This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/opinion/fema-flooding-development-buyout.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
This Is Not the Way to Stop Homes From Flooding This Is Not the Way to Stop Homes From Flooding
(about 3 hours later)
A year ago this month, Hurricane Harvey lumbered ashore along the Texas Gulf Coast, stalling there for four days and dumping more than 60 inches of rain that would cause catastrophic flooding. It was the second-most costly hurricane in American history. Southeastern Texas has been digging out ever since.A year ago this month, Hurricane Harvey lumbered ashore along the Texas Gulf Coast, stalling there for four days and dumping more than 60 inches of rain that would cause catastrophic flooding. It was the second-most costly hurricane in American history. Southeastern Texas has been digging out ever since.
As part of the recovery effort, the federal government is in the process of helping to fund a $217 million effort by the flood control district in Harris County, Tex., to buy and remove 985 flood-prone homes that were inundated during the storm. The land is supposed to remain as open space, free of development. As part of the recovery effort, the federal government is in the process of helping to fund a $217 million program of the flood control district in Harris County, Tex., to buy and remove 985 flood-prone homes that were inundated during the storm. The land is supposed to remain as open space, free of development.
But now the Federal Emergency Management Agency is considering changing the rules on buyouts. The results could end up costing taxpayers more money and encourage land speculation without correcting the flooding problems the buyout program was intended to fix.But now the Federal Emergency Management Agency is considering changing the rules on buyouts. The results could end up costing taxpayers more money and encourage land speculation without correcting the flooding problems the buyout program was intended to fix.
It is a terrible proposal that ought to be rejected.It is a terrible proposal that ought to be rejected.
Under current buyout programs, homeowners can sell their property to the local or state government for fair market value. The home is then demolished and the land is set aside as open space.Under current buyout programs, homeowners can sell their property to the local or state government for fair market value. The home is then demolished and the land is set aside as open space.
The goals are straightforward: Homes that have flooded more than once are removed from the flood plain, eliminating the potential for future damage and the costs that homeowners and taxpayers would bear to rebuild after the next flood and the next one, and the one after that. And, because buyouts are often undertaken only when an entire flood-prone neighborhood is interested, the cleared land becomes a buffer against the ravages of future storms, providing protection against flooding for those who live nearby. The goals are straightforward: Homes that have flooded more than once are removed from the flood plain, eliminating the potential for future damage and the costs that homeowners and taxpayers would bear to rebuild after the next flood, the one after that and the one after that. And, because buyouts are often undertaken only when an entire flood-prone neighborhood is interested, the cleared land becomes a buffer against the ravages of future storms, providing protection against flooding for those who live nearby.
The plan FEMA is now considering would continue the current programs, with one significant change: owners of homes damaged repeatedly by floods would be able to sell their homes to the government — as they can do now — but keep ownership of the land and then turn around and rebuild on the same flood-prone parcel, which is now prohibited. The plan FEMA is now considering would continue the current programs, with one significant change: Owners of homes damaged repeatedly by floods would be able to sell their homes to the government — as they can do now — but keep ownership of the land and then turn around and rebuild on the same flood-prone parcel, which is now prohibited.
Not only does this fail to address the problem of repeat flooding; it also raises the possibility that homeowners who live on prime parcels — along coastlines, for instance — could then turn around and sell their property for more money, pocketing a windfall at taxpayer expense. In essence, it would be a government subsidy for high-value redevelopment in areas that shouldn’t be rebuilt at all.Not only does this fail to address the problem of repeat flooding; it also raises the possibility that homeowners who live on prime parcels — along coastlines, for instance — could then turn around and sell their property for more money, pocketing a windfall at taxpayer expense. In essence, it would be a government subsidy for high-value redevelopment in areas that shouldn’t be rebuilt at all.
Joel Scata, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted in a comment to FEMA that with these proposed changes, a property owner could “redevelop the property themselves, leveraging the public funding provided by FEMA to build a larger or more luxurious home that could then be ‘flipped’ to the highest bidder.” Joel Scata, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted in a comment to FEMA that with these proposed changes, a property owner could “redevelop the property themselves, leveraging the public funding provided by FEMA to build a larger or more luxurious home that could then be ‘flipped’ to the highest bidder.”
