Eight Takeaways From the Texas Flood Tragedy

The Texas Hill Country flood tragedy highlighted the need for governments at all levels to invest in adaptation and emergency response measures before disaster strikes. While it is impossible to safeguard every property and person from the rising risk of natural disasters, there are several steps that lawmakers and policymakers can take today to avert the full human costs of these extreme weather events. Taking these steps is more important than ever with climate change poised to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events.

The scientific writer William Gibson famously stated, “The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.” Tragically, the Texas floods, which have already claimed 134 lives, offer an early glimpse of a more dystopian, climate-destabilized future. To pick one example: One location along the Texas Guadalupe River surged 34 feet in just 90 minutes, leaving a trail of human suffering and devastation in its wake. What follows are eight initial takeaways from the Texas tragedy to minimize the impact of future disasters through proactive adaptation measures before disaster strikes. These recommendations build on my forthcoming article in the Iowa Law Review.

Democratize Climate Risk Information

Homeowners, prospective owners, and renters alike need better access to climate risk information. Democratizing climate risk information must include access to the actual risk of flooding in “Flash Flood Alley,” the region in central Texas that is uniquely susceptible to rapid and dangerous flooding. More than 38,000 residential structures are located in Flash Flood Alley. Too often, critical risk information is hidden by paywalls or obscured by real estate disclosure laws. Hiding such information leaves residents in the dark about their potential exposure to natural disasters. Climate analytics has matured as a business model, but this information is often monetized rather than democratized. When climate risk information is available, it is outdated or incomprehensible to the average citizen.

What about those ubiquitous real estate apps—what role can they play in exposing risk information? While Zillow and Redfin allow prospective homebuyers to assess a property’s risk for flood, heat, fire, wind, and air quality, Zillow limits this information to properties for sale, and Redfin allows sellers and real estate professionals to take down critical climate risk information at their discretion. These obstructions force potential homebuyers to be quasi-investigative reporters to corral complex details before making one of the most important financial decisions of their lives. To avert future climate disasters, climate risk information must be democratized.

The Texas disaster underscored the significant dangers posed by inland flooding to communities far removed from the coastline. And it is not just Texas. Last year, Floyd County, Kentucky, suffered catastrophic flooding—marking the 13th time in 12 years that this small county, far from the coast and deep in the Kentucky “hollers,” had suffered an environmental disaster.

Both the federal and state governments have an essential role to play in requiring flood disclosure history before a property is sold. The detailed flood claims history of a property remains protected from disclosure as a “record” under the Privacy Act. And many states lack mandatory real estate disclosure laws that reveal a property’s flood risk and claims history. As of this writing, more than 14 states lack any requirement for sellers to disclose flood history before a sale. Indeed, in many states, prospective car buyers have greater access to a car’s history through Carfax, a widely available auto disclosure tool. If you know a used car’s history, shouldn’t you have the same—or arguably, more—information before purchasing a home?

In a promising sign, some state legislatures have taken steps to pass disclosure laws that better inform prospective buyers about environmental risks in a particular property. In just the past two years, South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina have embraced more stringent flood disclosure laws. But when it comes to the effectiveness of flood risk disclosure laws, the devil is in the details. Texas does have a flood disclosure law; however, property owners in Kerr County, including those at Camp Mystic, were able to successfully appeal the decision to have their properties listed in the flood zone. This loophole, and others like it, undermine the effectiveness of flood disclosure laws, putting people and property at risk.

“Climatize” FEMA Flood Maps and Review the Amendment Process

The property owner of Camp Mystic, where 27 people—including children—lost their lives, successfully petitioned federal regulators to remove the property from the 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map. While there is still much to learn about the reasoning behind this reversal, removing the camp from a “Special Flood Hazard Area” loosened construction standards and eliminated the need for flood insurance. While this reversal may have made managing the camp cheaper, it did nothing to reduce the underlying flood risk and likely lulled people into a false sense of security. The reluctance of property owners to be included in the FEMA flood map zone reflects a tension between existing property owners who are concerned about potential loss in property values and future property owners who are more focused on understanding climate risk. Importantly, these flood maps help emergency first responders identify areas most prone to flood risk and guide the deployment of resources before disaster strikes, as well as provide safe evacuation routes. The more properties removed from flood zone maps, the less preemptive resources and information are allocated to areas that might need them.

In theory, FEMA flood maps indicate the likelihood of an area flooding. Still, climate change is challenging the accuracy of these maps and exacerbating flood risk, which is already the most common and damaging of all natural disasters in the United States. According to the investment firm First Street, 84 percent of FEMA flood maps are out of date and fail to accurately assess true flood risk. And no flood map models exist for the sudden flooding along the Guadalupe in Texas.

