National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 19, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to stabilize the NFIP's finances, make flood insurance more affordable and accessible, and improve policyholder experience through a comprehensive set of reforms.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) until September 30, 2030, and introduces a comprehensive set of reforms. These reforms aim to enhance affordability through premium caps and means-tested assistance, bolster mitigation efforts with increased funding and new loan programs, improve program solvency, and strengthen policyholder protections and fairness in claims processing.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is essential for ensuring the long-term viability of the NFIP, protecting homeowners from escalating premiums, and encouraging vital flood mitigation efforts. They emphasize the critical need for targeted assistance to low-income policyholders and improved transparency and fairness in the claims process to rebuild public trust in the program.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that certain provisions, such as the cap on annual premium increases, could undermine the NFIP's financial solvency by preventing rates from fully reflecting true risk, potentially shifting costs to taxpayers. Concerns could also be raised regarding the administrative complexity of establishing new assistance and mapping programs, and the potential for unintended consequences in the private flood insurance market.
The bill is extensive and highly technical, requiring significant time for a thorough review, likely more than typically afforded for public comment or legislative debate.
Sec. 101, Title I
NFIP Reauthorization and Continued Operation During Lapse
This provision reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program's financing and program expiration until September 30, 2030. Crucially, it also allows the NFIP to continue operations and make payments from the National Flood Insurance Fund during periods of a lapse in appropriations, preventing program shutdowns during government funding impasses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that continuous NFIP operation is vital for property owners and the real estate market, preventing disruptions during federal funding impasses. The reauthorization provides long-term stability for planning and investment.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization itself, though debates often arise over the terms of reauthorization. Some might argue that allowing operations during lapses could reduce pressure for timely appropriations.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for program stability and policyholder assurance against potential concerns about federal spending oversight during appropriations lapses.
Sec. 102, Title I
Cap on Annual Premium Increases
This section limits annual increases in flood insurance premiums, surcharges, and fees to no more than 9% for a 5-year period. This cap applies even if properties are re-rated under the Risk Rating 2.0 methodology and extends to new policyholders for properties previously covered by the cap.
Sec. 103, Title I
Targeted Means-Tested Assistance Program
This section authorizes FEMA to establish a means-tested program providing graduated discounts on flood insurance costs for eligible policyholders. Eligibility is for primary residential dwellings where household income is not more than 140% of the area median income. The bill authorizes significant appropriations for this program from FY2024 to FY2028, starting at $250 million and rising to $600 million.
Sec. 107, Title I
Adjusted Flood Insurance Coverage Limits
This provision amends the NFIP to tie property and contents coverage limits to a 'baseline amount' derived from the maximum original principal obligation of a conventional mortgage purchasable by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). This allows for higher coverage limits than the current fixed dollar amounts, with residential property coverage up to 200% of the baseline amount and contents coverage up to 50% of the baseline amount.
Sec. 201, Title II
Dedicated Mitigation Funding for High-Risk Properties
This section mandates that 10% of the average amount appropriated to the Disaster Relief Fund over the preceding 10 fiscal years be set aside for flood mitigation activities. This funding is specifically targeted at severe repetitive loss structures and properties that have seen the largest increase in actuarial risk under Risk Rating 2.0.
Sec. 202, Title II
Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) Coverage Expansion
This section increases the maximum Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage to $120,000 per property. It also expands the types of eligible mitigation activities to include pre-disaster mitigation projects, alternative mitigation methods, and costs associated with the purchase, clearing, and stabilization of property for acquisition or relocation projects, with specific requirements for maintaining open space.
Sec. 207, Title II
State or Tribal Government Revolving Loan Funds for Flood Mitigation
This section authorizes FEMA to provide capitalization grants to State or Tribal governments to establish revolving loan funds for flood mitigation. These funds will offer financial assistance to homeowners, businesses, nonprofits, and local governments for projects that reduce flood risk, with a strong emphasis on assisting low-income homeowners and areas. The section details allocation formulas, matching fund requirements, and eligible uses for the funds.
