Flood Insurance ESA Review Exemption

Summary#

The National Flood Insurance Program Clarification Act of 2026 would amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968; it would not create a new program. Its stated aim is to limit when the Endangered Species Act applies to certain actions under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The bill has been introduced and referred to committee; it is not law.

  • The bill would make Endangered Species Act section 7(a) inapplicable to actions by the NFIP Administrator under specified sections of the National Flood Insurance Act and the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.
  • Within 30 days of enactment, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries would have to withdraw existing Endangered Species Act biological opinions that evaluate NFIP impacts. Those opinions could not be reissued.
  • The bill would add a condition to the National Flood Insurance Act’s language about local measures: they must be “for the sole purpose of protecting property and human health.” The supplied text does not show the surrounding criteria.

What it means for you#

  • Federal agencies: The bill would remove Endangered Species Act section 7(a) from the specified NFIP actions. It would also require the two named officials to withdraw the covered biological opinions within 30 days of enactment.
  • Local governments: The bill would add the “sole purpose” condition to the law’s language about local measures. The parent Act was not supplied, so the exact measures affected and how the condition changes existing rules could not be verified.
  • NFIP policyholders and the public: The bill does not directly change flood insurance premiums, coverage, claims, or eligibility in the supplied text. It does not say what other environmental reviews, if any, would apply to the specified actions.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill requires the two federal officials to withdraw covered biological opinions, but gives no estimate of staffing or other costs.
  • The text does not provide funding, change premiums or fees, or state savings or lost revenue.

What is unclear#

  • The parent Act and the referenced sections were not supplied, so the exact NFIP actions covered and the existing local-measures criteria could not be checked.
  • The bill does not define “sole purpose” or explain how it would apply when a local measure serves more than one purpose.
  • It does not describe any replacement review, public input, or oversight process after the Endangered Species Act provisions and biological opinions no longer apply.
  • It gives a 30-day deadline for withdrawing opinions but no general effective date for the other changes.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would keep Endangered Species Act section 7(a) from applying to a specified set of NFIP actions, while directing agencies to withdraw opinions evaluating the program.
  • The added condition could be seen as focusing the relevant local measures on protecting property and human health.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the exemption applies to “any” Administrator actions under the listed provisions, while the bill does not explain what other review would take the place of section 7(a).
  • Existing biological opinions covered by the bill would have no effect and could not be reissued. The bill does not describe how impacts they evaluated would be addressed afterward.
  • The “sole purpose” condition may leave uncertainty about local measures with multiple purposes; the supplied text does not explain how that would be decided.