Floodplain Enhancement and Recovery Act

Summary#

The Floodplain Enhancement and Recovery Act would amend section 22 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014. Its stated goal is to address ecosystem restoration projects; it is not yet law, and passage is uncertain.

  • A requester would not have to pay a review or processing fee for a flood insurance rate map change request based on a qualifying ecosystem restoration project.
  • A community may permit certain restoration projects in an adopted regulatory floodway even if they raise base flood elevations, but only if the bill’s safety and reporting conditions are met.
  • FEMA’s Administrator must issue implementation guidance within 180 days of enactment, after consulting federal and state natural resource agencies the Administrator identifies as covered.
  • The bill defines a qualifying project by its primary purpose: changing a site’s physical, chemical, or biological features to restore or improve natural functions of an aquatic resource or floodplain.

What it means for you#

  • Communities: A community could permit a qualifying project in a regulatory floodway that raises base flood elevations. A professional engineer must use the engineer’s best judgment to find that the project, combined with existing development, would raise the base flood’s water surface by no more than one foot—or another amount or metric the FEMA Administrator determines appropriate. No insurable structure or critical infrastructure can be in an area adversely affected by the increase. Within 180 days after project completion, the community must submit an analysis of changed conditions to the Administrator.
  • Project requesters: You would be exempt from review or processing fees for a flood insurance rate map change request based on a qualifying restoration project.
  • Landowners: The bill says it does not change the existing procedure for notifying landowners about development in a regulatory floodway.
  • People with flood insurance: The bill does not directly change insurance premiums or coverage rules.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated costs.

  • The bill waives certain map-change request fees, but gives no estimate of the fees that would go unpaid.
  • FEMA must issue guidance, and communities would need to arrange the required engineering judgment and post-project analysis. The bill gives no cost or staffing estimates.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current text of the amended Act, so I could not verify what existing section 22 requires or exactly what approval steps this bill would replace.
  • The bill does not define “adversely impacted” or “critical infrastructure” in this section. It also gives no detailed method for the engineer’s assessment.
  • The bill does not specify how the Administrator would decide on a different elevation amount or metric, or how the guidance would handle disagreements.
  • The bill does not set out public notice, review, or appeal steps for a community’s decision to permit a project.
  • The bill is not law; whether or when it would take effect is not settled in the supplied material.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that fees could discourage map-change requests for restoration projects. Waiving them removes that charge for these requests.
  • The bill could give communities more room to permit restoration in floodways, while setting limits tied to flood elevations and impacts on structures and critical infrastructure.
  • Required FEMA guidance and post-project analysis could help agencies apply the new rules and document changed conditions.

Case against#

  • The bill allows communities to permit projects; it does not require them to do so. Its practical effect could therefore vary by community.
  • One concern is that the safety test relies on an engineer’s “best judgment,” while the bill does not set out a specific assessment method or define adverse impact.
  • The fee waiver and new assessment and reporting duties could affect agency and community finances, but the bill provides no cost estimate.
  • Because the current text of section 22 was not supplied, the extent of the change to existing approval requirements cannot be confirmed.