Floods: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Floods. These are clearly catastrophic and traumatic events, although they have also been responsible for one of the most memorable clips in the history of television news. Good day. Well, obviously we're going to get a nice break from the rain, but not from the flooding. -This is essentially now... - (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) ...a part of the Passaic River in this neighborhood. That's all. Screw James Cameron and screw the Titanic, because it's now officially the biggest ship disaster ever captured on film. It's over. Now, flooding was everywhere this summer. Think of them as the "Despacito" of natural disasters. Persistent, omnipresent and without any fault of the Puerto Rican government.

And

floods

always threaten. Ninety percent of all natural disasters in the U.S. involve a flood. I guess that's why the FEMA website once referred to flooding as "America's No. 1 natural hazard, exclamation point." Which is a pretty strange tone to use when describing something horrible. It's like saying, "Boils: America's #1 staph infection!" Or "Parks: America's Number One Place to Die Unnoticed!" And flooding is only going to get worse due to climate change. And I know there are people who will question that, and we simply don't have time

tonight

to litigate whether extreme weather events are exacerbated by climate change.

So, for now, let's say... (MALE DRAMATIC VOICEOVER) -Yes. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) They definitely are. I mean... -Of course, of course... -(AUDIENCE APPLAVING) ...it's-- It's a complicated issue, and it's possible that we won't have definitive proof until the late 1980s. But... But, yeah While

floods

are often referred to as "natural disasters," the truth is that the damage they cause is often, to some extent, within our control. Because we have made certain decisions that put and keep people and property in the path of flooding. And that's what this story is about. And before we continue, let's recognize that people live near water for all kinds of reasons.

For some, it is the place where their families have lived for generations, or a necessity for the work they do. And for others, it is a luxury. And living by the water is certainly appealing, despite the risks, like flooding, or stepping on sharp shells, or mistakenly giving a Tostito to a seagull without realizing that it means you'll now spend the rest of your life haunted by a Tostito. addicted seagull. The point is, whatever the reason -living by the water... -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -(SEAGULL GRABING) -many do it-- Oh, for God's sake! You got to be kidding!

I don't have Tostitos! I've been telling you for six years! Look, no Tostitos! Without Tostitos! Get out of here. Get out of here, you flying beach rat. -(AUDIENCE APPLAUSES) -I'm sorry. The thing is, the dangers of living on the oceanfront are real. But many people, like this man, who lives on the water in Tampa Bay, feel the benefits outweigh the risks. REPORTER: Mark knows that life here is fragile. But he doesn't stop at it. Every morning when I go out to get the paper, I see dolphins frolicking in the swamp and roseate spoonbills walking along the edge of the swamp, so... it tends to make you forget all that kind of stuff.

Sure, I can imagine that seeing a roseate spatula will be distracting, because you spend all day trying to figure out how a flamingo could have stuck its stupid bird face into a panini press. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -I'm just saying that even people who like birds don't like this bird. The Audubon Society, an organization whose sole purpose is to defend birds, says they are, quote, "Beautiful from afar and strange up close." (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Which is like the American Kennel Club saying, "We celebrate all dogs and honor them as man's best friend, but Dandy Dinmont has a trashy personality and looks like a fucking Phil Spector.

And look, look ...If you're literally looking at a swamp like that, you probably know that flooding is a risk, but not all flood-prone areas are directly along the coast and sometimes aggressive development can exacerbate the risk of flooding, including considerably inland. Look at Houston, which was recently rocked by Harvey REPORTER 2: Metro area development has skyrocketed One study found that the Houston area has added 25 percent more pavement in 15 years, replacing. soil-rich wetlands that could absorb water with concrete-covered floors. Exactly, and that significantly worsened Harvey's damage. Concrete is not good at absorbing water. That's why people don't dry off on the beach by rolling around in the parking lot.

But it's not just global warming or uncontrolled growth. which have placed more people in risky and flood-prone areas. There's also the fact that often people can only take that risk because they have flood insurance. Just look at Shop the Beach. It's a House Hunters type show for people who want to live near the water. And in one episode, two brothers named Mitch and Daniel were arguing about a particular beach house, which led to this exchange... What do you think of the island house, Mitch? MITCH: Well, I think there was a lot of good and a lot of bad in it.

