I haven't been involved in this, but here's the story according to the local news.
My county did not participate in the Flood Insurance Program. a good portion of Barkley Lake (Cumberland River impounded by Barkley Dam) lies withing the county, with hundreds of waterfront lots. Barkley is a Corps Lake. When impounded, the Corps purchased land to elev. 367 and got a flowage easement for flooding up to elev. 378. No structures can be built below 378. Top of the dam is 375. Downstream of the dam are some homes that were flooded in the spring flooding of 2011, so the county decided to join the flood insurance program.
When the maps were published this year, they indicated that the flood zone elevation above the dam was 375. However, the 375 line drawn on the maps on many of the lakefront lots show parts of the houses and buildings being in the flood zone. In turn, the mortgage holders on about 75 of those homes contacted the owners requiring them to get flood insurance. Apparently, they will not consider the Corps rule that nothing can be built below 378. They are requiring the owners to pay for surveys to prove they are not in the flood zone. According to the local paper, several did that, and none were below 378. The county officials, as well as the US senators, have not had any luck in getting this corrected. Apparently, according to the senators, there was supposed to be some rule that if the maps were in error, the owners would be reimbursed for the costs of proving it, but FEMA says it does not have money for that. So, in the end, the county opted back out of the program, and says it is going to sue FEMA for the costs so far.
I've done several large subdivision here in the past, and always show where the easement line is. If there is any indication of an encroachment during construction, the Corps will require some proof.
Don't turn this political. Wondering if anybody else has been in a situation like this, and how was it handled?
Wait a minute. How do they get an easement three feet higher than the top of dam? Noah would float by if the water was that deep.
I suppose it's for head upstream. Barkley stretches for 40+ miles with the same easement.
The county I live in is under a similar situation because Cass County did not financially support the study and was not included. Everything is based upon the digital map locations and what the $25 report states.
What is impacting the owners around private lakes mostly is that under FEMA regulations they are including 60 feet horizontally beyond the former flood elevation until either the county or that lake homeowner association get a flood study and comes up with an approved plan to handle possible flood waters.
Some lakes have even come under the state's watchful eye to make improvements and have an approved plan based upon their lake system being able handle a 36 inch rain.
I have no idea where they come up with these figures. They really appear to be adding areas that would never have a flooding problem to add to their revenue sources.
>In turn, the mortgage holders on about 75 of those homes contacted the owners requiring them to get flood insurance. Apparently, they will not consider the Corps rule that nothing can be built below 378.
What would happen if they didn't get the survey?
There's already a binding contract for the mortgage right?
(Actual questions, not rhetorical)
I'm guessing since there was no flood insurance requirement when the county didn't participate that there's some language in there to require it if they do participate.
> >In turn, the mortgage holders on about 75 of those homes contacted the owners requiring them to get flood insurance. Apparently, they will not consider the Corps rule that nothing can be built below 378.
>
> What would happen if they didn't get the survey?
>
> There's already a binding contract for the mortgage right?
>
> (Actual questions, not rhetorical)
From what I've seen, the lender tells the mortgagee that he/she needs to either get flood insurance, get a LOMA or the lender will obtain flood insurance and will bill the mortgagee. I haven't looked at a lender's contract, but I have little doubt that it includes a clause regarding carrying all necessary insurances.
I've got the same problem along Kentucky Lake. TVA either has a flowage easement below the 376, below the 381, or owns the property in fee (it's complicated). The bottom line is that nothing can be built that can possibly be flooded. That doesn't matter to FEMA or to the insurance companies. I've done dozens of LOMAs on lakefront property. I would agree that someone needs to file a lawsuit.
I got three calls in one day a few weeks back about needing an elevation certificate in Lyon. Very unusual coming from Lyon.
After the second call, I looked online and sure enough there were the pretty new maps that were published a little earlier this year.
Even had you guys been participating before, when the new maps come out for some reason there is a sudden influx of "needing an elevation certificate". Calloway had been participating for years, the new maps have the same old flood line drawn in. The only difference is that there is now an aerial photo as a background. As soon as the new maps were accepted - lots of calls about suddenly being in a flood plain.
At least in Lyon it sounded like there was some action on the local level to look into it and see what they could do. There was even a brief report on the news one night.
A local city is paying for a lot of LOMAs due to new FIRMs showing houses which are several feet above the floodplain now in the floodplain. A consultant is doing the work.
According to the paper, FEMA claims there was a map review process for local comment but nobody commented. I never heard about it, but it's possible.
