house Bill H.R. 3955
Do Cities Need Flexibility from FEMA When Rebuilding After Floods?
Argument in favor
FEMA’s restrictions on rebuilding in flooded areas don’t currently take into account efforts to mitigate the risk of future flooding. This bill fixes that to help communities after floods damage property once the flooding risk has been reduced.
08/22/2016
FEMA has no business demanding changes in building standards. However, they may recommend to City Planners new ideas for future structures changes. Leave it up to the Feds to apply pressure to states and cities too expand their power and influence. But like any corruption, offer some cash and watch hungry bureaucrats crawl to the Federal public trough.
···
08/22/2016
Yes, and get rid of FEMA while you're at it. And the EPA. And the FDA. And the BLM. So on and so forth.
···
08/22/2016
Absolutely. Keep federal government out of state decisions whenever possible. However, when asking for federal funding, there are always conditions to be met. Such as "we're not giving you more $$ in the future if you don't make changes to avoid this happening again". Such as rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina. Federal funding had been made available to fix the levees which local government diverted to other projects. They should be held accountable.
Argument opposed
There’s a reason that FEMA restricts how land that has been flooded can be used—it may flood again and endanger people or property. There’s no need for FEMA to listen to appeals from state and local governments because they got it right.
08/22/2016
I am on the fence about this one. As a Certified Floodplain Manager, I understand the restrictions set by the NFIP. It is necessary to restrict development on properties that are prone to 100yr flooding because federal funds pay for the restoration and, in some cases, mitigation. Allowing local government and private owners to build on these properties should be monitored carefully to ensure the property meets guidelines to remove the habitable spaces from the base flood elevation. I am against much intervention by the federal government and feel the NFIP should be privatized and remove restrictions like the one this proposes. However, as long as flood insurance is managed and sold by the federal government, and my tax dollars are being used to support FEMA, no restrictions should be lifted until a licensed CFM can provide an elevation certification.
···
08/20/2016
As long as the US government is providing the insurance, it gets to dictate use. What is it with the South and Midwest? Tornadoes rip up trailer parks, so they build more trailer parks. Rivers flood homes so they build the same homes in the same areas. I mean, stilts, anyone? Bricks? Low profile building? I guess as long as it gets rebuilt, it's all good, right?
···
08/22/2016
Federal $$$ should only be available for bailout once. Communities that rebuild repeatedly in disaster areas should not have unlimited access to federal money.
FEMA has no business demanding changes in building standards. However, they may recommend to City Planners new ideas for future structures changes. Leave it up to the Feds to apply pressure to states and cities too expand their power and influence. But like any corruption, offer some cash and watch hungry bureaucrats crawl to the Federal public trough.
I am on the fence about this one. As a Certified Floodplain Manager, I understand the restrictions set by the NFIP. It is necessary to restrict development on properties that are prone to 100yr flooding because federal funds pay for the restoration and, in some cases, mitigation. Allowing local government and private owners to build on these properties should be monitored carefully to ensure the property meets guidelines to remove the habitable spaces from the base flood elevation. I am against much intervention by the federal government and feel the NFIP should be privatized and remove restrictions like the one this proposes. However, as long as flood insurance is managed and sold by the federal government, and my tax dollars are being used to support FEMA, no restrictions should be lifted until a licensed CFM can provide an elevation certification.
Yes, and get rid of FEMA while you're at it. And the EPA. And the FDA. And the BLM. So on and so forth.
Absolutely. Keep federal government out of state decisions whenever possible. However, when asking for federal funding, there are always conditions to be met. Such as "we're not giving you more $$ in the future if you don't make changes to avoid this happening again". Such as rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina. Federal funding had been made available to fix the levees which local government diverted to other projects. They should be held accountable.
As long as the US government is providing the insurance, it gets to dictate use. What is it with the South and Midwest? Tornadoes rip up trailer parks, so they build more trailer parks. Rivers flood homes so they build the same homes in the same areas. I mean, stilts, anyone? Bricks? Low profile building? I guess as long as it gets rebuilt, it's all good, right?
Federal $$$ should only be available for bailout once. Communities that rebuild repeatedly in disaster areas should not have unlimited access to federal money.
As climate change continues to affect us in new and more intense manners, the preparations taken by any entity may prove insufficient in protecting against future catastrophic events such as flooding. In short, building in a floodplain just because a 500 year levy has been added does not gauruntee safety.
It should be left up to local government to rebuild not the Feds local people will know more what is needed and where than some federal bureaucrats that don't live there.
All of these arguments are besides the point in my opinion: if people wanna build and live in stupid places, then that's their prerogative.
People shouldn't be allowed to rebuild in flood areas. They should be give property out of the zone and the flood zone should go back to nature
States know how best to use their land than the federal government.
FEMA has responsibility to mitigate future disaster relief by taking certain land out of use. Changing that would benefit locals to the detriment of the rest of us (and reward some ill advised local decisions).
It's not governments job to tell you what you can and can't do on your land
My land is my land that I can do what I want with. But I have no land just government land that they let me use. Plus anyone moronic enough to live in flood plains doesn't deserve land.
The question should be, do localities need relief from overly powerful federal agencies like FEMA and POTUS?
President Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Flood insurance is incredibly cheap and subsidized heavily by the government, i.e. taxpayers subsidize it. It often is essential to live in flood plains for agriculture and shipping etc, but rebuilding should be subject to best practices and shaping by the government that subsidizes payment for it.
FEMA should pay only 1 time. After that, they're on their own.