Right next to those steps to the beach, it doesn't get any better. DANIEL: We are very close to the water. That's another thing that has me worried. Well, that's what insurance is for. "That's what insurance is for." This may be the most reckless statement ever made on a ship. And I'm saying, "I can definitely make this shot work." and "Hey! Let's feed these seagulls some Tostitos." -(SEAGULL SCREAMING) -I don't have any! All I did was say the word. Get out of here! Without Tostitos! Without Tostitos! But Mitch... No Tostitos! But... But Mitch... Mitch isn't wrong.

That if they bought that house, they could get flood insurance and at a surprisingly cheap price. And it's worth taking some time to understand why that is, because unlike other forms of homeowners insurance, flood protection is actually underwritten by the government, through the NFIP, or National Flood Insurance Program. . It started almost 50 years ago, after historic floods swept away many people's homes in the 1960s, and the government at the time realized there was a real problem. Insurance companies were not covering floods at an affordable cost, because it was too risky, so the government was spending too much on disaster relief, so they stepped in and created the NFIP, which offered insurance at significant discounts to encourage people to buy it, and that sounds great, but the most important thing is that the goal at that time was not for people to remain permanently in at-risk homes, as the current administrator of the program explains.

They assumed that if we told people they were at risk, they would move. They assumed that over the life of the program, those discounts would not need to continue, and they assumed that they would not need to continue because once people knew they were at risk, they would move. That has not turned out to be true. No, but of course not, because that's not how people work. -(RIU PUBLIC) We will gladly accept great risks to our personal safety for the simple fact of obtaining a discount, that was the premise behind McDonald's dollar menu. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) A-- and that's just one of the many flaws in how this well-intentioned program was designed, because everything about it, from who participates to where the money goes to the incentives it creates, needs to be fixed.

And let's start with the fact that eligibility for the program is determined by floodplain maps. You should purchase flood insurance if you have a federally backed mortgage and FEMA maps show you live in a risk area. Unfortunately, the mandate has been poorly enforced, meaning many people don't buy insurance when they should. And the maps themselves can be outdated and wildly inaccurate. In fact, just days before Harvey hit, a study of Houston-area flood maps was released and the results were alarming. REPORTER 3: Over the course of a decade, researchers from Rice University and Texas A&M Galveston studied a section of southeastern Harris County.

They found that FEMA's floodplain maps missed about 75 percent of the storm damage: seventy-five percent. At the time, floods could also be predicted by having blindfolded six-year-olds pin small cardboard puddles on city maps at birthday parties. But even if all the maps were perfect, there would be another flaw in the NFIP, which is the way it is administered. You see, normally the government doesn't insure you directly. Instead, you pay private insurance companies a fee for each policy they sell. But not only that. The federal government is then responsible for covering any losses, which is a pretty good deal for those companies.

They take no risk and still get all the rewards, but it gets even worse because they also get paid for every claim they handle. And when Frontline crunched some of the numbers and presented them to a former program director, they found something shocking. REPORTER 4: There was one number that really caught your attention. With all the claims from Sandy, profits totaled more than $400 million. Because they're handling a lot of claims that year and they make... they make a lot of money when they handle claims. When a big storm hits, they make more money. Yes, at the very moment you need them to make less money, if anything, because...because...the burden will be on the taxpayers, they make a killing.

That's true. For insurance companies, the bigger the disaster, the bigger their profits. And that's a business model not often seen outside of Nicholas Cage's career. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) (STUTTERING) And while the insurance industry may question exactly how much profit they make, the fact is that the government and taxpayers are definitely the ones swallowing the losses, which is one of the reasons why even before From these

last

few hurricanes, the program was $25 billion in debt, and there aren't enough roseate spoonbills in the world to stop thinking about that, and to be clear, there are exactly enough roseate spoonbills in the world.

