Audubon sues FEMA over issuance of flood insurance in Oregon

The Audubon Society of Portland and other environmental groups are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency over its issuance of flood insurance in Oregon, saying the government doesn't adequately consider the effect of floodplain development on wild salmon and steelhead. The suit, filed last week in the U.S. District Court of Oregon, says floodplain development has hindered recovery of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. Oregonians currently hold 32,757 individual flood insurance policies providing $6.8 billion of coverage in 259 local communities, the suit says, with a 17 percent increase in policies from September 2004 to October 2007. The "overwhelming majority" of the participating communities are within the geographic range of ESA-listed species, the suit says...Oregonian

Here you have the Politically Superior Ones supporting two policies at cross purposes. On the one hand, for votes, subsidize those who prefer to live in a floodplain, and on the other, for the enviros, restrict human activity to protect plants and animals. Too bad our enlightened leaders didn't realize the first policy does damage to the second.

Anyway, it's poorly thought out public policy to subsidize development anywhere, endangered species or not.

So, have the Politically Superior Ones figured this out?

Apparently not, as a post at Open Market on a similar issue points out:

...Case in point: The Homeowner’s Defense Act proposed by Representative Ron Klein (D-Fla.). The bill proposed by Rep. Klein would, among other things, set up a large “catastrophe” fund for state insurers in the Gulf, particularly for Florida. The fund would be a pre-funded bailout of state run insurers in the event of a hurricane disaster. The special fund would allow state insurers to continue charging below-market rates for the risks being taken without having to collect enough assets to stay solvent in the event of a large disaster. The benefits of the fund would come specifically to those living along the coastlines of the Gulf, yet the costs would be spread out across the entire U.S. It should come as no big shock then that the act’s main supporters are a congressman from Florida and Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Given that one group is getting all the benefits of the bill, it should also be no surprise that many groups would stand up against it, including some very unlikely partners. As reported in a piece in Politico last week, both environmentalist and free market groups are uniting to oppose the legislation. Free market groups like CEI are against the legislation on the basis that it intervenes in the market process and spreads the burden of risk on undeserving parties. Furthermore, the subsidizing of insurance rates for these Gulf States incentivizes building homes in areas at higher risk during hurricane disasters, as well as the construction of less safe homes. Environmentalist groups, despite their different mission, are opposed to the bill on the grounds that it would incentivize building homes in environmentally sensitive habitats, like those where sea turtles lay their eggs...

Just give it a nice title, like The Homeowner’s Defense Act, and then enact the same old wrong-headed policy.