Live at the Forum: Making Homes More Resistant to Natural Disasters

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Emily Salomon on March 19, 2010 at 2:06pm

In addition to improving and better enforcing residential building and zoning codes and employing sound land use planning strategies, what other steps can states and localities take to discourage development in disaster-prone areas? In particular, does the way that insurance premiums are structured influence development in areas vulnerable to natural disasters?

Permalink Reply by Michael Cohen on March 25, 2010 at 1:02pm

.Emily, it's a great question, and one that's really at the heart of the problem. Some states, and Florida in particular, have created state run insurance programs that provide cheap disaster insurance to homeowners, especially those living in coastal areas. The result is that homeowners in coastal Florida are paying about 40 percent of what they should be paying based on the risk they are assuming by living in such a hazardous spot. While cheap insurance is undoubtedly nice for those residents lucky enough to get it, it incentivizes development in environmentally sensitive areas, puts more people and property in harms’ way, and burdens taxpayers in the rest of the state when they're asked to subsidize the coastal residents. There are similar issues with the National Flood Insurance Program.

Incidentally, Florida allows vacation homes and properties valued at up to $2 million to participate in the program. Not exactly affordable housing. Florida’s case is such a “reverse Robin Hood” that working families are called upon to pay off the losses on these homes through insurance assessments on all policies statewide, including auto, renters, etc. There's even a bill in Congress that asks federal taxpayers to further subsidize those vacation homes in Florida.

South Carolina, by contrast, makes sure people pay for the risk they are assuming, and consequently, people are more aware of the dangers of living in harm's way. It really comes down to politicians acting responsibly. In addition to the measures you name, we support efforts to provide, on a means-tested basis, support for homeowners and renters in need to “storm proof” existing structures in high risk areas. In the end stakeholders and leaders need to change the paradigm of how we approach these challenges.

Permalink Reply by Laura Woods on March 25, 2010 at 10:01am

Generally, are there financial resources available to both homeowners and renters to upgrade their homes to make them more resilient to natural disasters?

Permalink Reply by Ann Roberson on March 25, 2010 at 1:18pm

Laura,

Thank you for your question. Generally, financial resources are not available to homeowners and renters interested in retrofitting and mitigating their properties. States such as South Carolina and Florida have designed and implemented grant programs that provide funds for specific retrofit measures. These programs are SC Safe Home and the My Safe Florida Home Program. The SC Safe Home Program requires the funds to be used for single-family, owner occupied structures.

While other states are looking at similar initiatives, funds that have been allocated through the federal stimulus program specifically target weatherization improvements and are distributed through state Offices of Economic Opportunity by way of local Community Action Agencies.

Permalink Reply by Maya Brennan on March 25, 2010 at 12:39pm

I'm interested in the connection between disaster resistance and energy efficiency. Do most weatherization practices improve disaster resistance, or are there stronger home improvement and building practices involved in making homes resistant to natural disasters?

Also, can disaster resistant building practices end up sealing up our homes too much and creating bad air quality inside?

Permalink Reply by Leslie Henderson on March 25, 2010 at 1:25pm

What's so promising about looking at disaster resistance and energy efficiency as an integrated opportunity is that we can get more value for our money. For example, energy efficiency addresses windows, doors, attics, walls, etc. and so does wind mitigation. Simple techniques like flashing and caulking deliver energy savings and also help keep windows from leaking when wind-driven rain happens during a storm. Impact-resistant windows for high wind can easily be made with energy saving coatings and frequently are made and used that way. Insulating attics with products like closed cell spray foam also delivers tested and approved uplift resistance to help roof members stay in place and the list goes on and on. On an energy savings basis alone, closed cell spray foam is more effective than traditional blown-in or other insulation.

We are not aware of problems with the disaster resistant features causing a problem with indoor air quality, sometimes called "tight building syndrome", but we have noted problems in the past with some energy efficiency measures causing tight building syndrome. This happens when the measures only address the interior of the home and fail to account for the structure's need to breathe and allow moisture in and out.

When done right, the home can be highly efficient for energy and disaster. Ann's experience in South Carolina documented significant energy savings in addition to the disaster mitigation values.

Permalink Reply by Ann Roberson on March 25, 2010 at 1:41pm

Thank you, Leslie. Yes, homeowners that have selected to replace their windows with impact resistant systems have reported on average, a 29% savings on their energy costs! What an added benefit, not only will the homeowner have a stronger, safer home, they will also save on their energy bills. Additionally, homeowners are also seeing discounts on their insurance premiums. Insurance premium discounts for mitigated structures are reoccuring not just a one-time savings opportunity.

Permalink Reply by Rebecca Cohen on March 25, 2010 at 1:14pm

There often seems to be inconsistency in the effectiveness of residential building codes between jurisdictions in disaster-prone areas – even between those in the same state or those very close to one another. What causes this inconsistency and what can be done to promote more effective standards and greater consistency across neighboring communities?

Permalink Reply by Leslie Henderson on March 25, 2010 at 1:57pm

Thanks Rebecca. You've hit on something that is at the very core of our challenge with construction of buildings in disaster-prones areas. Up to date, model building codes are developed at the national level under the facilitation of the International Code Council. Stakeholders, experts, government, private industry and others participate. Most of the time, the resulting codes represent consensus.

Once the codes are developed, the next step is that states and local governments must adopt and enforce the codes.

Here are some of the issues. First, the code development process is a slow one. Next, the code is designed to serve as the "minimum" standard for construction, so it is very difficult to get new technologies and breakthroughs into the codes swiftly. Lastly, the local governments and states often amend or weaken the model codes upon adoption, so the minimum code or standard becomes minimum, minus whatever they removed.

Big problem. This process leaves some states and local areas at risk, often unnecessarily. I wish I had a better answer, but a coalition is working on it along the lines that Mike mentioned. They are looking to link strong code adoption to enhanced federal aid. Seems like a sound approach.

Permalink Reply by Laura Williams on March 25, 2010 at 1:20pm

How often does FEMA update floodplain maps for communities? Is this the most dependable source to assess flood risks in a community?

Permalink Reply by Ryan Sherriff on March 25, 2010 at 1:51pm

FEMA updates floodplain designations periodically for communities in the National Flood Insurance Program. Although these maps are accurate at the time they are updated, it may be several years between these updates. In that time, new development in and around floodplains can alter the areas at risk of flooding through the creation of more impervious surface. Therefore, existing or new homes built near the floodplain boundaries may actually be at greater risk of flooding than is assessed in the most recent flood map.

Some communities have done analyses of the effects of increased development in and around the floodplain and have created their own updated flood risk maps between FEMA updates. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina provides a good example for this: http://www.housingpolicy.org/toolbox/strategy/policies/regulations_...