The Biden administration’s proposed major overhaul to the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, would drastically alter how Americans protect homes and businesses against flooding.
The administration recently announced 17 legislative proposals that would represent the biggest reform to the NFIP since the program’s inception. One change would be a nationwide disclosure law that would ensure that prospective homeowners and renters have a property’s flood history before signing a contract. Today, 21 states have no such law.
Another proposal would prevent NFIP from issuing any new insurance policies for commercial buildings no matter where they’re located or when they were built because FEMA says it wants to promote growth in the private flood insurance market. Americans hoping to build new homes on eroding beaches and other flood-prone areas would also have to look elsewhere for insurance.
Homeowners would have to go to private insurance companies, which typically charge more expensive insurance premiums. People who hold mortgages on properties that flood multiple times and require insurance payouts of at least $10,000 each time, could lose access to government insurance on their properties after the fourth claim.
The proposals must pass Congress to become law, but there is support from both sides of the political aisle with a view that the status quo is becoming financially unsustainable.
Related Stories
| May 8, 2014
Door knob code revisions generating controversy
The City of Vancouver’s ban on doorknobs in all new buildings, which went into effect last month, has drawn a strong reaction from the public and heated debate across Canada as other jurisdictions consider the measure.
| May 8, 2014
Structural concrete code revisions open for public comments
The American Concrete Institute’s completely reorganized ACI 318-14, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is open for public review for a 45-day period.
| May 3, 2014
Controversy rages over cost, benefits of proposed OSHA silica dust rule
Introduced in August 2013, the proposal would lower allowable levels of crystalline silica in all workplaces, standardize how the dust is calculated, and require medical monitoring for employees exposed to high levels.
| May 3, 2014
California’s Title 24 promises to reshape the construction industry
California’s recent revisions to Title 24 contain ambitious performance goals: all residential buildings must be Zero Net Energy by 2020 and commercial buildings must reach that standard by 2030.
| Apr 30, 2014
House Appropriations Committee approves $3 billion cut for military construction
The Army would see the sharpest cuts on a percentage basis, with a $578 million, or 52% reduction in FY 2015.
| Apr 30, 2014
GSA wants to trade D.C. office building for construction and development services
The GSA has issued an RFQ seeking developers who can provide construction and development services in exchange for the GSA Regional Office Building and Cotton Annex located in Southwest Washington, D.C.
| Apr 30, 2014
Mexico City spending big on green roofs to fight air pollution
Although green roofs have been widely adopted in urban areas to reduce the heat island effect and stormwater runoff, Mexico City is hoping that vegetative rooftops can also reduce the city’s air pollution.
| Apr 23, 2014
California bill would make employers responsible for subcontractors' wages, workers' comp
Under the recently revised Assembly Bill 1897, employers would have to pay wages, taxes, and workers compensation on behalf of a subcontractor’s workers if the subcontractor reneges on that responsibility.
| Apr 23, 2014
Obama’s 2015 budget includes $1.7 billion to GSA for building construction, renovations
The Obama Administration has proposed $1.7 billion for construction, renovation, and repairs to federal buildings in fiscal year 2015 under the auspices of the U.S. General Services Administration.
| Apr 18, 2014
Massachusetts Supreme Court clarifies building code liability issue on mixed-use projects
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that distinct portions of a mixed-used building may be treated as distinct and different structures under the state building code.
