Back in January, Erika Lopez Vedra had only minutes to evacuate her family from the impoverished Central Valley town of Planada after a levee breached on a dark, rainy night.

“It was so fast,” she told Times colleague Jessica Garrison. She recalled how the water rushed into her town and her home at that rate, destroying almost everything and displacing hundreds of people. But months later, Vedra already felt like the rest of California had “forgotten what happened.”

In this community, mostly made up of illegal agricultural workers, no one is sure if Planada will recover. But if it does, and if families like the Vedras family rebuild it, there is no doubt that the town and its besieged inhabitants will remain vulnerable to future floods.

From Planada to Paradise, there is no denying that climate change is having an imminent impact on California’s already severe housing crisis. Except perhaps state politicians who have avoided the big question of where to build and rebuild in the future by giving lip service.

Our most vulnerable communities are likely to be in the most vulnerable areas, such as mountains ravaged by years of unprecedented wildfires and Central Valley farmlands submerged by record rains and now ferocious snowmelt. It often happens. That’s a big reason why some insurers are refusing to issue new policies or limiting their financial exposure in the Golden State.

State Farm, California’s largest home insurance company, announced in May that it would no longer underwrite new residential and commercial properties, but the devastating blow has resulted in a high rate of fires that are expensive and hard to find. It will be felt most painfully in the area. Flood insurance usually has to be purchased separately.

Another major insurer, Allstate, also pulled out of California, refusing to change course last week after state insurance officials agreed to join its insurer. raise insurance premiums increased by 4%.

A business decision like this should prompt California leaders to rethink their land-use policies. Ultimately, losing access to insurance will prevent most people from getting a mortgage, creating new barriers to home ownership and exacerbating the housing crisis.

But then again, California, like Florida (the red state our political leaders love to denounce), knows the devastating consequences of doing so. , ignoring the obvious.

“The reality is that most people across the West live in areas that are on some sort of risk map,” says Lisa Dale, a lecturer in the climate department at Columbia University.

In fact, there are very few places left in California that are safe from climate disasters. Still, to help the tens of thousands sleeping on the streets and the millions at risk of being evicted from their apartments and living in tents, Governor Gavin Newsom has called for city and county crackdowns. started. People who refuse to build more affordable housing.

His administration famously sued the city of Orange County for violating state housing laws, citing stubborn Huntington Beach as an example.

Needed to address critical shortages that have forced cities and counties to commit to construction for years, yet have caused rising rents, homelessness, and an outflow of residents to more affordable states. This sense of urgency is fresh again after the failure to supply housing at a disproportionate rate.

The problem is that Newsom and his administration have little oversight over where all this housing is being built. Nor does it convey a coherent philosophy about mitigating current and future development risks related to climate change.

Instead, decisions underpinning this climate-housing nexus have largely been left to local governments, with county regulators and city councils facing the complex and emotional circumstances of deciding where people can and cannot live safely. helming. We wrote an article on this topic last year. The Dixie Fire burned down the community of Greenville in Northern California.

In Tulea County, for example, record rainfall has brought back Lake Tulea, a body of water the size of Lake Tahoe. Selecting sites to build new homes, as the state mandates counties, is a trade-off between the risk of flooding and the need to keep farmers close to farms, even if the farms are on a floodplain. It means to be balanced.

“We need to ensure that housing is available, affordable, and close to work,” supervisor Pete Vander Paul III tells us, adding that the county’s I explained that I needed to commute to the farm. Allensworth, that round trip is over 160 miles. ”

In Monterey County, where a long-neglected levee burst in March and flooded the farmworker town of Pajaro, superintendent Luis Alejo said he is focused on approving flood-proof housing projects. Given that only about 2% of homeowners have flood insurance and federal programs are pushed to their limits, this is a critical issue across California.

Under state law and the governor’s more aggressive goals, the county will need to build 35,000 homes over the next eight years, which regulators are trying to keep an eye on for both future risks and the current emergency. means that there is

“To tell disadvantaged communities that they have a floodplain and cannot build at all,” Alejo said, pausing to find the right words. “I think it puts restrictions on the community. They love living in Pajaro. They want investment. They want more housing and businesses to come here.” But I believe we need to design smarter homes and businesses going forward.”

