Flood Flub

Friday, January 10, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) works with communities to develop flood zone maps. Too often, properties with zero history of flooding are inaccurately mapped as located in a flood zone, while in truth they are not.

In my experience, Santa Barbara’s flood department has knowledge of critical property elevation information that can justify, or not, the expense of a professional survey, which is the only way for anyone to establish flood zone accuracy. As it stands, inaccurate flood-zone mapping forces years and decades of unnecessary flood insurance premiums, which no one refunds if a property is found to actually be outside a flood zone.

Speaking about an area of Long Island that had the wrong map overlaid on it, Senator Chuck Schumer concluded, “They’ve got to revamp the whole program; it’s one big mess. What we’re trying to say to FEMA is: Stop. Stop and come up with a better way to do this, not using wrong maps to include people in flood insurance who are never going to have a flood.”

For the county, having properties correctly located outside flood zones would mean they pay property taxes based on their true market value.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

I know someone who owns a house at the *top* of Samarkand who is in a flood zone from Mission Creek that is 100 feet below and flat on the other side so all the flooding would go towards Cottagd Hospital.


realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's the insurance lobby.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Upon further thought, forcing someone to have Flood Insurance on their home seems like overreach en totale. Why? A house isn't going to be driven by a drunk driver, a house isn't going to run a red light or get rear ended at a stop like an automobile would.
No doubt every homeowner would love to be covered for any calamity at any time. But if someone chooses not to insure or cannot afford to insure (against flood) a nonrental property then that should be an option they have on the table. And if their property is well out of the way of a common sense flood zone then it becomes extortion IMHO.
Back to my original comment, gotta be the insurance company lobby.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 10, 2014 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: