Mississippi lacks standing to sue the federal government forraising flood insurance premium rates, the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency said in its reply to a lawsuit seeking to stopthe rate hikes.

The state also has not demonstrated that it will suffer“imminent, irreparable injury” absent an immediate delay inimplementing the rate hikes, FEMA said in the brief it filed lateMonday in federal court in Gulfport, Miss.

The brief, and an accompanying motion seeking dismissal of thecase, comes as both houses of Congress consider actions that woulddelay the rate hikes.

A hearing on the issue was scheduled Tuesday by the HouseFinancial Services Committee, and efforts are underway by 23senators to attach legislation, S. 1610, to the bill reauthorizing theNational Defense Act that the Senate began debating Tuesday.

At the same time, Martha Coakley, Democratic attorney general ofMassachusetts, filed a friend of the court brief in the case. Thebrief supports not only Mississippi, but other coastal states, suchas Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and South Carolina, which have filedbriefs seeking to delay the rate hikes.

The FEMA brief was in response to a lawsuit filed by theMississippi Insurance Department on Sept. 26 seeking to delay therate increases, in some cases which raise rates exponentially.

The FEMA brief said the Mississippi lawsuit “does not take intoaccount” that

“Congress explicitly found” in enacting the law that imposed therate increases, that “ensuring the long-term financial stability ofthe National Flood Insurance Program was in the publicinterest.”

The FEMA brief said the provisions of the 2012 law that thelawsuit challenges are meant to further this goal by transitioningsubsidized rates to actual risk-based rates for certainproperties.

“Enjoining the implementation of these sections would contravenenot only the language of [the law], but Congress's intent inpassing the law.”

The FEMA reply brief also said that Mississippi “significantlydownplays the deleterious effects” that granting a preliminaryinjunction would have on the NFIP.

The brief said FEMA began implementing certain portions of theprovision Mississippi seeks to delay implementation of, Sec. 205 ofthe Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of2012, “after many months of planning.”

The FEMA brief said it would take “many months more” for FEMA toreverse this implementation, and the NFIP would face increasedcosts as a result.

The Coakley brief makes different points than the other amicusbriefs submitted to the court. The brief alleges FEMA failed tocollect accurate data before rolling out its new rates.

Moreover, the brief said, “These new rates will devastate manyfamilies and businesses throughout Massachusetts.”

“The federal government should delay these changes until FEMAhas followed all the steps required by law,” Coakley said.

“In setting these new flood insurance rates, FEMA not onlyfailed to evaluate their economic impact, but also failed to gatherall the data required to ensure the new rates are accurate,” thebrief said.

In addition to failing to weigh the known consumer harm, thebrief said that “FEMA ignored the opportunity to use tools providedby Congress,” and has engaged in “bureaucratic ostrichheadedness.”