Should taxpayers subsidize flood insurance?

Ever since I served on the old S.C. Coastal Council, and reviewed permit requests for construction of houses and businesses in the coastal zone, I have been puzzled about why there is federally subsidized flood insurance.

Our government does not subsidize insurance of private property that suffers damage from forest fires, lava flows, earthquakes, tornadoes, avalanches or blizzards, all of which are well-recognized high-risk events. Instead, people buy private insurance for such disasters. So why is there a federally subsidized program for property built in identified flood plains or on the beach? It is a perverse incentive, as it encourages development in areas known to routinely suffer from flood or hurricane damage

I do not qualify for flood insurance, as I live 400 feet above sea level. Why should our federal taxes support individuals that choose to have property in those high-risk areas?

The current administration has an opportunity to reduce the huge cost to taxpayers by repealing the federal flood insurance program. People should take responsibility for their own decisions and let market forces work. South Carolina’s members of Congress should lead on repeal of the program. That would be consistent with the conservative fiscal principles they profess to believe in.

This story was originally published September 17, 2017 at 6:09 PM with the headline "Should taxpayers subsidize flood insurance?."