As described above, property owners often seek to be removed from the FEMA flood zone, as individuals search for lower insurance rates and looser construction standards. Remarkably, Sarah Pralle at Syracuse University has found that FEMA approves 90 percent of map amendment requests. Looking ahead, to prevent future tragedies, there should be a strong presumption against amending existing FEMA flood maps unless clear and convincing evidence to the contrary is presented. Even better, FEMA flood maps should be updated and “climatized.” Integrating future climate projections for environmental conditions—such as sea level rise and flooding—provides a more accurate and holistic picture of the underlying risk to each property.

Fund Science First

Climate science must receive full funding. While opinions may differ on the best policy responses to natural disasters, any predisaster adaptation decision must rely on solid, peer-reviewed science that objectively and honestly assesses the actual environmental and human security risks. Indeed, science must be the driving force behind decision-making in adaptation and disaster planning. If authorities lack an accurate picture of an area’s exposure to flooding and other climate-driven disasters, poor decision-making—such as where to invest in seawalls, early warning systems, and evacuation routes—is likely to follow. Even worse, inaccurate or poorly considered scientific projections may lead to maladaptive actions, which worsen the problem they are trying to address. In a series of shortsighted actions, the Trump administration closed climate and weather research centers—including the National Severe Storms Laboratory—and dismissed 400 scientists involved in the Sixth National Climate Assessment. The firing of scientists is especially troubling, as a 1990 law that established the U.S. Global Change Research Program requires the federal government to produce climate assessments regularly. To date, this law has resulted in five National Climate Assessments, with the most recent one released in November 2023. Trump fired the scientists associated with the Sixth National Climate Assessment, and the website that hosts the previous climate assessment has gone dark. The United States boasts some of the world’s top weather prediction scientists, but this expertise is useless if the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is prevented from utilizing that knowledge. Actionable information depends on investing in the best climate science.

Favor Managed Retreat Over Unmanaged Retreat

In the face of rising flood and climate risks, communities and property owners are increasingly turning to “retreat”—that is, relocating—as a response to flooding and other climate-related disasters. As retreat becomes an increasingly accepted adaptation option, the U.S. should prioritize managed retreat—the intentional relocation of people and property from danger—over unmanaged retreat. For some climate-exposed communities, proactive managed retreat—where entire communities relocate to safer areas—should be considered. In contrast, unmanaged retreat is often a haphazard, disorganized movement of people and assets into or out of harm’s way after a disaster. Sometimes people stay put. Sometimes people move to other parts of the country. Most of the time, people just shrug and get through disaster after disaster. Unfortunately, without more decisive leadership, unmanaged retreat has become the default “strategy”—an unplanned, reactive, and largely unfair approach. While managed retreat is a costly and challenging choice that requires local consensus to succeed, it must be considered a legitimate option for the most vulnerable communities. In 2022, the Biden administration jump-started a national managed retreat program, choosing five Native American tribes to relocate away from rivers and coastlines. Indeed, the most vulnerable communities are often not even aware of the climate risks. Children, people with disabilities, people experiencing poverty, and older adults are disproportionately harmed by climate change and natural disasters. Underserved communities are particularly vulnerable to climate “doom spirals,” where losing population can lead to lower property values and a reduced property tax base.

Incentivize Voluntary, Formal Retreat

For residents in Kerr County and other climate-exposed areas of Texas, state or local officials should offer voluntary buyouts, where the government pays climate-exposed communities to relocate. Voluntary buyouts should be initially favored over direct displacement, as forceful removal via eminent domain is likely to spark political backlash, particularly if displacement does not provide adequate “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment. Ideally, voluntary buyout programs should be administered at the local level with the financial backing of the federal government. While Houston and Harris County offer a modest voluntary buyout program, Flash Flood Alley—described as the “most dangerous river valley in the United States”—lacks an active voluntary buyout program. As part of any managed retreat process, some states have had success in investing in targeted relocation through voluntary buyout programs. These programs involve a significant upfront investment. New Jersey is a national leader in state-led relocation efforts, thanks to its innovative Blue Acres program, which has been in place since 2012. The Blue Acres program is open to homeowners, landlords, and renters who reside in areas exposed to climate-related risks. While the Blue Acres Program represents a significant governmental investment of federal and state money—FEMA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fund the program in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in the northeast—such programs have several benefits and characteristics worthy of exploration and broader consideration.

As part of any voluntary buyout program, special attention must be given to controlling the costs associated with Repetitive Loss and Severe Repetitive Loss properties—designations that apply to structures with an active National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy. Repetitive Loss Property is defined as “a property for which two or more NFIP losses of at least $1,000 each have been paid within any 10-year rolling period since 1978[.]” A Severe Repetitive Loss property is one that has “had four or more claims of more than $5,000 or two or more claims that cumulatively exceed the building’s value.” These properties account for just 1 percent of NFIP policies but make up 30 percent of overall flood claims. One example: A single home in Mississippi was rebuilt 34 times in 32 years using $663,000 in federal tax dollars, for a home worth only $69,000. The destroy-rebuild-repeat cycle must be broken.

