Federal Lawsuit Alleges FEMA’s Flood Insurance Program Threatens Protected Oregon Fish Species

A federal lawsuit filed on Thursday, led by four conservation groups, contends that the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) poses a significant threat to Oregon’s ecosystems and endangers the survival of 17 protected species.

PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — Conservation organizations initiated legal action against the federal government on Thursday, citing concerns over the implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program, which they claim is causing destruction to Oregon’s natural habitats and placing 17 species, safeguarded under the Endangered Species Act, at risk.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, focuses on FEMA’s continued operation of the National Flood Insurance Program in Oregon. This program has provided affordable flood insurance to five million U.S. property owners through government support. However, its future hangs in the balance, as it is scheduled to expire on September 30 unless lawmakers in Washington, D.C. approve its extension for the upcoming year.

Despite its intended mission to encourage “sensible land use that minimizes the exposure of built structures to flood damage,” conservationists argue that the program in Oregon has, in reality, incentivized floodplain development in high-hazard areas. They claim that the provision of insurance policies has obscured the risk for property owners while offering taxpayer-subsidized, discounted coverage.

The conservation groups also assert that the program is causing significant harm to ecosystems, particularly affecting some of Oregon’s most iconic species. According to the lawsuit, FEMA’s program promotes floodplain development that impacts the quantity and quality of fish habitats used for migration, spawning, and rearing, thereby increasing mortality rates and threatening species with extinction.

These allegations gain support from FEMA’s failure to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service until 2009, following a previous lawsuit. Subsequently, the marine agency issued a biological opinion in 2016, which concluded that FEMA’s insurance program operations in Oregon were endangering 15 salmonid species, the distinct population segment of the Pacific eulachon, and salmon-dependent Southern Resident orcas.

The biological opinion highlights the consequences of floodplain development, emphasizing that it can disrupt the natural connections between river channels and floodplains and destroy riparian and wetland vegetation. Altering these natural processes can negatively impact various stages of the salmon life cycle, hampering their survival and long-term recovery.

The plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity noted that U.S. Fish and Wildlife has requested FEMA to update its outdated flood maps, establish new criteria to restrict floodplain development, and mitigate harm during development while enhancing reporting and enforcement. However, these requests have allegedly been ignored for more than seven years.

Environmental protection groups claim that FEMA has not only disregarded the biological opinion but has also refused to comply with six essential elements that would bring the program into compliance or implement alternative protective measures to prevent harm to species and critical habitat.

Bob Sallinger, urban conservation director for the plaintiff Willamette River, stated, “Rather than complying with the law, FEMA has chosen to stall and delay urgently needed reforms of its National Flood Insurance Program.” He further noted that despite the necessity for reforms being apparent since 2016, FEMA remains years away from compliance. As a result, floodplain productivity continues to decline, habitats degrade, and endangered species face an ongoing threat to their existence, as outlined in the complaint, which concludes that the government has violated the biological opinion’s incidental take statement and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Center attorney Chelsea Stewart-Fusek expressed frustration, saying, “It’s absurd and illegal that FEMA chooses to ignore commonsense flood insurance reforms designed to protect imperiled marine mammals and fish.” She emphasized that many of these species are on the brink of extinction and criticized FEMA for prioritizing business as usual over the protection of vital floodplain ecosystems.

Northwest Environmental attorney Mary Stites stressed the importance of safeguarding floodplains, which she described as “biodiversity hotspots with highly complex, functional habitat systems.” Stites explained that once these areas are developed, the ecosystem benefits of habitat function, water-quality protection, and flood and drought mitigation are lost, exacerbating environmental and socio-economic impacts and exposing vulnerable communities to disasters. She called for FEMA to act on a plan that would result in effective floodplain management.

As of the time of reporting, representatives of FEMA had not responded to requests for comment or an interview.