logo
Insurance reform worsens affordability in flood-prone Louisiana

Insurance reform worsens affordability in flood-prone Louisiana

Yahoo27-01-2025
The Plaquemines Parish community of Ironton, along the west bank of the Mississippi River south of New Orleans, flooded heavily during Hurricane Ida in 2021. (Halle Parker/WWNO)
Flood insurance is a tenet of life in water-burdened Louisiana. The low-lying portions of the state face rising water from the disappearing coast and more frequent heavy rainfall from hurricanes and seasonal storms that outpace the ability of local drainage systems to clear flooding.
But skyrocketing costs of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) coverage are spurring significant departure from the program, with about 70,000 policies dropped in Louisiana from 2022 to 2024. When paired with the ongoing home insurance crisis in Louisiana, this raises premium costs even more. Many are dropping insurance, contributing to an endless cycle of higher payments for those who need to maintain flood insurance or want to mitigate the risk of facing rising floodwaters.
Theryn Henkel, a former resident of the Gentilly neighborhood in New Orleans, knows the risks of flooding better than most. She lived in Louisiana for 18 years and worked as a scientist with the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.
Henkel bought a new café-au-lait-colored shotgun-style house and painted the door bright green. The house is elevated, the base raised about 3 feet off the ground with red brick to account for frequent flooding. Henkel purchased flood insurance just to be safe.
'I'm very into the coastal restoration realm and know the risks,' she said, 'so it was almost immoral for me to not have flood insurance, you know … I think it was very important to have it.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Her house wasn't technically in a high-risk area, and flood insurance was affordable – at about $400 a year.
'That was a cost that I was really willing to eat,' she said, even with regular home insurance in the state rising to $700 more than the national average.
By 2022, her premium had crept up to $650. By 2023, Henkel left Louisiana, saying spiking insurance costs contributed to her decision to leave for a new job in Olympia, Washington. She said she would have dropped her flood coverage had she decided to stay.
Created by Congress in 1968 in the aftermath of Hurricane Betsy, which devastated New Orleans, the NFIP acts as a last-resort for insurance coverage in areas deemed too risky by the private insurance market, pooling flood risk across a larger population to make prices more affordable.
The equation was simple; the more flood-prone a property, the higher the premium, based on flood maps and how high up a structure was relative to base elevation.
But the NFIP has been in debt for nearly two decades, even after Congress forgave $16 billion worth in 2017. Lawmakers lobbied for reform, and first instituted Risk Rating 2.0 in late 2021 and throughout 2022.
The new rate-calculation system aims to make the program more financially solvent and more accurate, with premiums reflecting actual risk: A property's proximity to flood threats and a home's construction style are factored in when pricing premiums.
'A lot of areas that are underwritten by the National Flood Insurance Program, that are in flood prone areas, and that are repetitive loss, are losing money and draining a lot of the resources,' said Jeff Schlegelmilch, Columbia University associate professor and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Columbia Climate School.
He said that while Risk Rating 2.0 better addresses risk than previous FEMA tools, in an attempt to make the program more equitable, it's made coastal communities less affordable.
'Raising rates to reflect actual risk puts you in a situation where you're pricing people out of their homes, which has very devastating consequences for individuals and communities,' said Schlegelmilch.
Rising premiums have forced some to abandon flood insurance entirely, increasing risks and pushing costs higher for those who remain in the program.
Marguerite Oestreicher, director of Habitat for Humanity in New Orleans, describes the struggle for homeowners already struggling financially.
'It's not that people want to be uninsured. It's just, you know, the math just doesn't work, and you don't have enough cash to cover basic needs,' Oestreicher said. 'It's groceries, it's health care, power bills … we are seeing people do without because of insurance.'
Louisiana's waterlogged history makes it number one in the nation for repeat flooding for properties covered under the NFIP. According to data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Natural Resource Defense Council, just over 43,000 properties have filed multiple flood insurance claims over the past 10 years.
Jefferson and Orleans parishes have the most NFIP repeat flood claims in Louisiana, with about 40% of the state's total over the past 10 years. With aging infrastructure and low-lying areas prone to hurricane damage, both parishes often flood.
The key to curbing flood disasters is prevention, said Michael Hecht, CEO of the regional economic development nonprofit group Greater New Orleans Inc.
'The long-term solution is mitigation, both individual mitigation at the structure level and community mitigation, up to and including federal levees,' Hecht said.
