WASHINGTON (BestWire) - Groups representing taxpayers and conservationists joined to oppose the inclusion of wind insurance coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program, saying it would irresponsibly and unnecessarily burden taxpayers while promoting development in environmentally sensitive areas.

Congress passed an omnibus bill that extended the NFIP through September, postponing debate on whether to include a "multiperil" policy that would also include windstorm coverage (BestWire, March 11, 2009). Legislation by Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., would authorize the program to offer optional commercial and residential policies covering both wind and flood losses (BestWire, March 5, 2009).

The Sierra Club, American Rivers and Taxpayers for Common Sense issued a joint statement against Taylor's H.R. 1264 and advocating for increased mitigation and environmental protection initiatives as an alternative. The organizations are members of Americans for Smart Natural Catastrophe Policy, a coalition that also includes the Reinsurance Association of America, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents and Liberty Mutual Group.

The bill would create a "perverse incentive" to build in environmentally fragile areas, according to Ed Hopkins, director of environmental quality for the Sierra Club. "Improving local land use planning, strengthening building codes and making homes more resilient are better ways to protect communities from the risks of stronger hurricanes, storm surges and flooding," he said in a statement.

Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers, said, "Instead of increasing the liabilities of a program that is almost $20 billion in debt, Congress should focus its attention on making communities more resilient to storms by investing in the protection and restoration of wetlands, flood plains, and barrier islands."

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the bill would "double down" and add new liabilities to the flood program. "In this tough budgetary time we cannot afford to put taxpayers more on the hook than they already are," he said.

Bills that would have extended the program for five years passed the House of Representatives in October 2007 and the Senate in May 2008. The issue of windstorm coverage was a factor in the two houses not resolving legislative differences. The Bush administration had threatened to veto any bill that included windstorm coverage, a proposal backed by House Democrats but opposed by most homeowners insurers.

In a response, Taylor released a statement saying mitigation measures are a prerequisite for including an area in the flood program. Environmental groups are "selling out their members' by signing on to a "front group" for the insurance industry, he said.

Back to Insurance Reform - National