Freeholders Seek Reform of Flood Insurance Law

CREST HAVEN – Freeholders reconfirmed, via a resolution on March 12, the resolution passed Feb. 26 regarding the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.
The action taken at the previous meeting on an item that was not posted on the agenda was deemed “of such urgency and importance that a delay…would result in substantial harm to the public interest.”
The action was taken in an effort to build support for reform of the federal law that oversees flood insurance premiums, which the board fears may seriously impact the county’s economy. That is because the premiums for many second homes are so high, some may not be able to pay the premium, and thus may lose their dwellings.
At that meeting, Director Gerald Thornton said he had spoken to members of the South Jersey Freeholders Association, most of whom knew little about the law or the potential harmful impact on the local and state economy.
Thornton acknowledged at the time there was likely little hope of changing the law, but wanted to board to do all it could to work on behalf of homeowners.
The Feb. 26 resolution stated that the act would eliminate subsidies to flood insurance plans starting in January 2013.
In concert with those increased premiums, the law mandated that maps, known as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) used as a foundation of the flood insurance program, would be updated and adopted, and replace existing maps. They would establish the base flood elevations for properties in the coastal region.
After Hurricane Sandy, but not because of that storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released Advisory Base Flood Elevation Maps for parts of New Jersey. Some parts, including those on Delaware Bay, were not included.
Those series of maps were adopted by executive order by Gov. Chris Christie, and were made a part of the state’s Flood Hazard Control Program.
Those maps are “significantly different” from existing maps, and “significantly expand flood zones, including velocity, or “V” zones,” according to the resolution. Additionally, they provide base flood elevations to which all structures must be built, rebuilt or raised in order to be consistent with the flood insurance plan.
Those who meet or exceed those levels will receive lower flood insurance rates while those who do not will face high premiums, one the flood elevation maps are formally adopted by FEMA as official.
Quicker release of those flood maps for elevation “has caused a great deal of confusion and uncertainty among local officials, property owners, and related real-estate and banking industry professionals,” the resolution states.
It notes the maps add some indication of future base flood elevations and potential flood insurance rates…they do not provide the level of information needed for owners to make informed decision.
“Given the economic magnitude of the issue at hand, This results in denying much of the public the practical opportunity to take proactive steps to mitigate their future costs or to plan for, …largely unavoidable (and in certain cases financially ruinous) increases in flood insurance rates and overall ownership costs of homes located within FEMA-designated flood areas.
Finally, the resolution stated, “The current implementation plan and timeframe for the Biggert-Waters Act, together with the lack of a coordinated public information effort, have triggered adverse economic consequences of broad and likely epic proportion.
“The devastating economic ramifications will be felt not only by the state…but all of the other coastal states participating in the National Flood Insurance Program.”
The board believes that immediate action is needed on the federal, state and local level to “develop a coordinated implementation plan. This plan must provide clear directives to provide for the fair and orderly transition into the new flood insurance rates and map system.”
The county seeks relief from the law by:
• Amending federal legislation to suspend the four-year subsidy elimination period after the 2013 rate increases.
• Expedite and complete the technical process required to formally and officially adopt the new FIRM maps.
• Reinstate subsidies at the current rates for pre-FIRM structures and post-FIRM conforming structures; make new rates applicable to new construction of reconstruction only.
• OR, reinstate the NFIP’s subsidy elimination period beginning January 2015, but phase in the changes over a seven-year period.
• Provide NFIP policy holders a menu of deductible programs that will enable them to mitigate costs through the option of “self-insuring” for part of the flood risk should they wish.
• Aggressively communicate to the property owners expected to be impacted by the revised FIRMs and increased NFIP rates the expected impacts of those changes and, if possible, provide a plan of assistance options for bringing noncompliant structures into compliance with new FIRMs and BFEs.
Copies of that resolution went to the governor and lieutenant governor, federal and state legislators, all counties, all municipalities in the county, as well as the state League of Municipalities, the county Planning Department and National Association of Counties.
When the Herald inquired of U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd) of the possibility of amendment, his office responded that it was his belief there was little to no hope of such an amendment being enacted, at least at the present, given the state of the Congress and federal budget concerns.