Mitigation — raising homes, improving drainage or constructing levees — can break the cycle of flooding. But the process of elevating a home, one of the most popular mitigation strategies, can be expensive and difficult.
Only 22% of the over 43,000 properties in Louisiana that have filed at least two NFIP damage claims have reduced their risk of flooding by raising their structures. In Orleans Parish, which includes New Orleans, 82% of the 8,568 properties with NFIP repeat flooding claims have never had flood prevention updates.
Climate adaptation is very central to our insurance crisis. Every year is going to be riskier than the last … and insurers are well aware of that.
– Caroline Kousky, Insurance for Good
Most people want to protect their homes from flooding, but affordability can make the path to home protection hard to navigate. FEMA offers various types of grants for repeatedly flooded properties, but these grants often require years to secure. Additionally, property owners must maintain current flood insurance policies to qualify, a challenge, given soaring premiums.
'With Risk Rating 2.0, our main concern with it right now is that it does not reliably incentivize mitigation,' said Peter Waggonner, public policy director for GNO Inc.
'Households or communities are saying 'well, we're doing this work in risk reduction, and we're not seeing a change in the insurance market,'' said Carolyn Kousky, founder of the nonprofit advocacy group Insurance for Good.
She said despite individual mitigations like home elevations qualifying people for discounts, the models used for assessing risk under Risk Rating 2.0 aren't accounting for efforts to mitigate flood risk in a timely enough way at a community level to reliably incentivize mitigation.
'Sometimes the best approaches for managing flood risk are community based approaches' like levees and wetland restoration, Kousky said. The NFIP allows for communities to earn points on their Community Rating System, but Kousky identified a 'gap' in making sure new flood models target rate reduction to individual property owners rather than to a whole community.
'We are not seeing [Risk Rating 2.0] account for that in a timely way right now,' she said.
Lack of transparency as to how Risk Rating 2.0 evaluates risk stands at the center of Louisiana's flood insurance crisis.
St. Charles Parish sued FEMA in 2023 over the agency's failure to provide information on how flood risk was assessed for homes with increasing premiums. FEMA responded to the suit, saying the data used was proprietary information purchased from a private company.
'There's an utter lack of transparency [and] the affordability guidelines or guardrails are not in there right now,' Waggonner said. 'You do risk pricing working-class or people on a fixed income out of their home over time.'
In congressional hearings, Hecht has criticized the program and demanded reform, calling NFIP 'unaffordable, inaccurate, and contradictory to the environmental and economic wellbeing of our country.' He said 'flood insurance is a slow moving glacier of destruction of real estate value' for New Orleans and other flood prone areas of Louisiana.
Louisiana lawmakers also continue to push for solutions.
Sen. Kirk Talbot, R-River Ridge, who leads his chamber's insurance committee, has said Risk Rating 2.0 is 'screwed up' and is working to coordinate national efforts to address insurance affordability.
But Rep. Tim Kerner Sr., R-Lafitte, still thinks the mitigation projects are worth the investment, despite the high cost of flood insurance. His waterfront town, even though it's surrounded by a 'ring' levee, routinely floods during most storms.
'People continue to suffer,' Kerner said. 'We've got to protect the people, help them with mitigation, help them get their houses raised … I'm hoping we have a special session to tackle these issues.'
Kousky said in order to facilitate systemic solutions, there need to be more tools to lower flood risk and consideration for what it means 'to live in a high risk area' like Southeast Louisiana.
FEMA recently introduced a customer support tool to help address some of the transparency problems with risk assessment, hoping to share rate calculations directly with individuals who then seek out an insurance agent and make coverage more affordable.
But the tool doesn't allow people to check beforehand what discounts they could get for elevating a home before getting flood insurance, said Waggonner, 'so there still is not that communication and transparency in terms of what I would get if I were to flood proof or make some upfront investment into my property.'
Some proposed solutions meant to address the affordability issue with the NFIP include means-based assistance programs or offering monthly installment payments instead of discounting premiums.
A Government Accountability Office report from 2023 suggested a similar approach, recommending that Congress work to start 'replacing discounted premiums with a means-based assistance program that is reflected in the federal budget.'
Kousky reiterated that, along with addressing pricing equity in flood insurance, officials also need to be talking about climate change.
'Climate adaptation is very central to our insurance crisis,' Kousky said. 'Every year is going to be riskier than the last … and insurers are well aware of that.'