Bring Back the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program

The Texas floods demonstrate the shortsightedness in several Trump announcements to eliminate programs designed to help Americans both before and after disaster strikes. The administration should reverse plans to dismantle the federal office that oversees recovery from disasters, such as the Texas floods. It must restore key funding sources to encourage predisaster mitigation planning and resilient investment. Congress made two changes to the Disaster Relief and Recovery Act of 2018. First, Congress created the BRIC program, enabling FEMA to shift disaster costs to predisaster hazard mitigation and invest in measures before disaster strikes. For example, BRIC funds can elevate flood-prone structures, relocate structures out of the floodplains, or invest in upgrades for water and sewer systems—all sensible investments that pay dividends when disaster strikes. Second, Congress updated the Disaster Relief and Recovery Act to provide funding for state and local code implementation and enforcement of building codes and floodplain management ordinances. Such funding might include technical assistance and assistance with implementing stricter building codes.

In a shortsighted move, the Trump administration effectively shut down the BRIC program. On July 16, 20 states sued the Trump administration for this decision, alleging that the BRIC program saved taxpayers more than $150 billion over 20 years. While it remains to be seen if this lawsuit succeeds, the Texas floods should spark renewed interest in the program. Reestablishing BRICs is also a sound return on investment. By one measure, for every dollar spent on federal mitigation grants, the federal government saves $6 down the line—a return on investment that should spark bipartisan support.

Integrate Retreat and Adaptation & Resiliency Planning

The state of Texas, along with key counties, cities, and municipalities, should develop an adaptation and resiliency plan that relies on and listens to community leaders and key stakeholders. As of this writing, just 33 states have some form of a state-level climate action plan. Yet all 50 states and U.S. territories are impacted by climate change. Why haven’t all jurisdictions adopted a climate action plan when there is little downside in doing so? The potential return on investment in predisaster mitigation planning is extraordinary when an action plan is resourced and implemented. Beyond the dollars and cents, sound mitigation and adaptation plans can save lives.

In developing such plans, emphasis should be placed on relocating not just people but also critical assets and infrastructure away from climate–exposed areas. Critical assets and infrastructure can include hospitals, nursing homes, or wastewater treatment plants that are exposed to the elements.

Sadly, Texas does not have a statewide resiliency plan. While Kerr County did develop a Hazard Mitigation Action Plan, the county’s request for an early warning flood system was turned down by Texas officials charged with administering federal funds. More states and municipalities should follow the example of cities like Jacksonville, Florida—the largest city in the United States by size and a city uniquely impacted by climate change. The city released “Resilient Jacksonville” in late 2023, an innovative resiliency plan that squarely addresses retreat. The Resilient Jacksonville plan offers an adaptation blueprint that should ideally inspire and influence the actions of other cities and communities.

Fully Fund the Coast Guard and Emergency First Responders

Emergency first responders should be fully resourced, trained, and equipped to save lives when called upon to do so. Resourcing emergency first responders begins by fully funding the Coast Guard and National Guard, particularly those units in areas called upon to respond to natural disasters. Historically, the Coast Guard has struggled with flat budgets or even threats of budget cuts. Meanwhile, the Coast Guard, the busiest peacetime military service, has seen its missions and operational demands on its personnel increase. In one heroic example in Texas, a Coast Guard rescue swimmer and helicopter crew from Corpus Christi saved 165 flood victims at Camp Mystic. You don’t need to watch the blockbuster “Superman” to appreciate and support this real-life heroic action. Emergency first responders are increasingly placing themselves in danger as they respond to climate-destabilizing weather events. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, emergency response workers are “more likely to be exposed to climate-related risks such as wildfire smoke or flooding from a heavy rainfall.” As extreme weather events wreak havoc on some of the most vulnerable communities, Congress must continue to fully invest in the Coast Guard and integrate Coast Guard operations with those of state and local emergency responders. In a positive sign, the Coast Guard has seen an infusion of money from Congress this summer. Climate change may require some out-of-the-box thinking, particularly concerning the placement of Coast Guard assets. For example, Coast Guard air rescue operations should consider areas that are most vulnerable to extreme weather events. Doing so may lead to more assets being allocated around the country, ready to respond at a moment’s notice.

* * *

If the Texas floods offer a glimpse into the future, it will be one shaped by climate-driven instability and extreme weather events. In the face of a massive human tragedy, the U.S. should learn from the Texas floods and work toward building a more resilient future.