The home insurance industry here has been in turmoil now for some time. There's been a lot of reporting about it. Rates in FL are about the highest in the nation, I understand, and many companies have folded or left the state, leaving many homeowners w/o insurance, and overloading the 'last resort' insurance carrier (Citizens) - and flood insurance is obtained through the federal gov't I believe, not through local companies.

On top of that, overdevelopment, and the ensuing loss of coastal buffer zones has been going on for quite awhile as well.

There used to be a state agency that oversaw development of sensitive areas, but it was done away with years ago by our pro-business lawmakers.

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/local-state/2022-10-08/shutting-an-agency-managing-sprawl-might-have-put-more-people-in-hurricane-ians-way

If lawmakers want "lean and limited government", then that is what they should expect in return when they have problems caused by the lack of regulations. This should apply to any flood plain, especially those along rivers, and all wetlands and watersheds. Any aid money should be tied to requirements to have future restrictions and regulations - no one wants to see another catastrophic disaster, and reckless behavior should not be rewarded.

What is the point in rebuilding in a location that is vulnerable to future destruction by hurricanes and floods? Strict building codes need to be enforced for any rebuilding.

Since private insurance companies are always in danger of going out of business after a disaster, I think it would be better to have all disaster insurance to be provided by the government.

Oh, you could have restrictions. What an idea. That is anathema to certain parts of our population. Let people do what they want but then they dont want to suffer from the results in lets say building in a flood zone. I can see why insurance doesn't want to insure in high risk areas. It doesn't pay. That is capitalism. People who will vote people into power who ignore real risks and allow devolvement where it should not be should have to suffer the real losses that will happen. It is a hard lesson.

"Well, it should be expensive, because the risk is huge."

x 1000

Quoted for truth.

We live on a lake and are within a flood zone. The night before the closing we heard from our mortgage company that we had to have flood insurance or we could not close the next day. Luckily a friend of mine was able to hook me up with an insurance agent who faxed me the policy and I didn't have to pay ($500.00) to her until I got back into town.

I got the FEMA maps and we had a survey done later and were able to get a LOMA (Letter of Map Amendment) to prove that the elevation of our home was 6 feet above the flood plain.

My sister and her DH were building their new home in Montana near the Clark Fork River and DH had the structure built 2 feet above the flood plain. Then last fall FEMA came around and raised the flood plain 2 feet. They now pay for flood insurance!

Our environment is changing, and we need to keep up. Sadly, our representatives and lawmakers aren't often up to date...

California has this issue with fire insurance in many places. It is very expensive, but if one wants to live in such an area you either assume such risk or pay an expensive insurance premium to do that.

I don't think elected officials have anything to do with movements of flood zone lines, proclamation of storm prone areas, determining forest fire risks and consequent costs for insurance purposes for those who live in or near dry wooded areas in the West, rising ocean waters or any of the other effects for areas with natural disaster risks.

When there are government agencies created with good intentions but later run amok and get sidetracked because of the inevitable interference of politics (like California's Coastal Commission), people are no happier with that than they would be were there nothing in its place.

There's a need for people to take greater responsibility for their own choices and decisions. Government can help in only limited ways - maybe there should be a mandate that every home within X miles of the Gulf or other storm-prone coastline is required to have flood insurance, as an example. A funny effect of that would be if more people bought the coverage, it would be cheaper.

FWIW, FL originally had miles of barrier islands and wetlands, which help to blunt storm forces/surges. Allowing development of coastlines, which eliminated many of these buffer zones, without regard for the consequences, is most certainly the responsibility of lawmakers/elected officials.

The same holds true for states with high risk of fires.

Taking a hands off approach to regulations for the insurance industry here in FL is legislators' responsibility as well.

I will defer to your local knowledge concerning the specifics of this terribly tragic event. There's no getting away from the fact that this region is susceptible to monstrous storms that cause unthinkable suffering and damage and that some seem to ignore that in their own personal conduct and choices. I read today the sad news that the death count is now over 100 people, more than half of whom drowned. Is there any way to make sense of that when storm warnings and evacuation orders gave people more than enough time to flee? What if the evacuation orders were mandatory and enforced, wouldn't lives have been saved? What if flood insurance were required in coastal zones, wouldn't financial disasters for many had been minimized?

To your point and to mine, there are many things governments can do. Over-regulation of markets is rarely a first or best choice to resolve problems. Over-regulation, not regulation.

Evacuation orders in Lee County were issued only 24 hours in advance.

We were given 36 hours here and elsewhere in the projected path. Even so, evacuation routes were at a crawl for miles.

