The local politicians who signed off on the bill — Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Reps. Gregory Meeks and Carolyn McCarthy — have now backtracked and are involved in trying to put a short pause on the law to keep that from happening. They all say in their own way that Bigger-Waters seemed like a good idea at the time and was needed to keep the NFIP solvent. That all changed with Sandy.

But something has to be done. The NFIP is $24 billion in debt.

Congress has rightly figured out that the program of subsidies and grants from rebuilding after disasters cannot be sustained. Sandy proved that.

Some say that the problem is the “perverse incentive that results when the people who take the risk of building in flood prone areas do not assume the cost of that risk.

Of course, the normal, income-earning family cannot bear that burden alone. Without the federal insurance plan, many of the homeowners on the south shore of Queens and Long Island would have to pay $2,000 or $3,000 a month to insurance companies in order to keep their mortgage. That is not doable for most homeowners, even though some believe them to be fat cats protecting a vacation home.

Assemblyman Brian Curran, who represents some of the impacted communities, recently addressed the problem.

“There are thousands of Super Storm Sandy victims, including businesses, still waiting to receive the necessary funds through the NY Rising Program so they can move on with their lives,” said Curran. “Going forward with the implementation of the law would be detrimental to our progress on Long Island and is a step in the wrong direction. Once changes to the NFIP are made, flood insurance premiums will increase, therefore defeating the purpose of the NY Rising Program and the ability to get affordable flood insurance. If insurance premiums increase, no one will be able to afford flood insurance, even with NY Rising funds. I urge Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand to rally their colleagues’ support in the U.S. Senate and support S.1610 which delays implementation of Biggert-Waters.”

Biggert-Waters was passed to put the burden of rebuilding and paying for insurance on the homeowners, but that has now proven to be irrational and destabilizing.