|
<br />
<br />flooding. New structures and impervious surfaces in floodways
<br />or in the 100~year floodplain, for example, limit the soil's
<br />capacity to absorb stormwater and flood waters and thus
<br />increase the propensity for flooding downstream. In such cases,
<br />or where new flood-retention structures have been built to limit
<br />damages, communities may find the maps our of date. They are
<br />entitled to seek map amendments that reflect this new
<br />information. FEMA, which oversees the NFIP, is open to
<br />considering map amendments, in part to protect the $1 billion
<br />investment the agency has made in developing the maps.
<br />There is a bigger payoff for local communities in complying
<br />with NFIP regulations for floodplains. As Subdivision Design in
<br />Flood Hazard Areas notes: "According to FEMA, since 1978,
<br />buildings constructed according to NFIP standards have
<br />sustained 77 percent fewer losses than buildings constructed prior
<br />to the regulations being put in place.>> The report further notes
<br />that protective measures for existing buildings have prevented
<br />about $770 million in flood damages to buildings and contents.
<br />Within that context, FIRMs also show floodways, which are
<br />defined as river channels or watercourses and "adjacent land
<br />areas that must be reserved to discharge the 1 percent
<br />probability flood without cumulatively increasing the water
<br />surface elevation more than a designated height, generally one
<br />foot." NFIP rules permit no development in the floodway that
<br />will increase flood levels. In contrast, the floodplain consists of
<br />those land areas beyond the waterway that are normally dry but
<br />would be affected by flooding. A floodway ideally could be used
<br />for open space such as buffer zones and wildlife habitat.
<br />
<br />CRS Planning Credit
<br />
<br />Acommunity can receive up to 210 points toward its
<br />Community Rating System (CRS) classification. The 10 steps
<br />and their maximum possible credit points for each are as follows:
<br />a. Organize to prepare the plan: Up to 10 points for involving a
<br />professional planner and including other departments in a formally
<br />organized planning committee.
<br />b. Involve the public: Up to 4f points for various methods to obtain
<br />public input with 26 of the points for including citizens on the
<br />planning committee.
<br />c. Coordinate with other agencies: Up to 18 points for meeting with
<br />and otherwise communicating with neighboring communities and
<br />local. regional, state, and federal floodplain management agencies.
<br />d. Assess the hazard: Up to 10 points for mapping and describing all
<br />known flood hazards and other natural hazauls, such as erosion and
<br />earthquakes. .
<br />e. Assess the problem: Up to 30 points for assessing the impact of
<br />flooding on buildings. infrastructure, public health, safety, natural
<br />areas, and the local economy.
<br />f. Set goals: Two points are provided for developing a statement of
<br />the goals of the community's floodplain management program.
<br />g. Review possible activities: Up to 30 points. Five points are
<br />provided for reviewing measures under each of six basic strategies.
<br />This encourages the community's planners to consider more than
<br />the traditional approaches of flood control. regulations, and
<br />acquisition.
<br />h. Draft an action plan: Up to 50 points are provided based on the
<br />variety of activities recommended (more points for niore strategies).
<br />i. Adopt the plan: Two points are provided for having the plan officially
<br />adopted by the community's governing body.
<br />j. Implement, evaluate, and revise: Up to 10 points are provided
<br />based on the procedures the community establishes. to monitor and
<br />update its plan.
<br />
<br />Source: CRS Coordinators Manual, FEMA (draft of the 1996 edition). Section 511.
<br />This sidebar originally appeared in the }ulyfAuguSl 1996 issue of Environmmt 6-
<br />D,v,/opmmt, in the article "Flooding and Planners," by French Wetmore.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />Overlay or Overhaul
<br />Most communities, as Wetmore observes, have stand-alone
<br />floodplain management ordinances and use the national model
<br />provided by NFIP. In some cases, he says, this may be
<br />attributable to local officials' fear of takings litigation if zoning
<br />seems to prohibit all economically viable uses of a floodplain
<br />property. Certainly, this is a legitimate concern, but Wetmore
<br />notes that the courts are not always favorably disposed toward the
<br />property owner's view when the community is seeking to protect
<br />public health and safety by using land-use regulations to mitigate
<br />natural hazards. He cites a 1991 case, Beverly Bank v. Illinois
<br />Department of Transportation (lOOT), 579 N.E.2d 815, 44 ZD
<br />113, in which the Illinois Supreme Court upheld IDOT's denial
<br />of a permit to build two homes in the 100-year floodplain.
<br />The state high court reached this decision even though the
<br />landowner had acquired a state permit that would have
<br />permitted filling a part of the flood fringe area in the Butterfield
<br />Creek floodway. The permit expired at the end of 1988 after the
<br />village ofFlossmoor denied a building permit because of the
<br />floodplain location. In the meantime, the Illinois General
<br />Assembly amended IDOT's regulatory program to prohibit all
<br />inappropriate uses in the floodway. Those deemed appropriate
<br />included flood control structures, parks, and recreation facilities,
<br />but no buildings. The high court said the restrictions were
<br />justified not only because of the concern "about preventing
<br />further flooding, but also the concern about the need to provide
<br />disaster relief services and the need for the expenditure of state
<br />funds on shelters and rescue services for victims of flooding."
<br />Those concerns are worth taking seriously. The issue .
<br />presented here does not relate to the merits of overlay districts
<br />per se bur to the tendency to use that approach to incorporate
<br />minimum NFIP requirements in order to qualify for flood
<br />insurance. It is an approach often used in lieu of a more
<br />thorough planning review of appropriate floodplain uses.
<br />Ideally, because almost any structure serves as an obstruction
<br />to the natural flow and absorption of flood waters, the
<br />floodplain would be almost entirely permanent open space.
<br />However, that is often not an option and, with larger
<br />waterways, there are some water-dependent uses that would be
<br />entirely appropriate and economically desirable (see "Rapid
<br />Response Tools for Waterfront Change," Zoning News,
<br />November 1995).
<br />More than a few communities have drafted effective floodplain
<br />zoning regulations using overlay districts. In fact, they are widely
<br />used to address special problems in all types of sensitive areas. In
<br />some communities, a single comprehensive ordinance establishes
<br />overlay districts covering a range of sensitive areas. For example,
<br />Scottsdale, Arizona, has an environmentally sensitive lands
<br />ordinance that deals with steep slopes, alluvial fan flooding, and
<br />the protection of special features (such as petroglyphs and rock-
<br />climbing areas) and desert vegetation.
<br />Alluvial fans have long posed a vexing development problem
<br />in the West because there is no visible floodplain. Instead, the
<br />fan consists of layers of sedimentation produced from flooding
<br />off steep slopes behind the fan, usually in heavy rainstorms. The
<br />sedimentation serves as a geological clue to the existence of a
<br />potential flooding hazard that requires unique zoning
<br />restrictions to prevent disaster. Planners seeking additional
<br />information on suOh unusual high-risk flooding can obtain a
<br />1987 FEMA guidebook, Reducing Losses in High Risk Flood
<br />Hazard Areas.
<br />With a narrower agenda. Livingston County, Michigan, focuses
<br />on natural hazard areas in a model ordinance it prepared for one of
<br />
<br />$1
<br />
|