Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LSU researchers show master plan land‑building could lower modeled flood premiums; NFIP recognition remains a hurdle
Summary
LSU researchers presented models estimating that coastal master plan land‑building could reduce modeled flood insurance premiums by roughly $150 million in a sample future year, but cautioned savings depend on FEMA recognizing landscape changes in its rating factors.
LSU researchers on May 20 told the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board that simulations of coastal master plan land‑building indicate measurable reductions in flood insurance premiums and improved affordability in many coastal neighborhoods — but stressed major caveats about whether FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program will recognize local levees and land‑building improvements in its risk calculations.
LSU researcher Mr. Freeman described a modeling effort that reverse‑engineered FEMA’s geographic rating factors to estimate premiums across the coast and then applied master‑plan land‑building scenarios. In a higher‑stress simulation year, modeled coastal premiums without plan action reached about $1.9 billion; with assumed plan implementation (and FEMA recognition of land changes), modeled premiums fell to about $1.66 billion in the same simulation, implying a net premium savings in that scenario of about $150 million.
"If the land‑building activities are recognized by FEMA, we estimate material premium savings in many areas," Mr. Freeman said, noting the results assume FEMA will incorporate the plan’s land changes into its rating inputs.
Why it matters: board members and presenters agreed that the practical benefit for homeowners depends on how federal programs recognize levees, constructed land or revised shorelines. Several board members said FEMA’s current models often omit local levees in the national database or treat many southeast Louisiana areas as automatic 'bathtub' scenarios, limiting local premium reductions despite substantial local investments.
Policy implications: board members discussed engaging the state insurance commissioner and private underwriters, creating coalitions, and documenting local infrastructure clearly so it can be submitted to federal databases. Mr. Freeman and members noted potential complementary approaches: building codes, elevation standards, and private‑market options as near‑term tools to reduce homeowner exposure even if NFIP recognition lags.
Next steps: LSU researchers offered to share spatial data and model outputs with state officials and insurers; the board discussed convening further conversations with the state insurance commissioner and federal partners to seek recognition of levees and land‑building activities.
