Why were all the RV's left in the flood?

[TNGW1500SE]

I understand that sometimes you can't move an RV when the water is coming up but it looks like there's a lot of RV's that were just left to flood. I mine were there I'd have moved it up the road and out of the coming flood. Maybe some people didn't have gas money??? It would be cheaper on the insurance company to give the people 300 bucks for gas to move it. When there's this much warning, it seems like a bunch of them could have been moved.

[toedtoes]

mike-s wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
Look back at Katrina and you'll see that a lot of the problems were due to the failure of the infrastructure.

The Katrina flooding was the federal government's fault. The proximate cause was bad levees. The root cause was not letting the Mississippi follow its natural course, which would be to let it flow out the Atchafalaya. Explanation.

Just wait until nature wins, and the Old River Control Structure fails. That will be a (preventable) catastrophe.

Yes. The infrastructure was messed up. They put levees where they shouldn't be and they let those levees rot. That was the proplem.

[mike-s]

toedtoes wrote:
Look back at Katrina and you'll see that a lot of the problems were due to the failure of the infrastructure.

The Katrina flooding was the federal government's fault. The proximate cause was bad levees. The root cause was not letting the Mississippi follow its natural course, which would be to let it flow out the Atchafalaya. Explanation.

Just wait until nature wins, and the Old River Control Structure fails. That will be a (preventable) catastrophe.

[toedtoes]

valhalla360 wrote:

mike-s wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Actually,
- if you don't live in a river flood plane, floods are a non-issue.

That's not really true. If nothing else, it's an issue because you're still going to end up paying for floods.

"Flood plane" is usually understood to mean a 1%/year chance of flooding ("100 year"). In those areas, pretty much any house with a mortgage is required by law to have federal flood insurance. But that program is broken and not self-supporting. They didn't charge enough, so premiums are insufficient to support payouts.

Obama signed a bill in 2014 which deliberately kept premiums low and even refunded some premiums. All of that amounts to a subsidy to those who chose to live in a flood plane, which is nothing but encouraging bad behavior. The government is still on the hook, so it will get a bailout paid for by all taxpayers.

But, much of the flooding in Houston goes well past that - beyond even the "500 year" flood plane. So it's not just those who "live in a river flood plane." That's a bit different - they could have bought flood insurance, but didn't. That, to me, was a risk/reward decision they made, and it would be wrong to bail them out now. But I'm sure there will be lots of pressure to do just that, since a lot of the cost will be borne by corporate mortgage lenders. If equity is less than the repair cost, lots of owners are going to just walk away, even if it requires bankruptcy.

OK, I'll give your first point. To account for it: Flooding is a non-issue for people smart enough to stay well clear of flood zones and if the costs are shared out fairly.

While this is a major storm and exceeds the 100yr flood levels, the vast majority of flooded homes are within the 100yr flood plane, so if those houses were never allowed, the damage might have been reduced by 80-90%.

When I bought my house, I was required to have flood insurance. Because our levies weren't up to standards. Once our levies were updated, I was removed from the 100yr flood zone.

So, it's not always as simple as it's made out to be. An area could be considered fine for years - until the levies age and updating isn't done timely.

In addition, some houses are not in a flood zone, but flood every year from small creeks, blocked drainage, etc.

Look back at Katrina and you'll see that a lot of the problems were due to the failure of the infrastructure.

[fj12ryder]

riven1950 wrote:
Lots of speculation here folks. I've been paying Federal Flood insurance premiums on various houses for over 30 years. Current home premium started at about 175.00 years ago, now about 1400.00 with a 5000.00 deductible. Premium on the coast is based on how high your finished floor is above the 100 yr flood level. I think it is the same for rivers that flood.

Someone said Obama reduced premiums and did refunds. Not here folks. Premiums have steadily gone up over the years, no refund ever. Also, I've never received a dime even though flooded 3 times, last being last September. The floods didn't reach the first floor living area. After doing repairs last year at my expense I figured I could claim it on my taxes as a casualty loss at least. Well, surprise surprise, causualty losses are allowed only if they exceed a % of income, so no help there either.

Also:

I don't think you can get Rv flood insurance through the Federal program. Only S&B structures.

I do believe you can purchase Federal Flood if you are not in a flood plain. It would not cost you more ( as someone stated ).

Here on NC coast my HO insurance does not even cover wind damage anymore. I have a seperate wind and hail policy, a HO policy, and a flood insurance policy.

BTW last fall when the hurricane hit us we went camping about 150 mile to the west but our population is no where near what Texas was dealing with, plus as someone said, they are having a 500year flood.

I have been through several hurricanes and evacuated 7 or 8 times. I still can't begin to imagine the problems these folks are facing. Please don't blame these folks for living in a coastal area. All parts of the country seem to have some sort of weather related hazards. I do hope they require the rebuilt structures to be built above the flood plain. s

I'm sure it's a wonderful area, since I've visited it in the past, and no offense, but you seem to be a slow learner: pay flood insurance and keep paying it even though they won't pay for what you're insuring. Evacuating 7 or 8 times, maybe you should take the hint and move somewhere a bit more sensible.

[minnow]

riven1950 wrote:
Lots of speculation here folks. I've been paying Federal Flood insurance premiums on various houses for over 30 years. Current home premium started at about 175.00 years ago, now about 1400.00 with a 5000.00 deductible.... Premiums have steadily gone up over the years, no refund ever. Also, I've never received a dime even though flooded 3 times, last being last September... After doing repairs last year at my expense I figured I could claim it on my taxes as a casualty loss at least. Well, surprise surprise, causualty losses are allowed only if they exceed a % of income, so no help there either...Here on NC coast my HO insurance does not even cover wind damage anymore. I have a seperate wind and hail policy, a HO policy, and a flood insurance policy...

