They were preliminary determinations of flood risk based on record information. The form clearly stated what it was and what it wasn't. If the Bank thought the risk was there the owner could order an elevation certificate. The banks and insurer were not so dense as to refuse to relent and go with the certificate. Now we have the same form being prepared by Google Jockeys and it is assumed to be golden...
Looks like we have different issues, there really isn't a determination going on here, they just look at the GIS, and if it's in they make them get insurance. I don't think there is any special person who does it.
But, just like the "samples" of the old panels the new panels with only a Zone A are waaaaaaaay off at times, putting houses in that are clearly out. Not the bank's fault.
When the bank is shown that the house is out and they refuse to relent, who's fault is it?
Yeah, this county's maps are from 1983, they only show roads and some god awful rendering of section lines. They are being updated now, and the prelims are online, but not official. The new ones are overlayed onto aerials and also show the property outside of the flood zone. Oh yeah, and it was 3 feet above the nearest BFE when I did the el cert ...
7+8=?
Good point.
Cautious information would seem to be defined as cautiously erring on the safe side, but which side is safe?
If they err on the bank's side, it is in the floodplain, and the seller loses--is harmed.
If the err on the purchaser's side, the purchaser himself is harmed at some point down the road.
Bottom line is the release of a document with a known error if it is err on safe side. Exacerbates the problem.
7+8=?
Under the NFIP, the Bank is required to monitor who needs flood insurance and the Bank is required to get the Homeowner to comply or the Bank will lose Federal Backing.
So, when the Bank asks the question for thousands of properties, on which side do you think the company will err?
We get more work and sometimes we get to share good news with a homeowner.
I must say I haven't had that happen, if you get a LOMA I've had banks then want an elevation cert, but they have always relented.
It sounds like they aren't accepting the results, just how close were the elevations? Or they are wanting to dump the client, trying to force them to get another bank.
These are structures that are horizontally outside of the SFHA. I do the certificate showing zone X. I put the BFE adjacent to the structure in the comments section and fill in the rest. At that point it should be done. The banks force a LOMA or demand flood insurance regardless.
In the end the owners are getting hosed. FEMA does not say add your subjective buffer to the SFHA to cover your butt. Erring on the side of caution in this case is stealing. Folks who don't need the insurance are forced to buy it. Others are hit up for higher premiums for the overstated risk...
I sold my mothers house about 4 years ago and noticed in the closing papers that I paid a flood determination compny in Texas $25 for a flood determination. I went to all the trouble to file a formal complaint with the board, including having the complaint noterized. The board sent me a letter about 6 weeks later stating that they did not find a violation. Flood determination is covered under our law. But still no violation.
Bionic
"You should read the FEMA flood mitigation policy on use of digital flood hazard data. The use of improvements and Section lines to align a FIRM is not allowed. They will make an exception for older maps with no geographic coordinates or grid ticks."
Can you provide a reference for this? Did you mean to say that "The use of improvements and Section lines to align a PARCEL is not allowed?
In my part of the world EVERY parcel's "legal description" (required to be placed on the EC) is tied to the PLSS in one fashion or another - I HAVE to use the section lines to determine the parcel location...
