I support the concept of flood insurance, having survived two Texas floods. I don’t support a systematic fleecing of marginally impacted property owners. I own a home in Fruit Valley, which last flooded in 1948. Owners promptly built a dike to protect themselves, and it worked.
National flood maps inexplicably show water springing up in the field between the dike and my property, and flooding the corner of my detached garage. I needed a flood policy. The national flood office said I needed a survey of my property elevation first. I explain I wasn’t disputing their data; I accepted their maps. I wasn’t allowed to accept their data, I had to prove their data, at my expense, before they would let me buy a policy. It was crazy!
Then came the “surcharge.” My garage corner, crossing into a miraculous flood plan, 100 yards behind a dike, now costs me an extra $250 a year because it’s a nonresidential structure. Even though it’s part of my residential property, it’s considered a nonresidential structure. Meanwhile, there are expensive high-rise residential developments on waterfronts and oceanfronts exempted from flood insurance. Is it too much to ask for a little common sense?
