cost of rebuilding is the fact that only about 20 percent of homes in Louisiana--and only about 12 percent in Baton Rouge--have flood insurance, according to NoLa.com.

With all the hard work ahead of them, the people of Louisiana need more than a few words of comfort from the president. Not making it more difficult or more expensive for them to rebuild their homes would be a good place for the government to start.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Obama administration pushed for the extra two feet because of concerns about rising water levels caused by climate change.

    That god must be fed with sacrifices.

  • LV||

    Yes, let's start with ALL liberals. If that does not work then we will try something else, but let's start with them and see what happens? If they really, truly believe in the shiite they espouse, then they should step up and volunteer, right?

  • Long Woodchippers||

    How many will say "Fuck it" by packing up their stuff and heading elsewhere, leaving their trashed house behind.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Hopefully lots.

    Because, don't kid yourself, everybody who stays and rebuilds will be using federal flood "Insurance" (i.e., taxpayer bailouts) again in a few years.

  • Sevo||

    Mixed feelings regarding the height requirement.
    If you want to build on a flood plain, I wouldn't stop you, but if you come begging for taxpayer money aferwards, take a hike.
    So if you are willing to pay your own flood insurance or sign a binding waver that there will never be taxpayer money used after a flood, fine. But you know there is no "binding" wavers, and I'm tired of paying for people to build in dangerous areas.

  • Ron||

    I often think the same way but then I realize there are no safe places to build. They are either in flood plains or earthquake areas or hurricane areas or tornado areas or fire areas or High snow areas or I'm sure there are more. Yes some places are safer than others but they are only hit fewer times. I do propose though If I lived in a flood zone I would just park a hose boat on my property and sit back and laugh at everyone underwater.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    There are no safe places to build. But wherever you build, you need to bear the risk and insure against it if necessary.

    For flooding (as opposed to most other risks), the federal government effectively assumes the risk, and that is wrong.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    With all the hard work ahead of them, the people of Louisiana need more than a few words of comfort from the president. Not making it more difficult or more expensive for them to rebuild their homes would be a good place for the government to start.

    And "more" is what they are getting: emergency aid, infrastructure support, and federal flood insurance, to name just a few.

    The biggest change would require all projects to be built at least two feet higher than the previous federal standard for flood prone areas. That standard, maintained since the creation of the federal flood insurance program in the 1960s, is based on the one-hundred-year flood benchmark. The Obama administration pushed for the extra two feet because of concerns about rising water levels caused by climate change.

    Given that federal tax payers are footing the bill, and that these people will likely continue to be insured through the federal flood insurance program, I have no problem whatsoever with this.

  • PuddingHead||

    If you build in a flood zone and say something bad happens, like a flood, don't expect taxpayers to help you rebuild.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    Or purchase insurance that adequately measures the risk. Higher risk should equal higher premiums.

  • mage_cat||

    The thing in Baton Rouge, though, is that many of these people didn't build in a flood zone. They built in places that have never flooded in recorded history. This was a 500 year flood.

    I've lived my entire life in south Louisiana. I'm lucky that this time I was south of the flooded areas. I can tell you from experience that most people aren't stupid when it comes to selecting houses and building sites. Priced out of the good parts maybe, but not stupid. The house both I and my father grew up in has never seen so much as puddles in the yard in his lifetime, and the house is still raised an extra two feet above ground level. This is normal.

    The flood was not normal. It was not predictable. Houses on high ground took on water. If the government insists on spending money, relief for this sort of catastrophe is what I want them spending it on.

  • gah87||

    6.9 trillion gallons of rainwater in one week. Enough to meet the country's water demands for 18 days. One man's shortage is another man's deluge.

  • pan fried wylie||

    You can lead a horse to water, but he's probably gonna drown in 6.9 trillion gallons.

  • LV||

    Yes, and those in power think we have a "drought" in "name a place here". What we have is the inability to trap water that falls from the fucking sky regularly by the gigatons. Hmmmm.... Is that a 'shortage'?

  • uunderstand||

    Is that one of those " can't see the forest for the trees " things, LV?

  • RichardBrixey||

    In such severe time flood insurance is much needed in order to repair the property. Most people register for flood insurance for repairing the property. Each year, millions of homeowners experience a flood or water damage problem in their homes. Insurance companies inspect the damage and then decide whether the policy covers the damage or sometimes they denies to pay. So, most of the people hire their own water damage boca raton fl adjuster for claiming insurance.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online