It’s Time to Fix Our Water-Logged National Flood Insurance Program
The NFIP has made strides in reducing risk and promoting equity. But it’s still in hot water.
CH Knox/iStock
For a nation facing rising sea levels and more frequent severe storms due to the climate crisis, our National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been the go-to solution for millions of homeowners in vulnerable communities. And yet, it’s riddled with holes—as policy experts have made clear for years. It has failed to discourage people from moving to flood-prone areas, for one. It has relied on deeply outdated floodplain maps. For many, it’s also too costly.
Now, having let the program lapse, Congress must not only reauthorize it but rebuild it into a true safety net.
“The NFIP is outdated and ill prepared for the impacts of climate change,” says Joel Scata, an attorney in NRDC’S climate adaptation division. “But with the right reforms, it can become a tool that not only insures people’s homes but also helps communities adapt to a wetter, riskier future.”
Here’s the rundown of why the NFIP is so badly needed in the first place, how it got into this mess, and what steps lawmakers must take to ensure a national policy tool that can reduce risk, improve resilience, and guide smarter development going forward.
New Orleans, August 2005
Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA
Flood risk in the climate era
It’s an indisputable fact: Warming seas and shifting precipitation patterns are causing more severe floods to happen more frequently. For people who live along coastlines, rivers, or other waterways, this is a very real threat. Storm surges have the power to destroy homes and upend lives. And for people who live in urban areas, even those far away from rivers or oceans, flooding from overburdened storm sewer systems is also disastrous.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which manages the NFIP, areas with a high risk of flooding will increase by 55 percent along the eastern coast, and 45 percent along its major rivers, by 2100. Despite this, prospective homeowners continue to stream to coastal and riverside areas (like Texas and Florida), which effectively raises the value of those properties that are at risk of floods.
In the coming decades, an estimated 4 million to 13 million more people will be living in flood-prone homes along the nation’s coasts—and that’s not even counting the growing number of people at risk along our inland waterways. FEMA expects the number of residents required to buy NFIP insurance along the coasts to increase by as much as 130 percent by the end of the century.
What the NFIP got right—and where the NFIP went wrong
When the NFIP launched back in 1968, it represented a major step forward for people affected by flooding. Private insurers at the time generally balked at underwriting flood risk, so the federal government stepped in. By offering government-backed flood insurance policies—and eventually requiring owners of homes in floodplains to buy in—the program streamlined the flood recovery process. Through its insurance premiums, homeowners began contributing to the cost of rebuilding; in return, assistance became immediately available in the aftermath of a flood for those who purchased coverage.
Through the NFIP, FEMA also assumed responsibility for mapping flood risk, which helps inform communities about the low-lying areas that are most likely to see flooding. The agency required communities to adopt building and zoning ordinances using established standards for development that would theoretically help structures survive a flood. If communities wanted their residents to be able to purchase flood insurance, they needed to adopt these standards, along with the flood maps, to guide future development decisions.
But there was never any consideration of how flood risk might change in the future. And in all aspects of the program, there was the assumption that the future would look identical to the past. The building and land-use standards that communities must adopt in order for residents to purchase NFIP insurance haven’t been comprehensively updated since the 1970s. These outdated codes, established decades before climate change was a household term, “are failing to keep our nation’s communities safe and will continue to do so as climate change makes flooding more common,” Scata says.
In 2021, NRDC and the Association of State Floodplain Managers jointly petitioned FEMA to update its standards in order to reflect the new climate reality. Among the petition’s requests were that all new or substantially improved structures be elevated higher than the level of a 100-year flood; that all new and revised NFIP floodplain maps depict how the floodplain will change over time, especially concerning sea level rise; and that homeowners seeking to retrofit their homes have easier access to NFIP funding.
A water line indicating the height of flood waters in San Antonio, May 2013
© San Antonio Express-News/ZUMAPRESS.com/Alamy
Pricing flood risk—past and present
Historically, the NFIP heavily subsidized the premiums for some of the most flood-prone homes. This had the unintentional effect of masking the true risk faced by homeowners, since the price of premiums wasn’t accurately reflecting the chances of a particular home flooding and requiring a payout. What’s more, floodplain maps and other data-collection formats used by the NFIP to identify at-risk properties tended to make few, if any, distinctions between homes based on their physical siting (e.g., next to a river versus a mile away from one) or their construction materials (e.g., masonry versus wood). By decoupling the cost of premiums from the likelihood of risk, the program has actually ended up encouraging—rather than discouraging—the placement of homes in high-risk areas over the years. And by painting so many homes with the same broad actuarial brush, it has effectively built inequity into the system.
Today, NFIP covers nearly five million policyholders in 22,000 communities across the country, providing more than $1.3 trillion in coverage. But the coverage leaves many gaps—indeed, the Society of Actuaries estimates that 87 percent of flood damages to single-family homes are not covered by NFIP insurance.
The structural problems that have beset the program for decades—and which have only been exacerbated by climate change—have finally brought the NFIP to a crossroads. To its credit, in 2021, the program made some substantive changes to the way it calculates flood risk and interprets and shares flood-related data. The new approach, which FEMA named Risk Rating 2.0, went some way toward redressing the program’s imbalances. It priced flood insurance according to each home’s unique and property-specific characteristics (e.g., its elevation, proximity to water, and the total cost to rebuild) and not simply its location on a floodplain map. It also gave policyholders a much clearer understanding of their vulnerability and how to lessen it.
