This is probably the worst US flood storm ever, and I’ll never be the same | Hacker News Reader

This is probably the worst US flood storm ever, and I’ll never be the same

arstechnica.com

31 pointsdreamcompiler15 comments

It's hard to get a complete picture of how much destruction Houston has seen. The numbers that impressed me most:

- Approx 30% of Harris County is underwater, maybe 50% of the city of Houston. As the article said, only 20% of homeowners have flood insurance.

- Estimate of damage to Houston is $160 billion. (In 2001, Allison damage cost $5 billion.) Katrina damage ran $108 billion, and was spread over a larger area than Harvey.

Houston will need a decade or longer to rebuild, based on the aftermaths of Allison and Katrina.

>only 20% of homeowners have flood insurance.

Whoa. So, what happens? You're up a creek without a paddle or do you sell the land or...? Seems crippling to that 80% that live in Houston.

Most people will likely qualify for Disaster Assistance[1].

The issue is that flooding is a hard thing to cover because it's an expensive risk to ensure. Plus unlike things like tornadoes, hail storms, or theft, floods always affect a large number of people. Private insurance pretty much refuse to cover these types of things because it's hard to spread stuff out. That's why stuff like the NFIP[2] and the TWIA[3] exist—because the government can pool it over the entire area (at least, in theory).

[1]: https://www.disasterassistance.gov

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Flood_Insurance_Progr...

[3]: https://www.twia.org

> only 20% of homeowners have flood insurance

There are a number of reasons this might be the case... it is expensive but I'm more curious to know of those people that flooded, how many are actually eligible for insurance. Just because you're in a flood plain doesn't mean you have to have insurance but local governments are responsible for setting the standard for what buildings are actually eligible for insurance.

So perhaps now would be the time to ratchet these up a bit?

For anyone thinking the pronouncement that Houston will never be the same is mere hyperbole and hand-wringing: At one time, Galveston was a prominent, prosperous city. Then it was hit by a hurricane and was never the same:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galveston,_Texas

On September 8, 1900, the island was struck by a devastating hurricane. This event holds the record as the United States' deadliest natural disaster. The city was devastated, and an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people on the island were killed.

Despite attempts to draw investment to the city after the hurricane, Galveston never returned to its levels of national importance or prosperity.

Okay, reality check time. Houston is the ninth busiest port in the US [0], it's the epicenter of the biggest petroleum refining region in the US [1], it has a huge banking and white-collar infrastructure, it contains a bunch of world-class universities [2], and has the largest medical center in the world [3].

None of this was true for Galveston in 1900 except the bit about being a port. Houston has taken a big hit, but it's not leaving the global stage.

[0] http://www.nglog.com/about-us/the_usas_busiest_ports

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_the_Unit...

[2] https://www.visithoustontexas.com/about-houston/colleges-and...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Center

Saying it will never be the same is not the same as saying it will leave the global stage. I can't fathom where that leap of logic comes from. The only point I was making is that cities can be permanently significantly altered by a single disaster. It has happened before. Galveston is not the only example, it just readily came to mind because it is close to Houston.

If you want another example: London was permanently altered by the Great Fire of London, which is credited with helping make it one of the most modern and powerful cities on the planet. But, in most cases, disasters don't dramatically improve a city and most people find my Shirley Temple-esque tendency to look on the bright side pretty offensive when they are having a crisis. So, I try to keep that in mind.

> I can't fathom where that leap of logic comes from.

I came from your comparison with Galveston, which was quite prominent on the world stage before 1900 but never was afterward. Of course Houston will be changed by Harvey, but the kind of change that happened to Galveston is wholly inapplicable to Houston.

We don't really know what the future of Houston will look like post Harvey. Only time will tell how applicable the comparison to Galveston is in various metrics. Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future.

I wonder how many people will simply be unable to get insurance after this. From SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR TARGETED REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES[1], there are some reasons why a house that could be completely ineligible for flood coverage:

> 1. Four or more paid losses of more than $1,000 each; or

> 2. Two losses within a 10-year period that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed the current value of the insured property; or

> 3. Three or more losses that, in the aggregate, equal or exceed the current value of the insured property.

> The loss history includes all ownership of the property since 1978 or since the building’s construction if built after 1978.

Given the last 2 decades or so, that 20% may be a high water mark (forgive the pun).

[1]: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/manual200505/20rl.pdf

Those standards are really confusing.

Losing the house is okay if it's a single flood, but adding on a couple $1 losses will make you ineligible??

And $4000 is extremely low in comparison. You'd think someone that pays >$500/year for insurance and has a $1000 claim every decade is a great customer.

Economically speaking, I think the biggest threat was to refineries. Were they seriously damaged? With due respect to victims, houses and offices are easier to rebuild.

Houston also contains nearly 40% of all US polyethylene and nearly 50% polypropylene production. That is a tremendous amount of production capacity for plastic and polymers going offline.

Which companies do you think will pick up this demand? Do domestic companies have capacity to scale up production, or will more be imported from overseas?

Not particularly seriously. Platts does extremely in-depth monitoring of virtually everything measurable in the O/G production and exploration business. Their report today[1] does not show drastic shut-ins of production, nor do futures prices predict a huge impact.

Most offshore O/G production is back online. Hardly any on-shore was shut in. The refineries will have to go through their shutdown/repair/restart cycle but it looks like they will be back running in 2-3 weeks, up to maybe 6-8 for some.

[1] https://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/newyork/oil-factbox-u...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com