She emphasised how a warming climate and the insurance crisis are inextricably linked and, while building resilience into communities with mitigation measures and careful development is hard, 'we can't solve the current insurance crisis without much more substantial, serious attention to what it means to build and live in a higher risk area.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump backs stock trading ban so lawmakers like Pelosi can't continue ‘ripping off' constituents, WH claims
Trump backs stock trading ban so lawmakers like Pelosi can't continue ‘ripping off' constituents, WH claims

Fox News

time25 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump backs stock trading ban so lawmakers like Pelosi can't continue ‘ripping off' constituents, WH claims

The White House made digs at former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a Thursday White House press briefing, saying she's the reason Congress is eyeing a measure to ban all lawmakers from trading stocks. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump accused Pelosi of accruing her wealth "by having inside information" in stock trading. "The reason that this idea to put a ban on stock trading for members of Congress is even a thing is because of Nancy Pelosi," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday. "I mean, she is rightfully criticized because she makes $174,000 a year. Yet she has a net worth of approximately $413 million. In 2024, Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio, this was a fascinating statistic to me, grew 70% in one year in 2024." "I think the president stands with the American people on this," Leavitt said. "He doesn't want to see people like Nancy Pelosi enriching themselves off of public service and ripping off their constituents in the process." This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill
Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Josh Hawley is brushing off President Donald Trump's quip that he's a 'second-tier' senator after the Republican's proposal to ban stock trading by members of Congress — and the president and vice president — won bipartisan approval to advance in a committee vote. The Missouri Republican told Fox News late Wednesday that it's 'not the worst thing' he's ever been called and that he and the president 'had a good chat' clearing up confusion over the bill. The misunderstanding, Hawley said, was that Trump would have to sell his Mar-a-Lago private club and other assets. 'Not the case at all,' Hawley said on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' It was the second time in many days that Trump laid into senators in his own party as the president tries, sometimes without success, to publicly pressure them to fall in line. Earlier, Trump tore into veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa over an obscure Senate procedure regarding nominations. In a social media post, Trump called Hawley a 'second-tier Senator' who was playing into the hands of Democrats. Trump added: 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Stock trading bans gain support Stock trading by members of Congress has long been an issue that both parties have tried to tackle, especially as some elected officials have become wealthy while in elected office. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, it was disclosed that lawmakers were trading as information about the health crisis before it became public. Insider trading laws don't always apply to the types of information lawmakers receive. Hawley's legislation with the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sailed out of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, after his support delivered a bipartisan vote over the objections of the other Republicans, who have majority control. GOP senators had been working with the White House on the stock trade bill, and some supported a broad carve-out to exclude the president from the ban, but it failed, with Hawley joining Democrats to block it. Trump also complained that Hawley joined with Democrats to block another amendment that would have investigated the stock trades of Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker emerita, and her spouse. Paul Pelosi has been a much-watched trader, but the California lawmaker's office said she personally does not own stock. Hawley said after his conversation with Trump that the president 'reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed.' The senator also suggested the Democratic leader should be prosecuted, but it's not clear on what grounds. Pelosi supports Hawley's bill Pelosi has said repeatedly that she's not involved in her husband's work on investments, strongly supports the bill and looks forward to voting for it in the House. 'The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest — not their personal portfolios,' she said. In a joint statement, Hawley and Peters said the legislation, called the Honest Act, builds on an earlier bill and would ban members of Congress, the president, vice president and their spouses from holding, buying or selling stock. An earlier proposal from Hawley, named after Pelosi, had focused more narrowly on lawmakers. If the bill were to become law, it would immediately prohibit elected officials, including the president, from buying stocks and would ban them from selling stocks for 90 days after enactment. It also requires the elected officials to divest from all covered investments, but not until the beginning of their next term in office — shielding the term-limited president from that requirement. 'We have an opportunity here today to do something that the public has wanted to do for decades,' Hawley told the panel. 'And that is to ban members of Congress from profiting on information that frankly only members of Congress have on the buying and selling of stock.' During the committee hearing, tensions flared as Republicans sought other approaches. Republicans fail to exempt Trump from stock trading ban GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida proposed one amendment that would exempt the president, the vice president, their spouses and dependent children from the legislation, and the other one that would have required a report on the Pelosi family's trades. Both were defeated, with Hawley joining the Democrats. 'We are one step closer to getting this bill passed into law and finally barring bad actors from taking advantage of their positions for their own financial gain,' Peters said in a statement. One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said the overall bill is 'legislative demagoguery.' 