On Congress’s Plans to Reform the National Flood Insurance Program
WASHINGTON—Congress is currently working to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Proposals from both the House and the Senate aim to change one of the program’s lesser known elements: Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage. ICC provides payments to NFIP policyholders to bring their building into compliance with local floodplain management regulations when it is substantially damaged. Coverage costs 4 to 70 dollars annually and will pay policyholders up to $30,000 to elevate, demolish, or relocate their home. Proposals in Congress would raise this amount to as much as $100,000 and expand the number of activities eligible for funding.
In a new blog post—Mitigation Post-Flood: FEMA’s Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) Coverage—Resources for the Future (RFF) Visiting Fellow Carolyn Kousky and Research Assistant Brett Lingle analyze the limitations of ICC, and the effectiveness of Congress’s response. While they note the potential benefits of raising the amount available to policyholders, Kousky and Lingle voice concerns over insufficient homeowner awareness, concluding:
“None of the bills, however, address concerns about a lack of knowledge of the program or understanding about how to use it. Standardized communication to homeowners immediately after a flood may help, as could FEMA outreach to communities with guidance on how to help them aid their policyholders in making effective use of ICC coverage.”
Read the full blog here: Mitigation Post-Flood: FEMA’s Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) Coverage.
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.
