Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following concerns and suggestions regarding certain sections of S. 2284, the Senate version of the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. These specific concerns were…
Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the following concerns and suggestions regarding certain sections of S. 2284, the Senate version of the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act. These specific concerns were expressed to me by officials from the town of Marana, Arizona. They relate to the potential adverse effects these sections could have on the Marana community. I urge my House and Senate colleagues to take all of these concerns into consideration while negotiating the final version of this bill.
The specific concerns relating to Section 6 are the reason I voted ``no'' on the Republican Motion To Instruct Conferees that was offered on the floor today.
The town of Marana's concerns are as follows:
1. Section 6, Reform of Premium Rate Structure: Much of
this Section seeks to disallow preFIRM (Flood Insurance Rate
Map) rates for second homes, repetitive loss structures,
substantially improved structures, commercial structures, and
others. However, the current language could have unintended,
adverse consequences. Of concern to Marana is Subsection
(g)(1), which states:
``(g) No Extension of Subsidy to New Policies or Lapsed
Policies.--The Director shall not provide flood insurance to
prospective insureds at rates less than those estimated under
subsection (a)(1), as required by paragraph (2) of that
subsection, for--(1) any property not insured by the flood
insurance program as of the date of enactment of the Flood
Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2008;'' . . .
We are concerned that Subsection (g)(1) would preclude the
writing of any new pre-FIRM policies after the enactment of
the legislation. This could negatively affect residences that
were built pre-FIRM but then placed into a floodplain by a
subsequent map change after the legislation is enacted.
2. Section 7, Mandatory Coverage Areas: The intent of this
Section appears to be the accurate portrayal of risk behind
man-made flood control structures. Subsection 107(b)(1) reads
as follows:
(1) include any area previously identified by the Director
as an area having special flood hazards under section 102 of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a);
This language would essentially require properties located
in areas that had once been designated as floodplain, but
since removed from the floodplain, to continue to carry
mandatory flood insurance. Marana would like to point out
that many Letters of Map Revision (LOMR) incorporate better
information (hydrology or topography) than was available when
the maps were originally created. These types of LOMRs do not
involve physical construction and therefore the areas removed
are not typically residual risk areas. Areas that are at a
residual risk after a LOMR from a physical change would be
accounted for in Subsection 107(b)(2), which reads as
follows:
(2) require the expansion of areas of special flood hazards
to include areas of residual risk, including areas that are
located behind levees, dams, and other man-made structures
We recommend this language be revised. It is problematic in
that it equates residual risk areas to Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHAs). SFHAs are high hazard areas requiring normal
flood insurance. Residual Risk areas typically require less
flood insurance or preferred risk policies. Also, the
language is not clear regarding man-made structures that are
distinct flood control structures.
The language could be revised as follows:
(2) define residual risk areas to include areas that are
located behind levees, dams, and other man-made flood control
structures
3. Section 8, Premium Adjustment: This section overrides
the practice of grandfathering original zone designations.
Grandfathering has been an important part of the National
Flood Insurance Program and has been used to help mitigate
the impact of zone changes when flood maps are revised.
Section 8 discredits floodplain management. Structures that
are compliant with the code and mapping in effect at the time
of their construction should be grandfathered and remain
compliant.