Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Policy, Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, March 25, 2004 NATIONAL FLOOD 

INSURANCE PROGRAM 

Actions to Address 

Repetitive Loss Properties 

Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director 

Homeland Security & Justice Issues 

GAO-04-401T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-401T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William O. 

Jenkins at (202) 512-8777 or 

jenkinsw@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-401T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Policy, Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 

March 25, 2004 

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

PROGRAM 

Actions to Address Repetitive Loss 

Properties 

FEMA has taken a multifaceted approach to mitigating, or minimizing the 

life and property losses and disaster assistance costs that result from 

flooding. Through the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA develops 

and updates flood maps that identify flood prone areas and makes insurance 

available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce building standards 

based upon these maps. Since its inception in 1968, the National Flood 

Insurance Program has paid $12 billion in insurance claims to owners of 

flood-damage properties that have been funded primarily by policyholders’ 

premiums that otherwise would have been paid through taxpayer-funded 

disaster relief or borne by home and business owners themselves. Through a 

variety of grant programs, FEMA also provides funding for mitigation 

planning activities and projects before and after floods occur. 

Repetitive loss properties represent a significant portion of annual flood 

insurance program claims. About 1 percent of the 4.4 million properties 

currently insured by the program are considered to be repetitive loss 

properties—properties for which policyholders have made two or more 

$1,000 flood claims. However, about 38 percent of all program claim costs 

have been the result of repetitive loss properties, at a cost of about 

$4.6 billion since 1978. 

Recent federal actions to reduce program losses related to repetitive loss 

properties include FEMA’s strategy to target severe repetitive loss properties 

for mitigation and congressional proposals to phase out coverage or begin 

charging full and actuarially based rates for repetitive loss property owners 

who refuse to accept FEMA’s offer to purchase or mitigate the effect of 

floods on these buildings. FEMA’s strategy and the congressional proposals 

appear to have the potential to reduce the number and vulnerability of 

repetitive loss properties and, thereby, the potential to help reduce the 

number of flood insurance claims. 

Floods have been, and continue to 

be, the most destructive natural 

hazard in terms of damage and 

economic loss to the nation. From 

fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 

2002, about 900 lives were lost due 

to flooding and flood damages 

totaled about $55 billion. Some 

properties have been repeatedly 

flooded and the subject of federal 

flood insurance claims. The 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) within the 

Department of Homeland Security 

is responsible for assisting state 

and local governments, private 

entities, and individuals to prepare 

for, mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from natural disasters, 

including floods. The National 

Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is 

the primary vehicle for FEMA’s 

efforts to mitigate the impact of 

floods. 

The Senate Subcommittee on 

Economic Policy, Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, asked GAO to discuss 

(1) FEMA’s approach to flood 

mitigation, (2) the effect of 

repetitive loss properties on the 

NFIP, and (3) recent actions taken 

or proposed to address the impact 

of repetitive loss properties on the 

NFIP. 
Page 1 GAO-04-401T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss the 

National Flood Insurance Program and the effect on the program of 

repetitive loss properties—properties with two or more losses greater than 

$1,000 in a 10-year period. Floods have been, and continue to be, the most 

destructive natural hazard in terms of economic loss to the nation, as well 

as the cause of hundreds of deaths in communities across the nation. 

During the 10 years from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2001, flooding 

resulted in about $55 billion in damages and about 900 deaths. During that 

period, the federal government paid about $7.7 billion in federal flood 

insurance claims financed primarily through policyholder premiums paid 

into the National Flood Insurance Fund. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the primary federal agency 

responsible for assisting state and local governments, private entities, and 

individuals to prepare for, mitigate,1

 respond to, and recover from natural 

disasters, including floods. FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program has 

served as a key component of the agency’s efforts to minimize or mitigate 

the damage and financial impact of floods on the public, as well as to limit 

federal expenditures needed after floods occur. The program has been 

credited by the administration with saving $1 billion annually by improving 

floodplain management and setting building standards—such as one to 

elevate structures—that have minimized flood damages. However, in the 

past, we have identified a number of concerns about the program’s 

financial viability, including how repetitive loss properties have 

contributed to the program’s long-term losses. Recent actions have been 

taken or proposed by the administration and Members of Congress to 

address the challenge posed by repetitive loss properties. 

My testimony today is based primarily on our past work. I will provide a 

perspective on (1) FEMA’s approach to mitigating flood-related losses 

through the flood insurance program and other grant programs, (2) the 

effect of repetitive loss properties on the flood insurance program, and 

(3) recent actions taken or proposed to address the impact of repetitive 

loss properties on the program by FEMA and the Congress. 

