Non-Licensed Practice - Flood Determinations

Several years ago, I sild my mother's house to settle the estate. I noticed when I reviewed the closing papers that I had paid a flood determination company in Texas $25.00 to do a flood determination. I checked and the firm did not have a COA with the board so I filled out the complaint, had it notarized and sent it to the board. I got a letter from the board about 2 weeks later stating that they had investigated and determined that there was not a violation. No other explanation just no violation. I may give up my license and start doing them when I retire.

I don't think looking at a FEMA map to determine whether or not a property is inside or outside of a shaded area requires a land surveying license. Where it gets tricky for the "flood determination" companies is when part of the property is in/out and they are not sure where the structure is on the property.

The newer maps have photo overlays, and digital versions with high-res photos that you can zoom right in on, so it's getting to be a "no-brainer" ... although some people are still screwing that up. I have one going on now, with brand new digital maps, where the house, on several acres, is clearly well outside of the flood zone. But way in the back is a horse stall that touches the flood zone. The geniuses at the bank, and their flood zone company, are demanding flood insurance because "the structure" touches the flood zone line .. nevermind that a horse stall isn't even covered by FEMA ...

The lady is fighting it, but she may break down and order an el cert because they are threatening her with all kinds of punitive actions if she doesn't get it.

But, you see, the insurance companies have billions upon billions of dollars with which to influence bureaucrats. Sort of like trying to get a railroad to do something. Money talks and BS walks.

I had a dandy call one evening many years ago from a woman when a flood determination company told her lender she was in a flood plain. Every bit of her property was on top of a high hill. She was not happy that she needed to hire me to prove to those nitwits that she was not in a flood plain. After about 15 minutes of conversation while I tried to figure out how in the world they could have screwed up so badly it finally hit me. They had the property description wrong on her paperwork. She owned something like the W2/W2/SW4 and the paperwork said she was in the E2/E2/SW4. About a forty foot change in elevation. Told her to tell them to do it over, but look at the correct property this time. She called back a few days later very happy to report that they even refunded her $25.

Jim, after a respectfull "wait", how about sending it to our new Gov, who would probably be happy to find a new revenue source that has been over-looked.

The FEMA policy on use of digital flood hazard data is clear. The geographic coordinates of the hazard lines rule. The section lines and improvements in the maps are not to be used in determining whether a structure is in or out.
I testified about this for 2 hours before our board. End result was they couldn't stop the practice. The form used is issued by FEMA and states it is not a final determination. The banks here are forcing owners to obtain a LOMA or get insurance anyway. FEMA had developed an in house procedure called LOMA OAS to deal with the problem.,

> The newer maps have photo overlays, and digital versions with high-res photos that you can zoom right in on, so it's getting to be a "no-brainer" ... although some people are still screwing that up.

Including FEMA. We have 18.75 cm (FVA) aerial Lidar and I have found dozens of properties erroneously placed in a flood zone. Some are close and tree canopy could explain the issue. Others are just clearly wrong. Now the home owners have to pay someone like me to prepare the LOMC (LOMA).

I usually explain to clients that these firms generally err on the side of caution and that it is better to have them read a map than a banker or a lawyer. A realtor would not even be mentioned.

FEMA knows the limitations of the maps and sets policy accordingly. The 'Flood Risk Determination Form' is simply a carryover of the 'flood letters' of the past. With 50 States and thousands of Surveyors doing them, FEMA wanted something standard.
What they didn't foresee was the 'flood letter mills' run by google jockeys churning them out by the thousands with no oversight whatsoever. Some of the more aggressive outfits are scanning the fringes of the SFHA and notifying lenders of 'at risk' loans. They offer monitoring as a service. Lenders are told that surveys showing their determinations as incorrect are 'FEMA violations' and a LOMA is the only answer.
In my opinion these people are predatory scum. Unfortunately it will take an effort few are willing to help with to change practice...

thebionicman, post: 304554, member: 8136 wrote: The FEMA policy on use of digital flood hazard data is clear. The geographic coordinates of the hazard lines rule. The section lines and improvements in the maps are not to be used in determining whether a structure is in or out.
I testified about this for 2 hours before our board. End result was they couldn't stop the practice. The form used is issued by FEMA and states it is not a final determination. The banks here are forcing owners to obtain a LOMA or get insurance anyway. FEMA had developed an in house procedure called LOMA OAS to deal with the problem.,

Would you be so kind as to point me in the direction of the FEMA policies regarding the use of digital flood hazard data? I can only find where they do not "regulate" the determination industry; pretty much washing their hands of it all.

IMVHO, the professionals can only estimate the high waterline and/or flood level as the latest event in Louisiana has proven.
I've seen cities and individuals knock out terrace and berms that eventually divert watersheds and flooded their neighbor's house during a heavy rainstorm in locations that were far above any threat elevation.
I've surveyed new homes where the contractor inadvertently landscaped the property and diverted all the watershed to the sliding glass doors that open to the backyard patio.
An associate is an attorney that specializes in this type of civil action and he is always very busy.
They do not give a license out for flood determination.
Nature is uncontrollable and every time something is constructed a watershed has changed.
[USER=12035]@Disappointed[/USER]
FEMA has made a map and set quidelines and left it up to whoever desires to sign their name on the forms to be responsible for whatever it is worth.
:bomb:

jwabbitt, post: 304538, member: 224 wrote: ..In my complaint today, I reminded the licensing board of the harsh penalties involved in non-licensed practice; amounting to fines up to $10,000 per violation. And the Statutes defines that each non-licensed act and each day the act continues is a new violation. The definition of practice includes the offer to perform or advertisement to perform surveying services; inclusive of websites.

With the dozens, or more, of "flood determination companies" in existence today the fines could total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars; if not millions. With a State is such financial disarray as IL, you would think such a windfall of fines would be of some interest. We shall see.

I wish I worked on the same planet as your licensing board. By statute our board really has no way to fine or punish non-licensees, only licensed individuals. I would like to get Oklahoma to copy the statute that allows a licensing board to assess 10K per day fines. You're right though, that would be a cornucopia of windfall gains for the State coffers.

The only recourse in Oklahoma is to turn the case over to our Attorney General. Fraud and Small Claims Court never really gets the attention of that office. I guess if there was some fraudulent activity that involved bilking millions of public funds AND it was an election year, the AG might try and martyr a case like that. Otherwise, pfffft... we're stuck with every carpet bagger outfit in the US down here.

paden cash, post: 388004, member: 20 wrote: Otherwise, pfffft... we're stuck with every carpet bagger outfit in the US down here.

Another case of; hitting the 'like' button just didn't seem felicitous...