Because it's too expensive, only governments can cover the losses in flood situations. Look at all the claims after the flooding in New Orleans, the wind damage from the hurricane was covered but the flooding generally was not. No insurance company could have absorbed those losses. Even then, just the wind damage risk has caused insurance companies to drop coverage along a lot of the US coast, in Florida as I recall the govt. had to step in to underwrite the insurance companies, not sure if they still do it.

I'm not an insurance agent but I thought one of the reasons you had to have insurance to get a mortgage was to stop people building houses in stupid places.

Not so. Whether a single insurer could absorb flood loss depends on how many home are effected. In Calgary's case (75000 homes?) a large insurer probably could. But in reality it's not one insurer on the hook it's many insurers as different household insure with different companies. Add to that the fact the insurers can re-insure through Lloyds (syndicates) and it's clear that the insurers are simply choosing not to offer rather than being unable to.

I'm not an expert on the insurance industry but the Canadian industry is highly regulated in fact in BC, ICBC do car insurance for example, it's effectively nationalized. So if it's nationalized then I guess there's no point offering insurance in the event of a big natural disaster because the govt. has to pay out anyway.

I'm just trying to understand the logic of someone buying a 1950s-era house in Britannia or Rideau Park, knocking it down, building a new one, knowing it's in the floodplain, knowing there was a flood in 2005, knowing (or maybe they didn't) there's no way of getting flood insurance and paying cash for the whole thing.

Look at Riverdale Ave SW in Google Streetview, there are a few houses pictured under construction or what looks like serious renovation.

Or are there people okay with running the risk of losing $3 million+ during a flood, I know I'm not wealthy enough for that!

So if the insurance companies don't cover flood damage and won't be paying out on this we can expect minimal increases in premiums next year............

I met with Mrs Butch Cassidy today

They are back in their home, the power is back on and they suffered no damage other than a leaky roof!! Even the food in their freezers was unspoiled! Happy lady!

Has anybody heard from Woodmanbg in Bragg Creek?

I don't want to knock anyone who has really suffered through this but for example they had a woman on the radio who was complaining about soil erosion at the back of her yard past the end of her 50ft deck near Bowness Park. Empathy... waning...

I know there's a lot of old people who live down near the rivers who've lived there since the 1950s, they interviewed several on the news who've lived there 60+ years.

But having said that I'm not going to be too happy if people who knowingly knocked down a 1950s-era house and built a McMansion in a floodplain get compensated by the province. If they do it will encourage people to keep on doing it.

You have a point there. I suppose many of those that can afford $3MN+ houses can also afford to repair the property if flooded. I think also when flooding is a less frequent occurrence, people downplay the risk. When was the last serious flood in Calgary?

No I hope everyone is okay, I think everyone yesterday had a "let's go out and help people" mentality but it was basically impossible to get anywhere with all the road closures. MacLeod Trail looks like a bomb has hit it. I think a lot of the houses just south of the Talisman Centre are a complete write-off.

2005.

In BC, disaster flood cover is paid by the province, up to $350k to property owners within the flood defences. Any properties built outside the flood defences (Dike system) get the benefit of lower property prices, but no disaster payment. Cannot have it all ways I guess.

It's not getting any better.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ra...658/story.html

No idea what's in those rail cars but it probably won't be nice if they rupture and even less nice if they go bang. Five cars containing 80,000lb each of something bangy. That's a 180 tonne firework. Not a pleasant prospect.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Up...387/story.html

Petroleum products, so no problem there then.

Depends on what product it is. Lower fractions will be messy and environmentally destructive but they don't burn easily. If they are higher, more volatile, fractions, that's another story entirely.

They're saying on CBC that it's a diesel like product. If true not really explosive but could be one hell of a fire it it went up and/or create a huge oil slick on the river.

Edited to add: The bridge "appears" to be stabilizing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ok-bridge.html

Let's hope they are correct.

Yes, lets. Diesel or similar is not really an explosion risk. It doesn't ignite that easily. Probably not a good time to be a fish, though, if something ruptures.