Assessing flood mitigation, management, and enforcement using insurance data, California and the USA

Abstract

AbstractPrevious research found that National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) premiums collected in some U.S. states, including California, have far exceeded damage payments. However, this finding raises the question of whether such an imbalance represents systematically good flood management or, instead, merely short‐term hydrologic good luck. This study investigated patterns in flood losses on structures that pre‐date and post‐date the first available flood maps (“pre‐Flood Insurance Rate Map [FIRM]” vs. “post‐FIRM”) in California, several peer states, and nationwide. California has a larger inheritance of pre‐FIRM structures than the national average, apparently reflecting development during the latter half of the 20th Century but before most Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps. Pre‐FIRM properties are a disproportionate cost burden on the system, and the number of pre‐FIRM policies has declined over time, but only slowly. Local patterns in pre‐FIRM claims suggest targeted areas for enhanced mitigation efforts, including buyouts. Conversely, we find that claims on post‐FIRM policies are a reasonable metric of good floodplain management and enforcement, and California's 38% of post‐FIRM policies generated just 24% of the state's NFIP claims. Local “post‐FIRM claim hotspots” suggest areas to examine more closely. California continues to be a net payer into the National Flood Insurance Program, with $102 million in payouts 2009–2018 versus $2.3 billion in premiums collected, or 4.5 cents of premiums collected for every dollar of premiums. In California, its peer states, and nationwide, future management of flood risk depends on: (1) continued investment in flood control and mitigation of existing floodplain structures, and (2) prudent planning and limitations on new floodplain and coastal development.