Bipartisan Coalition of Senators Defeat Plan to Force Unnecessary Flood Insurance on Homeowners, Businesses
| Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
Contact:
Bipartisan Coalition of Senators Defeat Plan to
Say Sound Flood Infrastructure Negates Insurance Mandate
The proposal, originally included in the National Flood Insurance Program reauthorization bill, would require families to purchase flood insurance simply because they live behind a levee, dam or other flood control structure. The senators -- led by Pryor, Hoeven, Toomey and Durbin --argued that homeowners and businesses behind flood control structures already pay local and federal taxes for flood protection through infrastructure. A mandatory one-size-fits-all requirement would ignore these taxpayer investments and compel responsible communities to pay multiple times for flood protection. After a week of fighting against the insurance requirement, the provision was removed from the underlying transportation package.
"In
"In
"Thanks to the hard work of my colleagues, we were able to successfully remove this unfair, new mandate from the highway bill," Toomey said. "This mandate would have unfairly forced many Americans to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on insurance premiums even though their communities have already invested in sound flood control protection. Removing this double whammy from the highway bill is a huge win for
"It is good news that, working together on a bipartisan basis, we were able to defeat this proposal in the Transportation Conference Committee," said Durbin. "I will continue working with this coalition and Congressman Costello in the
"I am pleased that our calls to remove this arbitrary, unfair and overreaching language were heard. The burden this mandate would have placed on Arkansans who live behind sound flood control infrastructure was completely unnecessary given the investments these communities have already made in flood protection. I commend Senator Pryor's hard work to lead the charge against this needless directive and pleased that our objections helped create a sound bill," said Boozman.
"While reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program is important to protect families across
"It was apparent to me from early on in this process that the Banking Committee's troublesome treatment of levees had to be modified. I am pleased that we've reached an agreement that allows
"This is very good news," Conrad said. "Without removing residual risk, we would essentially be penalizing communities that made the responsible decision to invest in flood protection. By striking this provision, we recognize the significant investments some communities have already made to reduce their flood risk and we encourage continued investment in these types of projects."
"I am pleased the residual risk provision was stripped from the flood insurance bill. Dozens of cities and counties throughout
Joining Senators
| Copyright: | (c) 2010 Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. |
| Wordcount: | 950 |


Advisor News
- A rising retirement challenge: The license to spend
- Financial stress leaves less room for retirement saving
- Giving while you’re living: 3 frequently asked questions about gifting
- Helping clients prepare for one of their biggest retirement expenses
- Important year-end financial conversations every advisor must have
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- A rising retirement challenge: The license to spend
- What lower interest rates mean to annuity payouts
- AM Best downgrades A-Cap insurers amid financial and regulatory troubles
- Lawsuit claims Delaware Life hid billions in insurer-linked investments
- AM Best to Deliver Presentation at 2026 ACLI Annual Conference
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News