The value was always inflated — the maps just make it undeniable.
Slobodan Simonovic spent years assembling nearly 150,000 documents — topographic surveys, historical rainfall records, snowmelt data, hydrodynamic models, urbanization patterns — and then ran all of it through 17 of the most current climate models available, the kind built on the latest science from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What came out the other end is a national flood-risk mapping project of a scale Canada has never had before. And one of its clearest findings is this: Metro Vancouver is in serious trouble.
The maps, published in early November 2021 by Simonovic, a flood-control engineer at Western University, allow users to examine flood risk at a resolution of one square kilometre across the entire country. They model the effects of climate-driven rainfall and snowmelt — not sea-level rise, which is a separate and additional threat — on Canada's lakes and rivers between now and the end of the century. The picture they paint is stark. By 2100, up to 30 percent more of Canada's land area could be inundated, and where flooding already occurs, the depth of that water could increase by as much as 60 percent.
"It's kind of clear: among these hot areas, Vancouver in B.C. is definitely there," Simonovic said. Calgary, Ottawa, and Montreal also rank among the country's highest-risk cities. But Metro Vancouver carries a particular weight in the projections, partly because of its geography and partly because of what's already coming for its coastline. Simonovic noted that coastal areas of Surrey and surrounding communities will face compounding threats once sea-level rise is factored in — work his team is still completing.
The financial consequences are not abstract. A report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices, released in October 2021, projects that Metro Vancouver's annual flood damages will reach $510 million under a low-emissions scenario by the period spanning 2070 to 2100 — a 17-fold increase over current levels. Under a high-emissions scenario, that figure climbs to $820 million per year, 27 times what the region absorbs today. For individual homeowners, the math is equally sobering: average annual property damage in Metro Vancouver is projected to hit $4,400 per household within 50 years, more than seven times the current cost.
All of this is unfolding against a backdrop of profound institutional failure. The federal flood maps that currently govern everything from insurance underwriting to property valuations are 25 years out of date. The Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that at least 500,000 homes across the country face high flood risk but don't appear on any current hazard map. And the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices found that virtually none of the existing federal maps reflect how climate change will alter flood risk going forward.
The confusion has worked its way into the insurance market in a particularly damaging way. A 2016 survey found that roughly 45 percent of Canadian homeowners believed they held flood insurance — when in reality, only 10 to 15 percent of them actually did. That gap between perceived and actual coverage represents hundreds of thousands of families who may discover, after the water recedes, that they are largely on their own.
The real estate dimension adds another layer of urgency. In high-demand markets like Vancouver and Toronto, buyers — from first-time homeowners to commercial investors — are almost certainly overpaying for properties whose flood exposure has never been properly priced in. When that risk becomes visible, the report warns, values will fall.
Within days of the maps going live, Simonovic said his phone was ringing with calls from government officials and ordinary homeowners alike, all asking the same question: is my property at risk? The honest answer, for now, is that his maps operate at a scale too broad to assess individual buildings. That granular work, he says, belongs to the federal government.
The timing may be right for that to happen. On the Friday after the maps were released, Simonovic was scheduled to meet with a team from Natural Resources Canada, which had reached out about collaborating on a national update. Ottawa had already committed $63.8 million in its 2021 budget toward flood-vulnerability mapping. Whether that money and that meeting translate into the kind of comprehensive, climate-informed maps Canada needs — and needs quickly — is the question the next several years will answer.
Notable Quotes
Among the hot areas for flood risk, Vancouver in B.C. is definitely there.— Slobodan Simonovic, flood-control engineer, Western University
Coastal areas of Surrey and everything else will be seriously, seriously affected — the question is how you deal with that kind of potentially combined impact.— Slobodan Simonovic, Western University
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
What makes these maps different from what Canada already had?
The existing federal maps are 25 years old and treat flood risk as a fixed condition. Simonovic's maps treat it as a moving target — they model how rainfall and snowmelt patterns will shift under climate change, decade by decade, out to 2100.
Why does it matter that sea-level rise isn't included yet?
Because for a place like Metro Vancouver, river flooding and coastal inundation are two separate threats that will eventually arrive together. Right now the maps only show one of them. The combined picture will be considerably worse.
The insurance gap is striking — 45 percent think they're covered, only 10 to 15 percent actually are. How does that happen?
Flood insurance in Canada has historically been patchwork and poorly understood. Many homeowners assume their standard policy covers water damage from any source. It often doesn't. And because the official maps haven't flagged their properties as high-risk, there's been no external pressure to find out.
What does it mean for property values when flood risk becomes visible?
It means the price someone paid last year may have been based on a fiction. Once accurate maps exist and insurers start pricing accordingly, properties in flood-prone areas will be harder to sell and harder to insure. The value was always inflated — the maps just make it undeniable.
Is there something almost perverse about the fact that re-insurance companies helped fund this research?
They have the most direct financial interest in accurate risk data. They're the ones holding the bag when disasters exceed what primary insurers expected. In a way, their involvement is a signal that the industry already knows the current maps are dangerously wrong.
What's the significance of Natural Resources Canada reaching out to Simonovic?
It suggests the federal government recognizes it can't build what's needed from scratch in time. Simonovic has already done the foundational work. The question is whether Ottawa will move fast enough to turn a research project into policy infrastructure.