New York City Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 -- The city of New York has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information: National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System". The comment was written on Sept. 22, 2021, and posted on Oct. 8, 2021:

* * *

The City of New York (the "City") submits these comments in response to the recent Request for Information (RFI) on the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS). We are grateful for this opportunity to contribute suggestions that would enable this program to work for more communities.

We recognize the CRS program is intended to motivate local governments to reduce flood risk exposure by offering premium credits on flood insurance policies. Premium discounts offered through CRS are one of the only affordability measures in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), making it an important lever to ease increasing flood insurance costs. Affordability is a special concern in New York City, where flood insurance premiums are out-of-reach for a quarter of owner-occupied households and for two-thirds of extremely low-income owner-occupied households./1

Given the potential value of CRS to our residents, the City continues to research and evaluate entry into the program. Unfortunately, the current iteration of CRS contains several limitations that impair our ability to join. We note that New York City is not alone: only 7% of NFIP communities nationwide participate in CRS./2

Our comments focus on New York City's experience and highlight the limitations of the CRS program's "one-size-fits-all" approach. Our comments also reflect conversations with participating CRS communities and published research that underscores challenges for communities across the country.

Our specific recommendations are as follows:

1. Allow for greater flexibility to meet conditions of highly variable communities across the country. Floods are the most common and costly natural disaster, impacting rural, suburban, and urban settings nationwide. The diversity of built environments, histories, and types of flood risks means successful mitigation strategies must reflect the context within which they are implemented. Local governments must adopt context specific flood mitigation strategies that meet the needs of residents.

Despite this, the current iteration of CRS offers minimal credit for discretionary floodplain management activities and regulations. Instead we recommend the CRS program inspire creative approaches and leverage unforeseen opportunities for floodplain management activities that reflect the diversity of local governments, regulations, and contexts across participating NFIP communities.

For example, CRS currently prioritizes removing and reducing flood risk through property acquisition, building elevation, and open space preservation./3

As a result, these mitigation activities generate the largest number of CRS points. However, these mitigations are simply unachievable on a large scale in older, denser cities like New York City, where attached row homes and small lots are prevailing and where buildings often predate floodplain regulations. Unfortunately, the achievable flood mitigations for these urban buildings, such as elevation of mechanical systems and installation of backwater valves, do not provide comparable CRS credit. CRS should re-evaluate the current point offerings to reflect the realistic ability of communities to undertake meaningful and tangible mitigation measures.

2. Revise CRS scoring to resolve bias against older, denser cities. In its current form, CRS scoring often favors smaller communities. For example, a CRS community that acquires 100 of 1,000 structures in the floodplain receives substantially less credit than one that acquires 10 of 15 structures in the floodplain. Consider the magnitude of New York City's floodplain: 218,000 residents and 36,000 buildings over 376 million square feet of land area that is exposed by 520 miles of coastline./4

New York City would need to acquire hundreds or thousands of structures to receive the same number of CRS points as smaller communities. With such a substantial floodplain, the current CRS program would be unable to offer points commensurate with the scale and cost of an acquisition and elevation program in New York City. As a 2017 report found: the cost to obtain CRS credits often outweighs the points awarded./5

Further CRS challenges exist for older, denser cities. CRS participation hinges on a single Community Assistance Visit (CAV) regardless of the geographic size of the NFIP community and the magnitude of properties in the community's floodplain. New York City consists of five separate counties, each with numerous discrete neighborhoods, that are not currently permitted to pursue an independent CAV or to seek individual participation in CRS. Under existing CRS rules, a CAV in New York City would be a considerable undertaking for FEMA, straining both federal and City resources. The City recommends a flexible approach to CRS entry, allowing large NFIP communities the opportunity to enroll geographically discrete areas through a phased CAV that accounts for the distribution and density of their floodplains.

Communities that already participate in the CRS program face similar limitations when seeking advancement within the program. Prerequisites for advancement to higher classifications are uniform regardless of an NFIP community's size, built environment, and flood risks. For example, a Class 4 rating can only be achieved once an NFIP community demonstrates specific point thresholds in certain CRS activities, as well as a BCEGS rating of 4/4. Nationwide, only 20 NFIP communities have achieved a rating of Class 4 or higher, suggesting the ability for advancement is severely limited. Therefore, the City recommends the CRS program incorporate flexibility into the requirements to reflect the diversity of NFIP communities across the nation.

