14
submitted 1 year ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] autotldr 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Currently, standard insurance policies generally do not cover storm surge and overland flooding because it is considered too high risk.

Stewart said the collaboration with the federal government began 2½ years ago when the public safety minister called for a task force to look into how flood responses could be improved.

In an email to CBC News on Tuesday, the Department of Public Safety said flood-related damages to residential properties will no longer be eligible for federal cost sharing under the disaster financial assistance arrangements once flood insurance is considered available and affordable to Canadians.

"The decision on whether to continue to deliver disaster financial assistance for insurable flood damages within their respective jurisdictions will lie with the provinces and territories," the department said.

It said its task force estimated the average cost of residential flooding in Canada is $2.9 billion annually.

It said the 2023 budget provides funding over three years to Public Safety Canada to develop the new approach to help Canadians access affordable insurance.


I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] fresh@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

They do this in the US. I’m torn though. Doesn’t this just incentivize building in high risk flood areas?

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

Most towns are already built on flood plains because historically it was good farmland. Look at the Fraser Valley in BC. Nearly two million people all living on one big flood plain.

Look at the towns around you. Are they built in a wide, flat bottom valley? That's probably a flood plain. Every town I can think of around me is built in the valley bottom first, then only goes up the hills as development grows over time.

[-] fresh@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

That’s a good point. Maybe subsidized insurance should be available for existing developed areas. But should we subsidize new sprawl in flood plains? It’s also a vicious cycle because the more wet land we pave, the worse flooding risk is for everyone.

[-] yannic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe, but certainly does help the unfortunate souls who already live in areas where the provincial governments have purposefully diverted flood waters, who wouldn't otherwise have been flooded.

They're fine taking the bullet to save hundreds or thousands more homes. They're not fine footing the recovery bill.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
14 points (93.8% liked)

Canada

7210 readers
308 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS