Both the Senate and House have rejected efforts to delayNational Flood Insurance Program rate increases, making judicialaction in federal district court in Gulfport, Miss., the last hopefor those seeking to prevent the increases from taking effect inJanuary.

Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney filed suit in October seeking an injunction against the rateincreases until the Federal Emergency Management Agency completesan affordability study mandated under the 2012 Biggert-WatersAct.

Chaney said he hopes the court will rule by Dec. 30 or 31 in thecase that now includes five states.

In a statement from the NAIC winter meeting inWashington, Chaney said, “The failure of the House and Senateto address the NFIP and FEMA problems supports our decision inMississippi to file suit against FEMA concerning the bureaucratic implementationof (Biggert-Waters), which was done without concern forconsumers. We have been joined by five other states pursuingthis case.”

FEMA reiterated Friday that the onset of the rate hikes and theaffordability study were not linked. A FEMA official said Congressdirected that the study of the law's economic impact on propertyowners be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, whose $1.5million cost estimate and two-year time frame both exceeded thelaw's allotments. However, FEMA is moving ahead to begin work onthe study with the academies, a staff official said.

As for Congress, last Wednesday supporters of legislation thatwould delay the increases failed to get it through a floor motionto adopt S. 1610 by unanimous consent after Sen. Pat Roberts,R-Kansas, objected on the Senate floor.

S. 1610, the Homeowners Flood InsuranceAffordability Act of 2013, would put off indefinitely reforms tothe NFIP.

A last-minute effort by three Republican members of the House onFriday to delay provisions of the Biggert-Waters Act failed to winenough support from Democrats.

The bill would have been pushed through the House underexpedited procedures requiring a two-thirds vote, but was notbrought up when Democrats balked. The bill was the same one addedby Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La., in June, to another piece oflegislation then pending on the House floor.

“Time and again, I have made clear that I am committed toresolving the problems that have resulted from the implementationof the Biggert-Waters Act, and we have brought together a broad,bipartisan coalition of the House and Senate to do so,” said Rep.Maxine Waters, D-Calif., named sponsor of the 2012 bill.

“If the Cassidy legislation made real progress toward that goal,I would be the first to sign my name in support,” Waters said.

She said the Cassidy bill does nothing to help those alreadysuffering from skyrocketing flood-insurance premiums.

R.J. Lehmann, senior fellow at conservative think tank R StreetInstitute, said the “unstated, but quite clear, goal of thisconvoluted process is simply to gut any reform until the NFIP'sexisting statutory authority would be scheduled to expire.”

Lehmann urged that any tweaks to the law be considered through athoughtful and deliberative process.

“To the extent that there are legitimate concerns aboutaffordability or how the Biggert-Waters reforms are implemented,those are best addressed through targeted, limited and means-testedprograms considered through regular legislative order,” Lehmannsaid.

“Simply kicking the can down the road with delays, whethershort-term or long-term, fails to grapple with the reality that theflood program is broke, that the benefits being phased out flowdisproportionately to wealthy homeowners and that, against thebackdrop of rising sea levels and increasingly costly catastrophes,we simply can no longer afford to encourage people to live inflood-prone areas,” he added.