I certainly understand. And I've had constituents myself who have been remapped and fallen into the flood plain and questionable areas a lot, to their frustration. And I understand the gentleman from Ohio's intent on his amendment. But I think it sort of opens the door a little too broadly and a little too widely. While the amendment that he is proposing helps property owners who seek to recoup their expenses of appealing the flood map, it provides for full reimbursement for any costs. There's no specification to what reasonable costs could be--but any cost. And I think this is too broad. I would prefer to see the amendment go back to the drawing board, reshape it, so that we can address the needs and the cost issues to our constituents but also make sure that we don't leave it so the door is so wide open that it would encourage in some possibilities maybe re-looking at it, overly expensive investigations into the flood mapping, without any kind of reasonable assurances that the costs that are incurred in challenging the maps would fall within a reasonable amount.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is discussing concerns about an amendment related to flood map appeals and reimbursement costs.
Share
More from Shelley Moore Capito
I was especially glad to see the progress on the new hospital tower, which represents an important investment in the future of health care in our community.
Small businesses are essential to our local economies and workforce across West Virginia. I have long been dedicated to pursuing policies that support economic development and was proud to deliver crucial tax relief for our small…
Trump accounts are an innovative way to provide financial backing for all American newborns, and this legislation makes it easier for West Virginia families to access that opportunity.
I’m proud to work with my colleagues to bring this reauthorization effort forward."





