It was a year of treading water for flood insurance leader
Roy Wright had a hell of a year. Chief of the National Flood Insurance Program, Wright is in charge of making sure the nation’s 5 million homeowners with flood insurance get paid. The program, an arm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is also supposed to help the country reduce flooding and flood damage. As deputy associate administrator for insurance and mitigation, Wright has been swamped by criticism — taxpayer advocates, watchdogs and lawmakers have attacked the program as an inefficient and ineffective money-waster almost since Congress authorized it in 1968. Legislators floated several reform bills in 2017, but none passed; the efforts will almost certainly restart this year. Wright was also in charge of federal insurance response for three hurricanes last year — Harvey hit Houston at the end of August; Irma swept across southern Florida in September; Maria devastated Puerto Rico just days later. Wright, a California native, was appointed to his position in 2013. He holds a bachelor of arts in political science from Azusa Pacific University, northeast of Los Angeles, and a master of public administration from George Washington University, in Washington. Roy and his family live in northern Virginia.
Q: Congress authorized the National Flood Insurance Program in 1968. Is it living up to its authors’ intentions?
A: It’s a 50-year-old program. Anything that’s 50 years old has to change. The nation’s population in 1968 was something like 200 million people. It’s now more than 300 million.
Q: Have there been substantial reforms?
A: In 1994, Congress put teeth behind the requirement that certain homeowners buy national flood insurance, fining mortgage companies that didn’t enforce the law. 2012, Congress tried to take away discounts for homes built before floodplain maps were drawn. But by 2014, Congress rolled back those price increases.
Q: You said you want to speed up the process through which FEMA buys out homes that have repeatedly flooded. But it hasn’t sped up. What’s happening?
A: I’m frustrated by the pace of getting buyouts done — no question. We have to address these multipleloss properties. Key pieces of this require legislation. However, we are continuing to work with local and state governments to implement acquisitions for flood-prone properties through our existing authorities.
Q: Why can’t FEMA make such changes
Q: In 2004, Congress created a pilot program to move, elevate, or buy out repetitive-loss homes. But members didn’t later renew it. What happened?
A: It didn’t work the way they wanted it to. It didn’t have quite the desired effect. Multiple losses need to be addressed. I’m not sure if a few “carpet-wetters” — floods of only an inch or so — are the driver. But FEMA actuaries say that a couple of $10,000 claims at one house portend larger ones to come.
Q: Have you made suggestions to Congress?
A: We have made proposals related to multiple losses, including that we shouldn’t be insuring extreme repetitiveloss properties. Q: What else can you do? ordinances — it survived. The nature of how communities develop is driven by many factors.
Q: Are you working with Congress as it tries to fix the program now?
A: Throughout the past year, FEMA has been engaged with the administration in creating a clear list of changes the program requires. I expressed programmatic priorities in my testimony before Congress last March, transmitted a specific list to Congress in October, and have continued to engage with congressional stakeholders all year long. While there’s a lot of push and pull as we collaborate with Congress, the authority to change the laws ultimately rests in their hands.