Should tax dollars subsidize flood damage?

Should tax dollars subsidize flood damage?

  • Yes, folks with waterfront property need government subsidies

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, taxpayers should not subsidize waterfront property

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters

Big Money

New member

From Massachusetts to Florida, from Mississippi to New York and all across the country, fallout from the huge changes brought about by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act – and its phase-out of federal subsidies for flood-zone properties – is reaching full crescendo.

In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to help provide property owners with an avenue towards financial protection through flood insurance.

In exchange for rate subsidies, participating communities agree to adopt and enforce ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA requirements.

But new rules are implementing 25 percent annual rate increases over a 4-year period.

• Biggert-Waters Act stops the transfer of policies upon sale of properties
• New FEMA maps that place structures built to code out of compliance
• 40 percent of premium dollars going to the NFIP and private insurance companies for program administration
• Adjusters who wrongly attribute wind damage to the flood program
• 40 percent of federally backed mortgages required to carry insurance do not carry it

“When I agreed to co-author this legislation, our goal was to create a bipartisan solution to repair our National Flood Insurance Program,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

The Biggert-Waters Act was enacted in 2012 to help the federal government move toward eliminating a $25 billion shortfall in flood claims.

Its aim is also to make rates truly reflect the risk of building and owning homes in flood plains.