[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 24 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 487. 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 federally-
designated flood plains to rebuild their home in the event it is 
destroyed by a fire.
  The bill allows communities to waive requirements that were meant to 
block reconstruction after floods, but which 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, Jennifer Taylor. Her home in the Natomas neighborhood 
burned down, and she was denied when she applied for a permit to 
rebuild it. The county informed her that Federal 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 would not 
be covered by her insurance. Instead, the cost would be imposed 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 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 federal 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.
  These limitations will only allow families to rebuild very limited 
circumstances after tragedy strikes that is unrelated to a flooding 
event. The number of waivers local governments can approve is capped at 
ten per year so that this authority is not subject to abuse. This limit 
will ensure that waivers are used prudently and sparingly.
  I strongly oppose new development in the flood plain. It is 
irresponsible to permit new homes or businesses to be constructed 
without adequate mitigation in an area where you know that flooding is 
likely.
  The Federal floodplain regulations were put in place to block 
individual homeowners from voluntarily renovating and improving their 
homes. They were also designed to block homeowners from rebuilding 
after a flood. By doing so, the Federal Government limits its liability 
for future flood insurance claims.
  Fire-damaged homes clearly represent an exception to these 
circumstances, however. 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 and will allow 
families to rebuild after a fire or other non-flood disaster.
  This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues 
will work to quickly adopt the bill.
                                 ______