I... just saying, do we all really need more of this? (COMPIRING BIRDS) "Hey kids, come see! The dirty pink dinosaur is noisily devouring its babies!" (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And look, there's a good argument to say that helping people stay in their homes after a disaster is what government is for. But remember, a big chunk of that money goes to insurance companies alone, and a surprisingly large chunk of that money goes to very few households. For example, along the Gulf Coast in Florida, just one percent of properties covered by the NFIP have accounted for a quarter of flood claims.

These are called... (STUTTERS) ...the so-called "Repetitive Loss Properties". Now, they are houses that can flood again and again, receiving payments each time. And some of them are costing us a fortune. REPORTER 5: Recently, an article in The Washington Post highlighted a home in Pointe Coupee Parish that has flooded 40 times. Although the home is valued at only $56,000, the NFIP has doled out nearly $430,000 to cover flood claims. -Then that's just stupid. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Because at least if your house floods 40 times, Mother Nature is sending you a pretty clear message, and that message is: "Hey, would you mind leaving?

Some weird fish would like to get in here right now." ". ". (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) And some parts of the country have particularly extreme examples of this. Remember Mitch and Daniel? The pastel-colored death trap they were looking at is on a place called Dauphin Island, where for the past two decades, the owners They have paid only $9.3 million in premiums to the NFIP, but have received $72.2 million in payments for their damaged homes. It's so bad that Bloomberg wrote about the island with the headline: "Love of coastal living is draining funds." Americans for disasters." And at first glance, we thought, "Wait.

Isn't that the exact same monstrosity on stilts that Mitch and Daniel almost bought?" Well, the good news is that it really isn't. The bad news is that it's literally the house next door and it also appeared on a different episode of Buying the Beach. WOMAN: It's right on the water. It wasn't near the beach, it was in the ocean. The waves are right... right here. (EXHALES) It's literally in the ocean. AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Yes, it's crazy, but what's even crazier is that at the end of the episode, they decided to buy the house! -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) But even if you could overlook the properties with repetitive losses, which they did. should not do, there is another problem, and that is that almost one in five homes covered by the NFIP is a second home And because the program does not.is means-tested, the profits often go to the holiday homes of some wealthy people.

One of those properties belonged to John Stossel, a Fox News personality, and a partially hydrogenated Tom Selleck. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -And-- and I'll leave it to Stossel, who actually answers the question "What if Freddie Mercury had stopped singing to become assistant floor manager at Men's Warehouse?" I-- -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) I'll let him tell you everything, because even he knew it was ridiculous. JOHN STOSSEL: Years ago I built this house on the beach. That's my younger self. The house was on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, a risky place to build, but I built it anyway. Because a federal program guaranteed my investment.

Finally, a storm swept away my first apartment, but I didn't lose a cent. Thank you. I never invited you there, but you paid for my new first apartment. Well, it's clear that Stossel is just provoking people now, because under no circumstances does anyone want to finance the reconstruction of the rickety sea prison of the world's most conceited man. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -And there's a lot to be confused there, not least that photo of Stossel posing shirtless in a tight white swimsuit hundreds of feet away. -Who took that photo? -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) It can't be another human who wanted it.

So, this is my assumption. I think he put a camera on a long delay timer and then ran for a full 45 seconds back to the deck of his house, whispering "hurry, hurry, hurry!" to himself the entire time and he got into position just in time for that photo to happen. That is the only scientifically possible explanation. We debated this all damn

week

and it's the only scenario we could all agree on. -(PUBLIC CLAIMING) -And look... look. Here's the... here's the thing. If... If you choose to build something in a risky place like John Stossel's mistake, the salt-battered beach, -the only bottom, -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) you should absolutely be allowed to do it, but you shouldn't expect the government to to repeatedly help you rebuild when things inevitably go wrong.

However, the vast majority, the vast majority here of NFIP recipients are not wealthy or second home owners. They often really need this program and cannot afford for it to fail. And, for those stuck in repeat loss properties, it's easy to say, "They should move, they should just move." But it's a lot harder than that, as this Kentucky woman whose home has flooded repeatedly will tell you. We couldn't sell our house. Who would want to buy a house that has suffered so many repeated floods? Who would want to buy a house? We have neighbors who have had their houses for sale for two and three years and no one has even come to see the house.