 1

 Mitigation is defined by FEMA as sustained action that reduces or eliminates long-term 

risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. 
Page 2 GAO-04-401T 

In summary: 

• FEMA has taken a multifaceted approach to mitigating flood-related 

losses. Through the flood insurance program, FEMA identifies and 

maps flood prone communities and makes insurance available to 

property owners in communities that agree to adopt and enforce 

building standards to mitigate the impact of floods. FEMA also 

provides funding for mitigation planning activities and projects before 

and after floods occur through various mitigation grant programs. 

• Repetitive loss properties represent a significant portion of annual 

flood insurance claims. While repetitive loss properties represent only 

about 1 percent of the current 4.4 million properties insured by the 

program, they have accounted for about 38 percent of all program 

claim costs historically and are projected by FEMA to cost about $200 

million annually. Since 1978, the total cost of these repetitive loss 

properties to the program has been about $4.6 billion. 

• Recent federal actions to reduce program claims related to repetitive 

loss properties include FEMA’s strategy to target the most frequent and 

costly repetitive loss properties for mitigation and congressional 

proposals to phase out coverage or begin charging full and actuarially 

based rates for repetitive loss property owners who refuse to accept 

FEMA’s offer to purchase or mitigate the affected buildings. These 

actions have the potential to reduce future program losses and improve 

the financial condition of the program. 

Floods continue to be the most destructive natural hazard in terms of 

damage and economic loss to the nation. Property damage from flooding 

now totals over $1 billion each year in the United States and floods occur 

within all 50 states. Nearly 9 of every 10 presidential disaster declarations 

result from natural phenomena in which flooding was a major component. 

Most communities in the United States can experience some kind of 

flooding after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, or winter snow thaws. 

Not only do floods cause damage and loss, they can be deadly—flooding 

caused the deaths of about 900 people from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal 

year 2001. Tropical Storm Allison, which struck the Gulf Coast in June 

2001, demonstrated the economic and social impact flooding can have, 

causing billions of dollars in damages and 41 deaths. As a result of the 

storm, FEMA paid out over $1 billion in insurance claims, the largest 

amount paid for a single event since 1978 when FEMA began to collect 

summary statistics on flood claims. More recently, Hurricane Isabel 

ravaged the Mid-Atlantic states in September 2003. Through November 30, 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-04-401T 

2003, FEMA had paid over $160 million in flood insurance claims and 

estimates that ultimately, flood insurance claim payments resulting from 

Isabel will be about $450 million. At least 40 deaths have been attributed 

to the storm. 

Floods can be slow or fast rising but generally develop over a period of 

days. Flash flood waters move at very fast speeds and can roll boulders, 

tear out trees, destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges. Walls of water can 

reach heights of 10 to 20 feet and generally are accompanied by a deadly 

cargo of debris. Flood damage causes both direct and indirect costs. 

Direct costs reflect immediate losses and repair costs as well as short-term 

costs such as flood fighting, temporary housing, and administrative 

assistance. By contrast, indirect costs are incurred in an extended time 

period following a flood and include loss of business and personal income 

(including permanent loss of employment), reduction in property values, 

increased insurance costs, loss of tax revenue, psychological trauma, and 

disturbance to ecosystems. In 1968, in recognition of the increasing 

amount of flood damage, the lack of readily available insurance for 

property owners, and the cost to the taxpayer for flood-related disaster 

relief, the Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act (Pub. L. No. 

90-448) that created the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Through the National Flood Insurance Program, FEMA has sought to 

minimize flood-related property losses by making flood insurance 

available on reasonable terms and encouraging its purchase by people 

who need flood insurance protection—particularly those living in flood 

prone areas. The program identifies flood prone areas in the country, 

makes flood insurance available to property owners in communities that 

participate in the program,2

 and requires floodplain building standards to 

mitigate flood hazards. FEMA also seeks to mitigate flood hazards through 

a variety of mitigation grant programs. 

Under the flood insurance program, FEMA prepares flood insurance rate 

maps to delineate flood prone areas including special flood hazard areas—

also known as 100-year floodplains3

—where enhanced building standards 

and insurance requirements apply. Currently, FEMA is in the initial stages 

 2

Nearly 20,000 communities across the United States currently participate in the program, 

including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

3

These areas have a 1 percent or greater chance of experiencing flooding in any given year. 

FEMA Has Sought to 

Minimize FloodRelated Losses 

Through the National 

Flood Insurance 

Program and Various 

Mitigation Grant 

Programs 
Page 4 GAO-04-401T 

of a billion dollar effort to update the nation’s flood maps. The Map 

Modernization program is intended to improve the accuracy of flood maps, 

put the maps in digital format to improve their accessibility, and provide 

the basis for assessing the impact of other hazards in support of DHS’s 

efforts to protect the nation from both man-made and natural disasters. 

For example, the maps could be used to assess the impact of toxic 

chemical spills on local waterways. At the request of the Chairman of the 

House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community 

Opportunity, we have been reviewing the Map Modernization program and 

plan to report on FEMA’s program strategy and the status of the program 

later this spring. 

