By Kathleen Schaefer

In the wake of recent tragic events, such as the devastating floods in Texas, it’s become clear that our current approach to flood management and disaster preparedness is falling short. The Associated Press reported that a flood warning system, which could have potentially saved lives, was left unfunded due to budget constraints (Ryan Foley et al., 2025). This heart-wrenching incident is a stark reminder of the critical importance of proactive flood management and the dire consequences of inaction.

While there is and will be lots of finger-pointing, perhaps the fingers should be pointed at each of us. Extreme precipitation events, while rare, are not improbable (Oldenborgh et al., 2017; Schaefer, 2019; Swain et al., 2018).  As Daniel Kahneman (2011) highlights in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” humans are prone to cognitive biases that affect our perception of risk. We tend to underestimate the likelihood of low-probability, high-impact events, a phenomenon known as the “availability heuristic.” This cognitive shortcut leads us to judge the frequency of an event based on how easily we can recall similar instances. Consequently, in the absence of recent flood experiences, communities often neglect preparedness. This collective oversight, rooted in cognitive biases, underscores the need for structured, periodic risk assessments and community-wide discussions of flood management, regardless of recent historical precedent.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and our system of flood management assume cities and counties are the most suitable entities to manage rare floods. This approach overlooks the cognitive limitations we share when dealing with low-probability events. Local governments, proficient in handling routine, high-probability challenges, often fail when confronted with complex or rare risks, even though the consequences of these events are well beyond local financial and management capabilities (Gormley, 1986). This misalignment between local governance capabilities and the unpredictable nature of flood risks creates significant vulnerabilities. As a result, communities are left poorly prepared for potential disasters, not from willful neglect, but from inherent human biases in risk perception and the limitations of local government for addressing rare, high-consequence events.

A fundamental shift is needed in how we approach flood management and community resilience. We must create discussions for communities to come together periodically, much as families gather to discuss important financial decisions. These discussions should focus on long-term planning, risk assessment, and proactive measures to mitigate flood risks. Think – life insurance for levees. 

A promising model for facilitating these crucial conversations in California is the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) (California Association of GHADs, n.d.). GHADs, originally designed to address possible but rare landslide risks, are governed by a Plan of Control and are a government entity well-suited to provide the structured framework communities need to address geological and hydrological hazards. They offer a platform for open dialogue, expert consultation, and collaborative decision-making on issues related to flood management and other natural hazards.

Insurance brokers can help facilitate these community conversations (Liedtke, 2007). Their expertise in risk assessment and mitigation can provide insights to help communities make informed decisions. Moreover, insurance providers can offer tailored products that incentivize proactive flood management measures, creating a wins for both the community and the insurer.

However, establishing and maintaining GHADs will not happen if they must depend on local funding alone. Just as communities often struggle to manage large-scale flood events independently, they are likely to find it challenging to sustainably fund GHAD operations and to justify an insurance policy, if that is part of the solution. This is where state or regional-level funding is crucial, just as life insurance is part of a household budget,  so too GHAD funding should be part of a government budget. By providing financial support for GHADs, higher levels of government can ensure that communities have resources to engage in ongoing flood management planning and implementation. 

The benefits of this approach include:

1. Proactive Planning: Regular community gatherings focus on flood management, encourage long-term thinking and preventive measures, potentially averting tragedies like the one in Texas.

2. Shared Responsibility: GHADs foster a sense of collective ownership in flood management, leading to more engaged and resilient communities. 

3. Expert Input: By involving insurance companies and other specialists, communities can access professional risk assessment and management expertise.

4. Sustainable Funding: State or regional-level funding for GHADs ensures consistent resources for ongoing flood management efforts, addressing shortcomings of local budgets.

5. Adaptive Management: Regular community discussions allow for integration of new information, technologies, and strategies in flood management.

6. Reduced Financial Burden: Proactive measures and better-informed communities can potentially reduce the financial strain of flood insurance.

The recent flood tragedy in Texas underscores the urgent need for a new approach to flood management. By creating safe spaces for community discussions, leveraging governance structures like GHADs, involving insurance companies more actively, and ensuring sustainable funding from higher levels of government.

About the Author

Kathleen Schaefer, Ph.D., P.E., CFM earned her Ph.D. in December 2024. Her research interests include ways to reduce the financial protection gap related to floods and new approaches to managing flood risk. She can be reached at kkschaeferca@gmail.com. Follow her on LinkedIn. 

Further Reading

Kunreuther, H. C., & Michel-Kerjan, E. O. 2011. At war with the weather: Managing large-scale risks in a new era of catastrophes. MIT Press.

Kunreuther, H., Meyer, R., & Michel-Kerjan, E. 2013. Overcoming decision biases to reduce losses from natural catastrophes. In The behavioral foundations of public policy. Vol. 23, pp. 398–413. Princeton University Press.

Tierney, K. 2025. Disasters: A sociological approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Tierney, K. 2020. The social roots of risk: Producing disasters, promoting resilience. Stanford University Press.

Works Cited

California Association of GHADs. n.d.. What are GHADs? https://ghad.org/about-ghads/

Gormley, W. T., Jr. 1986. Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity, 18(4), 595–620. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234884

Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Liedtke, P. M. 2007. What’s insurance to a modern economy? The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice, 32(2), 211–221. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41952935

Oldenborgh, G. J., van Wiel, K., Sebastian, A., Singh, R., Arrighi, J., Otto, F., Haustein, K., Li, S., Vecchi, G., & Cullen, H. 2017. Attribution of extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey. Environmental Research Letters, 12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2

Ryan Foley, C., Keller, C., Murphy, S., & Mustian, J. 2025. A decade of missed opportunities: Texas couldn’t find $1M for flood warning system near camps. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/texas-floods-camp-warning-system-not-funded-0845df62390b9623331ba4a030c5fc7d

Schaefer, K. 2019. $24.6 billion national flood insurance program debt explained in one chart. California Water Blog. https://californiawaterblog.com/2019/07/21/24-6-billion-national-flood-insurance-program-debt-explained-in-one-chart/

Swain, D. L., Langenbrunner, B., Neelin, J. D., & Hall, A. 2018. Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century California. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 427. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0140-y