
 
Updated October 2, 2020
Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 
Reauthorization and Reform 
NFIP Reauthorization 
clearer understanding of their true flood risk, and a 
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is the main 
reformed rate structure could encourage more private 
source of primary flood insurance coverage in the United 
insurers to enter the market. However, charging risk-based 
States, with more than five million policies in over 22,000 
premiums may mean that insurance for some properties is 
communities. Sixteen short-term NFIP reauthorizations 
considered unaffordable. Under the current statute, rate 
have been enacted since the end of FY2017, and the NFIP 
increases for primary residences are restricted to 5%-18% 
is currently authorized until September 30, 2021. Unless 
per year. Other categories of pre-FIRM properties are 
reauthorized or amended by Congress, the following will 
required to have their premium increased by 25% per year 
occur on September 30, 2021: (1) The authority to provide 
until they reach full risk-based rates. FEMA does not 
new flood insurance contracts will expire; however, 
currently have the authority or funding to implement an 
insurance contracts entered into before the expiration would 
affordability program. An NFIP-funded affordability 
continue until the end of their policy term (up to one year); 
program would require either raising flood insurance rates 
and (2) the authority for the NFIP to borrow funds from the 
for NFIP policyholders or diverting resources from other 
Treasury will be reduced from $30.425 billion to $1 billion. 
existing uses of NFIP funds, such as flood mitigation 
assistance or floodplain management. 
The National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act 
of 2019 (H.R. 3167), a bill for the long-term reauthorization 
H.R. 3167 would repeal a surcharge added by the 
of the NFIP, has been reported (H.Rept. 116-262) by the 
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 
House Financial Services Committee. H.R. 3167 would 
(P.L. 113-89), which is $25 for primary residences and 
reauthorize the NFIP until September 30, 2024, and allow 
$250 for all other properties. H.R. 3167 would also create a 
for a retroactive effective date in the event of a lapse. One 
five-year affordability demonstration program to determine 
bill has been introduced in the Senate, on July 18, 2019, to 
the effectiveness of providing means-tested discounted rates 
reauthorize the expiring provisions of the NFIP: the 
for NFIP policies. The discounted premium rates would 
National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization and 
only be available to owner-occupants of 1-4 unit residences 
Reform Act of 2019 (S. 2187). A companion bill, H.R. 
which are the primary residence of a household whose 
3872, was introduced in the House on July 22, 2019. S. 
income does not exceed 80% of the area median income 
2187 and H.R. 3872 would also reauthorize the NFIP until 
(AMI). The discount would cover the chargeable premium 
September 30, 2024. H.R. 3872 would allow for continuous 
rate in excess of 2% of the annual AMI for the area in 
operation during any lapse in appropriations, by allowing 
which the property is located.  
amounts in the Reserve Fund to be used to enter into and 
renew contracts for flood insurance. Thus, all of these bills 
S. 2187 would prohibit FEMA from increasing the amount 
make provision to reduce the impact of a government 
which policyholders are required to pay in NFIP premiums, 
shutdown on the NFIP. 
fees, and surcharges by more than 9% per year during the 
five-year period beginning on the date of enactment. S. 
Premiums and Affordability 
2187 would also require FEMA to establish an 
The statute directs that NFIP flood insurance rates should 
Affordability Assistance Fund. This fund would be credited 
reflect the true flood risk to the property. However, 
with the amounts saved as a direct result of restricting the 
Congress has directed FEMA to subsidize flood insurance 
reimbursement of Write-Your-Own (WYO) companies (the 
for certain categories of properties. Currently, properties 
private insurance companies who are paid to write and 
that pay less than the full risk-based rate are determined by 
service NFIP policies) to no more than 22.46% of the 
the date when the structure was built relative to the date of 
aggregate amount of premiums charged by the company. 
adoption of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), 
Financial assistance from the Affordability Assistance Fund 
regardless of other possible reasons, such as the flood risk 
would be used for vouchers, grants, or premium credits to a 
or the ability of the policyholder to pay. Congress has 
household, if (1) housing costs exceed 30% of the 
directed FEMA to subsidize flood insurance for properties 
household’s adjusted gross income for the year and the total 
built before the community’s first FIRM (the pre-FIRM 
assets owned by the household are not greater than 22% of 
subsidy). FEMA also grandfathers properties at their rate 
the median income of the state in which the household is 
from past FIRMs to updated FIRMs through a cross-
located; or (2) the total household income is less than 120% 
subsidy. Under existing law, pre-FIRM subsidies are being 
of the AMI and the amount of the premiums, surcharges, 
phased out, while grandfathering is retained indefinitely. 
and fees for an annual flood insurance policy exceeds 1% of 
the coverage limit of that policy. 