Flood maps provide the basis for establishing floodplain building 

standards that participating communities must adopt and enforce as part 

of the program. For a community to participate in the program, any 

structures built within a special flood hazard area after the flood map was 

completed must be built according to the program’s building standards 

that are aimed at minimizing flood losses. A key component of the 

program’s building standards that must be followed by participating 

communities is a requirement that the lowest floor of the structure be 

elevated to or above the base flood level—the highest elevation at which 

there is a 1-percent chance of flooding in a given year. The administration 

has estimated that the program’s standards for new construction save 

about $1 billion annually in flood damage avoided. According to FEMA, 

buildings constructed in compliance with these standards suffer 

approximately 80 percent less damage annually than those not built 

according to these standards. 

Flood maps also provide the basis for setting insurance rates and 

identifying properties whose owners are required to purchase flood 

insurance. When the program was created, the purchase of flood 

insurance was voluntary. To increase the impact of the program, the 

Congress amended the original law in 1973 to require the purchase of 

flood insurance in certain circumstances. Flood insurance is required for 

structures in special flood hazard areas of communities participating in the 

program if (1) any federal loans or grants were used to acquire or build the 

structures or (2) the structures are secured by mortgage loans made by 

lending institutions that are regulated by the federal government.4

 The 

 4

Owners of properties with no mortgages or properties with mortgages held by unregulated 

lenders were not, and still are not, required to purchase flood insurance, even if the 

properties are in special flood hazard areas. 
Page 5 GAO-04-401T 

National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 that further amended the 

program also reinforced the objective of using insurance as the preferred 

mechanism for disaster assistance. The act expanded the role of federal 

agency lenders and regulators in enforcing the mandatory flood insurance 

purchase requirements. It also prohibited further flood disaster assistance 

for any property where flood insurance was not maintained even though it 

was mandated as a condition for receiving prior disaster assistance. 

Currently, the program provides insurance for approximately 4.4 million 

policyholders in the nearly 20,000 communities that participate in the 

program. The program has paid about $12 billion in insurance claims, 

primarily from policyholder premiums that otherwise would have been 

paid through taxpayer-funded disaster relief or borne by home and 

business owners themselves. 

FEMA also has a variety of grant programs designed to mitigate the effects 

of natural hazards, including flooding, on people and property. From 

October 1989 through July 2003, FEMA funded approximately 3,900 flood 

mitigation projects worth about $2 billion through the flood insurance 

program and a variety of other grant programs. Through these projects, 

FEMA mitigated over 29,000 properties. FEMA’s Flood Mitigation 

Assistance Program is funded through the flood insurance program and is 

designed to reduce claims under the program. Grants provided to states 

and communities are to be used for flood related mitigation activities such 

as elevation, acquisition, and relocation of buildings insured by the flood 

insurance program. In implementing this program, FEMA has encouraged 

states to prioritize project grant applications that include repetitive loss 

properties. In addition, FEMA provides funding for mitigation planning 

activities and projects before and after floods occur, respectively through 

the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program. In implementing the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program for 2003, 

FEMA specifically targeted projects designed to mitigate repetitive loss 

properties. Through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA 

estimates that it has mitigated over 2,500 repetitive loss properties through 

acquisitions, elevations, and other flood protection measures. 
Page 6 GAO-04-401T 

The flood insurance program has raised financial concerns because, over 

the years, it has lost money and at times has had to borrow funds from the 

U.S. Treasury. One of the primary reasons—payments for repetitive loss 

properties—has been consistently identified in our past work and by 

FEMA. About 49,000—approximately 1 percent of the 4.4 million buildings 

currently insured under the program—have been flooded on more than 

one occasion during a 10-year period and have received flood insurance 

payments of $1,000 or more for each claim. These repetitive loss 

properties are problematic not only because of their vulnerability to 

flooding but also because of the costs of repeatedly repairing flood 

damages. For example, a 1998 study by the National Wildlife Federation 

noted that nearly 1 out of every 10 repetitive loss homes has had 

cumulative flood loss claims that exceeded the value of the house. 

According to FEMA, repetitive loss properties have accounted for about 38 

percent of all program claim costs historically and are projected by FEMA 

to cost about $200 million annually. Since 1978, the total cost of these 

repetitive loss properties to the program has been about $4.6 billion. 

Nearly half of all nationwide repetitive loss property insurance payments 

had been made in Louisiana, Florida and Texas. For example, in Texas, 

since 1978 there have been approximately 45,000 flood claims totaling over 

$1 billion for repetitive damage. These 3 states, plus 12 others, have 

accounted for nearly 90 percent of the total payments made for repetitive 

loss properties. 

