S-1564-119
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Sponsored by Patty Murray (D-WA)
What it does
The bill would rewrite Section 22 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 to define "ecosystem restoration project" and waive review and processing fees for requests to change flood insurance rate maps based on such projects. It would also let a community permit a restoration project in a regulatory floodway that raises base flood elevations, if a professional engineer finds the rise would be no more than 1 foot, no insurable structure or critical infrastructure would be adversely affected, and the community submits a post-project analysis to FEMA within 180 days. FEMA would have to issue implementing guidance within 180 days after enactment, after consulting federal and state natural resource agencies.
Who benefits
Conservation groups, local governments, water districts, and land trusts that carry out wetland, stream, and floodplain restoration, which would avoid map-change fees and some conditional-approval hurdles. Communities that want restoration for flood storage and habitat may find projects easier to permit. Fish and wildlife habitat and downstream areas that benefit from restored floodplain function may also gain. Engineers and environmental consultants could see added work in certifying projects.
Who is hurt
FEMA would lose fee revenue and take on new guidance and review duties without a stated funding source. Landowners and residents near restored floodways could face higher flood elevations if an engineer's judgment-based estimate proves wrong, and the bill leaves limited recourse. Local governments would bear costs of engineering certifications and post-project analyses. Flood insurance policyholders could see map or risk changes, and the National Flood Insurance Program could bear added risk if projects raise flood levels.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that restoring floodplains and wetlands reduces flood damage and improves habitat, yet current fees and conditional-approval rules discourage such projects. They contend the bill's safeguards (an engineer's certification, a 1-foot cap, no affected insurable structures or critical infrastructure, and a post-project report to FEMA) protect people and property while removing needless barriers. They also point to the bill's passage by unanimous consent in the Senate as evidence of broad agreement.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that allowing base flood elevations to rise in regulatory floodways, even by a foot, relies on an engineer's "best judgment" rather than a fixed, verifiable standard. They contend that errors could expose nearby owners to unmapped flood risk, that the post-project analysis comes only after construction, and that waiving fees and adding guidance duties strain FEMA resources without new funding. They also note that the "greater amount" FEMA may set could loosen the cap.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause in structuring the National Flood Insurance Program, which operates through voluntary community participation; no major constitutional dispute is evident. Neighbors harmed by increased flooding might raise Takings Clause claims, as in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States (2012), where government-induced flooding could constitute a taking.
Checks and balances
Congress delegates guidance authority to FEMA, which gains discretion to set a different elevation-rise metric; checks include required consultation with natural resource agencies, the post-project reporting requirement, and judicial review of agency guidance.
Historical precedent
The bill amends Section 22 of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which previously addressed ecosystem restoration project treatment in the flood insurance program.