Flooding by Design: A Look at the National Flood Insurance Program

Abstract

This article examines the financially troubled National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in order to understand how a program designed to reduce the risk exposure of US citizens to flooding disasters has ultimately resulted in incentivizing the settlement of the country's floodplains in the past few decades. The origin of the program and its implementation history are discussed to show how Congress has repeatedly amended the program as natural disasters have exposed flaws in program's design and implementation, with little success as the cost of flooding disasters in the US continues to rise. The heavy flood losses from the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season were almost fatal to the program, leading to concerns regarding its continued solvency and viability. Eggers and O'Leary's systems perspective framework is used to analyze the program to understand how it reached this point. Critiquing the program through the theoretical arguments of another federally designed, locally implemented government project, the Economic Development Agency's Oakland Project, as considered in Pressman and Wildavsky's classic implementation text, also yields further insights into the design and implementation problems the NFIP faces.

A Methodology to Assess Land Use Development, Flooding, and Wetland Change as Indicators of Coastal Vulnerability

“…These results are being used by planning officials to compare with existing planning regulations to propose new regulations to the Planning Board that will establish greater coastal resiliency through measures such as preserving wetlands, creating connected green spaces, and possibly adjusting building codes such as modifications to existing freeboard regulations which is more expensive to construct, but provides homeowners with a safer house if a flood event is to occur [91]. Additionally, Pender County is pursuing admission to FEMAs Community Rating System (CRS), which will enable county residents to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) at reduced rates [92,93]. However, to be granted into this program the county must meet planning standards that demonstrate that they are reducing risk to people and property.…”

Managing coastal flood risk to residential properties in England: integrating spatial planning, engineering and insurance

“…Despite changing policies, the intent of planning and insurance have remained relatively stable in the recent past, discouraging floodplain development and seeking to provide affordable insurance through private markets. Flood insurance industries have markedly varied arrangement by country, and while the United States National Flood Insurance Program has been found to decline housing development in coastal zones (Browne et al 2019), it is beset by financial challenges (Silvis 2018). By contrast, the continued private market insurance for flood damages offered in England, although requiring government commitments of flood protection and a legislated reinsurer Flood Re, has not yet faced the same financial crisis.…”

Property rights attitudes are a source of public opposition to flood mitigation policies in the United States

“…The building of levees might require easements or even the use of eminent domains to acquire the land to build or the necessary concomitant flowage rights. Even seemingly mundane flood mitigation policies such as mandatory flood insurance can have significant effects on the property interests of owners (e.g., Baker et al, 2018; Silvis, 2017; Wilson & Kousky, 2019). In short, the reality of flood mitigation policy is that many instruments can and often do directly implicate the property rights and interests of citizens.…”