Here is suggestion that many might disagree with who are in favor of strong effective floodplain management. Yet it is based on the long run which is the way the NFIP should be evaluated. 42 years still too short a period of record to determine the programs efficacy in accomplishing its purposes. And if flood walls in NOLA had not collapsed due to federal, States and their local governments negligence the NFIP would not be so far in debt. So here is the proposal:
The NFIP is composed of several statutes all codified at 42 USC Section 4001 and following. All are part of Chapter 50 of TITLE 42 captioned "National Flood Insurance"!
Current section 4023 reads as follows:
"No new flood insurance coverage shall be provided under this Chapter for any property which the Director finds State or local zoning authority, or other authorized public body, to be in violation of STATE or local laws, regulations, or ordinances which are intended to discourage or otherwise restrict land development or occupancy in floodprone areas"
Here is my suggested rewrite (and note this could be done administratively by delegation of NFIP authority to each Governor thereby avoiding a need for legislation):
NO NEW FLOOD INSURANCE OR RENEWAL OF FLOOD INSURANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR FEMA FOR ANY PROPERTY REPORTED TO FEMA BY ANY GOVERNOR THAT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THAT GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGATE TO BE IN VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR ORDINANCES THAT ARE INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE OR OTHERWISE RESTRICT HAZARDOUS DEVELOPMENT OR OCCUPANCY OF FLOODPRONE AREAS."
Over time FEMA and the states would be able to determine what states and their local governments are worthy of federal subsidy for existing structures in return for restrictions on future hazardous development.