FEMA Flood Risk Index Based On Property Values, Not Geography. Sorry, Eastern Kentucky . . . .

[hatrack]

EDIT

Thousands of survivors were forced to move out of damaged homes, including (Ed. - Local resident Wesley Bryant) and his family. Their house, which Wesley’s grandfather built in the 1970s, is unlivable. Insulation peels from the ceiling and the floors bubble with water damage. Finding contractors to fix the house has been difficult because thousands of other flooded properties are also being repaired or replaced. Their furniture and appliances were destroyed, and Wesley estimates replacing them would cost around $20,000. The family was denied FEMA disaster assistance so they’ve had to foot these costs themselves. “We just need a little help from our government,” he said.

Despite histories of flooding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) classifies Pike County and the 12 other counties that flooded two years ago as facing “low” risks in the event of a natural disaster like a flood. That’s largely because they have less to lose —financially — compared to more urbanized areas. Critics of FEMA’s risk-determination tool, called the National Risk Index, say it doesn’t include enough information about rural communities, especially when it comes to flooding, leading it to understate hazards. That suggests that as the federal government cranks up spending on infrastructure, including the allocation of more than $1 billion to help reduce future flood threats, families in East Kentucky and other rural regions are at risk of missing out on projects that could help them prepare better for the next disaster.

EDIT

Letcher County was one of the hardest hit of the 13 counties declared federal disaster areas by FEMA. Five of those killed across the region were in Letcher County. Two years since the floods, the region is still rebuilding. “They (FEMA) were telling us it was going to take four or five, six years to recover and get through this,” (Ed. - Jenkins KY Mayor Todd) DePriest said. “And I thought, well, there’s no way it’s going to take that long.” Now, DePriest hopes it only takes five years. “All the processes and dealing with FEMA – and I think they’re fair in what they do – but it’s just a process,” DePriest said.

The National Risk Index multiplies a community’s expected annual loss in dollars by their risk factor. Like most of the east Kentucky counties that flooded two summers ago, Letcher County’s risk level is scored “very low” by the risk index. That’s because it includes annual asset loss in its equations. Rural counties like Letcher, where the average home costs about $75,000 and median household income is half the national average, score lower on the risk scale because there are fewer dollars to lose when disaster strikes. The area’s flood hazard threat is deemed relatively high but the potential consequences in financial losses are lower compared with denser areas.

EDIT

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01092024/rural-americans-too-poor-for-federal-flood-protections/

[Think. Again.]

1. So the National Risk Index is just a calculation tool for the insurance industry...

...maybe FEMA should think about creating a tool for people to gauge the risks WE will face from natural disasters too, that could be useful.

Because, as the article points out....

“If it’s gone up that much already, we might be wise to be concerned,” said Scott Denning, an atmospheric sciences professor at Colorado State University who studies carbon dioxide, water, and energy cycles. “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

In other words, it's just the beginning.

[drmeow]

2. This highlights one of the reasons

I hate that they talk about damage in terms of cost. There's a big difference when something causes billions of dollars of damage on the coast of Malibu vs billions of dollars of damage in poor areas. They need to report damage in terms of how many homes are affected, how many people are misplaced, and how much infrastructure impacted (they can talk about infrastructure damage in terms of dollar amounts). A billion dollars of damage when the homes are all $5 million is 200 homes. When those homes are $50K that's 20,000. I give a much bigger f**k about people losing their $50K home than about someone losing a $5 million home. Its not that it is not going to hurt to lose a $5 million home but if you can afford that home in the first place you are likely to have a ton more resources than if all you can afford is a $50K home (if you can even afford that)

[Jerry2144]

3. Risk, in federal regulations, is defined as probability times consequences

And depending upon the federal agency, consequences can be defined by money or by hram to people (chemical, radiation, etc).

That region does not have much property value so consequences are low from a federal perspective. But to the people living there, the consequences are extremely high. It's flawed when they don't take into account the relative effects on a person, instead of cost to the Fed. You can thank the Republiklan Party for this. We gotta protect the rich from paying much in taxes

[getagrip_already]

4. As an macroeconomic risk factor, its not a bad model...

It estimates the total cost of losses in a particular area.

But how it is used is the problem.

If aid is distributed based on it, then that is a flawed use of data. Because a strict dollar loss estimate does not take enough factors into play.

People building mega mansion on beachfront property do not represent the same human risk as a trailor park.

But the political clout of hilton head and galvonston are far higher than rural homes and businesses. Even house reps from red rural districts vote for the rich interests over everyone else.

They see to it fema cant allocate money to poor communities over rich ones.

They simply wont allow it.