City/FEMA floodmap appeal process.

[stgeek]

State: California, County: Ventura, City: Moorpark

Here is the deal. I am a homeowner in Moorpark. In 2005 I received a letter stating that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would be updating their flood maps. My house was, and still is for a while, in a 500 year flood plain (zone C). Per law, unless owners have their mortgages paid off, people are required to maintain flood insurance if any part of their home is within a 100 year flood zone. Once the preliminary maps from FEMA were released, my home was clearly NOT within the newly enlarged 100 year flood zone, however MANY homes were added (a total of 30% of Moorpark) to the larger 100 year flood zone. Also a very large lot of undeveloped land, that is owned by two developers who have been seeking to build homes, was labeld as a "floodway". A floodway is different from a flood plain because it essentially becomes part of the creek during a storm. It is almost impossible to permit building in a floodway.

So, the city was faced with two groups of people. The homeowners that were about to be placed INTO a 100 year flood plain and the developers that want to build homes on a potential floodway.

In January of 2006 Moorpark's engineering firm sited some issues with FEMA's maps and the city authorized $40,000 for the firm to file an appeal to FEMA to reduce the effects of the newly enlarged flood map. Up until now this was all publicly released information through mailings and the city council meetings and minutes.

After this, I find no record of the council authorizing this, the City filed two more appeals to FEMA. One of these appeals had engineering data that was paid for by the developers in question. I was able to find a staff report to the council stating that the developers paid $75,000 for this part of the appeal. The fact that these developers were collaborating with the city staff was not made public.

Time went on and finally, in 2008 new preliminary flood maps were issued by FEMA. For these maps, the city made no effort to notify the public. FEMA says they put a notice in the federal register and put a notice in the local newspaper. This may be all the reporting FEMA is required to do but obviously people will not notice this. The point is that the city didn't do anything to allow affected people to question, comment, or fund their own appeal.

More time when on. In October of this year the city sent out letters to all homeowners who were now newly placed within the "final" FEMA floodmaps. These new flood maps supposedly removed 500 homes (although this is disputed) and ADDED 410 homes including mine. In addition, the ENTIRE floodway that the developers wanted to build homes on was changed to being merely a flood plain. They can build homes and the new homeowners will have to pay for flood insurance. When I talked to the city they said there was no time for any additional appeals and the new maps would take effect on Jan 20, 2010.

The city engineer stated that the Engineering firm (for three appeals, even the one that was paid for by the developers) made the argument that a portion of flood waters flowing through the creek that goes through Moorpark would actually spill out earlier upstream from where the floodway was to flood. Thus, the floodway area could be recategorized. But the result of the theoretical spillage upstream would mean that other areas would then be theoretically flooded that FEMA didn't realize in their analysis.

It is as if the central goal of the appeal to FEMA was centered around changing the floodway (no building allowed) to a flood plain (building allowed).

The gripe I have, and I realize I may not have a leg to stand on, was that the city:

1. Did not announce their collaboration with the two developers to appeal to FEMA. Only the initial $40,000 was talked about in a public meeting. The additional $75,000 funding that the city accepted from the developers was never disclosed to the public until after the fact in the report to city staff (buried in the city's website). This notification noted only that the floodway was eliminated and the 500 homes were removed from the flood plain. It failed to state that 410 NEW homes were added.

2. Did not alert homeowners that were added to the flood plain as a result of the city and developer appeals. These folks (myself included) had assumed that because the prelim maps didn't place our homes within the 100 year flood zone and that the city didn't notify us or anyone else concerning these new maps, we would not be affected. We could have attended every city council meeting and we would have never heard of this until we received letters telling us about the "final" maps.

Flood insurance costs will be around $900 to $1000 per home. This assumes people take advantage of the National Flood Insurance Program grandfathering program. We will have to pay around $400 for the first year (after buying insurance before the new maps become effective), and the rates will go up to $900 to $1000 after that. This, obviously, affects the resell value of all of our homes. At current mortgage rates, $1000 per year buys about $20,000 worth of real estate. So it is fair to say that our homes will be worth at least $20,000 less. That is price we have to pay.

The developers and city stand to make a lot of money once the land, that "was" going to be a floodway, is developed into homes.

This has become a very heated issue in the other cities in the county. Oxnard has similar issues and there are homeowners there that have hired a lawyer. Although they tact they seem to be taking is suing FEMA directly.

What, if any, chances do we have to file suit against the city? I believe our case is different from Oxnard because the public was not made aware the fact that third parties (the developers) were planning to change the flood maps they way "they" wanted them changed. I did talk to a FEMA engineer. He said that all appeals to prelim flood maps have to use certain engineering "models", that FEMA accepts, to be considered. He also said there are a variety of models can be used and it is certainly possible to other engineering firms could use approved models to obtain different results in the appeal. I feel that there is certainly the chance that the "model" that the city's engineering firm used was carefully chosen to be most advantageous to the developers because they had paid for the study. I believe that that this may have had a damaging effect on the homeowners who were not placed within the original, FEMA engineered, flood plain but were placed in the final plain that had changed because of the appeals.

It may be that the developer's paid enough money to essentially "move" the theoretical flood water AWAY from the proposed development and TO our home.

What you guys think?

Here are some links:

"http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/01/flood-zone-surprise-moorpark/"

"http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/02/moopark-residents-may-get-help-with-flood-map/"

"http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/nov/05/county-officials-ask-fema-to-extend-deadline-on/"

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give...

[email]stgeek2009@yahoo.com[/email]What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[John Se]

there is obviously some risk the debate is about how much

[drewguy]

What would a suit against the city accomplish?

You need to challenge FEMA's revision of the flood maps. The basis for that would be an argument that the decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on your claimed lack of actual basis for redrawing them.

This is an administrative law issue, not a property issue. Generally pretty much any administrative decision of this sort can be challenged, but often you have only a limited period in which to do so.

[154NH773]

I feel that there is certainly the chance that the "model" that the city's engineering firm used was carefully chosen to be most advantageous to the developers because they had paid for the study.

This is just speculation on your part, and certainly biased to some degree from the impact on you personally.

Take a step back and be realistic, you feel no differently than the developer that found themselves in a floodway.

Without your own engineering study, however; it is all just opinion.

Drewguy is correct, you must challenge the engineering data upon which the designation is based.