New Orleans federal judge to hear arguments to pause FEMA Risk Rating 2.0

A federal judge will hear testimony in New Orleans Thursday as the Louisiana Attorney General's Office tries to halt FEMA's Risk Rating 2.0.

Attorney General Jeff Landry, Solicitor General Liz Murrill, 10 states, 43 parishes, 12 levee boards, and more will present arguments for an injunction against the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop Risk Rating 2.0 while the court process plays out. The hearing will be held Thursday morning in U.S. District Court Judge Darrel J. Papillion's Section P courtroom in New Orleans.

"At the end of the day, I think a lawsuit was always necessary, because FEMA has flatly refused to fix anything that they have openly acknowledged is broken, and it's frustrating, it's terrifying, for people who face potentially losing their homes," Murrill said. "And we are just beating our heads against a wall with a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who don't care - who have the audacity to claim that this is equity in action. It's the most absurd title for a program that is egregiously harmful to people."

FEMA has titled Risk Rating 2.0 "Equity in Action," which it says assesses each individual's risk. Local officials have said the maps FEMA uses to determine risk don't accurately reflect flood measures in place.

Papillion will hear from five witnesses Thursday: Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson, St. Charles Parish President Matt Jewell, Director of the Louisiana Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Casey Tingle, North Lafourche Levee District Director Dwayne Bourgeois and Lafourche Parish Assessor Wendy Thibodeaux.

The case against FEMA is based on multiple arguments, such as how flood insurance risk assessment is determined and the pricing for flood insurance that arises from it. Flood insurance is mandated for many residents in Terrebonne and Lafourche under the new program.

The new flood insurance program, named Risk Rating 2.0, increases prices by 17.9% a year, limited by law. The average total increase to Lafourche will be 321%, and for Terrebonne, 305%. The hardest hit parish is Plaquemines, which will see a 545% increase.

Houma resident Jerry Pitre said his home on Duval Street has never flooded. His flood insurance went for $0 to $2,500 a year. He bought the house four years ago for $125,000 as part of planning his retirement, now he is preparing to sell the home.

"The whole reason I bought this house is because I am 55 years old," he said. "I wanted to get it paid off, that way, when I retire, I wouldn't have a note. So now all my extra is going to wind up going to flood insurance, which, truth be told, if I ever need it, everyone Houma is going to be flooded."

Murrill, who is running for Attorney General, said this is indicative of the problem. The program is designed to offer flood insurance to people who can not afford it, she said, and also to promote floodplain management that would minimize risk.

How risk is being determined is shrouded in mystery, she and other officials have said, and it is not affordable for many people.

Allstate Agent Nicholas Hebert sells insurance in Houma, and he said the secrecy in how the risk is determined causes a problem for insurers. Insurers, he said, try to provide the most affordable coverage for consumers by making suggestions on how to minimize risk for their clients. Without knowing what FEMA is determining as a risk, insurers cannot properly inform their clients.

"One of the things we say on the property market side is, 'OK, rates are here, rates are based off risk exposure, how do we lower your risk exposure?,'" he said. "Things like fortified roofs, fortified construction, different construction techniques that you can do to your home to bring your risk exposure down, ultimately bringing your premium down. We can't do that on the flood side because we don't know what the algorithm has."

Lawmakers have asked how these risk factors were calculated, but they too have been denied access to the formula. Louisiana lawmakers in particular have requested access to the formula numerous times and have been vocal about their disapproval of the cold shoulder they've received.

More: Louisiana extends burn ban as wildfires blaze on and state remains 'ready to ignite'

More: Louisiana has never elected a Black governor. Will voters make history with Shawn Wilson?

“From day one, I have fought FEMA’s ill-conceived Risk Rating 2.0 because their process was secretive, unfair and, quite frankly, jeopardizes the stability of the entire National Flood Insurance Program," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in May. "It’s time for unelected FEMA bureaucrats to finally come clean and show homeowners the data and calculations behind Risk Rating 2.0 that have made flood insurance premiums so unaffordable for millions of families across America."

Lawmakers for their part have drafted bills to change this. Recently, a senior congressional aide indicated that additional oversight is likely, given FEMA's refusal to cooperate with initial inquiries.

Murrill said the NFIP program is supposed to incentivize state and local governments to implement flood management measures to minimize flooding and flood damage, and for these efforts would receive very affordable rates. Because of this, local governments have adopted ordinances to fit the program.

"And now the government has got this huge bait-and-switch where they are making massive changes to the program through the rate structure and acting like it doesn't hurt anybody," she said. "They are claiming that it doesn't hurt anybody because on average, nationally, they are claiming that it doesn't cost anybody more than $10 to $20 a month. That may be true if you live in Kansas, but it's not true here."

Murrill said that, according to documents filed by the federal government, it appears the government will claim it is obligated to operate more like a private insurance and make its costs more solvent.

She said private insurance exists, and that's not what NFIP was meant to be.

"What I have seen in the papers of what the federal government has filed is that they are claiming that they have an obligation to make it more like private insurance, the costs to be more aligned, that's absurd," she said. "That's not what the program was ever intended to be, if it was the same as private insurance, then we wouldn't need it at all."

This article originally appeared on The Courier: New Orleans judge to hear testimony on Risk Rating 2.0 injunction