Reforming the premium structure to reflect full risk-based 
rates could place the NFIP on a more financially sustainable 
path, risk-based price signals could give policyholders a 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reauthorization and Reform 
Properties with Multiple Losses 
or extending the time required to repay previously incurred 
An area of controversy involves NFIP coverage of 
debt. 
properties that have suffered multiple flood losses. One 
concern is the cost to the program; another is whether the 
The role of the NFIP has historically been broader than just 
NFIP should continue to insure properties that are likely to 
providing insurance. As currently authorized, the NFIP also 
have further losses. According to FEMA, all repetitive loss 
encompasses social goals to provide flood insurance in 
(RL) and severe repetitive loss (SRL) properties amount 
flood-prone areas to those who otherwise would not be able 
to approximately $17 billion in claims over the history of 
to obtain it, and to reduce government’s cost after floods. 
the program, or approximately 30% of total claims paid. 
The NFIP has tried to reduce the impact of floods through 
Some RL and SRL properties have been mitigated, and 
flood mapping and mitigation efforts. The majority of 
some are no longer insured by the NFIP. Reducing the 
funding for floodplain mapping and management comes 
number of RL and SRL properties, through mitigation or 
from the Federal Policy Fee (FPF), which is paid by all 
relocation, could reduce claims and improve the NFIP’s 
NFIP policyholders. To the extent that the private flood 
financial position. H.R. 3167 would introduce a new 
insurance market grows and policies move from the NFIP 
definition of RL property, which would be broader than the 
to private insurers, FEMA would no longer collect the FPF 
current definition. H.R. 3167 would also define a new 
on those policies and less money will be available for 
category of extreme repetitive loss properties: structures 
floodplain mapping and management. 
which have incurred flood damage for which at least two 
separate claims have been made with the cumulative 
H.R. 3167 would direct FEMA to consider private flood 
amount of such claims payments exceeding 150% of the 
insurance that satisfies the mandatory purchase requirement 
maximum coverage available for the structure. H.R. 3167 
as also satisfying the continuous coverage requirement to 
would also allow FEMA to consider the extent to which a 
keep NFIP premium subsidies in place. The mandatory 
community is working to remedy such repetitive loss 
purchase requirement mandates that federally-regulated 
communities when allocating mitigation assistance. 
lending institutions require property owners in a Special 
Flood Hazard Area to purchase flood insurance as a 
Private Flood Insurance 
condition of obtaining a mortgage. H.R. 3167 would also 
Private insurers play a major role in administering the 
allow FEMA to provide current and historical property-
NFIP, including selling and servicing policies and adjusting 
specific information on NFIP coverage, flood damage 
claims through the Write-Your-Own program, but the NFIP 
assessments, and payment of claims to private insurers. 
retains the direct financial risk of paying claims for these 
This information would be provided on the condition that 
policies. Few private insurers compete with the NFIP in the 
private insurers provide the same information to FEMA, 
primary residential flood insurance market. However, 
homeowners, and home buyers. S. 2187 would establish 
private insurer interest in providing flood coverage has 
that the total amount of reimbursement paid to WYO 
increased in recent years, and private insurance is seen by 
companies could not be greater than 22.46% of the 
some as a way of transferring flood risk from the federal 
aggregate amount of premiums charged by the company. S. 
government to the private sector.  
2187 would also require FEMA to develop a fee schedule 
based on recovering the actual costs of providing FIRMs 
Private flood insurance may offer some advantages over the 
and charge any private entity an appropriate fee for use of 
NFIP, including more flexible policies, broader coverage, 
such maps. This requirement could provide a mechanism by 
integrated coverage with homeowners’ insurance, business 
which private insurance companies could contribute to the 
interruption insurance, or lower-cost coverage. Private 
costs of floodplain mapping.  
marketing might also increase the overall amount of flood 
coverage purchased. More people purchasing flood 
CRS Products About the NFIP 
insurance, either NFIP or private, could help to reduce the 
CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood 
amount of disaster assistance provided by the federal 
Insurance Program (NFIP). 
government. Increasing private insurance, however, may 
have some disadvantages compared to the NFIP.   
CRS Report R46095, The National Flood Insurance 
Program: Selected Issues and Legislation in the 116th 
Unlike the NFIP, private coverage availability would not be 
Congress.  
guaranteed to all floodplain residents, and consumer 
protections could vary in different states, leading to variable 
CRS Report R45242, Private Flood Insurance and the 
claims outcomes. In addition, private sector competition 
National Flood Insurance Program. 
might increase the financial exposure and volatility of the 
CRS Insight IN10784, National Flood Insurance Program 
NFIP, as private markets may seek out policies that offer 
Borrowing Authority. 
the greatest likelihood of profit. In the most extreme case, 
the private market might “cherry-pick” the profitable, 
CRS Insight IN10835, What Happens If the National Flood 
lower-risk NFIP policies that are “overpriced” either due to 
Insurance Program (NFIP) Lapses? 
cross-subsidization or imprecise rate structures. This could 
leave the NFIP with a higher density of actuarially unsound 
CRS In Focus IF10988, A Brief Introduction to the National 
policies that are directly subsidized or benefit from cross-
Flood Insurance Program. 
subsidization. An increase in private flood insurance 
policies that “depopulates” the NFIP may also undermine 
Diane P. Horn, Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency 
the NFIP’s ability to generate revenue, reducing the ability 
Management  
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reauthorization and Reform 
 
IF11023
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to 
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. 
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has 
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the 
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be 
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include 
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you 
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11023 · VERSION 6 · UPDATED