Prineville, Ore. Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 -- The city of Prineville, Oregon, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information on the National Flood Insurance Program's Floodplain Management Standards for Land Management and Use, and an Assessment of the Program's Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species and Their Habitats ". The comment was posted on Oct.29, 2021:

* * *

The following are my comments on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), broken down by topic.

Administration - Administering the NFIP program at a local level is costly particularly to smaller communities. Many smaller communities do not have personnel dedicated to that program. Code enforcement in general tends to be a challenge. As such, development in the floodplain; that does not require a local building permit typically has no enforcement.

Building Standards - These standards need to be in the building code only, not in some code document in a Planning Department. There needs to be a clear understanding of who is required to keep Flood Elevation Certificates. In my opinion a planning department can require them and should receive a copy for their file, but as a function of building a structure; it should be the responsibility of the building departments to require and keep the flood certificates.

Land use - At least in Oregon, updates to the flood code and flood maps require excessive land use approvals, hearings and adoption by ordinances that serve no purpose other than making it more difficult to administer the program. If a community doesn't opt out of the program then it is agreeing to the minimum standards and mapping. The flood mapping is created scientifically based on surveys and modeling, it doesn't care where a property boundary is. Giving people an opportunity to challenge these maps in a local land use public hearing is meaningless. If a property owner believes the maps are wrong they can do their own survey and file for a LOMR. If a community wants to adopt a higher standard I could understand the need for an ordinance, but still disagree with using the land use system for adoption, because this is a legislative decision about public health and safety.

Mapping/New Technical Data - FEMA needs to update maps on a consistent schedule and not rely on the local jurisdictions. It is difficult to understand when new technical data is required and what to do with it. It is supposed to be done if the boundary or BFE changes, but how do you know that's going to happen unless you study it and at what point is it reasonable to ask for a costly and time consuming study. It tends to be so costly and time consuming that even State and Federal agencies ignore it. Even with bridge replacements I typically just see a no-rise verification, nothing is submitted to FEMA. With Hec-Ras modeling and current mapping technology, analyzing impacts and updating maps should be a fluid, simple and near instant process administered directly with FEMA. A simple rule would be; not adversely impact neighboring properties.

Water Course Alteration - See mapping comment above. This is typically done with restoration projects, but could be done as part of a development or infrastructure improvement. There are many other agencies involved in this type of work that another layer is burdensome. The important thing is analyze the impact so it's not negatively effecting other properties, and ensuring the alteration is updated on the maps. However, many smaller projects such as bank stabilization or bridge replacement typically maintain or increase capacity and don't warrant surveying or modeling. The impact is simply picked up with the next full map update.

Floodway - Just say no. Unless it's a public trail, drainage area or a water dependent use like a dock or pump station, there should not even be an exception for building in the floodway.

Alternative - I understand the reasons for the program and why it was started in the first place. However, in my opinion the purpose of the NFIP, which is to decrease claims and pay for itself; has failed. Instead the program has encouraged development in the floodplain by taking away the risk and allowing banks to finance development. I would prefer the NFIP to become a buyout program and focus more on preventing development in the floodplain rather than making rules to allow it. People would continue to pay insurance as they do, but the insurance program would slowing phase out as properties get flooded. Once flooded an owner will have a choice to be bought out and the property turned over to the local jurisdiction or re-built, but no receive insurance or be eligible for government assistance if it floods again.

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0024-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com