Senators protest flood insurance requirements

A bipartisan group of Senators on Tuesday asked that a provision be dropped from new federal flood legislation that would require homeowners and businesses to purchase federal flood insurance despite already being protected by certified flood control infrastructure.

Thirteen Senators—six Democrats and seven Republicans—signed a letter to the Senate Banking Committee raising concerns about a section in the committee’s long-term National Flood Insurance Reauthorization Bill that would impose new costs on residents and stifle economic growth along rivers and waterways.

The letter, spearheaded by Senators Thad Cochran (R-Miss) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), asked the Senate Banking Committee to address concerns that Section 107 of the Senate Bill would “compel responsible communities to pay twice for flood protection - once to build and maintain flood control infrastructure and a second time to purchase flood insurance.”

Section 107 would designate as “areas of special flood hazard,” land currently protected by properly constructed and maintained flood control structures. Such a designation would then trigger flood insurance purchase requirements and land use restrictions.

“While we appreciate the Banking Committee’s commitment to ensuring that flood insurance is available to those who are at flood risk, a mandatory purchase requirement for those protected by healthy flood control infrastructure inequitably targets only particular types of flood risk. Areas protected by properly constructed and maintained levees, dams, and other flood control infrastructure should not be arbitrarily declared areas of special flood hazard,” the letter said.

“Under this provision,” the letter continued, “an area protected by a healthy levee that has a 1 in 500 chance of flooding in a given year based on actuarial analysis would be required by the federal government to carry flood insurance and adopt land-use restrictions, while an area not protected by a levee that has a 1 in 101 chance of flooding in a given year would not be required to purchase the insurance. In addition to the federal requirement to purchase insurance triggered by such a declaration, these communities would be forced to adhere to heightened land use and control measures, in effect imposing federal zoning ordinances, depriving these communities and citizens of local control, diminishing property value, and reducing local revenue generation.”

The letter was sent to Senators Tim Johnson (D-N.D.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Banking Committee. In addition to Cochran and Pryor, the correspondence was signed by Senators: Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Senate consideration of the Banking Committee’s NFIP reauthorization bill has not been scheduled. The NFIP program is currently operating on the latest in a series of short-term extensions. The letter expresses the signers’ support for a long-term reauthorization of NFIP.

Congress created the NFIP in 1973 to make flood insurance available when private insurance is not offered. Under current law, FEMA uses modeling tools to determine the boundaries of Special Flood Hazard Areas. These areas are generally defined by FEMA as those with a 1 in 100 or greater chance of flooding in a given year.

The following is the text of the letter:

Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Shelby:

Thank you for the work you have done on a long-term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program. We are writing to make you aware of our concerns with a provision that would mandate flood insurance purchase and land use restrictions for those who are protected by levees, dams, and other flood control infrastructure. Such a provision was included in the reauthorization bill reported out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on September 8, 2011.

While we appreciate the Banking Committee’s commitment to ensuring that flood insurance is available to those who are at flood risk, a mandatory purchase requirement for those protected by healthy flood control infrastructure inequitably targets only particular types of flood risk. Areas protected by properly constructed and maintained levees, dams, and other flood control infrastructure should not be arbitrarily declared areas of special flood hazard. Under this provision, an area protected by a healthy levee that has a 1 in 500 chance of flooding in a given year based on actuarial analysis would be required by the federal government to carry flood insurance and adopt land-use restrictions, while an area not protected by a levee that has a 1 in 101 chance of flooding in a given year would not be required to purchase the insurance. In addition to the federal requirement to purchase insurance triggered by such a declaration, these communities would be forced to adhere to heightened land use and control measures, in effect imposing federal zoning ordinances, depriving these communities and citizens of local control, diminishing property value, and reducing local revenue generation.

We also share the Banking Committee’s concern for the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Fund, but we believe there are means by which to balance the ledger other than forcing the financial burden onto citizens who have, in many cases, chosen to invest responsibly in flood control infrastructure for decades with an understanding that flood insurance purchase could remain an option. We are troubled by any policy that would, in essence, compel responsible communities to pay twice for flood protection - once to build and maintain flood control infrastructure and a second time to purchase flood insurance.

It should not be the policy of the United States to discourage future and existing economic activity in areas protected by sound levees, dams and other flood control infrastructure. Many of our nation’s most fertile lands lie in areas now protected by levees and dams. Likewise, levees and dams protect those who work along our rivers and waterways, our nation’s most indispensable transportation assets. Americans must live and work in these areas to preserve our economic and national security interests. We should not place additional, inequitable burdens on the areas that feed and clothe the nation and that help move goods from inland areas throughout our country.

We believe long-term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program is critically important, but we hope that you will work to address our concerns.