FEMA has developed a strategy to reduce the number of properties 

repeatedly flooded that, like congressional proposals, seeks to target 

repetitive loss properties with the greatest losses. FEMA’s strategy 

identifies the highest priority properties, for example those with four or 

more losses, that would benefit from mitigation activities designed to 

remove them altogether from the floodplains, elevate them above the 

reach of floodwaters, or apply other measures that would significantly 

reduce their exposure to flood risk. According to FEMA, it has paid out 

close to $1 billion dollars in flood insurance claims over the last 21 years 

for these properties. As of November 30, 2003 FEMA had identified 

approximately 11,000 currently insured repetitive loss properties in this 

target group. FEMA has set up a special direct facility for servicing these 

properties and provides information about these property to state and 

local floodplain management officials. States or communities may sponsor 

Payments for 

Repetitive Losses 

Contribute to 

Program Financial 

Concerns 

FEMA has Developed 

a Strategy and 

Members of Congress 

Have Proposed 

Changes to Address 

Repetitive Losses 
Page 7 GAO-04-401T 

projects to mitigate flood losses to these properties or may be able to 

provide property owners technical assistance on mitigation options. To 

facilitate grant-funded mitigation activities5

 for this target group, FEMA 

also initiated a pilot program to allow states and communities (where 

these properties are located) to use simplified methodology and software 

to establish the cost-effectiveness of proposed projects when applying for 

grants to mitigate these repetitive loss properties. 

Members of Congress have also recognized the financial burden repetitive 

loss properties place on the program and have proposed changing 

premium rates for properties with the greatest losses. Two bills introduced 

in 2003—H.R. 253 and H.R. 670—proposed amending the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, to, among other things, change the premiums for 

repetitive loss properties. Under the proposed bills, premiums charged for 

such properties would reflect actuarially based rates6

 if the property 

owner has refused a buyout, elevation, or other flood mitigation measure 

from the flood insurance program or FEMA. H.R. 253, as passed by the 

House, included a pilot program to allow FEMA to use flood insurance 

program funds to target “severe” repetitive loss properties for mitigation. 

Specifically, FEMA could use up to $40 million each year for the next 5 

years for mitigation directed at these properties. For property owners who 

refuse FEMA’s mitigation offers, their premium rates would be increased 

by 50 percent if they subsequently made a claim to the program exceeding 

$1,500.7

 In the past, we have noted that increasing policyholder premiums 

could cause some of the policyholders to cancel their flood insurance.8

H.R. 253 includes a provision that provides FEMA the flexibility of 

increasing the deductible, which would result in a lower premium rate, for 

policies where property owners refuse mitigation offers and make 

subsequent claims exceeding $1,500. This may provide property owners 

 5

This pilot applies to all FEMA mitigation grant programs including the Hazard Mitigation 

Grant, the Flood Mitigation Assistance, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Supplemental 

Mitigation Grants. 

6

Actuarially based rates would reflect the average expected flood losses over the long-run. 

Many flood insurance program policies are subsidized and therefore lower than actuarially 

based rates because the Congress authorized the program to make subsidized insurance 

rates available to owners of structures built before a community’s flood map was prepared. 

7

Property owners could not be charged premium rates greater than the actuarial rates for 

their area. 

8

U.S General Accounting Office, Flood Insurance: Challenges Facing the National Flood 

Insurance Program, GAO-03-606T (Washington , D.C.: Apr. 1, 2003). 
Page 8 GAO-04-401T 

who refuse mitigation offers a means for maintaining their flood insurance 

without a significant increase in their premium rate. 

While we have not fully analyzed the potential results of FEMA’s repetitive 

loss strategy and mitigation actions proposed by H.R. 253, based on a 

preliminary assessment, they appear to have the potential to reduce the 

number and/or vulnerability of repetitive loss properties and, thereby, the 

potential to help improve the program’s financial condition. By making 

near term investments targeted to the most costly properties to insure, 

FEMA should be able to reduce annual expenditures for these properties 

in the long term by reducing the national inventory of repetitive loss 

properties. 

According to FEMA, there are a total of about 100,000 repetitive loss 

properties accounting for $4.6 billion in losses since 1978. Of these 

properties, FEMA reports that there are about 49,000 properties that are 

currently insured that have accounted for about $2.6 billion in losses since 

1978. Of these currently insured properties, about 6,000 repetitive loss 

properties that have accounted for about $792 million in losses since 1978 

could be considered for mitigation efforts funded through the pilot 

program proposed by H.R. 253. In accordance with the bill’s proposed 

criteria, each of these properties either had 4 or more separate claims each 

exceeding $5,000 with cumulative claims exceeding $20,000 or had at least 

2 separate claims with cumulative losses exceeding the value of the 

property. The remaining 43,000 currently insured repetitive loss 

properties, accounting for $1.8 billion in losses since 1978, do not meet the 

criteria for the proposed pilot program. Of these properties that would not 

be eligible for the pilot program, about 26,000 properties, accounting for 

about $1.6 billion in losses since 1978, had cumulative losses greater than 

$20,000, but either (1) less than 4 claims had been filed or (2) each claim 

did not meet the $5,000 threshold. (For state by state details on the total 

number of repetitive loss properties, the number of currently insured 

repetitive loss properties, the number of currently insured repetitive loss 

properties that meet the criteria proposed in the H.R. 253 pilot program, 

and the number of currently insured repetitive loss properties that do not 

meet the criteria, see appendix 1, tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.) 

