[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 45 (Monday, April 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2456-S2457]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 667. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 
allow the rebuilding, without elevation, of certain structures that are 
located in areas having special flood hazards and are substantially 
damaged by fire, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fire-
Damaged Home Rebuilding Act.
  This legislation is simple. It allows families living in FEMA-
designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is 
destroyed by fire.
  The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to 
block reconstruction after floods, but have been applied to block 
reconstruction of homes after fires and other natural disasters as 
well.
  I was first made aware of this issue by a constituent from 
Sacramento. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood burned down, and when 
she applied for a permit to rebuild it she was denied. The County 
informed her that FEMA floodplain regulations required her to elevate 
the home 20 feet above ground level because of existing deficiencies in 
the levee protecting her neighborhood.
  Can you imagine what that would look like? Every house in the 
neighborhood at ground level, and one home towering 20 feet above the 
rest?
  More importantly though, the cost would be exorbitant. And it would 
be imposed by the federal government on a family trying to get back on 
its feet after a personal tragedy.
  When the home burned down, the family collected $71,000 from their 
insurance company. Contractors estimated the cost to restore the home 
to its original condition was $170,000--a significant burden, but one 
the family was willing to bear.
  But when the family factored in the cost of elevating their home 20 
feet, the cost skyrocketed. Contractors estimated the elevation project 
would cost an additional $200,000.
  Just to restore their home to its previous size and condition, the 
family would owe $300,000 more than what they received from their 
insurance.
  There is a fundamental issue of fairness at stake.
  This family tragically lost their home and many of their personal 
belongings. But instead of helping the

[[Page S2457]]

family during this difficult time, the federal government is instead 
blocking them from rebuilding. Why? Because the federal government has 
failed to maintain adequate flood protection.
  It just doesn't seem fair.
  The Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act addresses this issue by allowing 
local communities to grant variances to FEMA flood plain regulations 
without jeopardizing their participation in the program.
  The legislation allows waivers to be granted only if all of the 
following conditions are met.
  Communities must already have taken steps to repair damaged levees, 
such as seeking Federal authorization of a levee project, and there 
must be previously existing plans to obtain the requisite 100-year 
flood protection in the near future.
  The destroyed house must be within a deep floodplain where it would 
be too expensive and unsightly to elevate the home.
  The new home must be built within the footprint of the destroyed 
structure.
  The homeowner cannot qualify for new insurance discounts; and the 
property has never been associated with a claim to the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  Representative Doris Matsui and I worked with FEMA to ensure that 
these limitations will only allow individual to rebuild very limited 
circumstances.
  I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is 
irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses in an area where you 
know that flooding is likely.
  But rebuilding a single existing home after a tragic fire is 
different than building a new tract of homes. If an entire neighborhood 
is burned down, for instance, it should be rebuilt at a safe level. A 
single home is also different than building new schools or new shopping 
malls, which would be prohibited under the bill.
  But just to be sure that local governments don't abuse this power, 
the number of waivers they can approve is capped at ten per year. We 
need to make sure that the waiver is used judiciously.
  The FEMA regulations were put in place to block individual homeowners 
from voluntarily renovating and improving their homes. It was also 
designed to block homeowners from rebuilding after a flood. By doing 
so, the federal government limits its liability for future flood 
insurance claims.
  I agree with the goals of those FEMA regulations. But fire-damaged 
homes clearly do not fit in either category. So we need to adjust the 
law to eliminate an unfortunate and unintended consequence of an 
otherwise good policy.
  City and County governments must be empowered to make case by case 
judgments about whether it makes sense to elevate damaged structures by 
10, 15, or 20 feet when the rest of the neighborhood remains at ground 
level.
  That is exactly what the Fire-Damaged Home Reconstruction Act does. 
It provides limited authority to local governments, which will allow 
them to do what makes sense for their communities.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation, and I hope my colleagues 
will work to quickly adopt the bill.

                          ____________________