Rising Risk: The future of flood policy in Southeastern North Carolina

Paul Willeboordse is a Masters student of Coastal & Ocean Policy program at UNC-Wilmington. He received his B.S. degree in Marine Biology from UNC-Wilmington in 2016. Paul has worked with a number of different environmental non-profits in southeastern North Carolina, most recently with the Old Baldy Foundation on Bald Head Island. His current interests lie in emerging GIS technologies and their use in renewable energy implementation and sustainable development policy in North Carolina.  

Figure 1.0 - Current NFIP mapping established in 2007 (left) versus pending preliminary maps (right) for Hampstead, NC. Blue represents a zone with 1% annual flood chance, while yellow represents a 0.2% chance. North Carolina Flood Risk Information System

In 1968, the US Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to increased development and population growth in coastal areas. Overseen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Congress instructed NFIP to both educate residents about their potential flood risk and manage any relevant damages that occurred with a flood event (U.S. Title Code Title 42; Chapter 50). Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were developed for communities to adopt, delineating flood areas with significant risk. Residents within these areas are required to purchase flood insurance but gain eligibility for financial relief given the occurrence of a major flooding event. While this system performed as intended through the 20th century, Hurricane Katrina and Sandy swiftly bankrupted the program by 2013 (CRS 2020). Since then, stakeholders have criticized that antiquated mapping techniques underprepare coastal communities in addressing an increasing flood threat, and innately shift risk and response to private property owners alone. 

FIRMs begin as flood studies, often requiring a multi-year evaluation of watershed characteristics, elevation data, and hydrologic analyses. Following this, preliminary FIRMs enter a public notice stage where community members can submit addendums to contest a specific designation. Pender County, NC, is an area where community contestations have delayed the implementation of updated FIRMs, and current NFIP rates are still determined using maps from 2007.   

While the implementation of new flood maps can be delayed, the increasing threat of flooding persists. In the midst of Pender’s public review process, Hurricane Florence hit North Carolina in September of 2018, and caused an estimated $17 billion dollars in damages across the state (Raleigh News & Observer 2018). Many areas across southeastern NC described as “minimal” flood risk experienced significant damage, re-igniting frustrations with NFIP policy and risk portrayal.  

        

Figure 2.0 - Historic flooding in Leland, NC, following Hurricane Florence in 2018. Washington Post

        

To reduce potential damage, many floodplain administrators have called for increased elevation requirements in flood areas. Freeboard, or the height a structure sits above the base flood elevation, is not required by the NFIP but defaults to local building ordinances of 1 foot or less. Across nine southeastern counties in NC, 50% of historic claims are associated with structures with 2 feet of freeboard or greater. In addition, a negative correlation exists between freeboard height and the average amount paid on a building claim (Figure 4.0). A NFIP requirement of a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard may provide better guidelines for new development, but additional policies are needed to incentivize change amongst pre-existing structures.

Figure 3.0 - Figure depicting flood elevation and corresponding freeboard height. FEMA Home Builder’s Guide to Coastal Construction Technical Fact Sheet.

Figure 4.0 – Comparison of average building claim payout against freeboard height in Brunswick County. 

One NFIP program that has shown considerable success is that of the Community Rating System (CRS). This voluntary program allows participating communities to adopt additional regulations for coastal development in floodplains, in-turn receiving reduced rates on annual insurance premiums. Credited initiatives range from completing independent flood studies, zoning open space, or increasing public education. This analysis found that NC communities participating in the CRS experienced reduced claims compared to non-participating communities (MD = $8,755.21 ; p = 1.21E-21). Community-based programs like the CRS have the potential for increased sustainable development while also reducing the financial burden on federal agencies. 

 

Figure 5.0 – Participating communities in the Community Rating System as of October 2020. (ISO Mitigation)

FEMA has announced that starting in October of 2021, “Risk Rating 2.0” will be utilized to determine individual risk and corresponding premiums on structures. This re-vitalization promises to “leverage industry best practices and current technology, (…) to deliver rates that are fair, make sense and better reflect a property’s unique flood risk” (FEMA Risk Rating 2.0). While some experts are hopeful this will catalyze a much-needed change in risk portrayal, others remain skeptical on whether NFIP’s current administrative framework will be able to maintain such personalized assessments in an equitable fashion. While the results of these policy changes are pending, their timeliness in a growing environmental threat is clear. By continuing to embed innovative modeling that predicts accurate flood danger, combined with clear pathways for effective flood response, the NFIP can achieve its legislative goals. Ensuring that the NFIP continues to incentivize shared risk and sustainable development is crucial to the health and resilience of North Carolina communities, both now and in the future.