Only the rich will be allowed to remain in these floodplains

Overhaul Of A FEMA Program Has Homeowners Calling Congress
by Ailsa Chang
February 27, 2014 | 4 min 41 sec
The House is expected to vote as early as next week to partially repeal a law that passed less than two years ago.

The original legislation was meant to overhaul the National Flood Insurance Program, which is tens of billions of dollars in debt. But altering the program has meant dramatically high flood insurance premiums for many homeowners.

You can find some of those homeowners in Bayou Gauche, about 30 miles west of New Orleans. Like other parts of South Louisiana, this small community is below sea level.

Pumping stations keep the land here dry during storms — as well as 6-foot levees. But these levees are nowhere to be found on the most recent flood map proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA has decided it will no longer recognize levees that aren’t certified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, so now Bayou Gauche shows up as a high-risk flood zone. Resident Gordon Matherne says that’s ridiculous.

“The levees have been here for about 60 years, and we’ve never had a flood since the levees were built,” says Matherne, 64, whose house is a five-minute drive from the levees.

Being deemed a higher risk as a flood zone has some financial consequences under the federal law passed in 2012: It has made flood insurance rates skyrocket for many longtime homeowners.

Living ‘Check To Check’

The idea behind the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was to shift the financial risk of insuring flood-zone properties from the government to homeowners. What lawmakers didn’t foresee at the time was that new FEMA flood maps would bring staggering premium hikes for many of the 5.5 million people covered by the National Flood Insurance Program.

“We live check to check. And if you walk around this neighborhood, you’ll find that most of the people around here live check to check,” says Ward Aucoin, another resident of Bayou Gauche.

Right now, Aucoin’s paying $370 per year for flood insurance. But in a few years, under Biggert-Waters, he’s supposed to pay more than $17,000 annually.

“You know, a meteor could hit my house, but I don’t go spend $20,000 for just in case it hits my house,” says Aucoin. “No one’s flooding around here, so it’s kind of hard for me to justify — and everybody to justify — $18,000, or whatever it’s gonna be, for something that’s never happened that may happen.”

Because Aucoin still has a mortgage on his red-brick, ranch-style home, he’s required to purchase flood insurance. And he says he can’t move away because he’s tethered to the petro-chemical industry that’s based here. Those companies need to be near water to transport their products up and down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico.

Most of Aucoin’s neighborhood is in the same boat as he is.

“Neighbor across the street works at a local chemical plant. This one just retired from a chemical plant,” says Aucoin, pointing to various houses down his street. “That’s my brother next door works at a chemical plant. I work at a chemical plant.”

An Environmental Concern

Stories like Aucoin’s have been flooding into congressional offices, so now lawmakers are trying to delay or repeal parts of Biggert-Waters.

But that worries environmentalists like Rob Moore, policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“We need to turn the conversation from ‘How do we keep insurance cheap?’ to ‘How do we make insurance work as a way of managing the nation’s flood risk?’ ” says Moore.

Moore argues that when flood insurance rates are kept artificially low, people remain and rebuild in flood zones, and then there’s more political pressure to erect levees and seawalls that disrupt natural water systems.

“Those things have major environmental consequences for water quality, for fish, for wildlife habitat,” Moore says.

Who Can Leave?

There’s a financial argument, too. Payouts from massive hurricanes, like Katrina and Sandy, have left the national flood insurance program about $24 billion in the hole. That’s why Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania says the government shouldn’t continue paying for people’s desire to live in flood-prone areas.

“We’d be going back to a system where literally Warren Buffet can buy a home, and as long as he makes it his primary residence, he can continue to have taxpayers subsidize his cost of flood insurance,” said Toomey on the Senate floor last month.

But to assume communities can just pick up and leave strikes Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana as unrealistic.

“New Orleans is 8 feet below sea level. It’s one of the great cities of the world. We’re not going to move the entire city. We’re not going to move St. Augustine, Fla. We’re not going to move Miami Beach,” says Landrieu in an interview in her Senate office.

Landrieu helped push a bill through the Senate that would delay most insurance rate increases for four years. House leaders are trying to drum up enough votes to go a step further and outright repeal the biggest hikes.

Copyright 2014 NPR. To see more, visit


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s