Sec. 208, Title II
Mapping Modernization and Private/Community Flood Maps
This section mandates significant updates to flood mapping. It expands the Technical Mapping Advisory Council to include a catastrophic risk modeling expert and requires the Council to develop standards for State and local governments to create their own flood risk maps, which FEMA must certify for use under the NFIP. It also requires FEMA to establish a dynamic, database-derived digital display environment for flood hazard risk, including structure-specific information and claims history, by 2030.
Sec. 208(b), Title II
Appeals Process for Existing Flood Maps
This provision establishes a formal right for State or local governments, or property owners/lessees, to appeal FEMA's denial of a request to update a flood insurance rate map. Appeals can be based on scientific inaccuracy or mitigating factors. Successful appeals can lead to policy cancellation with refunds for up to 3 years of premiums or reduced coverage with corresponding refunds, and reimbursement of appeal expenses for errors made by FEMA.
Sec. 210, Title II
Levee-Protected Areas and Mandatory Purchase Requirements
This section requires FEMA to establish rules for assessing the level of protection provided by non-accredited levee systems and setting flood insurance rates for areas behind them. It prohibits FEMA from designating areas protected by accredited levee systems as special flood hazard areas or imposing mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements in such areas. It also establishes an appeals process for communities disputing FEMA's assessment of levee protection or residual risk.
Sec. 301, Title III
Forbearance on NFIP Interest Payments
This section prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from charging FEMA interest on amounts borrowed by the NFIP that were outstanding as of the date of enactment, for a 5-year period. The amounts that would have accrued as interest during this period are instead to be deposited into the National Flood Mitigation Fund to support mitigation activities.
Sec. 302, Title III
Cap on Write Your Own (WYO) Company Compensation and Agent Commissions
This section caps the reimbursement paid to Write Your Own (WYO) property and casualty insurance companies for selling, writing, and servicing flood insurance policies at no more than 22.46% of the aggregate premiums charged. It also mandates that WYO companies pay their agents a commission of not less than 15% of the aggregate premiums sold by the agent.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Rebuttable Presumption for Foundation and Structural Damage (Earth Movement Fix)
This section establishes a rebuttable presumption that physical or structural damage to a foundation was *not* caused by earth movement if flood caused direct physical change to the structure and the damage was not present before the flood. Insurers can only rebut this presumption with an engineering report meeting new FEMA standards, clearly demonstrating the damage was caused by earth movement unrelated to flood forces like hydrostatic pressure, buoyancy, hydrodynamic force, or scouring.
Sec. 404, Title IV
Independent Office for Policyholder Appeals and Judicial Review Reform
This section establishes an Independent Office for Policyholder Appeals within FEMA to provide a non-adversarial administrative review of denied flood insurance claims. Policyholders must exhaust this appeals process before filing a civil action. The Office must issue final decisions within 90 days of receiving all necessary information, with interest accruing on successful claims if deadlines are missed. It also reforms judicial review, clarifying that the Administrator's appeal disposition is not competent evidence of liability in court.
Sec. 406, Title IV
Policyholders' Right to Know: Disclosure of Claims Documents and Technical Assistance Reports
This section mandates that FEMA provide policyholders with true, complete, and unredacted copies of all claim file documents and technical assistance reports (e.g., engineer reports) within one week of a written or online request. It also requires WYO companies and direct servicing agents to affirmatively notify claimants of their right to obtain these documents within 30 days of a claim notice.
Sec. 408, Title IV
Deadline for Claim Processing
This section establishes a 60-day deadline for FEMA to make an initial determination and provide notification regarding approval or disapproval of a flood insurance claim after receiving a proof of loss. This period can be extended by an additional 30 days under extraordinary circumstances. If the deadline is not met, the claim amount will be increased with interest, accruing from the initial claim filing date.