As with all federal initiatives, the success of FEMA ‘s efforts in 

implementing a repetitive loss strategy and any future legislated program 

directives will be most effectively determined by using outcome-based, 

rather than output-based performance measures. Such outcome-based 

measures could allow FEMA to assess the impact of savings to the 
Page 9 GAO-04-401T 

National Flood Insurance Program resulting from its mitigation of 

repetitive loss properties. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact William O. 

Jenkins at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony include Chris Keisling, Kirk Kiester, and Meg Ullengren. 

Contact Information 
Page 10 GAO-04-401T 

This appendix contains data we obtained from FEMA’s National Flood 

Insurance Program Bureau & Statistical Agent on repetitive loss properties 

and the flood insurance losses associated with those properties. To assess 

the reliability of this data, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable 

about the data and the system development manager responsible for 

maintaining the data and the systems. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for identifying repetitive loss properties and 

illustrating the potential impact of the pilot program proposed by H.R. 253 

on these properties. 

Table 1: Total Number of Repetitive Loss Properties As Defined by FEMA and the 

Total Losses Incurred by These Properties 

State or 

Territory 

Number of repetitive 

loss properties

Dollar amount of losses for 

repetitive loss properties 

Alabama 1,835 $83,691,091 

Alaska 19 468,843 

Arizona 175 4,884,758 

Arkansas 321 11,941,534 

California 2,628 124,044,903 

Colorado 36 748,159 

Connecticut 1,054 44,163,664 

Delaware 281 12,615,552 

District of Columbia 10 585,392 

Florida 9,019 421,344,255 

Georgia 855 41,425,873 

Guam 12 385,619 

Hawaii 144 9,546,830 

Idaho 14 579,663 

Illinois 1,762 54,387,720 

Indiana 616 18,583,212 

Iowa 503 18,829,467 

Kansas 323 17,044,737 

Kentucky 1,117 55,283,294 

Louisiana 20,534 810,411,024 

Maine 125 5,946,516 

Maryland 508 23,776,971 

Massachusetts 2,140 88,096,542 

Michigan 351 9,186,190 

Minnesota 353 11,223,627 

Appendix 1: Data on Repetitive Loss 

Properties For the Period January 1, 1978 

through November 30, 2003 
Page 11 GAO-04-401T 

State or 

Territory 

Number of repetitive 

loss properties

Dollar amount of losses for 

repetitive loss properties 

Mississippi 3,281 127,911,429 

Missouri 3,953 190,678,940 

Montana 35 706,576 

Nebraska 300 7,855,929 

Nevada 21 1,699,859 

New Hampshire 91 2,489,816 

New Jersey 6,126 265,701,909 

New Mexico 12 430,851 

New York 6,988 195,600,245 

North Carolina 5,767 268,496,176 

North Dakota 111 5,194,653 

Ohio 1,003 33,594,150 

Oklahoma 757 33,569,657 

Oregon 251 13,325,203 

Pennsylvania 2,670 134,421,074 

Puerto Rico 1,838 45,025,945 

Rhode Island 167 9,869,855 

South Carolina 1,248 68,927,019 

South Dakota 69 2,140,281 

Tennessee 641 24,452,981 

Texas 15,777 1,039,278,392 

Utah 5 174,244 

Vermont 46 1,412,547 

Virgin Islands 181 17,088,798 

Virginia 1,676 87,661,854 

Washington 604 31,294,466 

West Virginia 1,707 65,014,451 

Wisconsin 350 10,698,243 

Wyoming 5 $157,285 

Total 100,415 $4,554,068,263 

Source: FEMA 

Note: This table contains data from January 1,1978 to November 30, 2003. Repetitive loss properties 

are defined by FEMA as properties that have been flooded on more than one occasion during a 10-

year period and have received flood insurance payments of $1,000 or more for each claim. 
Page 12 GAO-04-401T 

