You can move away from flood risk, you cannot move away from an unlucky mutation. So covering the former from public money feels less justified than the latter, at least from the veil of ignorance point of view.
I'm okay with this, with the proviso that it may not have been a flood risk when you built there.
I mean, there are plenty of houses that have been around 50-70 years, and with water levels rising, are now in flood plains that they weren't.
This of course, could be taken care of by subsidizing it based on when you bought the place vs when it became part of a flood plain (FEMA issues flood maps, so you don't have to deal with local politics at least)
