Floodplain Management Program Notes
by
Bill DeGroot, P. E.
Chief, Floodplain Management Program
As of October 1st FEMA is charging local governments fees for processing LOMRs for locally funded flood control projects. Not only do you not get so much as one point of CRS credit for reducing the flood hazard within your community, but now you also have to pay FEMA for the privilege of having them recognize your efforts.
We now get to pay our consultants to prepare requests for LOMRs and we get to pay FEMA's consultants to pick them apart. It's great for everybody but the taxpayer. What's also shabby is that the excuse FEMA has always used for not giving CRS credit for structural flood control projects is that you get your FIRM changed instead.
Humbug!
I received a voice mail the other day from one of my favorite college professors, Don Thorson. Don, who is retired now, taught in the civil engineering department at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City, SD; where I earned my two degrees. As you know, Rapid City suffered a devastating flood in 1972. Following the flood, a major part of the recovery effort involved acquiring the 100-year floodplain and converting it to flood compatible uses, primarily parks and open space.
Recently a developer proposed to buy 15.5 acres of the publicly owned floodplain, which included a soccer field, for construction of a grocery store. The issue was placed on the ballot, where it failed by a 57.4% to 42.6% margin.
Don is now working with a group of people in Rapid City who are trying to figure out a way to avoid this kind of proposal in the future. He asked me if we were aware of any methods which would assure once and for all that floodplain lands, once acquired, could not be given up for development later on. After thinking about it for a while I had to concede that I wasn't aware of any better way to protect publicly owned land in these situations than to require a vote of the people. There is no way to absolutely lock in a decision that cannot be changed. Even the U. S. Constitution can be changed.
According to the Rapid City Journal, "A sampling of city voters showed that while many voted because of the flood issues, many cast their votes to preserve the soccer field there or because they prefer parks to stores." Although this was apparently not a scientific survey, it seems to indicate that the winning combination came from voters who had different reasons for voting no. Some people were concerned about the flood hazard while others voted to preserve parks and/or a soccer field. This is perhaps a good example of the value of multiple use of flood hazard areas. The combination of constituencies won, whereas a single purpose flood hazard argument may not have fared as well.
The fact that a community that has suffered such an enormous tragedy so recently could
seriously consider (42.6%) allowing development of that floodplain should remind all of us
floodplain managers that we have to be constantly vigilant to these kinds of proposals,
and we have to keep the public informed of the reasons why this is not an appropriate
action to take. This is a battle that we will have to fight over and over again, and it
will probably never be totally won.
The development boom continued in 1996. I don't try to keep track of the total number of referals we review annually, but I know 1996 continued the recent busy trend.
The District's maintenance eligibility program once again processed a large number of
projects. We reviewed 204 projects for some aspect of maintenance eligibility, most of
them on more than one occasion. Boyle Engineering Corporation has observed construction
for us again in 1996, and makes recommendations regarding acceptance of constructed
projects for District maintenance eligibility. We expect to close out approximately 44
projects this year. Boyle currently has 41 sites under observation with more projects in
the pipeline and more proposals coming in the door every day.
I continue to chair the floodplain management committee of the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA). I anticipate an increased level of activity in Washington working on issues of interest to NAFSMA member agencies.
I'm always open to ideas, suggestions and concerns regarding what goes on at the
Federal level and how it affects local governments' floodplain management efforts, so if
you have any thoughts you may feel are worthy of NAFSMA consideration, feel free to send
them my way.
Earlier this year I served on a committee for the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) which performed a technical review of the Community Rating System (CRS) Activity 450, Stormwater Management at the request of FEMA's Community Rating Task Force. I guess that committee chair Dave Carlton wanted to assure that the committee would have divergent viewpoints represented when he invited me to participate.
The committee's final report was submitted to ASFPM in September. It will be a while
before it works its way through the process and any of the recommended changes are
implemented.
We want to build a flood control channel and "reclaim the floodplain."
Did you claim it before the drainageway came along?
The floodplain encroaches on the proposed plat. Perhaps you mean the proposed plat encroaches into the floodplain?
We want to restore the natural channel. No you don't. It was a dry deeply
incised gulch once upon a time. Perhaps you mean that you want to enhance the channel?
Table of Contents
| Return to UDFCD Home Page