Across the United States, dramatic footage has captured waterfront homes sliding into the water, from California to Michigan to Maine. In Dare County, N.C., a hotspot for such collapses, more than 30 residences have given way since 2020, with one falling as recently as this summer. Roughly 100 further dwellings in the area face the same fate due to erosion made worse by rising seas.
There is no plan to tear down most of the threatened houses, nor to clear them of personal possessions before they collapse, due to perverse incentives created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). NPR investigated the upside-down world of FEMA flood insurance in coastal areas, and discovered that many homeowners have no financial choice but to let their homes crumble. This has produced large quantities of debris and pollution, which shut down beaches, endanger wildlife and require expensive taxpayer-funded cleanup efforts.
The issue is worsening. Rising seas driven by climate change are speeding up erosion across the nation, raising concern among waterfront property owners, local leaders and even lawmakers in Congress. All parties acknowledge the current approach will not last. Yet finding common ground on a lasting fix remains an open question.
The Incentive at the Center of the Problem
The federal flood insurance system gives homeowners an incentive to allow homes to collapse rather than save them. When a house falls apart, the owner usually gets paid by their policy. But if the owner moves out first, they lose everything inside. Under the present arrangement, letting the house fall and collecting the check later makes more sense than trying to save it.
The outcome is odd: people trying to keep their possessions at home are penalized by the system, while those who give up their property early receive rewards from it. The way the system punishes effort and rewards giving up works against what most people would guess.
What Collapse Actually Means for Beaches
A house that sinks into the water splits apart, scattering its pieces across the surface. Those fragments then settle along the shore, rendering beaches off-limits for swimming and leisure activities. The wreckage also poses danger to the creatures that dwell in or around the water. The cost of clearing it all away rises fast, and eventually the bill lands on the shoulders of taxpayers, who must fund the recovery work through government programs.
Who Agrees the Status Quo Is Broken
Property owners along the waterfront are alarmed. They fear for their homes. Local leaders are handling the bills for cleaning up after flooding. People who serve in Congress have expressed worries about how much the federal government does to back flood insurance. Every single one of these groups agrees that the present arrangement cannot continue.
There is broad acceptance of the issue itself, but no such consensus on a remedy. What comes next is still open: whether homes are taken down, how owners are made whole, who covers the cleanup costs. Time is short, yet the way ahead remains uncertain.
The Scale of the Problem in Dare County
Since 2020, more than 30 homes in Dare County, N.C., have fallen apart, including one that collapsed as recently as this summer. Roughly 100 other houses face destruction from erosion made worse by rising seas.
This particular county shows what is happening across the country. Coastal erosion is getting worse everywhere, pushed forward by climate change. Homes that give way now will be followed by others soon, and the waste and pollution from their collapse will keep troubling nearby communities.
Why the Cleanup Costs Land on Taxpayers
Clearing away the remains of a fallen home is an expensive undertaking, and the expense frequently falls upon the taxpayer rather than on the homeowner whose dwelling has failed. This means that the cost of one collapsed house gets spread across many people, so the more homes that come down, the bigger the total bill grows.
The destruction of homes brings with it economic harm, since closed beaches cost local businesses that rely on tourists their customers. Wildlife damage can upset fishing and other trades too. These costs reach well past the direct price of cleaning up the mess.
The Incentive Structure in One Table
| Action | Current Outcome Under FEMA Rules |
|---|---|
| Let the house collapse and collect insurance | Owner gets a payout, debris spreads, cleanup costs land on taxpayers |
| Empty the house before it falls | Owner loses belongings, pollution avoided |
The table lays out the tension clearly. One route shields the environment while hitting the homeowner hard financially. The other route eases the homeowner’s finances but puts the environment at risk.
What Happens Next
Whether the federal government changes the rules remains to be seen. The perverse incentives come from how FEMA flood insurance works. New legislation or administrative action would be needed to fix it, and neither has taken place yet.
The houses keep falling down, sending their broken pieces scattering everywhere, and the bills for clearing up the mess keep mounting, with no end to the process in sight. Those who dwell close to the water already know what is about to happen next. What remains to be seen is whether any of those in power in Washington will finally put a stop to it.
“You’d expect homeowners to save their stuff. Federal policy pays them to leave it.”
The heart of the issue lies in how the system is built. It rewards people who let their homes fall apart, while punishing those who try to hold them together. Most people would expect a disaster response program to work the other way around.
There are actual cleanup bills, actual pollution, and actual damage done to nearby populations. What remains uncertain is whether the national administration can adjust the system of rewards and penalties before another building collapses.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.