In this editorial from the Bee yesterday the idea to require insurance for everyone living in a flood zone is promoted, because we know “catastrophic flood will inundate a Central Valley community - possibly Sacramento, possibly Stockton or Yuba City.” And “In a matter of hours, thousands of homeowners will lose their possessions. Because of recent court decisions, California taxpayers will become liable for several billion dollars in damages.”
Flood insurance is needed by homeowners unfortunate enough to be living in a flood prone area, but, whether it should be mandatory, especially after what happened to Natomas homeowners, is another story.
While we can see the rationale of each side in this story, we continue to seek the optimal side, that Sacramento is someday protected, at the highest level possible, from the catastrophe of flooding.
Here is an excerpt.
Editorial: Water torture
Vote this week could save taxpayers billions
Published 2:15 am PDT Monday, April 3, 2006
We know it will happen. It has happened before. During one of these winters, a catastrophic flood will inundate a Central Valley community - possibly Sacramento, possibly Stockton or Yuba City.
In a matter of hours, thousands of homeowners will lose their possessions. Because of recent court decisions, California taxpayers will become liable for several billion dollars in damages.
To their credit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders want to upgrade levees. But as everyone knows, these mounds of dirt don't provide absolute protection. To help communities recover from a future disaster and to protect state taxpayers, California must insist that people living in flood zones carry insurance.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, has introduced a bill that would do just that. Under Jones' bill, AB 1898, federal flood insurance would become a condition for obtaining a mortgage in zones that have less than 1-in-200-year flood projection, including much of Sacramento.
As expected, the powerful mortgage banking industry is working to kill Jones' bill. More surprising is that key state leaders, including Schwarzenegger, are aiding this cause. The governor undercut the recommendation of his water resources staff recently by saying flood insurance shouldn't be mandatory. In other words, the supposedly taxpayer-friendly governor wants taxpayers to foot the bill the next time a levee fails.
