USA Today editorializes that federal flood insurance should reflect the actual risks implicit in a particular property and its location. It now does not and they are of course correct -- it should.
The flood insurance program presently sets rates too low to cover payouts, and yet most people in flood-prone areas don't buy the insurance when it is a bargain! I'd like to see a requirement for homes in flood-prone regions to carry flood insurance, although I know it'd be unpopular and would likely impact the poor disproportionally.
It is possible to build in flood-prone areas and be safe. I know of examples in the delta area of central California, between Stockton and Sacramento. Some are built on mounds created for that purpose, putting the house perhaps 10-12 feet above the surrounding terrain.
Other delta homes are built at ground level but the ground floor is an all-concrete garage, atop which the house itself sits. I've seen this design along the gulf coast in Mississippi, too. And one can build on pilings with the area underneath a carport.
Yes, this makes building more expensive, perhaps pricing homes out of reach of regular Joes and Jills. We do need to discourage building in flood plains and where storm surges will destroy homes.
Do we have the political will to make people who buy or build in flood-prone areas sign a statement that they understand the risks, accept them, and will not demand government aid beyond a flood insurance payout if flooded? Probably not, worse luck. And there is the "grandfathered" problem of all those hundreds of thousands already so located before whatever action is taken.