Furthermore, Elevation Certificates (EC) currently play a significant role in the CRS program but will be optional for flood insurance purposes under FEMA's Risk Rating 2.0. New York City believes ECs play a valuable role in floodplain management, providing the public with critical information about a property, such as whether flood risk reduction strategies such as elevation or flood vents have been implemented. To account for this value, New York City recommends the CRS program increase the number of points for EC related activities, such as development of accessible maps and/or databases that share the form.

3. Improve transparency of the CRS program, including enforcement oversight. Prospective CRS communities often undertake substantial regulatory and enforcement action ahead of a CAV to ensure the community meets minimum NFIP standards. Once a community is in CRS, it is subject greater scrutiny and it is politically incentivized to maintain or increase its CRS rating.

Available enforcement tools for NFIP communities to address non-compliance with NFIP standards are often limited, but FEMA's determination that a community has exhausted its efforts to achieve NFIP compliance is highly subjective. This results in significant uncertainty for communities and the subjectivity may result in the failure to admit highly motivated communities, with proven track records of compliance and exceeding minimum NFIP requirements, into the CRS program. Greater transparency in CRS is needed.

Additionally, reports on CRSResources.org which lists credits received by individual states and communities by category are out of date and only the classes of CRS participating communities are publicly accessible. Current and aspiring CRS communities should have up-to-date access to sub-activity scores and the impact adjustments of other communities to better understand the suite of tools available through CRS and their practicality. By reporting detailed information about points and activities that participating CRS communities are receiving, there will be greater transparency into the program. This may also lead to greater collaboration and cooperation between communities.

Finally, FEMA's Risk Rating 2.0. will result in a significant divergence within the NFIP between flood insurance and floodplain management standards. The impacts of Risk Rating 2.0. remain opaque, including whether there will be implications to other NFIP programs, such as CRS. Given this uncertainty, New York City recommends FEMA convene a multi-sector task force to explore and address adverse impacts and challenges that emerge across the NFIP, including to program such as CRS because of Risk Rating 2.0.

4. Reduce the administrative burdens of CRS enrollment and participation and increase FEMA technical support and resources. In 2020, GAO found it difficult for communities to retain the floodplain management staff required to fulfill CRS requirements and balance existing duties./6

New York City's experience confirms these findings. An NFIP community--even one that has exceeded NFIP requirements in its local regulations, public information, planning, and floodplain management practices--can easily become hamstrung with CRS requirements due to excessive administrative demands on local staff. Therefore, the City recommends deep reductions to the administrative burdens for NFIP communities participating in the CRS program; and for FEMA to expand resources and dedicated staffing support for communities entering and maintaining CRS participation.

FEMA resources must be scaled to meet the size and density of an NFIP community to avoid imposing a considerable and often unexpected burden. For example, previous attempts to complete a CAV in New York City required the City to supply staff and resources because FEMA was not sufficiently equipped to conduct a successful CAV in a large city.

Additionally, municipalities have varying procedures and requirements for issuing permits and conducting inspections to certify a property meets flood-resistant construction standards. These processes often pre-date NFIP participation and changes to comply with CRS rules could result in an overhaul of the entire permitting system. For example, New York City's permit, design, and construction process is complex and involves careful coordination across multiple public and private entities. Changes to comply with the CRS program could have far reaching impacts, such as citywide delays. FEMA should collaborate more closely with communities seeking CRS participation to avoid these unnecessary impacts and offer resources to facilitate necessary changes.

Finally, NFIP communities entering CRS are required to correct inaccurate ECs. This can be impractical, especially when construction has long since been completed and when review and correction may require considerable staffing. To provide communities with assistance, the CRS program should provide a more "hands-on" approach, including facilitating a review of ECs and coordinating more closely with communities to correct the forms. This closer coordination could benefit design professionals on both side of the permitting counter by adding extra oversight and learning opportunities.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Community Rating System. New York City remains committed to ensuring flood insurance remains affordable to all New Yorkers and that FEMA programs reflect the diversity of communities across the country. We look forward to continued partnerships with FEMA to address these issues.

* * *

Footnotes:

1/ RAND (2017) "The Cost and Affordability of Flood Insurance in New York City" https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1776.html

2/ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf

3/ Activities 520 and 530 offer points for flood protection and mitigation activities, which include elevation and acquisition of a property; Activity 420 offers points for open space preservation.

4/ Based on FEMA's 2007 Effective FIRM

5/ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56af7134be7b96f50a2c83e4/t/5a78bb8353450a8baa806766/1517861773717/Wetlands+Watch+VA+CRS+Cost +Benefit+Report_2_05.pdf

6/ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-20-396.pdf

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0021-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com