Who pays the cost of flooding?

THE NATIONAL Flood Insurance Program is facing rough seas ahead. The program is about $26 billion in debt after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012. Worse, a large percentage of property owners are heavily subsidized and do not pay full, risk-based rates. In addition, flood insurance is required only for certain property owners in high-risk flood zones.

No private insurance scheme would survive in a market where only the high risk buy insurance and do not pay risk-based rates.

The insurance program has survived for 45 years because it can borrow from the U.S. Treasury when flood payouts are more than the amount paid in by policyholders, paying back the loan with interest in years where there aren't many floods.

This worked pretty well until the 2005 hurricane season and the massive payouts after Katrina. Since then, much of the program's income has gone to cover interest on the debt, with little available to pay the debt down. The situation has resulted in calls for fiscal responsibility and the end of subsidies for all high-risk properties.

In this case, however, the "solution" has caused more problems. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which aims to phase out these subsidies, has created another set of angry constituents - property owners who are experiencing big increases in their flood insurance premiums.

Bipartisan bills in Congress would delay the move toward risk-based rates. The program finds itself between a rock and a hard place: those who are calling for fiscal responsibility and the end of the subsidies, and those who are having a hard time affording the new rates.

Ongoing research, part of the Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Initiative at Old Dominion University, is looking at how other countries deal with flood losses in the search for solutions to this dilemma.

Our research started by comparing flood insurance in the United States and the United Kingdom, where flood insurance is completely handled by private insurers. In the U.K., flood insurance is included as part of standard homeowners' policies. This avoids one of the big problems in the U.S., where even people who live in the floodplain don't buy flood insurance.

Including flood damage as part of a single policy would solve another U.S. problem: determining whether wind or water caused the property damage. Hurricane Katrina shone a light on this problem. If wind caused the loss, it was covered by the homeowner's insurance policy. If storm surge caused the loss, the flood insurance program policy would pay.

However, the use of private insurance in the U.K. doesn't solve the problem of subsidies. Just like in the U.S., British property owners who live in the floodplain pay a lower rate than they should because flood insurance is subsidized. The difference is that in the U.K., subsidies come from other policyholders; the government doesn't pay anything toward the cost of flood damage.

The U.K. is moving to a new flood insurance system, however. Under the new scheme, policyholders outside flood-prone areas will pay around $17 per year to make the rates more affordable for the high flood-risk policyholders. Rates will still be high in flood-prone areas but not so high as to be unaffordable, at least not initially. The system is designed to end subsidies in 20-25 years, unlike the U.S., where the national flood insurance subsidies are ending over a five-year period.

In the U.S., some are calling for private insurers to take over the flood insurance program. However, you would be hard pressed to find a private insurer interested in offering flood insurance. Private insurers could not survive in an insurance market where only those most at risk buy flood insurance; they would need to charge even higher rates for those high flood risk policyholders than the national program charges. The premium shock would be even worse, and Congress would be under even more pressure to step in and reduce rates.

Floods aren't going to go away, and whenever a flood occurs, someone has to pay to repair the damage. Even with flood insurance, most policyholders don't pay a price that reflects their true risk, and most flood insurance policies are subsidized to some extent. The real question is who pays the subsidy.

The U.K. experience shows that leaving everything to the private sector doesn't work, but the U.S. experience shows that leaving everything to the public sector doesn't work, either. We need to come up with the right mix of contributions from government, individuals and insurance companies - before the next Katrina or Sandy comes along.

Michael McShane is associate professor of finance and co-director of the Emergent Risk Initiative at Old Dominion University. Diane Horn, a former visiting scholar at ODU's Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Initiative, is a professor with the Department of Geography, Environment and Development Studies at the University of London's Birkbeck College.

Posted to: Guest Columns Opinion

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

Welfare for the rich?

People choose to live close to the water. Waterfront lots cost a great deal more than those distant from the shore. They choose the risk that goes with that.

Requiring people who live in areas not subject to flooding should not be forced to subsidize the choices of those who choose to live on the water's edge.

Such subsidies only encourage people to build in areas that might better be left wetlands.

Well that pretty much covers all of Norfolk

Shame on us who chose to live in Norfolk.

What were we thinking?

Never mind that the port and its economic impact help you in your business by virtue of patients who live and work here.

Are you really taking your football and going home?

You know, sometimes there are shared risks and benefits.

Or is that an anathema to Libertarian theory?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business