Table 2: Total Number of Currently Insured Repetitive Loss Properties As Defined 

by FEMA and the Total Losses Incurred by These Properties 

State or 

Territory 

Number of repetitive loss 

properties currently insured 

Dollar amount of losses for 

insured repetitive loss 

properties 

Alabama 1,113 $54,763,624 

Alaska 9 250,401 

Arizona 34 979,728 

Arkansas 98 5,214,244 

California 1,315 70,297,658 

Colorado 15 288,285 

Connecticut 551 25,762,758 

Delaware 166 9,093,706 

District of Columbia 2 262,095 

Florida 5,844 285,678,979 

Georgia 449 24,230,607 

Guam 9 326,419 

Hawaii 63 5,698,632 

Idaho 5 269,659 

Illinois 602 23,203,936 

Indiana 262 9,337,064 

Iowa 233 10,310,670 

Kansas 86 7,472,586 

Kentucky 559 33,985,283 

Louisiana 11,211 519,823,924 

Maine 60 3,389,180 

Maryland 285 15,190,465 

Massachusetts 1,433 62,583,805 

Michigan 79 4,171,667 

Minnesota 148 5,682,443 

Mississippi 1,248 64,364,366 

Missouri 935 67,498,430 

Montana 7 179,171 

Nebraska 52 1,477,567 

Nevada 11 838,471 

New Hampshire 38 1,580,076 

New Jersey 3,584 166,181,042 

New Mexico 6 147,581 
Page 13 GAO-04-401T 

State or 

Territory 

Number of repetitive loss 

properties currently insured 

Dollar amount of losses for 

insured repetitive loss 

properties 

New York 2,741 98,779,008 

North Carolina 4,132 182,941,805 

North Dakota 25 959,524 

Ohio 428 19,956,150 

Oklahoma 238 14,035,032 

Oregon 148 8,885,004 

Pennsylvania 1,111 71,048,345 

Puerto Rico 340 15,165,298 

Rhode Island 76 5,067,871 

South Carolina 608 32,024,539 

South Dakota 23 974,108 

Tennessee 328 16,149,183 

Texas 6,118 529,656,763 

Utah 2 141,441 

Vermont 21 826,362 

Virgin Islands 72 7,640,852 

Virginia 1,001 50,679,980 

Washington 296 18,570,981 

West Virginia 769 34,191,301 

Wisconsin 208 6,629,724 

Wyoming 2 $33,971 

Total 49,199 $2,594,891,765 

Source: FEMA 

Note: This table contains data from January 1,1978 to November 30, 2003. Repetitive loss properties 

are defined by FEMA as properties that have been flooded on more than one occasion during a 10-

year period and have received flood insurance payments of $1,000 or more for each claim. 
Page 14 GAO-04-401T 

Table 3: Total Number of Insured Repetitive Loss Properties That Meet H.R. 253 Severe Repetitive Loss Criteria and Total 

Losses Incurred by These Properties 

Current repetitive loss 

inventory Severe repetitive loss properties as defined by H.R. 253 

State or 

Territory 

Number of 

insured 

repetitive 

loss 

properties 

Dollar amount of 

losses for 

insured 

properties

Number of

insured 

properties with 

4 or more 

losses at least 

$5000 each

Dollar amount 

of losses for 

insured 

properties with 

4 or more 

losses at least 

$5000 Each 

Number of 

properties with 

total losses 

greater than value 

of property 

Dollar amount 

of losses with 

total losses 

greater than 

value of 

property 

Alabama 1,113 $54,763,624 54 $6,463,851 28 $2,420,400 

Alaska 9 250,401 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 34 979,728 0 0 5 175,759 

