Hurricane Season Is Here: Federal Flood Insurance Carries 2 Moral Hazards – Which You Face Depends Largely On How Wealthy You Are

Anyone who has been through a flood or hurricane knows the scene: waterlogged furniture piled on curbs, gutted homes with mold creeping up the walls, families displaced for months. But the recovery isn’t the same for everyone.

While federal flood insurance subsidizes risky coastal and waterfront development for wealthier homeowners by lowering the cost of living in these areas, many low-income households in flood-prone areas remain stuck with risky properties and little help.

As a disaster recovery researcher, I’ve witnessed how perverse incentives create different cycles of vulnerability across income levels. The problem with federal disaster insurance today isn’t just about subsidizing wealthier coastal homeowners – it’s equally about leaving low-income households systematically underinsured without resources to either protect themselves or leave.

Federal flood insurance’s moral hazards

The National Flood Insurance Program was established by Congress in 1968 to provide affordable flood insurance to the public while encouraging floodplain management.

Communities that participate in the program are required to adopt regulations to reduce flood risk in their areas for their residents to qualify. The insurance policies, around 4.7 million today, are purchased either through the program or insurance companies but administered and underwritten by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the nation’s disaster response agency. When the policy cost is lower than the risk, the property is being subsidized by the federal program.

The National Flood Insurance Program did succeed in providing accessible insurance for many people, but it also produced a “moral hazard,” where people take on risk without bearing its full consequences. What’s less well understood is that this operates differently by income level.

FEMA is currently working to adjust flood insurance prices to more closely match each property’s actual risk. The program’s Risk Rating 2.0 changes, which began in 2021, aimed to transition policies to full-risk pricing for everyone. The annual premium increases are capped by law at 18% for primary residences, so full-risk pricing won’t be fully reached until around 2037, according to federal estimates.

But there’s another, less visible problem: Federal flood insurance already wasn’t affordable for many people.

In low-income neighborhoods, more than 90% of households are estimated to be underinsured, and their uninsured losses when they experience flooding often exceeds 20% of their annual income.

Many families are unable to afford federal flood insurance premiums – only 37% of all policyholders pay less than $1,000 per year, according to FEMA. Instead, homeowners may skip insurance, gambling that disasters won’t strike. When floods do occur, these households can face catastrophic uninsured losses.

Homeowners and renters may also choose federal flood insurance plans with lower premiums but that provide less coverage in a disaster, and even those plan costs can be high.

Because the federal flood insurance program doesn’t specifically help those who cannot afford premiums, this creates a structural trap: Wealthier homeowners receive government-subsidized insurance support for risky properties, while many lower-income households fall outside the system entirely.

Severe repetitive loss homes

FEMA’s repetitive loss properties also tell a story. Roughly 1% of National Flood Insurance Program properties are considered “severe repetitive loss” homes – those with multiple flood events over a 10-year period. Historically, those properties have accounted for nearly 30% of all claim payments.

Low-income households that can’t afford to move can end up experiencing repeated losses, depleting their savings and leaving them facing persistent instability.

My research in Puerto Rico has shown how this repeated rebuilding deepens vulnerability, trapping families in a cycle where each disaster pushes them further into poverty and housing insecurity rather than allowing them to recover, what sociologists call “downward mobility.”

Breaking both cycles

Addressing these moral hazards requires different responses.

Income-based assistance programs such as FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance grants can help ensure families aren’t priced out of safety. For example, the upfront cost of home improvements that could reduce a home’s flood exposure, such as elevating the home or flood-proofing the property, can be too high for many people to afford, but assistance programs can help.

Voluntary buyout programs can also be effective in helping low-income homeowners relocate from risky properties – if those programs offer fair market value, meaningful relocation support and timely implementation. Prolonged, underfunded buyout processes can be harder for households with less cash available to manage.

The National Flood Insurance Program has another ongoing problem as more people move to flood-risk areas and as property values and storm damage rise. By early 2025, the program was about $22.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, even after Congress canceled $16 billion in debt in 2017. That debt accumulates $1.7 million in interest daily – costs borne by current and future policyholders through their premiums.

I believe fixing federal flood insurance will require an approach that prices risk accurately for those who can afford it while providing genuine assistance for low-income homeowners, for example, through affordable insurance, aid for projects that reduce homes’ vulnerability or equitable buyouts.

The water will come again. Flooding will strike both the insured mansions on the coasts and the uninsured mobile homes inland. The question is whether U.S. policies will continue leaving different forms of moral hazard for rich and poor or whether the government will finally align the country’s disaster response with reality.

Ivis García, Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.