What is “smarter”? Like Tulare County, Monterey County officials are trying to solve the problem in a variety of ways. On the one hand, climate change is accelerating.

After a winter of record-breaking rainfall, this summer’s “heavy snowmelt” could leave more people in the dire situation of knee-deep water in their homes. And while one good rainy season may reduce the risk of wildfires this summer, experts warn, it won’t save us from future blazes. Climate experts say a whiplash of weather bouncing between extremes is what to expect for life in the West in the coming decades.

and 2022 report The Office of Legislative Analysts said lawmakers need to recognize the importance of climate change in housing policy and play a greater role in its policy making.

“In recent years, much of the state’s new housing construction has taken place in areas at significant risk from the impacts of climate change,” warns the report, making it the fastest growing state in the last decade. He pointed out that 6 out of 10 of the 10 counties that have Areas of the Central Valley and Inland Empire are at increased risk of excessive heat and are now at increased risk of flooding.

In 2022, California had nearly 1.3 million homes. Areas with high fire risk, according to the Insurance Information Institute. His over 1.5 million estate in California includes more than 26% chance According to RiskFactor, a site that tracks climate-related risks across the United States, flooding could cause severe damage in the next 30 years.

and 2020 Survey It found that the number of affordable housing units vulnerable to coastal flooding in the state will increase by 40% by 2050. Also, the risk factors are: 340,000+ properties They live in areas threatened by heat waves, another climate change emergency.

It is potential misery and ruin. State Farm, Allstate and others have complex reasons to cut back, but they’re not ignoring future losses like California. Rather than leading, the state seems to follow the Florida model, ignoring reality until disasters make us pay for our mistakes.

Allowing new affordable housing stock to be built or rebuilt in high-risk areas is an abdication of government responsibility and a deception to Californians who mistakenly believe that buying a home is an investment for generations.

As insurance companies know, buying a home is not affordable for renters and owners alike when a home is destroyed by fire or flooding.

Firefighters fight the devastating 2021 Kaldor fire along Highway 89 near Lake Tahoe.

(Wally Scully/Los Angeles Times)

California should develop comprehensive land use policies at the state level, or at least have an honest and robust dialogue, to ensure that affordable housing is not just affordable, but is possible from what we know. The time has come to ensure that you are as safe as possible. danger of climate change. And, dare I say it, this includes not only forest areas that will become hotter, drier and more dangerous in the coming decades, but also from coastal areas where rising sea levels are already destroying homes. A discussion of controlled evacuation should also be included.

We are not saying the state is not doing anything, we are acknowledging that there are no easy answers. Governors and lawmakers are walking a tightrope between the desperate need for more housing and the reality of climate risk.

There are programs and grants to encourage infill development in urban areas. A new generation of fire hazard maps with regulations on how to build in those areas. and further technical guidance from the state that local authorities can use in deciding whether to approve new developments.

state agent. General Rob Bonta has emerged as a leader in the field, having filed at least two lawsuits against developments whose risks may not have been properly assessed, one in Lake County and another One is in San Diego.

And to help consumers get an accurate picture of how much potential they have, insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara has created a home risk score, a measure by which insurers assess a property’s vulnerability. He defended a law coming into force this year that would require the disclosure of financial data (measures used in Losing your home in a disaster, whether in the wilderness of Humboldt County or the burning hillsides of Malibu.

But we also offer state-sponsored fire insurance for high-risk properties through the FAIR plan when all other options are exhausted, and underscore the urgency to rebuild at all costs in the event of a disaster. , is also sending mixed messages. As our colleague Sam Dean reported, the size of the FAIR plan has doubled since his 2018, resulting in more consumers receiving limited and expensive coverage.

Existing homeowners may need that safety net, but new communities and homes that cannot adequately mitigate hazards should be excluded. Because, as Columbia University’s Dale puts it, while such policies benefit vulnerable homeowners, they “obscure the real risks.”

And really, it did. It’s hard and uncomfortable, but Newsom should take the lead in building California for a changing climate, not just building affordable housing.

Otherwise, you are investing in failure. Because Californians don’t just need homes, they need homes that last.