Is reality setting in yet ? Between the government and the insurance companies, the message they are sending is that that don't want you living in an area that is subject to catastrophic weather events. Government requires you to have very high cost flood insurance that pays pennies on the dollar or not at all, takes years to resolve, homeowners insurance policy has 100's of exclusions absolving them of any legal obligation to pay and finally no tax write offs for catastrophic losses.

If one is determined to live in such areas. one needs to be resolved to having to be self-insured with no expectation that any company or government agency will provide any financial remuneration when your house is ripped off its foundation.

[valhalla360]

abom2 wrote:
An old saying For those who have made accusatory speculation/insinuation: "The guilty dog barks first."

If we are going to talk platitudes, "luck favors the well prepared."

[valhalla360]

mike-s wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:
Actually,
- if you don't live in a river flood plane, floods are a non-issue.

That's not really true. If nothing else, it's an issue because you're still going to end up paying for floods.

"Flood plane" is usually understood to mean a 1%/year chance of flooding ("100 year"). In those areas, pretty much any house with a mortgage is required by law to have federal flood insurance. But that program is broken and not self-supporting. They didn't charge enough, so premiums are insufficient to support payouts.

Obama signed a bill in 2014 which deliberately kept premiums low and even refunded some premiums. All of that amounts to a subsidy to those who chose to live in a flood plane, which is nothing but encouraging bad behavior. The government is still on the hook, so it will get a bailout paid for by all taxpayers.

But, much of the flooding in Houston goes well past that - beyond even the "500 year" flood plane. So it's not just those who "live in a river flood plane." That's a bit different - they could have bought flood insurance, but didn't. That, to me, was a risk/reward decision they made, and it would be wrong to bail them out now. But I'm sure there will be lots of pressure to do just that, since a lot of the cost will be borne by corporate mortgage lenders. If equity is less than the repair cost, lots of owners are going to just walk away, even if it requires bankruptcy.

OK, I'll give your first point. To account for it: Flooding is a non-issue for people smart enough to stay well clear of flood zones and if the costs are shared out fairly.

While this is a major storm and exceeds the 100yr flood levels, the vast majority of flooded homes are within the 100yr flood plane, so if those houses were never allowed, the damage might have been reduced by 80-90%.

[JaxDad]

Having been through a similar bug-out in Florida years back the the authorities actually asked people to leave any trailers and secondary vehicles behind.

Traffic congestion and fuel shortage is enough of an issue without unnecessarily adding extra length (less vehicles per mile of road) and numbers (double the vehicles or added trailers means more fuel needed) of vehicles to slow down the evacuation.

[CavemanCharlie]

PawPaw_n_Gram wrote:
I'll say it again for those who refuse to listen.

Almost all the pictures of flooded RVs I see are in places which have NEVER EVER Flooded. Many are in places where a home owner could not buy flood insurance because it is not a flood plain.

RV owners were actively discouraged from getting out and clogging up the evacuation routes.

The supposition that people were using this to some how work the system is wrong.

Point taken. I apologize. This thing was just so BIG that I can't get my head around it.

I also sometimes forget just how many people there are. I live near a town of 250 people so I forget just how populated a lot of the wold is.


But,,,,, I agree that the insurance company's will try to stick it to everybody. They learned that lesson after Katerina. They will do it again. Even the people that thought they were covered will suddenly find that there is some small print somewhere that says they were not.

[F350_RR]

I think people also misinterpret the use of 100 year flood or 500 year flood as a simplistic expression of calculated probabilities. It's the false assumption that my house, RV or car won't be flooded because that big flood only occurs once in a 100 years or 500 years. Following the years theory, one could say that the Texas flood was the big one for the 500 year period ending August 31st. We could flood again in two years and that could be the only big flood for the 500 years following. But wait, if it's a 500 year flood, how come my house just got flooded two years ago?

As an expression of a % probability over a unit of time, perhaps we need to rethink how it is expressed and recognize that we could have a Texas size event practically anywhere and any year and not necessarily "in season". If you live in low land and near water (you decide what's low and what's near) the odds are that at some point you can be under water and those odds appear to be increasing.

[FishOnOne]

Rockport Texas is one the most popular destinations in the states with a lot of snow birds who keep their campers there.

[OldRadios]

It's summer. Many snowbird owners were probably still up north.

[atwowheelguy]

Minimizing risk is one consideration when making decisions. I paid a modest cash price for a smallish plain Jane four year old TT toy hauler. I do not pay for insurance on it because a total loss will not bankrupt me. I purchased a home that is 170 feet above the creek that is 1/4 mile away.

A few years ago the county and the Corps of Engineers purchased and demolished five homes in the neighborhood that were built five feet above the creek and that had flooded three times in five years. I didn't buy one of those.

A 500 year flood is not something that most would consider when making decisions. I don't even see a 500 year flood line on the flood maps for my area. I learned some lessons some years back about drainage issues when working on gathering data for an urban flood prediction computer program as a member of an Army Reserve unit. Don't buy a lot with a drainage easement on it and don't buy a lot that is below the street level. Also don't buy a lot that is downstream of the shopping center parking lot. But that doesn't stop them from building the shopping center upstream after you buy your lot.

A friend researched a home in Baton Rouge to make sure the elevation was above flood level. When it flooded, he discovered that the surveyor and the developer had lied when labeling the elevation on the property plat.

[abom2]

An old saying For those who have made accusatory speculation/insinuation: "The guilty dog barks first."

[mike-s]

riven1950 wrote:
Someone said Obama reduced premiums and did refunds.

Link