We were going to buy a house overlooking a creek but were told that an offer had just been accepted. A few days later, we got a call that for some strange reason the sale had fallen through. My wife and I started researching and ran across https://floodfactor.com. It said that there was a 97% chance of a foot or more of water in the house in the next 15 years, incurring more than $100,000 of damage.
I wasn't familiar with floodfactor.com but they were linked from realtor.com I'm a little cynical about that - hey, yes, your house flooded but you should have checked that link and it's not your realtor's fault - but it's a sign that their information should be taken seriously.
Now they do wildfire and "heat" risks as well as flooding. They might introduce something like water supply risk and other things.
Not only do I care about these kinds of risks, I also care about neighborhood quality and architectural design. None of this is measured let alone searched for. Walk score is a start but again same problem as Risk Factor.
This likely came up after the offer was accepted.
We hadn't said anything about flood insurance. So it seemed like either the disclosure scared the other buyer or they found riskfactor.com or something like that.
Beautiful house, beautiful view. Also a quarter mile below a earthen dam 250 feet high and a few feet above a creek that was raging in 1996, several years before this house was built.
In a similar vein, check out geological surveys for karsts and sinkholes if you live in an area where bedrock is comprised of soluble rocks (which is much of populated earth). I know this seems outrageous, but increased rainfall doesn't just flood creeks and rivers, it can overload sewage systems. And if an overloaded sewage system means water has to find it's own way.
This doesn't just effect your house. Think about the impact of a road to your house sinks. IME, these can take months to get fixed.
Rest in peace Mr. F.
On the flip side, the person that we bought our house from had the map showing the flood plains as part of the overview of the house and that the house that was outside of the flood plain. She was adamant about it because the house is up on a slight hill, so both neighbors are in the flood plain and had to fight insurance before that the house was not actually in the flood plain.
So, it's good to check the climate change maps as well as any mandatory disclosures.
I live near the top of a large, steeply sloped hill and water does not flow past/towards the house. It claims there is a 97% chance of a foot or more of water reaching my house in the next 30 years. It at least doesn't claim there would be damages, but there's really no way for what it claims to actually occur.
The FEMA maps also have reliability problems but I'm not sure this is more reliable.
They had heavy sudden rainfall, exceeding the capacity of drainage pipes. He just got superficial damage, his next door neighbour had 1ft of water everywhere on ground floor. No basement at least.
This project from propublica is also good, but similarly underestimates wildfire risk in our area:
Realtors and property listing sites want to close sales. Most homeowners want a multi year home.
Beyond the edges of repeat customers it seems hard to see why a real estate company would have any motivation to provide this information unless they cover an area that will significantly benefit from climate change.
And of course I shouldn't have to say it that the Rockies will certainly not be water front, and no climate scientist is claiming that. Miami high rises may well fall down though.
Which "idea" is outside the mainstream here? That climate change will dramatically alter property values and liveability in some locations, or that housing search sites should surface this information proactively as a search criteria?
Companies are already starting to massively increase insurance rates (Florida and floods) or drop coverage altogether (California and fires). This is an article about a very real thing happening now in Arizona, though this situation is only exacerbated vs. caused by climate change. Extreme heat events in major cities without true access to a natural water source (e.g., Atlanta) or decaying water sources (e.g., Las Vegas) are happening.
We can debate the magnitude of change, but the direction of change is a done deal.
I recently bought in Wyoming. Low flood, heat and wind risk are actively talked about in the local saloon. The market appears to be segregating into the climate naive and climate savvy, with the latter hoping to profit off a wealth transfer.
Once enough people are negatively impacted by climate change, we will start seeing tools and laws pop up to help people/business manage the impact. But, right now, politicians and businesses are still able to get away with their lies and denials of the cause and impact. It might be another 10, 20, or 30 years until enough people are hurt by climate change that perceptions on the right change.