We need a purchase from FEMA or whoever is responsible for this. Right, and her decision to try to leave that house couldn't have been easy because you don't want to throw the baby out with the floodwater. But at a certain point, the responsible thing to do is to have a better, more waterproof baby. Which is, incidentally, also the title of Britain's best-selling book on teaching children to swim. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Now, unfortunately, our stock purchase programs are underfunded and prohibitively slow. It can take years for buyouts to be approved, by which time homeowners will likely have had to rebuild their home at government expense and it may have already flooded again.

So essentially, a government program that was supposed to help people in flooded homes sometimes traps them inside them indefinitely. And trapping people in structurally defective homes is not what the government is there for, it's to buy the beach. (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) No, there simply has to be a better way here, and there are some key things we can do to improve this program. We can do things like means test and eventually get rid of discounts for second homes and gradually increase insurance rates on some properties to reflect the real risk. Unfortunately, the

last

time Congress attempted major NFIP reform with the Biggert-Waters Act of 2012, the result was that many people's rates skyrocketed overnight and politicians were so scared of angry constituents. that significantly reduced many of the reforms.

And I'm not saying this will ever be politically easy. Because even if a purchase plan is properly funded and rationalized, there will still be cases where people will simply want to stay put. Right here in New York there is a low-income community called "Broad Channel" where the streets can flood twice a month. Their neighbors fought against these rate increases a few years ago and many of them have no interest in leaving. No, then the neighborhood is too good. Listen, Sandy destroyed my entire house and I... you know, I redid my entire house. I... You know, people were like, "You're crazy, you should move." I said, "Of course not." (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) But right now you're standing in the water.

Maybe the people who told you to move were saying, "At a minimum, can you climb five inches to dry land?" (AUDIENCE LAUGHING) But the hard truth here is that even expensive interventions will probably only buy that community a little more time and the people in Broad Channel will eventually leave, whether in a moving truck or on a boat because the Environmental conditions are going to worsen. . Heavy downpours have increased over the last 50 years and sea levels have been rising steadily and I'm not saying it's because of climate change though... (MALE DRAMATIC VOICE) It just is. It just...

It just is. Precisely. In reality, the NFIP is due to be reauthorized in December and I would say it's time to give serious and thoughtful reform another chance because without it we have an unstable and unsustainable program that is indirectly harming some of the people it was designed to help. help and... (STUTTERS) I do... I don't have any-- -I told you last time-- -John, John, John! Chill out! I'm not here for Tostitos. -Actually? -Yeah. Wait. You... You... Can you talk? Of course. Seagulls can talk. We simply choose to listen most of the time. -♪ (PIANO PLAYS GENTLY) ♪ -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Oh, well, that's...

That's actually very nice. And I heard what he said about the floods, and he's right. -Mm-hmm. I have seen it. I am a seagull. -Yeah. -Some people in high-risk areas will need to move and we must provide them with the help with which they can do so. -Good. Well. -Because... While leaving your house is difficult, being forced to leave when it is uninhabitable is ten times more difficult. -Good. -And, after all, your house is not just walls and ceiling, it is where the people you love are. Oh! Seagull, I must say it was absolutely beautiful. Yeah, not bad for a "flying beach rat." -Aw, no, no, no, no, no, no-- -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) Don't talk about yourself like that.

No, no, don't do it. Alright. I know it's true. You know it's true. Everyone watching knows it's true. Hey, I eat fries out of the trash. Yes you're right. You make a good point. You are absolutely disgusting. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -But-- But you know what? I am very sorry that I misjudged your motives in coming here. It's okay, Johnny. Uh, just one more thing... Sure. Anything. Do you have Tostitos? Fuck you! No! I don't have Tostitos! They're all gone. Get out of here. -Out of here! -(PUBLIC CHEERING, APPLAUDING)