The Flood Insurance - Levee Debate in the U.S. Senate 112 th Congress

Transcription

1 The Flood Insurance - Levee Debate in the U.S. Senate 112 th Congress Presented by Adam Telle Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Thad Cochran National Waterways Conference October 20, Tunica, Mississippi

2 FEMA Levee Inventory October 2011

3 Three Recent Accomplishments 1. Scientific Resolution Panel Established 2. Without Levees Mapping Abolished 3. Section 107 The Big Debate

4 Background on NFIP & Levees Special Flood Hazard Areas FEMA uses modeling tools to determine Special Flood Hazard Areas, which have a 1 in 100 or greater chance of flooding in a given year. Two major requirements for SFHAs 1. Communities with Special Flood Hazard Areas are required to adopt land use restrictions or lose eligibility for NFIP. 2. Properties in Special Flood Hazard Areas with mortgages backed by the Federal Government are required to purchase flood insurance. Currently, areas protected by accredited levees are not Special Flood Hazard Areas BUT we have growing infrastructure deficiencies - Katrina

5 1. Scientific Resolution Panel Established Issue FEMA was deciding the fate of appeals by communities to Flood Insurance Rate Map determinations made by FEMA June 15, 2010 Cochran, Pryor introduce Flood map arbitration panel amendment July 23, 2010 FEMA agrees to establish Scientific Resolution Panel under existing authorities

6 2. Without Levees Mapping Abolished Issue FEMA was using without levees assumption to de-accredit and erase entire levee systems from maps if any portion of any levee in the system needed repair February 3, Cochran and 26 others write letter to FEMA requesting elimination of without levees practice March 10, FEMA announces it will eliminate without levees practice map changes put on hold December 15, 2011 FEMA begins Levee Assessment Mapping Process (LAMP)

7 Letter from 27 Senators to FEMA February 3, 2011

8 Current Practice Accredited Levee

9 Current Practice De-Accredited Levee

10 Current Practice No Without Levees

11 3. Section 107 The Big Debate September 8, the Senate Banking Committee approves an NFIP reauthorization bill containing Section 107 Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue final regulations The regulations shall require the expansion of areas of special flood hazards to include areas of residual risk that are located behind levees or near dams or other flood control structures, as determined by the Administrator Any area described in subsection (b) shall be subject to the mandatory purchase requirements of sections 102 and 202 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106).

12 What would Section 107 do? Place all areas protected by levees, dams, and other flood control infrastructure within a Special Flood Hazard Area, regardless of their annual likelihood of flooding. Expand SFHAs to the 500-year flood plain for areas protected by 500-year levees Assume that all such protected areas are at a certain level of flood risk simply because they are protected by man-made structures, without consideration for the actual level of protection provided by structures. Unfairly devalue areas that had invested in flood control

13 But Section 107 included accurate pricing clause? Accurate pricing unachievable because FEMA does not yet possess methodology for risk assessment behind levees FEMA is in the process of developing these methodologies through: Levee Assessment Mapping Process National Academy of Sciences Study No guarantee these efforts would provide sufficient results to meet Section 107 s directive

14 Section 107 Accredited Levee

15 Section 107 De-Accredited Levee

16 Letter from 13 Senators to Banking Committee November 15, 2011

17 Letter from 13 Senators to Banking Committee November 15, 2011 Bipartisan 6 Democrats, 7 Republicans 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.

18 No Response from Banking Committee Spring 2012 National Flood Insurance Program is nearing a 10 th straight short term reauthorization National Association of Realtors is advocating for a long term reauthorization no matter the details Sen. Vitter holds up Senate business demanding long term reauthorization, receives commitment from Majority Leader House struck Sec. 107 but managers want Senate position Mississippi River is Rising, MR&T is performing, 30:1 May 3, 2012 Sen. Cochran seeks provision in FY13 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill that would prevent FEMA from implementing Section 107 during FY13 if Banking Bill becomes law

19 Banking Committee comes to Negotiating Table Senate is at an impasse re: Section 107 Banking Committee will not agree to remove Section 107 completely Pryor will hold up all Senate business if he does not get a vote to strike Section 107 Long term reauthorization is in jeopardy

20 Belt and Suspenders

21 The Cochran Compromise Cochran and Banking reach compromise Limit Effects of Section 107 to 100-year floodplain Eliminate land-use requirements in areas protected by sound levees Ensure mandatory purchase requirement does not take effect until FEMA has the tools to precisely determine risk behind levees No mandatory purchase for de minimis risk Pryor s hard line favored Cochran in negotiations

22 Compromise Accredited Levee

23 Compromise De-Accredited Levee

24 90 Percent Solution Reached by Compromise Banking Committee Cochran Pryor Compromise Strike 107

25 The End Game Cochran compromise is new Section 107 included in new NFIP bill as introduced on Senate floor Banking cuts midnight deal to have NFIP bill included in Highway Bill conference report Pryor holds hard line, still wants Section 107 struck Pryor s opposition suddenly a much bigger deal Cochran compromise is very complicated, highlights complexity and raises concerns unintended benefit Leadership ultimately decides to strip new Section 107 altogether rather than jeopardize a very large, very important package of must-pass legislation

26 Eye Chart

27 What now? The debate is not over Politics makes strange bedfellows One side of debate comprised of far left (environmentalists) and far right (pure marketists) The other side comprised of those in the middle (pragmatists and parochialists) What IS the best policy for our nation? Should everyone else help finance the (minimal) risk to areas protected by sound levees? What will the National Academy of Sciences study find? Will the National Flood Insurance fund become solvent?

28 Thank you!