By Nicholas Pinter
. . .
Earlier this month, California released its Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study. The study addresses thorny issues in managing California’s disaster risk, and particularly the crises in wildfire insurance and utility liability. We Californians and our leaders should applaud the study and efforts to address these sweeping challenges. The Resiliency Study focuses on wildfire risk management, generally leaving aside additional hazards like flooding that might seem too daunting for policy action. But this is exactly why California should not forget its long history of flooding. Given the recent retreat of federal leadership, now is the time to develop comprehensive solutions to California’s disaster exposure and insurance challenges.
California has experienced many natural disasters throughout the state’s history. Major floods occurred through the 1800s, in 1950, 1955, 1962,1982-3, 1986, 1996, 2017, and 2023. The Resiliency Study estimates California’s flood exposure (averaging $8 billion/year) as comparable to wildfire (~$5-9 billion), with earthquake exposure even larger (~$15 billion). Of FEMA major disaster declarations since 1954, 39 have been for floods vs. 27 for wildfires, 13 for earthquakes, 25 for severe storms/hurricanes, and 25 others. But human nature often focuses on the most recent headline event. FEMA fire declarations predominate during the past 10 years, and massive losses culminating in the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires have triggered crises spanning disaster management, insurance, litigation, and utility rates and viability statewide.
A theme across all disaster types is that California is underinsured. As the Resiliency Study eloquently states, property insurance functions as our “financial first responder” after a disaster, allowing residents and communities to recover. For wildfire, private insurers are limiting or withdrawing coverage, leaving homeowners with fewer, more expensive options and pushing many into the state-backed FAIR Plan. This crisis reflects a mismatch between escalating wildfire risk—due to climate change, historic fire suppression, and development patterns—and constraints on insurers’ ability to price that risk accurately and/or profitably.
Flood insurance, in contrast, is backstopped by the federal government, but only 2% of California residents have flood insurance policies. And while California has invested heavily in flood control, recent events like flooding in 2023 showed that extensive flood risk exists outside of FEMA’s designated map zonation. FEMA modeling and maps are climate-blind, opening the way for large-scale new development onto land that is, in actuality, subject to damaging inundation, at present and in the future. And, alarmingly, FEMA under the current Administration has backed away from helping California and other states manage hazards, up to and including threats to eliminate FEMA and privatize the National Flood Insurance Program. All considered, millions of California residents and the State’s economy are carrying many billions of dollars of flood risk with minimal protection.
If California is serious about addressing its catastrophe risk and building comprehensive resiliency, the same investments and innovations now being proposed for wildfire could be deployed to meet the challenges of flood exposure and other hazards.
Many other countries offer hazard insurance to all homeowners, often at surprisingly low cost—possible when risk is spread. In Spain, $350,000 (300,000 EUR) of flood coverage costs just $24 per year. In New Zealand, $177,000 (300,000 NZD) of all-hazards coverage costs $315 annually. California Senator Adam Schiff has introduced federal legislation (S.2349) that would incentivize insurers to offer all-perils coverage. Such innovation is unlikely in Washington DC at present, but California has the expertise, innovative spirit, and scale to design groundbreaking solutions and document their feasibility.
Recent wildfire disasters and fire insurance in California represent an emergent crisis, and the new Resiliency Study outlines actionable next steps. But durable solutions may require us to build an integrated, multi-hazard framework that innovates and creates pathways for long-term resilience across the full spectrum of disaster risk in California.
About the Author
Nicholas Pinter is the Roy J. Shlemon Professor of Applied Geoscience and Associate Director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California Davis. Prof. Pinter and his students study earth-surface processes, including coastal geomorphology and geodynamics as well as river systems, flood risk management, and adaptation to climate-driven changes. Prof. Pinter leads the World Water at UC Davis initiative and is the Co-Chair of the Securing California’s Flood Future panel.
Further Reading
Neilson, S. and M.F. Munce, 2025. A broken system is keeping California homes underinsured. Millions have no idea they’re at risk. San Francisco Chronicle, April 2, 2025. https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2025/california-home-insurance-underinsured/
Pinter, N., 2025. Don’t Let a Shutdown Wash Away U.S. Flood Protection. California Water Blog. https://californiawaterblog.com/2025/09/30/dont-let-a-shutdown-wash-away-u-s-flood-protection/
Pinter, N., C. Kousky, D. Conrad, C. Fugate, M. Ghilarducci, A. Neal, A. Serra-Llobet, and N. Watkins, 2025. Securing California’s Flood Future. [Policy White Paper], U.C. Davis. Available from https://tinyurl.com/FloodFuture.
Pinter, N., R. Hui, K. Schaefer, and D. Conrad, 2016. California, Flood Risk, and the National Flood Insurance Program. https://californiawaterblog.com/2016/12/14/california-flood-risk-and-the-national-flood-insurance-program/
Sellers, M., 2026. California steps back from mandating insurers offer coverage. Insurance Business, April 27, 2026. https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/california-steps-back-from-mandating-insurers-offer-coverage-573128.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Leave a Reply