A private data-analysis firm found that roughly twice as many buildings in Quebec are in flood-prone zones as official government maps indicate [1].
This discrepancy creates significant uncertainty for homeowners and insurers. When private risk assessments contradict government data, property owners may face unexpected insurance coverage reductions or challenges securing mortgages despite official certificates stating their land is safe.
First Street released the analysis in 2024 [1]. The firm's findings suggest that the provincial government's current mapping under-represents pluvial flood risk, which is flooding caused specifically by heavy rainfall [3]. While government maps often focus on riverine flooding, First Street's model incorporates these rainfall-driven events to identify a broader range of vulnerable properties.
This gap in data has led to contradictions in how individual properties are classified. In some instances, a property's localization certificate states it is not inside a flood zone [4]. However, insurance companies such as Beneva have classified those same properties as being in flood zones and subsequently reduced coverage [4].
The difference in the count of at-risk buildings is approximately two times compared to the official government figures [1]. This suggests that thousands of residents may be living in high-risk areas without the knowledge or protection provided by official provincial warnings.
Quebec officials have not yet reconciled these private findings with their own mapping standards. The tension remains between the government's slow-moving official designations and the real-time data used by the insurance industry to price risk.
“Roughly twice as many buildings are located in flood-prone zones in Quebec as the official government map indicates.”
The conflict between government and private data indicates a shift in how environmental risk is priced. As insurance companies adopt more granular, rainfall-centric models, homeowners may find themselves 'uninsurable' or facing higher premiums even if they remain compliant with government zoning laws. This creates a precarious gap where official safety certifications no longer guarantee financial security in the private insurance market.