Arkansas 98 5,214,244 12 2,708,354 0 0 

California 1,315 70,297,658 98 12,693,031 75 5,295,799 

Colorado 15 288,285 0 0 0 0 

Connecticut 551 25,762,758 52 5,849,156 18 1,717,645 

Delaware 166 9,093,706 14 3,671,582 1 85,990 

District of Columbia 2 262,095 1 256,863 0 0 

Florida 5,844 285,678,979 295 44,395,241 129 12,033,520 

Georgia 449 24,230,607 17 2,184,752 27 2,912,849 

Guam 9 326,419 0 0 0 0 

Hawaii 63 5,698,632 6 864,053 5 498,404 

Idaho 5 269,659 1 118,865 0 0 

Illinois 602 23,203,936 61 6,352,145 30 2,206,544 

Indiana 262 9,337,064 26 2,172,406 3 303,788 

Iowa 233 10,310,670 4 852,684 9 1,110,514 

Kansas 86 7,472,586 9 3,030,265 3 537,385 

Kentucky 559 33,985,283 90 13,413,166 27 1,951,404 

Louisiana 11,211 519,823,924 1,543 160,049,021 266 17,791,274 

Maine 60 3,389,180 5 607,713 0 0 

Maryland 285 15,190,465 11 2,147,524 8 363,953 

Massachusetts 1,433 62,583,805 97 14,326,550 40 3,408,243 

Michigan 79 4,171,667 3 346,050 2 112,444 

Minnesota 148 5,682,443 5 854,774 2 94,625 

Mississippi 1,248 64,364,366 160 17,479,826 77 5,561,038 

Missouri 935 67,498,430 166 29,470,155 91 6,025,294 

Montana 7 179,171 0 0 0 0 

Nebraska 52 1,477,567 1 87,986 7 355,886 
Page 15 GAO-04-401T 

Current repetitive loss 

inventory Severe repetitive loss properties as defined by H.R. 253 

State or 

Territory 

Number of 

insured 

repetitive 

loss 

properties 

Dollar amount of 

losses for 

insured 

properties

Number of

insured 

properties with 

4 or more 

losses at least 

$5000 each

Dollar amount 

of losses for 

insured 

properties with 

4 or more 

losses at least 

$5000 Each 

Number of 

properties with 

total losses 

greater than value 

of property 

Dollar amount 

of losses with 

total losses 

greater than 

value of 

property 

Nevada 11 838,471 1 112,460 0 0 

New Hampshire 38 1,580,076 1 133,837 1 21,387 

New Jersey 3,584 166,181,042 375 54,663,072 67 3,665,284 

New Mexico 6 147,581 0 0 0 0 

New York 2,741 98,779,008 141 19,508,163 61 5,541,717 

North Carolina 4,132 182,941,805 198 24,459,561 80 12,572,011 

North Dakota 25 959,524 1 80,867 0 0 

Ohio 428 19,956,150 28 5,421,096 14 706,233 

Oklahoma 238 14,035,032 38 5,740,230 12 948,477 

Oregon 148 8,885,004 7 2,448,373 13 659,110 

Pennsylvania 1,111 71,048,345 85 14,820,666 34 3,390,302 

Puerto Rico 340 15,165,298 22 4,009,676 9 364,354 

Rhode Island 76 5,067,871 9 3,026,107 1 40,949 

South Carolina 608 32,024,539 24 2,862,488 23 2,165,272 

South Dakota 23 974,108 1 261,320 1 35,974 

Tennessee 328 16,149,183 26 4,771,974 7 250,766 

Texas 6,118 529,656,763 790 143,758,753 309 49,428,892 

Utah 2 141,441 0 0 0 0 

Vermont 21 826,362 1 339,126 0 0 

Virgin Islands 72 7,640,852 8 2,464,950 3 1,118,466 

Virginia 1,001 50,679,980 37 12,213,811 35 3,387,211 

Washington 296 18,570,981 15 2,312,703 19 1,631,997 

West Virginia 769 34,191,301 33 4,709,416 43 2,752,297 

Wisconsin 208 6,629,724 5 271,132 1 62,000 

Wyoming 2 $33,971 0 $0 0 $0 

Total 49,199 $2,594,891,765 4,577 $638,785,796 1,586 $153,705,454 

Source: FEMA 

Note: This table contains data from January 1,1978 to November 30, 2003. Repetitive loss properties 

are defined by FEMA as properties that have been flooded on more than one occasion during a 10-

year period and have received flood insurance payments of $1,000 or more for each claim. 
Page 16 GAO-04-401T 

Table 4: Total Number of Currently Insured Repetitive Loss Properties That Have Incurred Cumulative Losses of $20,000 or 

More that Do Not Meet H.R. 253 Criteria for Number of Claims or Dollar Threshold for Each Claim 

