Well I just got off of the phone with what will probably be only the first of many calls in the coming month or two.
Apparently the "new" FEMA mapping has gone into effect in my home county and started to affect owners as of March and the banks are just starting to put the squeeze on home owners.
Just spoke with a fellow who is on a dead end street with about 20 houses on it. The small depression near the end of the street as shown on the quad sheet has overnight become a Zone A flood area and requires flood insurance for 14 of the 20 houses.
We have had some pretty massive flooding in the past several years. There was even claims of one storm being equivalent to the "500" year event. All of these houses had wet yards just like everyone else, but no flooding of the structures.
The fellow was told by a local community official that it was no big deal, just call the surveyor and have him do some paperwork and get it removed. As long as it is above 375 (the lake BFE), it is fine. Only problem is the quad sheet shows the nearest elevation line as 500'. I guess it is a simple matter of measuring the above 375' number and being done with it.
I'll follow up and see if the community or state have an actual BFE established, but I am not optimistic.
My opinion - Zone A w/o a BFE should not be allowed to be sketched on a map. If FEMA wants to put someone in a flood zone, they should have to provide an equally scientific basis for the area as will be required by the home owner to have the property removed.
You are preaching to the choir.
We went through the same foolishness starting about three years ago. New maps, new headaches. Apparently everyone in the money lending business was notified that every property in the county was in a flood zone. At least that's what it seemed like. Suddenly, people who had had mortgages on their home for many years were being told by their lenders they had to get flood insurance or prove that they did not have to get it. You can be sure that none of these people were happy when they called us. Then they became even more unhappy when they discovered it wasn't a simple $25 fix like some had been led to believe. Some, but not many, eventually became even more unhappy when it turned out they were in a flood zone and several feet too low. Most spent a bunch of money to prove they should not be forced to pay for flood insurance.
Some of the same is happening to many of my clients.
The one that is picking up never flooded land is the addition that the areas under their jurisdiction is extended 60ft beyond the flood limits.
It affects most every lake development that previously had 50ft setback boundaries in place.
Not one house or building would ever be flooded and yet they must now get the insurance when using government funding.
0.02
Jon,
In my county the new maps have a lot of Zone A along creeks. There is no way FEMA can justify scientifically why they drew what they drew. The biggest problem I see is that the maps are not inherently consistent. Some areas that flood are out and some that do not are in. It is somewhat arbitrary. The companies that the banks hire to interpret the maps have no incentive to be accurate about an already inaccurate document. It's really Kafka-esque stuff.
I've been able to establish a regular contact via email with the Div. of Water to get BFE's in Zone A. Can't vouch for the data accuracy but if you're interested I can give you his email.
Kevin
I'm sure you've heard about the situation in my county with FEMA. After the 2011 flooding, where a few homes below the dam were flooded, the county elected to participate. The new maps had 70+ homes above the dam mapped below 375, when it's illegal to build below 378. Same deal, lenders requiring flood insurance or a survey to prove you don't need it. County judge swears he was told and has seen documentation where there is a process for reimbursement of survey costs if the maps are proved wrong, although now FEMA denies it. There are some proceedings taking place now to try to get them reimbursed.
"...they should have to provide an equally scientific basis..."
Good luck with that!! The whole operation of FEMA is a joke, one of the biggest fraudulent operations I've ever seen.
i was told a couple of weeks ago by my County Engineer, aka County Floodplain Administrator, that older structures that have been grandfathered in at lower flood insurance rates are going to be brought up to current actuarial(sp) rates and that surveyors better gear up for EC's so that new rates can be applied. lemons to some, lemon aid to others.
> "...they should have to provide an equally scientific basis..."
>
> Good luck with that!! The whole operation of FEMA is a joke, one of the biggest fraudulent operations I've ever seen.
I agree, good luck with that. We have numerous instances of having to determine the BFE in a zone A with no designated BFE. While it is substantially more work for us, the clients end up paying for something the government should have already addressed at a professional level instead of some arbitrary line on a map.
Speaking of FEMA, we have been working on a LOMA for about 4 months now. The LOMA includes removal of a portion of a very very large riverfront parcel. We are currently on re-submittal number 5! Apparently FEMA subcontracts the review of LOMAs to a company that shall not be named. It is also apparent that the fresh out of college girl I have spoken with on numerous occassions has absolutely no clue what she is doing. First, they couldn't accept a title report for ownership....evidently there is a check box that says 'deed of property'. The problem is that this proeprty has changed and evolved dozens of times since the early 1900s when the property was purchased so there is no 'deed' describing the property which is why we ordered a title report. We finally got the deed/report thing squared away and then they decided that a call of xxx feet more or less to the west line of the section in my description of the LOMA parcel was a red flag because we absolutely need to know where the section line is to approve a LOMA! More field work commenced and we appeased the all-mighty. Then they come back and say they need more elevation data....which we already had so we simply updated the maps.....and then she decided that since I had two areas combined in one description with a 'together with' call that this was now suddenly unacceptable. So we revised them to appease the 'all-mighty' once more. Now we are waiting again.
I can accept a certain amount of governmental bureacracy but this is ridiculous and very expensive for our client. It would also be nice if FEMA could review the document ONCE instead of coming up with new issues during each of the resubmittals!
I kind of highjacked the thread but this is certainly pertinent to FEMA flood mapping.
> >and then she decided that since I had two areas combined in one description with a 'together with' call that this was now suddenly unacceptable. So we revised them to appease the 'all-mighty' once more. Now we are waiting again.
Just wait...they will re-write your metes and bounds description into a metes only description...and tell you that is how to write a 'metes and bounds' description.
DDSM:beer:
And don't forget, this is a golden opportunity for the banks to finally checks all those little boxes they ignored during the closing.
Our county recently received our "new" FEMA maps. Almost immediately the calls started. About half of the structures the bank says are now in the flood zone were in the flood zone on the old maps, just nobody bothered to check.