Sec. 416, Title IV
Disclosure of Flood Risk Information Prior to Transfer of Property
Beginning September 30, 2024, new flood insurance coverage under the NFIP will not be provided for real property unless the relevant public body (state or local government) has imposed a statutory or regulatory duty on sellers or lessors (for leases over 30 days) to provide a property flood hazard disclosure. This disclosure must include actual knowledge of prior flood damage, insurance claims, repetitive loss designations, federal insurance obligations, wetland location, elevation certificates, and prior disaster assistance.
Establishes a rebuttable presumption that physical or structural damage to a foundation was not caused by earth movement if flood caused direct physical change to the structure and the damage was not present before the flood. Insurers must provide an engineering report meeting new FEMA standards to rebut this, specifically demonstrating the damage was not caused by various flood forces (hydrostatic, buoyancy, hydrodynamic, scouring).
Sec. 401(a)(1), National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Section 1312(d)
Why it matters:The technical nature of insurance policy exclusions and engineering definitions often leads to complex legislative language. This level of detail is standard for addressing specific legal ambiguities in insurance contracts.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in flood insurance claims, where insurers often denied foundation damage by attributing it to earth movement, even when floodwaters were clearly involved. It aims to ensure policyholders receive fair coverage for flood-related damage and reduces the burden of proof on them.
Case against: Critics, particularly from the insurance industry, might argue that this shifts an undue burden of proof onto insurers and could expand NFIP coverage beyond its intended scope, potentially increasing program costs. They may contend it makes it harder to distinguish between flood and non-flood related earth movement damage.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant impact on the adjudication of thousands of flood claims involving foundation and structural damage, potentially increasing NFIP payouts for such claims.
Conditions the provision of *new* flood insurance coverage under the NFIP, after September 30, 2024, on state or local governments having imposed a statutory or regulatory duty on sellers/lessors of improved real estate to provide a comprehensive property flood hazard disclosure. This disclosure must cover prior flood damage, insurance claims, repetitive loss status, federal insurance obligations, wetland location, elevation certificates, and previous disaster assistance.
Sec. 416, National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Section 1327
Why it matters:This structure is a common legislative tactic to incentivize state action without directly imposing a federal mandate that might face constitutional challenges or stronger political opposition. The delayed effective date provides states time to comply.
Case for: Supporters argue that this provision is a crucial step towards ensuring transparency in real estate transactions, protecting buyers and renters from hidden flood risks. It empowers individuals with vital information to make informed decisions and encourages greater awareness and mitigation of flood hazards at the local level.
Case against: State and local governments may view this as an unfunded federal mandate, imposing significant administrative and legislative burdens to create and enforce new disclosure laws. Real estate industry groups might express concerns about potential impacts on property values or transaction complexity in flood-prone areas.
Estimated impact: Will require legislative or regulatory action in potentially all states and many local jurisdictions to ensure continued access to new NFIP policies for their residents, impacting real estate markets nationwide.
Prohibits the use of State or Tribal government revolving loan funds for flood mitigation to improve residential properties with an appraised value not less than 125% of the conventional mortgage limit for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, or for the direct benefit of a homeowner whose annual household adjusted gross income during the previous fiscal year was not less than $200,000 (adjusted annually).
Sec. 207, National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Section 1326(c)(2)(E)(iii) and (iv)
Why it matters:These are specific eligibility restrictions designed to target federal assistance to lower-income and less affluent properties, often placed in detailed program rules to avoid broader political debate on means-testing or wealth limits.
Case for: Supporters argue these restrictions ensure that federal mitigation funds are directed towards those most in need and prevent wealthier property owners from disproportionately benefiting from subsidized loans. It aligns with the bill's overall goal of affordability and equity.
Case against: Critics might argue that these income and property value caps could exclude some middle-income homeowners or properties that, while valuable, still face significant flood risk and could benefit from mitigation. They may contend it limits the overall impact of mitigation efforts by excluding certain properties.
Estimated impact: Limits the pool of eligible properties and homeowners for the new revolving loan funds, directing resources to lower-value properties and lower-income households.