Current repetitive loss 

inventory 

Repetitive loss properties that do not meet the H.R. 253 severe 

repetitive loss criteria 

State or 

Territory 

Number of 

insured 

properties 

Dollar amount 

losses for insured 

properties 

Number of 

properties 

that do not 

meet 

criteria 

Dollar amount of 

losses associated 

with properties 

that do not meet 

criteria 

Number of 

properties 

with total 

losses 

greater than 

$20,000 

Dollar amount of 

losses associated 

with properties 

with total losses 

greater than 

$20,000 

Alabama 1,113 $54,763,624 1,031 $45,879,373 577 $41,002,431 

Alaska 9 250,401 9 250,401 6 217,462 

Arizona 34 979,728 29 803,969 17 673,947 

Arkansas 98 5,214,244 86 2,505,889 48 2,077,821 

California 1,315 70,297,658 1,142 52,308,828 784 48,289,264 

Colorado 15 288,285 15 288,285 3 168,579 

Connecticut 551 25,762,758 481 18,195,957 262 15,885,273 

Delaware 166 9,093,706 151 5,336,134 92 4,764,542 

District of Columbia 2 262,095 1 5,232 0 0 

Florida 5,844 285,678,979 5,420 229,250,219 3,369 207,264,222 

Georgia 449 24,230,607 405 19,133,006 250 17,529,405 

Guam 9 326,419 9 326,419 6 273,023 

Hawaii 63 5,698,632 52 4,336,175 35 4,149,489 

Idaho 5 269,659 4 150,793 3 138,055 

Illinois 602 23,203,936 511 14,645,247 267 12,149,830 

Indiana 262 9,337,064 233 6,860,870 129 5,765,705 

Iowa 233 10,310,670 220 8,347,472 109 7,230,051 

Kansas 86 7,472,586 74 3,904,936 46 3,537,037 

Kentucky 559 33,985,283 442 18,620,713 281 16,763,540 

Louisiana 11,211 519,823,924 9,402 341,983,629 6,083 305,738,350 

Maine 60 3,389,180 55 2,781,467 27 2,466,802 

Maryland 285 15,190,465 266 12,678,989 164 11,477,404 

Massachusetts 1,433 62,583,805 1,296 44,849,012 682 38,094,864 

Michigan 79 4,171,667 74 3,713,172 25 3,261,848 

Minnesota 148 5,682,443 141 4,733,044 70 4,031,174 

Mississippi 1,248 64,364,366 1,011 41,323,502 654 37,515,205 

Missouri 935 67,498,430 678 32,002,980 480 29,695,281 

Montana 7 179,171 7 179,171 4 158,929 

Nebraska 52 1,477,567 44 1,033,695 22 781,283 
Page 17 GAO-04-401T 

Current repetitive loss 

inventory 

Repetitive loss properties that do not meet the H.R. 253 severe 

repetitive loss criteria 

State or 

Territory 

Number of 

insured 

properties 

Dollar amount 

losses for insured 

properties 

Number of 

properties 

that do not 

meet 

criteria 

Dollar amount of 

losses associated 

with properties 

that do not meet 

criteria 

Number of 

properties 

with total 

losses 

greater than 

$20,000 

Dollar amount of 

losses associated 

with properties 

with total losses 

greater than 

$20,000 

Nevada 11 838,471 10 726,011 7 672,932 

New Hampshire 38 1,580,076 36 1,424,853 17 1,228,814 

New Jersey 3,584 166,181,042 3,142 107,852,685 1,727 92,623,411 

New Mexico 6 147,581 6 147,581 4 128,129 

New York 2,741 98,779,008 2,539 73,729,128 1,208 59,794,017 

North Carolina 4,132 182,941,805 3,854 145,910,234 2,185 127,723,081 

North Dakota 25 959,524 24 878,657 11 706,938 

Ohio 428 19,956,150 386 13,828,821 199 11,787,561 

Oklahoma 238 14,035,032 188 7,346,325 127 6,682,135 

Oregon 148 8,885,004 128 5,777,521 89 5,339,042 

Pennsylvania 1,111 71,048,345 992 52,837,377 586 48,543,126 

Puerto Rico 340 15,165,298 309 10,791,268 145 8,819,234 

Rhode Island 76 5,067,871 66 2,000,816 33 1,605,087 

South Carolina 608 32,024,539 561 26,996,780 344 24,708,390 

South Dakota 23 974,108 21 676,814 11 541,731 

Tennessee 328 16,149,183 295 11,126,444 152 9,398,369 

Texas 6,118 529,656,763 5,019 336,469,118 3,797 322,573,631 

Utah 2 141,441 2 141,441 1 125,828 

Vermont 21 826,362 20 487,235 7 345,848 

Virgin Islands 72 7,640,852 61 4,057,436 50 3,953,055 

Virginia 1,001 50,679,980 929 35,078,959 513 30,519,416 

Washington 296 18,570,981 262 14,626,281 161 13,539,129 

West Virginia 769 34,191,301 693 26,729,587 364 23,249,323 

Wisconsin 208 6,629,724 202 6,296,592 54 4,792,561 

Wyoming 2 $33,971 2 $33,971 1 $24,605 

Total 49,199 $2,594,891,765 43,036 $1,802,400,514 26,288 $1,620,526,209 

Source: FEMA 

Note: This table contains data from January 1,1978 to November 30, 2003. Repetitive loss properties 

are defined by FEMA as properties that have been flooded on more than one occasion during a 10-

year period and have received flood insurance payments of $1,000 or more for each claim. 
Page 18 GAO-04-401T 

Flood Insurance: Challenges Facing the National Flood Insurance 

Program. GAO-03-606T. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. GAO-03-113. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

Flood Insurance: Extent of Noncompliance with Purchase Requirements 

Is Unknown. GAO-02-396. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2002. 

Flood Insurance: Information on the Financial Condition of the 

National Flood Insurance Program. GAO-01-992T. Washington, D.C.: July 

19, 2001. 

Flood Insurance: Emerging Opportunity to Better Measure Certain 

Results of the National Flood Insurance Program. GAO-01-736T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2001. 

Related GAO Products 

(440279) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs