Alberta floods

[Guest American Woman]

The pictures are so unbelievable and its a good thing Alberta makes lots of money from its oil because this looks its going to cost billions, if not trillions of dollars to fix and take months. I wonder if there's anything they can do to stop this from happen again?

Alberta flood zone development was a mistake, former MLA says, so perhaps the only way they can stop it from happening again is not to rebuild there.

A former Alberta MLA who headed up a flood mitigation task force after the 2005 floods says new development should not have been allowed to spring up in the flood zones.

"If you’re going to build in those areas, you take on the responsibility yourself. That to me was the strength of the report, stop building where we shouldn't be building."

Does anyone know if the homeowners' insurance will pay for the damage? Is flood insurance a separate policy/requirement like it is in the U.S.?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to answer my own question:

Sadly, it sounds as if most homeowners are out of luck regarding their losses:

Alberta homeowners who hope to make claims with insurers for flood damage will be out of luck in most cases.

That's because not all flooding is covered under most insurance policies.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says water that comes in through doors and windows — called "overland flooding" — is not covered.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/06/21/business-flood-insurance-alberta.html

Edited June 23, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

The pictures are so unbelievable and its a good thing Alberta makes lots of money from its oil because this looks its going to cost billions, if not trillions of dollars to fix and take months. I wonder if there's anything they can do to stop this from happen again?

Trillions? LOL!

[Shady]

Looks like you still do not accept the fact that in North America (and around the world), many marshes and wetlands have been drained.

Many forests have been eliminated,reducing the lands ability to safely absorb increases in precipitation.

Returning much land and rivers to their natural wild state is what will protect us from disasters of this nature.

You may be right waldo,but I seriously doubt that will have an immediate impact in resolving the risk of flooding in the future.

WWWTT

Exactly. Man-made changes to the landscape never enters their mindset.

[GostHacked]

I'm surprised that this news is not more commented on this site as it must be a big news in Canada. After all, if a highly developed country like Canada is helpless in confronting the floods you can only imagine the blight of people in Bangladesh which is not as highly developed and where floods are a more frequent thing.

Over a thousand dead in India with the flooding there, Calgary has it easy here.

[GostHacked]

-------------------------------------------

The Insurance Bureau of Canada says water that comes in through doors and windows — called "overland flooding" — is not covered.

This is what happens when the insurance companies make the rules.

[Guest American Woman]

This is what happens when the insurance companies make the rules.

I thought of that, and my first thought was to be critical of insurance companies - but in giving it more thought, I wondered if they are equating "overland flooding" with an act of God, or some such thing. But one has to wonder - if the insurance companies had to pay out for all of this loss, what it would cost them - and what it would therefore cost for insurance policies? How astronomical would they be? I think one has to take into consideration the reality that they should not have been building there. I see it where I live, too - people building close to the lake even though the water was up past that point years back. It's as if they think the lake levels will never rise again. Same with some of the houses built on such precarious land in places like Florida and on cliffs in the mountains. The quote I cited comes to mind: "If you’re going to build in those areas, you take on the responsibility yourself."

[kimmy]

I'm surprised that this news is not more commented on this site as it must be a big news in Canada. After all, if a highly developed country like Canada is helpless in confronting the floods you can only imagine the blight of people in Bangladesh which is not as highly developed and where floods are a more frequent thing.

It's big news, obviously, but there's not really a lot to discuss.

There's a climate change angle, apparently. There's a land use and urban planning angle. There's a question of how much of a role the government has in aiding the people who have been affected.

But for the flood itself, there's not really a lot to say except that I have best wishes for all the people affected.

-k

[The_Squid]

They are not on the hook. Government (the taxpayers) will be covering Calgarians' losses. Likely, we will help them rebuild in the exact same place.

Insurance companies don't have unlimited funds to pay for these disasters. This type of insurance would be so expensive that no one would carry it even if it was available. To blame insurance companies is silly.

Edited June 23, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest American Woman]

They are not on the hook. Government (the taxpayers) will be covering Calgarians' losses.

You honestly believe that the government is going to cover everyone's losses??

[The_Squid]

You honestly believe that the government is going to cover everyone's losses??

Most of their losses, yes.

Not every penny.

Edited June 23, 2013 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

You honestly believe that the government is going to cover everyone's losses??

Much of it, yes. It cost Manitoba and Canada almost $2B for a rural flood and the related losses. This will be in the tens of billions, I would think.

[Guest American Woman]

Much of it, yes. It cost Manitoba and Canada almost $2B for a rural flood and the related losses. This will be in the tens of billions, I would think.

Really. So you think if someone had a house/property valued at $3 million dollars, the government is going to reimburse them to the tune of $3 million dollars?

[Guest American Woman]

Most of their losses, yes.

Not every penny.

I sincerely doubt it.

[Bryan]

Really. So you think if someone had a house/property valued at $3 million dollars, the government is going to reimburse them to the tune of $3 million dollars?

Not even close. The government offer, if you even get one, is pennies on the dollar.

[waldo]

Looks like you still do not accept the fact that in North America (and around the world), many marshes and wetlands have been drained. Many forests have been eliminated,reducing the lands ability to safely absorb increases in precipitation.

you refuse to accept these are not root causes, particularly of this event... one of the aspects being discussed is that a preliminary rain prior to the real deluge caused exactly what you describe - soil saturation. Depending on location, the deluge is stated to have released 3-to-5 times as much rain as the preliminary rainfall event... and then, of course, there were continued sporadic rainfall occurrences, after the main deluge. No amount of soil, particularly given the 'high-speed mountain valley thoroughfares', would ever soak-up the incredible amount of rainfall that occurred. I'm not aware of any significant deforestation in the associated protected National & Provincial Parks - are you? Care to speak to the wetland areas you claim existed... and were drained?

you refuse to accept a climate change induced problem... even the possibility of it. I pointedly asked you, "what causes the increased moisture that turns into the rainfall? What causes jet-stream shifts? What causes blocking events that holds systems in place?" You ignored it. I've spoken of Arctic amplification several times in the past in other MLW related threads... the effects resulting from climate change induced accelerated melting of Arctic sea ice. In this thread I wrote the following which itself linked to a prior post I'd written in another thread. Apparently, you also ignored that.

let's try a bit more reinforcement, hey: Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes

Returning much land and rivers to their natural wild state is what will protect us from disasters of this nature.

good luck with that!

.

[Smallc]

Not even close. The government offer, if you even get one, is pennies on the dollar.

That's complete bull. When Lake Manitoba flooded, people with actual dwellings were given 80% of the value up to $300K (just for the home - the property was covered under a different program). Seasonal dwellings are a different matter and should not be replaced.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Really. So you think if someone had a house/property valued at $3 million dollars, the government is going to reimburse them to the tune of $3 million dollars?

It's unlikely, but then that's not entirely out of the question.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Smallc

[Shady]

This is what happens when the insurance companies make the rules.

Said rules aren't made up on the fly. The details of any kind of coverage are listed in the specific policy one signs up for. Insurance companies, like everyone else, are bound by contract law.

[Bryan]

That's complete bull. When Lake Manitoba flooded, people with actual dwellings were given 80% of the value up to $300K (just for the home - the property was covered under a different program). Seasonal dwellings are a different matter and should not be replaced.

You're the one flinging bull. I know several people who suffered total losses. The BEST offer they got was less than 10% of what it cost to rebuild. The majority still have not seen a dime either.

[Guest American Woman]

That's complete bull. When Lake Manitoba flooded, people with actual dwellings were given 80% of the value up to $300K (just for the home - the property was covered under a different program). Seasonal dwellings are a different matter and should not be replaced.

Let's say that's true, just for argument's sake, and let's say the total loss was $300k. That's still a $60,000 loss. Nothing to sneeze at. I have to wonder, though, how many could rebuild the same kind of home they had for 80% of the value of their old home. As for the furnishings, and landscaping, etc., what kind of program were they covered under? - because we're talking a significant amount of money. Furthermore, how many homes were worth more than 300k?

It's unlikely, but then that's not entirely out of the question.

Considering you yourself have made a claim of 80% reimbursement capping at 300k, I'd say it's entirely out of the question.

Edited June 23, 2013 by American Woman

[Topaz]

As the Parl.Sec. of finance said today, that there`s a `Build Canada Fund`that is suppose to be launch in 2014 but since has happen to Calgary and area, he said they would bring this into action now. I`m sure they have to be careful spending money over this disaster since many of the MP`s and the PM are from this area and conflict of interest. As far as insurance goes, they already said the premiums for household insurance will go sky high. The way they get out of paying is by saying it was an act of God. or the rule if the water damage come from outside the home , its not cover unless you have a special rider.

[Accountability Now]

"Once in a century" ?

... twice in a decade ...

100 year flood does not mean it happens every hundred years. It represents the statistical probability that it can happen in a given year.

"A common misunderstanding exists that a 100-year flood is likely to occur only once in a 100-year period. In fact, there is approximately a 63.4% chance of one or more 100-year floods occurring in any 100-year period."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The way they get out of paying is by saying it was an act of God. or the rule if the water damage come from outside the home , its not cover unless you have a special rider.

Does Canada have a federal flood insurance program ? How about the provinces ? I pay for such a policy rider each year for homeowner's insurance, mostly for sewer system backup. Floods are not a new phenom for Alberta, so what is so special about this one....urban location ?

[bush_cheney2004]

.

you refuse to accept these are not root causes, particularly of this event...

As predicted, more climate change dogma is being trotted out to take advantage of a flooding event. This time it's Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University Marine & Coastal Sciences. USA...of course !

[Smallc]

You're the one flinging bull. I know several people who suffered total losses. The BEST offer they got was less than 10% of what it cost to rebuild. The majority still have not seen a dime either.

We used the program. You don't know what you're talking about. If there's an issue, it's with seasonal dwellings or questionable losses. We had to use both DFA and MASC, and both programs worked well, with near 100% cost recovery for what we did.

Considering you yourself have made a claim of 80% reimbursement capping at 300k, I'd say it's entirely out of the question.

That's just an example from a rural area with houses of much lower value. What Alberta will do is not known yet, but it will be a very large program.