- Living Their Faith
- Special Reports
- Maps & Data
- Dear Abby
- Games & Puzzles
- Events & Exhibits
- Food & Drink
- Arts & Music
- Movies & TV
Washington — The House approved legislation Tuesday night to roll back a recently enacted overhaul of the federal flood insurance program, after homeowners in flood-prone areas such as the Connecticut shoreline complained about sharp premium increases.
The bill would allow sellers to pass along their subsidized, below-market insurance rates to new buyers and lower the limit on how much flood insurance premiums can rise each year. The measure was approved 306-91.
“Preventing dramatic rate increases will help bolster our real estate market and ensure that sales can continue without the threat of prohibitively high flood insurance premiums,” measure co-sponsor Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said in a statement.
Rep. Michael Grimm, a New York Republican who also co-sponsored the bill, said it would ensure that families across the country, including those still struggling to recover from Superstorm Sandy, can avoid “a wave of devastating premium hikes and foreclosures.”
The bipartisan bill would tone down a 2012 law aimed at weaning hundreds of thousands of homeowners off subsidized flood insurance rates. The federal flood insurance program is now some $24 billion in the red, mostly because of huge losses from Sandy and Hurricane Katrina. The 2012 law required extensive updating of the flood maps used to set premiums.
The bill now goes to the Senate, which passed a measure in January delaying implementation of the insurance overhaul by four years.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., sponsor of the Senate bill, said Tuesday night he supports the House measure, which he said closely mirrors his bill.
The House bill “will end the most egregious problems with the flood insurance program and bring some real relief to thousands of homeowners who desperately need our help,” Menendez said in a statement. “I’m encouraged by this progress and hope we can bring the bill over the finish line very, very soon.”
The 2012 law was co-sponsored by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who also co-sponsored the latest fix to what she called the original law’s “unintended effects” of dramatic rate increases for homeowners.
“Relief is on the way,” Waters said, adding that the new bill would make insurance premiums more affordable while making the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers the flood program, more accountable.
Some GOP lawmakers complained that the Republican-controlled House was going along with a measure widely supported by Democrats. A total of 180 Democrats joined 126 Republicans in supporting the bill.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called the flood insurance program poorly run and doomed to failure, noting that it charges just 70 percent of what officials say is needed to break even.
The program uses a faulty model that understates flood risks, with the result that a single mother in Dallas who works at a grocery store subsidizes a millionaire’s beachfront home, Hensarling said. “That is the definition of unfair,” he said.
Implementation of the 2012 law has stirred anxiety among homeowners along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and in other flood plains. Many homeowners have complained they face unaffordable rate increases. Anger over the higher rates has fueled a bipartisan drive to delay or derail many of the 2012 changes. A Senate bill approved in January delayed implementation of the insurance overhaul by four years.
The House bill would permanently repeal a provision that imposes sharp rate increases on people who buy homes in flood-prone areas. The bill also preserves below-market rates for people whose homes meet federal flood map standards.
Rates imposed by the 2012 law are particularly high in older coastal communities in states such as Florida, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey and have put a damper on home sales as prospective buyers recoil at the higher premium rates.
The House bill was brought to the floor under special rules that limit debate and require two-thirds support from those voting. That standard proved little challenge for bill supporters, despite opposition from tea party groups and other conservatives who said the measure would continue unfair federal subsidies for people who choose to live in flood-prone areas. Some environmental groups also opposed the bill, saying that climate change has increased the risk of flooding in coastal areas, making it illogical to continue to rebuild in flood-prone zones.
The House measure would also give relief to people who have bought homes after the 2012 overhaul and therefore face sharp, immediate jumps in their premiums. Those homeowners would see rate increases capped at an average of 15 percent, with a maximum of 18 percent per years.
People whose second home is in a flood zone and those whose properties have repeatedly flooded would continue to see their premiums go up by 25 percent a year until reaching a level consistent with their real risk of flooding.
FEMA would retain the ability to increase premiums each year, but the increases wouldn’t be as steep as mandated under the 2012 law. A surcharge on each of 5.6 million policyholders would offset the cost of continued subsidies for about 1.1 million homeowners.
The changes proposed by the House dismayed supporters of the 2012 law, who said it began to remove incentives for people to live in costly, flood-prone areas.
“Nobody wants to see their rates go up. But taxpayers across the country don’t want to support a (federal flood) program that is $24 billion in debt and climbing,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group.
A far better solution than either the House or Senate bill would be to slow down the rate increase, even dramatically, “but still allow rates to continue to move toward their risk-based” level, Ellis said.