'We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,' Johnson said. 'So I don't see the necessity of this.' GOP's Grassley 'offended' by Trump's personal attack Trump's post criticizing Hawley comes after a similar blowback directed Tuesday night at Grassley. In that post, Trump pressured Grassley to do away with the Senate's longtime 'blue slip' custom that often forces bipartisan support on presidential nominations of federal judges. The practice requires both senators in a state to agree to push a nominee forward for a vote. Trump told Grassley to do away with the practice. 'Senator Grassley must step up,' Trump said, while claiming that he helped the senator, who was first elected in 1980, to win reelection. Grassley earlier Wednesday said he was 'offended' by what the president said. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms
Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms

An appeals court on Thursday scrutinized President Trump's assertion that emergency powers justify his worldwide tariffs. Thursday's high-stakes oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit came one day ahead of Trump's deadline for dozens of countries to strike trade deals or face higher 'reciprocal' duties. To justify the sweeping moves, Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law authorizing the president to issue certain economic sanctions in an emergency to counter an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' 'It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,' said Judge Timothy Dyk. 'It's really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the whole approach,' continued Dyk, an appointee of former President Clinton. Presidents have invoked other statutes to impose tariffs, but Trump in February became the first president to attempt to do so by invoking the emergency law. 'Why is that?' pressed Judge Jimmie Reyna, an appointee of former President Obama. 'Has there been no national emergency?' The Justice Department argues that IEEPA has for decades been among the 'most powerful tools' a president can use to protect national security, foreign policy and the economy. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said Congress has long given presidents 'broad discretion' to deal with national emergencies and that IEEPA is a tool that lets Trump to put pressure on trading partners. 'Congress wanted to provide broad and flexible authority in the context of emergencies, and I think you have to read the phrase 'regulate importation' in the context of an extraordinary delegation of power to the President that can be checked by Congress in specific cases,' Shumate said, pointing to specific language also used by President Nixon to impose tariffs in 1971. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, an appointee of the second former President Bush, asked if it amounts to a 'bargaining chip.' 'Exactly,' Shumate replied. Trump first used IEEPA in February to announce levies on Canada, China and Mexico — pointing to the fentanyl crisis as the emergency — but, in April, the president expanded to a 10 percent global baseline tariff, with higher rates for some countries. The expansion, deemed 'Liberation Day' by Trump, was attributed to an emergency over trade deficits. The lawsuit was brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses. The administration appealed after the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated the levies, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until deciding the case. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, began his argument with a warning that the government believes Trump can do 'whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants,' so long as he declares a national emergency. The tariffs amount to a 'breathtaking claim to power' not asserted by any president in 200 years, and one with 'staggering' consequences, Katyal said. The plaintiffs argue IEEPA can't be read to endorse tariffs. But even if that reading is possible, the plaintiffs point to a series of decisions from the Supreme Court's conservative justices holding that the executive branch must have clear congressional authorization to carry out matters of significant economic and political significance. 'This is not an elephant in a mouse hole,' said Katyal, invoking a phrase the justices often use to explain the principle, known as the major questions doctrine. 'This is a galaxy in a keyhole,' he continued. Though Katyal, a high-profile Supreme Court advocate who served as solicitor general under former President Obama, garnered sympathy with his concerns, several judges took issue with the plaintiffs' position that trade deficits aren't a valid emergency because they have existed for decades. Those judges suggested the challengers were sidestepping how Trump's tariff order additionally points to recent consequences of the deficits, like a hollowed-out U.S. manufacturing base and undermined critical supply chains. Moore, the chief judge, at one point chastised the states' attorney for claiming Trump had only talked about it in a single sentence. 'I will walk it back,' Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, conceded. The arguments come on the eve of the cutoff Trump established for nearly 200 countries to strike a deal to avoid higher rates on goods. Trump reached agreements with South Korea and the European Union this week setting tariffs at 15 percent, and last week, he reached similar deals with Japan and the Philippines. Trump on Thursday announced Mexico's tariffs would be extended at current rates for another 90 days, while other countries have until Aug. 1 to make a deal with the president or face the heavier rates. Nearly 100 people, mostly attorneys, filled the second-floor courtroom Thursday where 11 of the Federal Circuit's 12 active judges weighed Trump's tariffs. Judge Pauline Newman, the nation's oldest federal judge at 98, did not participate; she was suspended by her fellow judges from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness, which she has challenged in court. However, she was seated in the public gallery for the arguments along the aisle in the second row. Ahead of the hearing, Trump on Truth Social wished his lawyers 'good luck in America's big case.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store