Editorial: Why should Louisiana have to go to court to get flood insurance answers?

Louisiana probably has the biggest stake in a complex and needlessly secretive federal move to increase premiums for the National Flood Insurance Program.

While there are states with more policies in NFIP, we're the leader on a per-head basis, as one might expect in a low-lying Gulf Coast region. The rate increases under NFIP's Risk Rating 2.0 revisions will hit coastal parts of Louisiana particularly hard.

That's why we welcome the legal challenge by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and nine of his counterparts in other states to Risk Rating 2.0.

The case is complex and no one can predict the outcome of the litigation. What we believe is clear is that many of the principal problems identified by the states in the lawsuit are legitimate and deserve attention.

The agency defended the new premiums, saying they are fairer for everyone since they are based on the flood risk of each individual home, unlike the flawed map system of the past.

Thanks in large part to the efforts of the Louisiana delegation in Congress, increases are limited to 18% per year by law. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which oversees NFIP, released projections in April showing what Louisiana homeowners are expected to pay on average once all hikes are phased in. The projections are evolving based on changes in risk factors, including climate change, but they paint a grim picture.

The average single-family home in Louisiana will eventually see a 134% increase. Especially flood-prone areas will see much higher increases, with Plaquemines Parish projected to be hit with the state's highest at 545% on average. Orleans was projected to see 99% increases, Jefferson 150% and St. Tammany 126%.

These are not small numbers. They are based on an algorithm in NFIP computers that is at best opaque.

Even Steve Scalise, the No. 2 Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives — and an LSU computer science graduate — has had difficulty getting a clear answer to questions about how this is supposed to work.

Scalise and other House leaders wrote again to FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell asking for answers.

One that they may get, and which makes absolutely no sense here in Louisiana, is that Risk Rating 2.0 is intended to reduce federal subsidies to flooding events in beachfront homes of the wealthy.

We don't have Florida's beaches, or much in the way of beachfront McMansions. What we have are working-class homes near the water, as our productive fishing and energy industries serve the national economy and continue a generations-old way of life on the Gulf Coast.

Risk Rating 2.0 is a sweeping beancounter response to a problem, which is of course exacerbated by a warming Gulf of Mexico and other effects of climate change.

When the government makes these kinds of changes, the public paying the bill deserves a thorough explanation of the issues.