Advocates of risk-based rates for flood insurance policies issued by the National Flood Insurance Program fear legislative efforts to delay the implementation for four years could undermine the program.

Instead, they suggest providing relief for policyholders hit by dramatic rate increases rather than delaying the new pricing model.

The adoption of risk-based rates was one of the key provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, which extended the NFIP through Sept. 30, 2017.

But bipartisan legislation — the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act introduced in the House and Senate late last month — would delay any rate increases for at least four years. The bill gives the Federal Emergency Management Agency two years to conduct a study on affordability called for in the original bill, then delays any rate increases until two years after FEMA presents the study to the relevant congressional committees.

Although the NFIP is aimed largely at private dwellings, businesses of various sizes purchase primary flood coverage under the government program. Then they often are able to stack additional layers of commercial flood coverage on top of the primary policy.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who was one of the original sponsors of the 2012 reform act, has signed on as a co-sponsor of the new legislation citing “unforeseen consequences” of the 2012 reform bill, including what she called “unreasonable and unimaginable increases in premiums” for her decision to support the delay.

%%BREAK%%

The effort to delay risk-based rates has drawn opposition from conservationists, free-market advocates and the insurance industry.

Joshua Saks, legislative director for the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, said the federation continues to support increasing rates toward risk-based rates.

“For places that have not been developed, this sends a market signal that they should not be developed,” he said. Some of the areas affected “are some of the most ecologically sensitive or important habitat areas for wildlife. Secondly, for homes that already exist, as rates go up, this sends a market signal that people ought to take steps to mitigate risks.

“Our view of these attempts, if you are just going to turn off the rate increases or significantly delay the rate increases, that means you're also turning off or delaying these market signals,” he said.

Mr. Saks said that there is a potential for some properties to face “dramatic rate increases.” For the owners of such properties, “we should take steps so no one loses their home over this, but we need to do it by providing targeted solutions to some of these extreme cases instead of a broad approach that would delay all rate increases,” he said.

A four-year delay could kill flood insurance reforms, said Ray Lehmann, senior fellow at the free-market-oriented R Street Institute in Washington. He said that while there likely will be hearings on the new legislation in the House, “I don't think leadership is supportive of that effort.”

%%BREAK%%

“Some of the proposed legislation would effectively gut the reforms that were adopted in 2012, primarily because they tie the affordability study to the rate increases that were to go into effect,” said Frank Nutter, president of the Washington-based Reinsurance Association of America. “The proposal effectively couldn't put the rates into effect until two years after the affordability study, which will take five years.”

He said that many members of Congress are concerned about the effect of rate increases on their constituents. “If they're going to seek to postpone rates, target them to really needy situations on a means-tested basis, rather than a one size fits all,” Mr. Nutter said.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president in the Washington office of the Indianapolis-based National Association of Mutual Insurance Cos., said one issue is determining exactly how many policies are affected, which he said is much closer to 200,000 than 1 million.

“Congress can phase in some of the rate that fell through the cracks of the current 25% cap per year without throwing out the whole bill,” Mr. Grande said. “We're going to work hard for a more targeted approach addressing some of the challenges that have emerged during implementation.”