I live in central FL and Ian dumped 15 inches of rain in our yard overnight (my husband drained 19 inches below the pool deck and in the morning was 4 in inches below the deck. If he hadn't done that, our house would have flooded.) There is a very rural area a few minutes from us (Geneva, FL) where the lake flooded and people are still out of their flooded houses today. I don't think any lakes, rivers, estuaries, etc. in the US can handle 15 inches of rain in less than 8 hrs. Ian caused what is being called a "500 year flood." Because we live in FL, we do have flood insurance, even though we're not in a flood zone. Hurricanes happen. At least we can see them coming and prepare, unlike earthquake, tornadoes, wildfires, blizzards, etc. Small comfort.

A terrifying catastrophy for all, drews. Not to compare bad luck, but about 40 years ago, torrential rains in Central California caused a number of massive landslides, including one in the mountains that divide Silicon Valley from the ocean at Santa Cruz. Rainfall was at a rate of nearly one inch per hour and it kept up for nearly 24 hours. The biggest tragedy was at one site where an entire hillside section collapsed and buried something like a dozen houses, with people inside. Locals may recall the event, at Love Creek near Felton.

A phenomenon we have here with increasing regularity that may not get much media coverage is what used to be called the "Pineapple Express" and is now called "Atmospheric Rivers". What happens is the prevailing winds shift and blow North East from southern, more humid areas across the Eastern Pacific and hit along with West Coast, often in Central California. The high level wind current brings a weather front with much higher than normal precipitation and it can last for several days. Flooding is not just a matter of runoff or drainage. We have a lot of hills and when they get saturated, the abnormally high water content in the ground acts like lubrication in the soil and ground that would normally stay in place slips free.

Hey drewsmaga, there's a reason where you and I live is called the St Johns Basin lol.

I emptied my rain gauge 3 times during the storm, Orlando-Sanford Airport reported 16 and change inches. But the 4-6 weeks prior to Ian our area received 8-12 inches of normal rainy season precip, so we were primed for disaster.

In my hood a newly constructed 'storm water park' overflowed and flooded about 15 properties. The pool rose at least 10 feet from 'normal' level. For a while I owned lake front property.

The flooding here is being called historic, but neighbor who has lived here 40 years says this amount of flooding has happened several times in the past. The brown high water marks on the palms on the Sanford River Walk bear witness to this.

Big inconvenience having SR46 under water. I remember driving to I-95 with a friend in August who wondered out loud what would happen if we had a wet tropical system. Didn't take long to find out...

FWIW, yet more local commentary about gov't culpability here in FL...

https://floridaphoenix.com/2022/10/13/development-on-floridas-barrier-islands-made-ian-evacuation-virtually-impossible/

The premise and title of the linked article relate to "evacuation being impossible". I haven't heard of any such reports but do you know, were any of the fatalities people who died while complying in a timely manner with evacuation orders?

"Government culpability", to the extent there is any, isn't responsible for weather phenomena. It would be a challenge to name many, if any, states or local governmental entities to hold up as examples of high-level performance and achievement. In the end, the effectiveness of laws and policies depend on the actions of competence of elected officials, to enact needed laws, and the work of governmental employees to carry out their needed functions. Not enough of them are as capable as their jobs require.

I think everywhere has examples of government dysfunctionality leaving people without infrastructure and services they expect and need. It's certainly true where I live. At other times, the forces of natural phenomena create problems beyond what may have been expected. (Remember the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989? A whole section of the top level of the two decker Bay Bridge broke off at one spot, sending moving vehicles to the deck below and causing a few fatalities as I recall. Nearby, an entire raised freeway collapsed, killing over 40 people. Were these avoidable?)

At times like this, it needlessly makes people vulnerable in ways that could have been avoided.

It's too bad but it is reality.

Flooding should not be political. It has to be fact bases. Pretending doesn't work. Not looking at historical floods isn't factual. You have to take into consideration what could happen and unfortunately that isn't happening in Florida. You cant let people build homes in a flood zone.

patriciae_gw I agree about the building (rebuilding) in flood zones. . But we aren't in a flood zone, (but have flood insurance, because Florida, and we weren't in a flood zone in TX, but came close to flooding with Ivan when the storm drains couldn't handle the amount of rain falling)) and would have flooded if my husband hadn't drained the pool. 15 inches of rain in 8 hrs. on overly rain saturated land is not political. Like earthquakes aren't political. Or tornadoes, etc.

"But we aren't in a flood zone"

When was the last time "flood zone" maps were updated? I'm asking sincerely, since I don't know how often such definitions are updated, and whether it's often enough.

Many areas of my city were flooded during Ian. I looked up flood zones and found that my city uses federal zones, the city doesn't designate any. The federal zones were minuscule compared to what actually flooded, and according to long time residents these areas have flooded in the past, yet new construction is allowed, apparently because it's not in a federal flood zone.

The article I linked mentions that developers/builders have a way of getting around environmental concerns by promising mitigation - which is often inadequate and not equivalent.