If residents really want to remain on their property despite the flood risk, there are already cheaper ways to do it: the government offers significant grants to homeowners to elevate houses that have flooded repeatedly. In addition, flood insurance policyholders often redevelop in place with their claim money. If residents really want to remain on their property despite the flood risk, there are already cheaper ways to do it: The government offers significant grants to homeowners to elevate houses that have flooded repeatedly. In addition, flood insurance policyholders often redevelop in place with their claim money.
But some people want out. After Harvey, more than 3,500 people applied to the Harris County Flood Control District for buyouts.But some people want out. After Harvey, more than 3,500 people applied to the Harris County Flood Control District for buyouts.
In the months following the storm, I figured that the momentum surrounding the idea of “managed retreat” from flood-prone areas would build. That’s in part because Houston is the epicenter of what FEMA calls “Severe Repetitive Loss Properties.” These homes, which have flooded and been rebuilt multiple times, account for a minuscule percentage of homes that have federally subsidized flood insurance, but FEMA has paid in excess of $5.5 billion to rebuild them repeatedly. In the months following the storm, I figured that the momentum surrounding the idea of “managed retreat” from flood-prone areas would build. That’s in part because Houston is the epicenter of what FEMA calls “severe repetitive loss properties.” These homes, which have flooded and been rebuilt multiple times, account for a minuscule percentage of homes that have federally subsidized flood insurance, but FEMA has paid in excess of $5.5 billion to rebuild them repeatedly.
In some cases FEMA has rebuilt a single home 30 times or more. These properties are one of the big reasons that the National Flood Insurance Program exceeded its $30.4 billion borrowing limit last October. From 1975 to 2015, the program spent over $596 million rebuilding multiple loss homes in Harris County and Houston alone. No other area in the United States has cost taxpayers more. In some cases FEMA has rebuilt a single home 30 times or more. These properties are one of the big reasons that the National Flood Insurance Program exceeded its $30.4 billion borrowing limit last October. From 1975 to 2015, the program spent over $596 million rebuilding multiple-loss homes in Harris County and Houston alone. No other area in the United States has cost taxpayers more.
Even a former deputy associate administrator for FEMA’s Insurance and Mitigation division, Roy Wright, said: “On these multiple-loss properties, I’m working with my team and lawyers on ways I can move (the buyout option) to the front. The point is, I’m not going to pay someone to redo their house, then re-buy it.” Even a former deputy associate administrator for FEMA’s insurance and mitigation division, Roy Wright, said: “On these multiple-loss properties, I’m working with my team and lawyers on ways I can move [the buyout option] to the front. The point is, I’m not going to pay someone to redo their house, then re-buy it.”
But that is basically what FEMA is proposing to do now.But that is basically what FEMA is proposing to do now.
I have been researching and writing about buyouts for half a decade. When I read Mr. Wright’s words, I was optimistic that the agency would embark on a new approach to address mounting flooding problems. Perhaps the single costliest hurricane season in United States history would provide the political opportunity to change the way we approach development in flood-prone areas and the way we respond to their inundation.I have been researching and writing about buyouts for half a decade. When I read Mr. Wright’s words, I was optimistic that the agency would embark on a new approach to address mounting flooding problems. Perhaps the single costliest hurricane season in United States history would provide the political opportunity to change the way we approach development in flood-prone areas and the way we respond to their inundation.
Instead, we got a proposal to use buyouts not as an opportunity to reimagine areas that have flooded repeatedly, but to support the redevelopment of areas that will inevitably food again. Instead, we got a proposal to use buyouts not as an opportunity to reimagine areas that have flooded repeatedly, but to support the redevelopment of areas that will inevitably flood again.
Buyouts are the only adaptive strategy we have that enables people to get out of harm’s way, forever. With rising tides, stronger storms and half a century of risky flood plain development, we must maintain and make more robust the sole disaster recovery method we have that reduces public vulnerability and ends taxpayer subsidies of unsound development.Buyouts are the only adaptive strategy we have that enables people to get out of harm’s way, forever. With rising tides, stronger storms and half a century of risky flood plain development, we must maintain and make more robust the sole disaster recovery method we have that reduces public vulnerability and ends taxpayer subsidies of unsound development.
Elizabeth Rush is a visiting lecturer at Brown University and the author of “Rising: Dispatches From the New American Shore.”Elizabeth Rush is a visiting lecturer at Brown University and the author of “Rising: Dispatches From the New American Shore.”