Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FLOOD INSURANCE <br /> <br />The instigation of the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968 marked a significant shift in public <br />policy. The National Flood Insurance Program was the vehicle that brought floodplain management <br />to the nation. The potential strength of the National Flood Insurance Program derives from the local- <br />state-federal partnership it fosters and its "quid pro quo" arrangement, whereby minimum land use <br />management and performance criteria must be adopted and implemented by localities in order to be <br />eligible for flood insurance and other continuing federal benefits. <br /> <br />Flood insurance can be a highly effective mechanism for fostering individual responsibility and <br />building local self-sufficiency, thereby contributing to sustainable and disaster-resistant localities. <br />From a federal policy perspective, flood insurance is attractive because it minimizes the amount of <br />taxpayer fimds that must go to "bailout" people who have chosen to live in hazardous areas. Instead, <br />insurance claims are paid from a pool fimded by people who are taking the risk of living in floodprone <br />areas. <br /> <br />Land Management/Flood Insurance Interaction <br /> <br />The premise of the National Flood Insurance Program is that the federal government will make flood <br />insurance available if the local government enforces land use and construction practices that minimize <br />the threat of flooding, Two notable exceptions to this general rule are in coastal erosion zones and <br />in areas that are subject to flood risks but lie outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas (mapped <br />floodplains), <br /> <br />Flood insurance is available at reduced rates for structures outside of mapped floodplains, but there <br />are no management measures required of the community for these areas, In addition, in certain coastal <br />areas insurance is available, but there are inadequate regulatory standards and premium payments do <br />not account for erosion, which can cause significant damage. Experience indicates that many who <br />purchase insurance in these unmapped floodplains are subject to an inherent flood risk. This <br />represents a potential drain on the flood insurance fimd with no opportunity to modifY existing <br />construction or to regulate the construction of additional at-risk structures. <br /> <br />· Consideration should be given to making flood insurance available only in mapped floodplains- <br />the idea being that citizens in unmapped but floodprone areas would demand that their areas be <br />mapped so that they would be eligible for flood insurance. Once they are mapped, they would be <br />subject to regulation, <br /> <br />· An alternative would be to require that, when a flood insurance damage claim is filed for a <br />structure outside of a mapped floodplain, the area be designated as a floodplain and the <br />community notified of the need to manage this newly mapped area. <br /> <br />· In cooperation with its partners and others, the Federal Emergency Management Agency should <br />establish a work group to review and revise the regulatory standards of the National Flood <br />Insurance Program (see section on Nonstructural Measures, above), The review should address <br />a zero-rise floodway; freeboard above base flood elevation to the first floor; elevation certificates <br />for all new floodprone construction, including placement of manufactured homes; flood <br />protection standards for critical use facilities; clear standards and procedures for determining <br />substantial damage and improvements; requiring some continuing regulatory protection behind <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-40. <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />