Flood insurance should be a state mandate

Published: March 16, 2010

Article Tools
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
Sign Up newsletter

Amid unseasonably warm weather that has rapidly melted a deep snow pack, and forecasts for substantial rain, state insurance Commissioner Joel Ario quite rightly has reminded Pennsylvanians that their homeowners' insurance doesn't cover flood damage. He recommended that they look into buying flood coverage under the federal flood insurance program (www.floodsmart.gov).

The average damage claim for a flood-damaged home in 2009 was more than $33,000, according the flood insurance program. And 25 percent of the damaged properties were in areas that were rated as being low to moderate risks.

In such areas, flood insurance can be purchased for as little as $119 a year. Premiums are higher in higher-risk areas, based on an array of factors including the age of the house, its condition and history.

While it would be wise for homeowners to acquire flood insurance where appropriate, there is little incentive for them to do so, as a practical matter, because the government most often compensates property owners for damages regardless of whether they are insured.

Federal and state governments should switch the call for flood insurance from a suggestion to a mandate. The federal government should borrow a page from the way it establishes uniform national highway safety and speed standards. States that do not comply are denied a percentage of highway funding. Congress should mandate flood insurance in flood-prone areas, and penalize states that do not comply.

Levels of risk for each area of every state are well-documented. States could require proof of flood insurance to be filed along with annual property taxes for those properties.

Such insurance also would have to be a prerequisite for obtaining permits to build or expand in known flood-prone areas, especially along rivers and shorelines.

Mandatory insurance also would relieve taxpayers of the burden of covering the impact of every flood disaster. The concept of insurance is to spread localized but common risks across the broadest possible base. Just as the government requires car insurance of all car owners in order to ensure that adequate funds are on hand to cover the losses of the relatively few who have accidents at a given time, it should require those at risk of floods to cover one another's backs at a given time.

At-risk homeowners would be wise to heed Mr. Ario's advice. Lawmakers would be even wiser to give them no choice.

Ads by Yahoo!






Type in the characters you see in the picture below. If you have trouble reading the characters in the picture, click it to see a new one.



7 posted comments

Baxter:

Not sure where you got the premium for flood insurance to be a guaranteed $119. I also don't see where you can buy it for less than in NY.
My suggestion would be to call your PA agent and ask him/her for a flood insurance quote
S

Report
Steve Hawley,  03/21/10 12:20
worried, I live in Monroeton, and have flood insurance. When I get a basement full of water, which often happens in the spring, my insurance won't pay because it's "ground water", coming up from the ground rather than through the doors or windows. I am not in the flood plain, but flood anyway because the borough council won't take the easy simple step of removing the old unused railroad abutment that forces the water through the center of town instead of letting it run down the creek bed. They keep talking about a dyke, but we don't need a dyke. The great majority of our floods would be resolved with the easy fix, and floods like Agnes in 1972 wouldn't be stopped by a dyke anyway.
Report
really is Morontown,  03/17/10 2:50
Most people can't afford yet another insurance. Here's a thought: How about mandate homeowner insurance policies to cover flood damage WITHOUT raising current premiums. That will never happen ... but it's a thought.
Report
Fed up with mandates,  03/16/10 10:59
I wish flood insurance were only $119.00 per year. Mine costs $3000.00 and I shopped around for that. Once it is required, the price will only go up. If flood insurance is mandated the government will need to cap it or the insurance companies will really sock it to us. Remember, most of Monroeton would be required to carry insurance under this plan even if you own your home outright and have not gotten water in decades.
Report
worried,  03/16/10 10:19
Here is a perfect example of the philsophical differences between a liberal and a conservative. Mr. Nanny-State Editor believes government must make decisions for people for their own good. Such thinking leads to a plethora of government rules, regulations, directions, procedures, etc.

A conservtive would look at this way: Tell people in designated flood areas that unless they have insurance, any damage repair is on them. No taxpayer assistance, period. It would also be their responsibility for clean-up. If not we send them the bill. Their choice, their decision. Hopefullu they would like responsible citizens and get they coverage. If not they pay the price. Other citizens should not have another onorous government mandate forced down their throat because of the irresponsible actions of others.

Report
PatrickHenry,  03/16/10 9:23
Not so sure i entirely agree with this, if you live in a flood plain, DEFINATELY!, however, if you live on the top of state street what in the world would you need it for? If the river rises that high i would be looking for Noah. Those in between i think you should be prepared to the 100 year flood levels at minimum...but ALL people...sound like somone have a vested interest in the insurance companies.
Report
Soapbox,  03/16/10 9:14
Mr. Editor, There you go again, more government!! Why do we need more intrusion from the feds? All the state has to say is the first time we pay on flooded property, If you still chose to live there, then tough luck the next time it floods. This is why we have the 10th amendment to our constitution! The federal highway standards and fines to the states is nothing but political blackmail. And remember there were states out west that told the feds at that time to shuve it, we don't need you money.
Report
less government,  03/16/10 8:01