But even after adjusting the program to be more fair—so that “expensive beachfront houses would no longer be subsidized by lower-cost, less-risky homes,” Scata says—the cost of insurance for homeowners has remained out of reach for too many.
Six priorities for the next NFIP
As climate change continues to expose more Americans to devastating flooding, Congress needs to make NFIP reform a priority, says Scata. NRDC is advocating for the following six areas of focus.
Flooding does not discriminate, but a household’s ability to recover after a flood differs greatly if the household has access to flood insurance. Due to high costs, low-income households are less likely to purchase flood insurance than higher-income households, even though low-income families are more likely to live in high-risk flood zones.
To address this protection gap, FEMA has proposed statutory language to establish a means-tested assistance program. If enacted, it would provide graduated discount rates based on income while communicating the “full-risk price,” so households understand the property’s true flood risk. The proposed program would also provide eligible households with greater access to flood mitigation assistance. This mitigation component will help reduce the flood risk to low- and moderate-income households and decrease pressure on the NFIP.
Unfortunately, the NFIP’s Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage often does not provide enough funds to cover required flood mitigation expenses—typically used to elevate a structure. The maximum payout of $30,000 is commonly three to five times less than the costs for completing this work, which is a practical solution for homes that experience repeated flooding.
Congress should increase the ICC coverage limit to at least $90,000, to account for substantial increases in building construction and mitigation costs over past decades. It should also add a new ICC coverage option above the amount prescribed by Congress that policyholders could purchase as added protection.
Congress should require FEMA to map flood risk with greater certainty for purposes of determining where people are required to purchase flood insurance. It should reflect the floodplain of the future, not the floodplain of the past.
FEMA flood maps have downplayed the risk of flooding. They’ve given false confidence to property owners, banks, developers, realtors, community planners, engineers, and others, who assume that homes, businesses, infrastructure, and other features of the built environment are safer than they are. In fact, more than 40 percent of NFIP policy holders filing claims are outside of FEMA’s defined “special flood hazard areas.” Put another way—so many of the nation’s most flood-prone properties fall outside the areas mapped as having a high risk of flooding.
Currently, FEMA flood maps represent the 1 percent annual chance of flooding at a 50th percentile confidence, meaning there’s a 50 percent likelihood that flooding could occur more often than that. FEMA should map to the 95th percentile confidence level, so that more property owners will be told about the potential for flood damages and more will be required to purchase flood insurance coverage.
FEMA’s flood maps define flood risk based solely on past events. Historical storms are used to calibrate computer models that are then used to map flood risk. However, sea levels are rising. Flood disasters are more frequent and severe because of climate change. By not taking climate impacts and other factors into account, communities are using inadequate flood maps to decide where it’s safe to build. It would be far more valuable for FEMA to map projected future flood risk conditions.
Prospective home buyers and renters deserve to know a property’s flood history. Hundreds of thousands of Americans live in homes that have flooded. And a home that has flooded once is likely to flood again. But unfortunately, the availability of information on a property’s flood history and risk is not universal. A significant number of states have either inadequate or no statutory or regulatory flood risk disclosure requirements. As a result, many prospective homebuyers and renters cannot make informed decisions concerning a home’s flood risk, and the need to purchase flood insurance.
With climate change expected to increase flooding due to higher sea levels and more extreme rainstorms, these gaps must be addressed. States should be required to establish minimum flood risk reporting requirements for sellers or lessors as a condition for participation in the NFIP.
How to prepare your home for a flood
Here are some steps you can take if you’re concerned about your home’s flood risk.
- Start by visiting floodsmart.gov, the NFIP’s website, for information on flood maps, the costs of flooding, and how to obtain flood insurance.
- Make a plan. The difference between being prepared and being unprepared for a flood is often the difference between losing a few things and losing everything.
- Buy insurance. Despite the NFIP’s lingering problems, it’s still a good idea to buy flood insurance if your home is at risk. Anyone with a federally backed mortgage who lives within a high-risk flood zone is required by law to carry it—but even if you live outside of one, or if you rent your home, it’s worth investigating the benefits of purchasing a policy relative to your home’s unique risk. People who live outside of mapped high-risk flood zones make up more than 20 percent of all flood insurance claims. When possible, homeowners should also get insurance for storm drain backups that may flood their basements (for which the NFIP only offers very limited, restricted coverage), and renters can buy flood insurance that will cover the personal items in their rental space.
- Elevate any utilities—boilers, central air-conditioning units, and other HVAC equipment—that are located at the lowest level of your home and that are particularly vulnerable to flood damage. Moving them to a platform even just a few feet higher off of the ground can often spare them from malfunction—or destruction—in the event of a flood.
- Consider installing a sewage water backstop—sometimes called a sewer backwater preventer or a sewer backwater valve—to keep overtaxed sewer mains from backing up into your basement.
- Understand the different options for addressing risk—and speak up for change in your community.
This story was originally published on July 13, 2017, and has been updated with new information and links.
This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can’t resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can’t republish our material wholesale or automatically—you need to select stories individually; you can’t republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you’ve used one of our stories.
What Are the Solutions to Climate Change?
How EPA Rollbacks Will Cost Us—in Dollars and Lives
How the Trump Administration Bakes Climate Denial into U.S. Policy