Congress Must Fix Biggert-Waters....

Congress shouldn't let flood insurance sink residents: Editorial

By The Editorial Board, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune 

Bayou Gauche residents Lisa and Robert Taylor thought they had done everything right. Their home was "built to the standards FEMA gave to the builder; our home was above [the standards]," Mr. Taylor said Thursday. Now FEMA has changed the flood elevation. "They're telling me I have to pay $28,000 to insure my home for flood. I can't do that," Mr. Taylor said.

The Taylors, who appeared alongside parish presidents from across South Louisiana at a press conference Friday, are just one example of the drastic increase in flood insurance costs rippling through coastal communities.

Fortunately, some members of Congress have realized that they created immense hardship with the 2012 Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, which was touted as a way to make the National Flood Insurance Program self-sufficient. The problem was that no thought was given to making sure homeowners and businesses could afford the new rates.

Despite a setback Tuesday on Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's amendment to put the rate increases on hold temporarily, there seems to be momentum growing to fix the problems caused by Biggert-Waters.

California Rep. Maxine Waters, whose name is on the flood insurance act, said it was "never the intent of Congress to impose the types of punitive and unaffordable flood insurance premiums that residents of southern Louisiana are currently facing." She promised to work on a solution.

All four senators from New York and New Jersey, states that were hit hard by Hurricane Sandy's surge in October, were cosponsors on Sen. Landrieu's amendment. Two members of the House from New York and New Jersey are part of a bipartisan caucus announced Friday by Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy to find ways to make flood insurance affordable.

Sen. Landrieu's office said Friday that she is crafting a standalone flood insurance bill that will be more comprehensive than her amendment was. She is determined, she said, to make sure "flood insurance is affordable, accessible and self-sustainable."

Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Cedric Richmond will co-chair the flood insurance caucus along with Rep. Cassidy. And Sen. Vitter attended the press conference at the Taylors' home Friday.

They and their neighbors in St. Charles Parish are seeing huge increases in policy costs because an existing levee that had been included on previous flood maps was removed, putting them 7 to 10 feet below base flood elevation.

That put them on a collision with Biggert-Waters, which eliminated grandfather clauses allowing property owners to keep their original flood rating even if new maps were issued.

The sudden and drastic increases in the cost may mean that some homeowners won't be able to keep flood insurance. It is unclear what will happen to people with mortgages, since lenders require flood insurance as a condition of loans. The changes also could make it impossible to sell homes and businesses, since the new buyer would face the same flood insurance dilemma.

The results could be devastating for individuals and for the economic well being of hundreds of coastal communities from Texas to Maine and along the Pacific coast.

The gathering of parish presidents Friday at the Taylor home grew out of a trip to Washington a week ago by a delegation from Louisiana organized by GNO Inc. On that trip, the group got an important concession from the head of the flood insurance program. He agreed to give communities credit for locally built levees in the agency's new flood maps -- not just federal levees.

It is unclear exactly how that will play out, though. And broader changes to Biggert-Waters clearly are needed.

Under the act, homeowners living in V or A zones subject to flooding from a 100-year storm will see their rates increase to reflect actual risk in 20 percent steps over five years. As has become clear, the increases for some residents will be staggering.

Insurance costs will vary depending on how many feet above or below base flood elevation a house sits. People who've elevated their homes sufficiently will see a drop in policy costs.

But a home 10 feet below base flood elevation would get a bill topping $25,000 per year -- like the Taylors' -- which is like having another mortgage payment.

It is important to reduce the flood insurance program's $24 billion debt. But it isn't fair to put such a heavy burden on people who live and work along the coast.

"All of the hard work my wife and I have done to put money into paying off our home, trying to do the best we can to pay it off early ... now my home is being taken away," Mr. Taylor said. That's not right, and Congress should make sure it doesn't happen.