[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4160-S4161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1284. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 
require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
consider reconstruction and improvement of flood protection systems 
when establishing flood insurance rates; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood 
Protection Fairness Act of 2011.
  This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National 
Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes 
local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.
  The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for 
the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on 
Federal tax dollars to build their levees.
  The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to 
calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of 
using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago. 
This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.
  The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the 
same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees, 
provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.
  The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be 
incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back 
yards.
  In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the 
federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal 
investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions. 
Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.
  In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their 
local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal 
Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood 
insurance bill.
  These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at 
greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid 
to build their levee. That is not sound policy.
  Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.
  A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the 
area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will 
be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of 
insurance.
  However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the 
Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the 
State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by 
Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the 
middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood 
insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.
  That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless 
of your economic situation.
  I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to 
undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.
  I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit 
development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain 
is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new 
construction in hazardous areas.
  But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being 
counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the 
NFIP are antiquated.
  To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a 
little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map 
Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for 
safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do 
not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that 
the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding, 
and until recently, were unaware of it.
  Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this 
information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are 
able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local 
governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the 
locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give 
homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were 
built by the Federal Government.
  The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for 
reduced rate flood insurance zones.
  FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced 
flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee 
system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by 
federally funded levees.
  Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property 
assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are 
still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not 
being paid for by the Federal Government.
  The original idea behind this requirement was that information on 
non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they 
really were.
  That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better 
science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee 
safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.
  Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a 
change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control 
Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are 
seeking this change.
  At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office 
of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense 
modifications.
  I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope 
to see these changes enacted quickly.
  There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives. 
Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus 
included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood 
Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for 
agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her 
effective advocacy on this issue.
  On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map 
Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction. 
As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means 
and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not 
trivial accomplishments.
  But a little fine tuning is in order.
  Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should 
not be penalized for paying for it themselves.
  Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the 
same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.
  The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important 
principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1284

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 
                   FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN DETERMINATION OF 
                   FLOOD INSURANCE RATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a 
     flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system 
     (without respect to the level of Federal investment or 
     participation)''; and

[[Page S4161]]

       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``construction of a flood protection 
     system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or 
     improvement of a flood protection system''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``based on the present value of the 
     completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and
       (2) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal 
     investment or participation)'' after ``no longer does'';
       (B) in the third sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or riverine,'' after 
     ``special flood hazard''; and
       (C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in 
     consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or 
     repair such system''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     carry out the amendments made by subsection (a).
                                 ______