A Deluge of Complaints: In October, the effects of a law that eliminated the National Flood Insurance Program’s rate subsidies for second homes and repetitively flooded residences began to hit home with policyholders, causing uproar among lawmakers and residents.

Although the plan to eliminate the subsidies had been in place for more than a year, many home and business owners were caught off guard by the increases, the New York Times wrote at the time.

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was the result of a lengthy effort to reform the NFIP, which is financially unsustainable; it also encourages risky development in floodplains, according to many experts. The act, which was signed into law in July 2012, extended the often-renewed program for five more years while mandating changes meant to bring the flailing insurance scheme in line with actual risk-based premiums.

Many of the changes were rolled out gradually, but those that affected policyholders the most began earlier this year. Rate increases for second homeowners were implemented on January 1 and subsidies for business and severe repetitive loss properties ended on October 1.

The pending termination of the subsidies amount to an increase in premiums by 25 percent per year until rates reflect the full risk, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administrates the program.

It’s difficult to understand how people thought the NFIP, which subsidizes below-market insurance rates for roughly 1 million property owners, would become solvent without a significant increase in the long discounted policies, however, the end result was a call to arms against the hikes. Even the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Maxine Waters, was incensed.

“[I am] outraged by the increased costs of flood insurance premiums that have resulted from the Biggert-Waters Act,” Waters said in a statement in Time. “I certainly did not intend for these types of outrageous premiums to occur for any homeowner.”

Wavering on Policy: Congress last week passed legislation that will remedy the financial burden for policyholders.

The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act, passed on March 13, rolls back policy increases from 25 percent to 15-18 percent. It also reinstates a grandfather clause that allows homes in compliance with previous flood maps to maintain their risk rating even when updated maps show they are more susceptible to flooding, according to the Associated Press.

It also directs FEMA to attempt to keep premiums at no more than one percent of the value of coverage (but does not mandate it). A requirement of the Biggert-Waters Act that reset homes to their actual actuarial rate upon a change in ownership was also repealed.

Waiting on Shore: While the sting of higher rates will be eased for policyholders, the effects on the NFIP, which is currently estimated to be $30 billion in debt, remains to be seen. Although the Biggert-Waters intention of eventually making the NFIP self sufficient and actuarially sound has been retained, it’s likely to take much longer.

“We've solved a very short-term problem and made it a long-term problem," Sen. Tom Coburn told the Mississippi Press. "We didn't really do our work because we were in such a hurry to take the political pressure off of the increases in the flood insurance rates.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists has also decried removing the teeth from Biggert-Waters. The organization pointed out that more extreme storms and sea level rise will almost certainly put more stress on the beleaguered flood insurance program. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, took a similar stance.

"Reducing rates does not reduce risk. In fact, it reduces incentives to mitigate that risk. And they extended the subsidies on the backs of policyholders paying full freight," he told the Mississippi Press. “While politically expedient today, this abdication of responsibility by Congress is going to come back and bite them and taxpayers when the next disaster strikes. Everyone knows this program is not fiscally sound or even viable in the near term.”