GOes to show you that the fed’s are unable to handel just one line of insurance. What we will do if they start to oversee all lines? Once again you need to be on the phone with your represenitives to let them know the Fed’s have no need to be in insurance.
I’ve recently had a number customers receive letters that their flood zone has been reevaluated from a preferred to an A zone – obviously a big difference in premiums. Some re-evaluations are questionable but, I have one that is a prime example that FEMAs data is flawed. This insured’s property has never flooded but, he was next to an area with a creek that flooded every ten years or so. However, about 5 to 8 years ago, the local city and county spent millions of dollars cleaning up, dredging and fixing a 7 mile section of this area. Since this work, it has not came even close to flooding. My point is, that FEMA should have improved his flood zone rating – not put him in a more hazardous zone. My guess is that FEMA is doing everything it can to come up with more funds and paying little attention to its re-evaluations.
Isn’t this the never ending problem with any insurance? Losses rise and premiums fail to keep up. With flood losses mounting at a rate greater than 20% a year, the average losses somewhere near $30 billion annually, current payments at around 20% of that figure, and flood events now at 12 times greater than they were in 1950, we’re in a death spiral that can only be covered by tapping taxpayer money.
The best option is to avoid the losses in the first place. Major projects to control flood damage take a decade or more to implement, if the funding can be found. Emergency flood damage mitigation is the only chance we have to keep up with the rate of increase and sandbags are not a viable option. The technology of emergency flood barrier protection has been addressed and there are now several options that offer greater protection with tremendous flexibility. You can learn more about one such option at http://www.floodwalls.com
I want to congratulate most of those who responded to this topic. The discussions are, for the most part, some of the most useful and cogent that I have seen as a regular reader of this publication.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
GOes to show you that the fed’s are unable to handel just one line of insurance. What we will do if they start to oversee all lines? Once again you need to be on the phone with your represenitives to let them know the Fed’s have no need to be in insurance.
I’ve recently had a number customers receive letters that their flood zone has been reevaluated from a preferred to an A zone – obviously a big difference in premiums. Some re-evaluations are questionable but, I have one that is a prime example that FEMAs data is flawed. This insured’s property has never flooded but, he was next to an area with a creek that flooded every ten years or so. However, about 5 to 8 years ago, the local city and county spent millions of dollars cleaning up, dredging and fixing a 7 mile section of this area. Since this work, it has not came even close to flooding. My point is, that FEMA should have improved his flood zone rating – not put him in a more hazardous zone. My guess is that FEMA is doing everything it can to come up with more funds and paying little attention to its re-evaluations.
Isn’t this the never ending problem with any insurance? Losses rise and premiums fail to keep up. With flood losses mounting at a rate greater than 20% a year, the average losses somewhere near $30 billion annually, current payments at around 20% of that figure, and flood events now at 12 times greater than they were in 1950, we’re in a death spiral that can only be covered by tapping taxpayer money.
The best option is to avoid the losses in the first place. Major projects to control flood damage take a decade or more to implement, if the funding can be found. Emergency flood damage mitigation is the only chance we have to keep up with the rate of increase and sandbags are not a viable option. The technology of emergency flood barrier protection has been addressed and there are now several options that offer greater protection with tremendous flexibility. You can learn more about one such option at http://www.floodwalls.com
I want to congratulate most of those who responded to this topic. The discussions are, for the most part, some of the most useful and cogent that I have seen as a regular reader of this publication.