FLOOD05748

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Stemming the Tide of Loss - Missouri
• Date: 6/15/1999
• Prepared For: State of Missouri
• Prepared By: Missouri Emergency Management Agency
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Historic FEMA Regulatory Floodplain Information

buildings that the floodwaters had
damaged compared to other states. A
National F]ood Insurance Program
(NFIP) study of insured buildings wiIh
repetitive losses between 1978 and
1993 revealed that there were 3.268
such buildings in Missouri-a figure
far above similar losses in oIher sIaIes.
Most importantly, Missouri., State
Emergency Management Agency esti-
mates that many of the owners of Ihese
properties have made "as many as 23
claims within a tifIeen year period and,
in some cases. Ihe dollar value of the
repeat claims have exceeded Ihe
market value of the property several
Iimes."'19 Furthermore. these ligures
represent only Ihose homes insured by
the NF]P and exclude the vast majority
of homes on Missouri's floodplains
that were uninsured. Out of the 216,000
households atfecIed by the flood, only
22,000 had flood insurance.21J

",,:".

National Hood Insuranee
Program's Insured Buildings
with Repetitive Losses 21

State

Buildings with
Repetitive Losses

l\-tissouri
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
l\-tinnesota
Kansas
Nortb Dakota
\\'isconsin
South Dakota

3,268
1.351
287
247
201
175
142
66
16

~

Governor Carnahan decided 10
concentrate on buying the ruined family
residences raIher than business proper-
ties. This decision was based on sound
economics, since using government
money to buy family dwellings resulIed
in moving people out of Ihe threaIened
floodplains. As Destin Frost, SEMA.s
State Hazard Mitigation Ofticer put it.

"we could have purchased a $500.000
warehouse, or \ve could use that same
amount lO buy over 100 houses and so
impacI many more people.".

The raIio between the numher
of people helped and the amount of
available money was further increased
by the low market value of the average
house on the Missouri floodplains. The
price the slate offered to pay was
always based on thc fair market value
of the home before the tlood. Yet thc
location and agc of most of Ihe houses
dictated a market value of between
$5.000 and $25.000 per home.22 Again
a comparatively modest amount of
money could impact a large number of
people, move them off the floodplain.
and potentially save millions of dollars
in emergency relief and rescue
operations in fuIure floods.

By the fall of] 993. SEMA had
cremed policies and procedures for
buying flooded property and had
communicaIed these policies to llood
damaged ciIies and lOwns IhroughoUI
Missouri.23 These regulations set forth
strict guidelines. First, the local
community. not the State should
idenIify primary residences that were
sIructurally damaged within the flood-
plain and approach the owners with the
offer of a buyouI-Ihe decision being
the homeowners alone.24 ]n every way
the Governor wanted the decisions to
be made by communities and local
citizens. Missourians are conservative
and individualistic. and are suspicious
of government interference. The pro-
gram had to be voluntary or it would
not work. Secondly. once the local
government acquired the property. the
land had 10 be dedicated in perpetuity
for open space and/or recreaIional uses
or turned back into a natural weIlands
area. Third, no buildings excepI Ihose
consistenI with recreational pracIices
could be built on the land. Fourth. each
individual communiIy that participated

in the program had the right 10 decide
within Ihe law what it wanted lO do with
the land included in the buyout
program. Arnold. for instance. turned
the land into recreaIional area. by
building baseball or soccer fields. 25
Others built municipal picnicking
faciliIies. litness trails. or community
garden plots.26 SIill orhers. likc St.
Charles County. used the land to creaIe
outdoor educational faciliIies for local
schools and colleges where students
could undertake environ menIal stud-
ies.27 A number of communities such
as Neosho and Ste. Genevieve uscd
buyout money to purchase and
demolish at risk homes. Then with
other state. local. and federal funds.
Ihese local governments built tlood
retention basins, drainage ditches. and
levees in order to make the rest of their
town more secure from fUlUre f1oods.28

While Missouri.s offer to help
people leave their at-risk homes on the
floodplain W'LS generous. it had built in
safeguards that prevented anyone
homeowner from realizing an unwar-
ranted profit. The most important of
these safeguards was Ihe requirement
conIained in SEMA policy that people
who accepted buyout money had 10
resettle outside the floodplain. or be
compliant with the NFIP. Since
housing outside a floodplain IS
generally more expensive than that
within. the amount of money Ihey
received in the buyOUI program would
usually not compleIely cover the cost
of new housing. Despite this inequity
many people accepIed the buyout
money anyway. realizing IhaI it would
make a sizable installment on a new
home located in an area where they
would no longer. as homeowners, face
Ihe uncertainties of nooding and allIhe
accompanying disruptions. In 1993.
SEMA learned that communi lies had
identified nearly 2.400 primary resi-
dences, I 100 mobile home pads, 4
apartment buildings, and 385 vacant

Page 11