Janice R. Andrews
Because of different government rules, thousands of people who live in flood-prone areas may have to pay more for flood insurance or not know about the risks that dams built upstream from their homes and workplaces face. The Associated Press looked at government records and data and found that this problem is caused by a complicated set of flood policies and national security measures put in place after the September 11 attacks. Because of this, it is hard for towns to get the best deals on flood insurance and keep everyone safe, especially since federal agencies limit information about possible dam breakdowns.
The Confusing World of Policies
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses a points-based method to figure out who can get the best savings on flood insurance. This method pushes communities to make a list of all the homes, businesses, and important facilities that could be damaged by a dam breaking and let people know about those risks. But for some communities, getting this information is hard, if not impossible, because of rules set by other government departments. Because of security worries, these groups don’t let many people see information about the hundreds of dams they own or oversee. This lack of uniformity makes it hard for local governments to protect their citizens and lower insurance costs at the same time.
The federal government has known about this problem for years, but it keeps happening. A California emergency services worker told FEMA’s National Dam Safety Review Board in January 2020 about the problems with government “dam information sharing procedures,” which make things more expensive for communities and homeowners and could put lives at risk. Many federal and state leaders were at this talk, which stressed how important it is for agencies to work together better right away.
Federal Agencies and Limits on Information
Since the early 2000s, different government agencies have limited the sharing of information about dams because they are worried about national security. For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has started putting up plans of places that might flood if one of their dams fails. But some government agencies, like the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the government Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), still make it hard to get to similar info. FERC, which oversees about 1,800 dams that produce electricity, and the Bureau of Reclamation, which is in charge of 430 dams in the western U.S., have been afraid to share specific information for fear that terrorists could use it against them.
The Bureau of Reclamation recently said that starting in 2025, it will change its rules and share more information about areas that would flood if a dam failed. But the process could take more than eight years to finish for all of its buildings. This means that many towns will be without power for a long time.
Effects on Neighbourhoods
Communities in the area are affected by the different laws in big ways, including money and safety. Phoenix is the fifth-largest city in the United States. During a public meeting with FEMA, the city’s floodplain supervisor said that these government rules are unfair. Communities have a hard time getting better insurance deals for their people because they make it hard to get important information about flood zones.
Another city in California that is dealing with this problem is Sacramento. Because it is near Folsom Dam and where two rivers meet, the city is one of the most likely places in the U.S. to experience severe floods. Sacramento County used to have one of the best scores in FEMA’s rating system, but they couldn’t get the biggest discount on their flood insurance because the Bureau of Reclamation wouldn’t let them meet FEMA’s requirements for recording and telling people about possible dam failures.
These missed deals have a big effect on the budget. For a single renter, the difference could be around $100 a year. But when these costs are added up across a city, they can reach a million dollars or more. Residents often don’t buy flood insurance because it costs too much, leaving them exposed in case of a disaster.
The Risk of Flooding Rising
The risk of floods is rising because of climate change, and the country’s old dams are more likely to break. In the past few years, floods have damaged or broken dams in Georgia, Minnesota, New York, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. This has forced people to leave their homes and cost a lot of money to fix. FEMA says that since 2000, storms in the U.S. have done about $108 billion in harm.
Even though the danger is rising, FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Programme (NFIP) is only offered in 22,692 communities that have accepted and followed rules for managing floodplains. As of the end of July, the NFIP had given about 4.7 million policyholders $1.3 trillion in flood insurance. This was less than the peak number of insurers it had in 2009.
What’s Wrong with the Community Rating System?
In places that use FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS), insurance rates are lowered by 5 to 45 percent. People can choose not to join, though, and only 1,500 local governments are, even though they write three quarters of the policies under the NFIP. There is a range from 1 to 10 used by the CRS to rate storm safety and mitigation steps. A Class 1 rating gets the biggest discount.
Most towns don’t try to save extra money because the CRS standards are hard to understand and cost a lot of money. Roseville, California, and Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, are the only two cities that have gotten their people the max rate. Roseville, which is close to Folsom Dam, used FEMA grant money to make its own flood maps, but federal rules made it hard for the city to share that information with people.
Concerns about security vs. public safety
FEMA says that communities should have access to dam-failure inundation maps so that people who live near dangerous areas can be warned. This is because dam failures can cause floods to spread beyond usual high-risk areas and affect many communities downstream. However, after the 9/11 attacks, some government agencies refused to share certain information about dams, saying that doing so could help terrorists plan attacks. They did this because they were worried about national security.
FERC keeps labelling dam flooding maps as “critical infrastructure information” that “could be useful to a person planning an attack,” so anyone who gets the information has to sign an agreement not to share it. FERC can’t stop dam owners from sharing the information on their own, though. In the same way, the Bureau of Reclamation has required non-disclosure agreements when giving dam flooding models to local officials. However, it is about to change its policy to allow more public sharing.
A Need for Changes at Every Level
Three years ago, FEMA asked the public for ideas on how to change the CRS to make it more appealing for towns to lower their flood risks. A lot of people who commented said it was hard to get credit for dam projects because government organisations didn’t want to share information about areas that would flood if dams failed. FEMA is asking the public again for ideas on how to change the CRS, but it doesn’t plan to make any changes until 2026.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) of the United States has said that the CRS might need a major makeover. The GAO found in a study from last year that the cheaper premiums offered by FEMA’s rating system are not backed up by good statistical reasons. There is some benefit in mapping projects, flood warning systems, and public information efforts, but they don’t lower the risk of flooding for homes that are already covered.
Local officials also say that FEMA’s CRS is too expensive and hard to use, especially for small towns with few resources and employees. There are about 100 things in the rating system that towns can do to earn points, and many of them require a lot of paperwork. The part about dam safety is one of the hardest. In the most recent review, only four towns got any points for their work.
How to Move Forward
Communities all over the U.S. have a hard time because the federal government has different rules about flood insurance and sharing information about dams. Finding the right balance between worries about national security and the need for public safety is hard, but it needs to be done right away. People who live in flood-prone places may continue to pay more for insurance and not know about the risks that dams upstream may cause if policies aren’t made clearer and more consistent.
As the country deals with the rising dangers of climate change and old infrastructure, it is very important for government agencies to work together better and give communities the knowledge they need. Then we can be sure that people are safe and well-informed, and that flood insurance stays available and reasonable for those who need it the most.
