One bill, the “Responsible Implementation of Flood Insurance Reform Act,” would delay the reform provisions of the 2012 flood law by a minimum of two years.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and David Vitter, R-La.

And Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said today, “We are making important progress on the Senate side to fix this problem,” that is, indefinitely delay rate increases imposed through Sec. 207 of the 2012 law.

The industry executive, though, says, “It is incredibly difficult for ratepayers and agents to deal with the uncertainty caused by legislators seeking to roll back rate increases already scheduled to go into effect.”

Moreover, the executive says members of Congress who strongly support the effort to put the National Flood Insurance Program on a sound financial footing “are in a position to block any changes.”

The insurance industry is divided over whether the rate hikes should be rolled back.

Mike Becker, vice president of federal affairs for the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, says the Cochran-Vitter bill addresses key concerns while not eliminating the move toward risk-based rates.

Becker says PIA has real concerns that the phase-in of increased rates mandated by the 2012 law “imposes a considerable burden on homeowners.”

Becker adds that while PIA supports risk-based rates, “consumer affordability must be taken into consideration and the Vitter-Cochran bill takes steps in this regard.”

However, Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, reiterates NAMIC's concerns with amending the 2012 law, which provides five years of certainty for the NFIP.

“There's a reason reforms were passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year,” Grande says. “Hidden subsidies in NFIP premiums had made the program a burden on the taxpayers, while at the same time giving policyholders a false sense of security with regards to the risk they faced from flooding.”

He adds, “Seeking to delay the reforms would not address these problems, and would instead move the program back toward relying on taxpayer bailouts to cover its obligations and being unable to address the issue of repetitive loss properties.”