Talk:National Flood Insurance Program

message: Why won't insurance companies provide this coverage through an endorsement?  What is the history behind that?  Are the insurance companies looking to price flood into the homepolicy?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.29.204.27 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 13 September 2006  (UTC-5)
:I believe at the time of the original legislation, there were no insurance companies writing policies or endorsements covering flood losses.  In certain catastrophic events, the flood losses were compensated using disaster recovery funds provided by the predecessor agency to FEMA.  Congress created the NFIP to subsidize flood coverage in exchange for local governments implementing floodplain development regulations designed to prevent future development in flood-prone areas.  The controversial part comes in the 'grandfather' clause allowing pre-existing structures to buy the coverage without complying with the new floodplain development regulations.
:I hope I have that right...more research is required, and obviously would be a great addition to the article.--G1076 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Needlessly high"? It seems instead that since floods are so commonplace in the floodplain, insurance companies needed to charge high premiums to cover their losses. Perhaps a section could be added on how insurance companies handled these sorts of claims prior to the fed. gov. stepping in.--Gloriamarie 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be 'impossible' to accurately project the risk, though covering it could cause a threat to an insurer's continued existance.  Most insurance works because the risks covered are relatively independent - The likelihood that Bob has a car accident is independent of the likelihood that Carl has one.  With a flood, every property in the affected region is likely to suffer a loss.  The 'all-or-nothing' nature of the peril makes insurance companies loathe to cover it.  Schoop (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flood insurance market

message: Updated statistics in a couple of places and re-wrote line about taxpayers by reading cited source Climate Progress.  Deleted Biggert-Discussion in first since that topic was covered more thoroughly in second section. Andromedahpg (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Homeowners, developers, and community planners considering flood map revision should be aware of the special requirements. Many excellent licensed engineers may not have experience with flood analysis requirements.42Squire (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating flood maps

message: Although the insurance part of NFIP is particularly interesting to those affected by flooding, the land use portion of NFIP should be of interest to all of us as tax payers and as stewards of our resources.
I emphasis the difference between USCs and CFRs since USCs are the codification of Congressional laws. Therefore, USCs are to be followed by agencies and the courts according to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the first step in Chevron difference. However, CFRs are regulations created by administrative agencies such as FEMA and USACE that may be subject to agency deferral in a court action.
FEMA acknowledges that their minimum flood plain standards are MINIMUM and advises stricter standards.
Hopefully the provided images make this article on a regulatory topic more interesting.
Thanks to JesseRafe for comments.42Squire (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Land use restrictions in floodplains

message: Someone's doing a lot of ax-grinding here, supposedly banned by Wikipedia policy. The purported information about encouraging rentals is especially at least subjective, but not solely that text. An encyclopedia article is for presenting facts, not mounting arguments. A good deal of editing for neutrality and objectivity by someone knowledgeable is called for. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good bit of this article is non-neutral POV 

message: Implementation
Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the federal government that states that if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. The SFHAs and other risk premium zones applicable to each participating community are depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The Mitigation Division within the Federal Emergency Management Agency manages the NFIP and oversees the floodplain management and mapping components of the Program.
      This part of the article is very informative as to how the NFIP is utilized and how it functions. However, there isn't a citation and the article could benefit from having the source attached. It seems like this piece of 
      information came from a greater source and readers who are interested in researching the topic could benefit from having this source. 
Criticisms
Moreover, certain provisions within the NFIP increase the likelihood that flood-prone properties will be occupied by the people least likely to be in a position to recover from flood disasters, which further increases demand for aid. This is an example of adverse selection. Some factors contributing to increased demand for aid are:
Flood insurance for properties in flood prone areas is mandatory only to secure loans, which makes it somewhat more likely that flood prone properties will be owned by seniors who have paid off their mortgages, or investors who have acquired the property for rental income.
Flood insurance only covers losses for the owner of the property, and claims are subject to caps, which further increases the likelihood that the property will be occupied by renters rather than the property owner.
Flood prone properties are more likely to be offered for rent because of the owners' increased risks and/or costs associated with occupying the property themselves.
Flood prone properties are more likely to be offered for rent at a discount, which attracts lower income groups, seniors, and infirm groups.
       Again, this is information without a citation added. This is an abundance of information about the criticisms towards the program, but there isn't a link to where this was found. Admittedly, there is a citation in the sentence following this information, but it is uncertain whether or not this is the source of this information. 
Criticisms
This section seems to have a bias. Although the source articles seem to be relatively neutral, the way the information is presented is not so neutral. All the information presented makes it seem as if the individuals receiving aid from the NFIP are people who are purposely living there to receive aid and the payments for damages to the properties. However, it doesn't take into consideration the people who purchased property without the knowledge that they were buying a home in a flood prone area or who purchased the home when the area wasn't so vulnerable to flooding.
“We purchased our home in 1986, thinking it would be a lovely, tranquil place, but it’s a nightmare to live here in anticipation that it’s going to flood again. Flooding put our life on pause. I don’t want other people to go through what we’ve gone through,” said McKissic, who has been waiting for years for FEMA to authorize funding to buy her home before it floods again. https://www.nrdc.org/media/2017/170724 
That article mentions people who would be open to selling their homes, but are unable to because people don't want to buy property prone to flooding. 
Information about these people is quiet lacking and more should be added so we have a better understanding of all the people who are under the NFIP. 
Carlosr2359 (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: please make an effort to update the page with the above suggestions and any discussion for your edits can be reviewed in this talk page section. Anything that users disagree with can be reviewed or reverted for further review/discussion. Thanks! Shaded0 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Thoroughly Cited/ Lacking Some considerations