Residential Real Estate Development in an AE Flood Zone?

[LoneRanger]

House hunting, and seeing some subdivisions around here that've been built in AE flood zones, i.e. 100 yr flood plains. FEMA map online, and local GIS interactive map for our county. Several of these were developed within the past 10 yrs. Some of the lots are showing to be only less than a foot above the flood elevation. Example: attended an Open House at a for sale place that upon checking the entire sub is within the AE flood plain and the lot for that particular home is only 0.9 ft (9/10) above the flood elevation.

Seems unwise to develop real estate in areas marked on the FEMA map as 100 yr flood plains.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
House hunting, and seeing some subdivisions around here that've been built in AE flood zones, i.e. 100 yr flood plains. FEMA map online, and local GIS interactive map for our county. Several of these were developed within the past 10 yrs. Some of the lots are showing to be only less than a foot above the flood elevation. Example: attended an Open House at a for sale place that upon checking the entire sub is within the AE flood plain and the lot for that particular home is only 0.9 ft (9/10) above the flood elevation.

Seems unwise to develop real estate in areas marked on the FEMA map as 100 yr flood plains.


And yet - it's been done. Extensively in some areas. Developers make money. Municipalities gain property tax revenue.

Recent policy changes for flood insurance, improvements in mapping, and changes in understanding of the risks have started to reverse that trend.

Last month's Scientific American had a great article on it...

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by LoneRanger
House hunting, and seeing some subdivisions around here that've been built in AE flood zones, i.e. 100 yr flood plains. FEMA map online, and local GIS interactive map for our county. Several of these were developed within the past 10 yrs. Some of the lots are showing to be only less than a foot above the flood elevation. Example: attended an Open House at a for sale place that upon checking the entire sub is within the AE flood plain and the lot for that particular home is only 0.9 ft (9/10) above the flood elevation.

Seems unwise to develop real estate in areas marked on the FEMA map as 100 yr flood plains.


Unwise of course, yet as long as flood insurance is available people will continue to live in these areas.

However, developers can change the flood zone of the structure itself by raising it via piers or adding dirt to raise the grade. In these cases the owner obtains an elevation cert.

 

[millerbl00]

Seems like 100 year flood is every year now...

 

[alarmguy]

If these communities were developed in the last ten years or so you would be in great shape to buy into those communities.

You will NOT need flood insurance as the homes are above the 100 year flood maps (according to your post) and chances are will never ever see anything even threatening as to a flood in your lifetime.

Buying to a new community is normally a safe bet if your concerned about flooding, new computer models of how the community drainage is developed ect is top notch.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by alarmguy
If these communities were developed in the last ten years or so you would be in great shape to buy into those communities.

You will NOT need flood insurance as the homes are above the 100 year flood maps (according to your post) and chances are will never ever see anything even threatening as to a flood in your lifetime.

Buying to a new community is normally a safe bet if your concerned about flooding, new computer models of how the community drainage is developed ect is top notch.


This ^

However, these models don't always taken into account "upstream" development which have been known to cause problems for those who are downstream. Today's communities almost always require some sort of retention pond to temporarily hold run off.

Eventually the flood maps do get updated.

 

[edwardh1]

no no
keep looking

 

[rshaw125]

They build subdivisions on flood plains in Eastern North Carolina. The recent storm Florence coverage showed thousands of homes flooded. Built on flat land right next to rivers and the sound. Flood insurance has encouraged people to live where maybe they should not.

 

[ragtoplvr]

I am sick of my tax dollars being spent to subsidize flood insurance so people can make bad decisions about where to live. It also bails out wealthy who build beach mansions and enable developers to make a fortune building where they should not build. In addition developers must be required to set up stormwater diversion ponds, so their development does not cause problems down stream from the additional runoff.

I live in the Midwest, they do not subsidize my homeowners to compensate for the hail storms and tornados around here.

Yes, when we have a disaster here Fema comes in and helps. They set up temporary housing until folks move away or developers catch up with the rebuilding. Something like that can stay, because it helps with the recovery, but does not encourage rebuilding in flood zones.

Basically flood insurance needs to bail out a location once, after that if it is rebuilt, they can not get the federal flood insurance for that location ever again. If they can buy private flood insurance good for them. Otherwise the next flood is on them. If that means some river/beach towns are going to die out, or all the houses will be on stilts, so be it.

Rod

 

[SeaJay]

National Flood Insurance is likely to exist up to $250K of coverage on a subsidized basis for years to come (albeit a bit more pricey), but this is a big nut for homeowners of moderate sized houses to pay and may make these homes a tough sell.

I think you need to only develop the more pricey homes where the cost of National Flood Insurance for the first $250K plus the cost for excess flood coverage in the offshore market is not that big of a consideration in the overall cost of owning and running these luxury properties on the water.

 

[MNgopher]

My suggestion: Run, not walk, from any property that is mapped in an AE zone, particularly if the low floor is barely above the 100 year flood elevation.

And I say that as a Water Resources Engineer who is the guy who creates the floodplain maps, and enforces the regulations.

The idea that just because our modeling is better in the past few years is going to save anyone from a flood is a joke. Is it correcting some inaccuracies in old mapping? Sure. Does that mean they take into account every little thing and that no rainstorm or flood event bigger than what is modeled is ever going to happen? Not in a million years...

Everything in the floodplain insurance program is based on risk. It is commonly accepted that protecting people from a 100 year flood is an acceptable level of risk. The dirty secret is that storms can, and often do, exceed the 100 year storm size (or put another way, flooding events can and do occur that are greater than the 100 year event.).

Living in a 100 year floodplain, you have a 26% chance of having a 100 year flood or greater during a typical 30 year mortgage. Yes - 1 in 4 odds. Not what I'd gamble my house on.

I've been practicing in this area for the last 20+ years. We've updated our rainfall data once, and it still doesn't get at all we are seeing in precipitation data for this area. Call it climate change, call it what you want, but we are seeing more intense storms, more frequently. And as a result, I get to help communities deal with the aftermath. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I've dealt with and responded to 5 storm events greater than a 100 year storm used in the floodplain modeling.

That's my take on it - the law says otherwise and allows stuff like this to be developed and to give people the idea that they are protected. They are - to a point - but that point is a lot lower than people realize.

 

[Danno]

Originally Posted by millerbl00
Seems like 100 year flood is every year now...


Seems to me "100 year flood" is a gimmick phrase.
Time to get a new definition or walk away from the phrase.

 

[rshaw125]

Billions have already been paid out for Florence damage here in NC. You don't need a map. Just open your eyes. There's the river and on the flat land near it subdivisions. The flood insurance program enables this to happen. The taxpayer pays out with subsidies and FEMA billions.

 

[MNgopher]

Originally Posted by Danno

Seems to me "100 year flood" is a gimmick phrase.
Time to get a new definition or walk away from the phrase.


In the field, we have, but talking about 1% probability events never clicks with the average joe...

 

[Inspecktor]

Several years ago I saw an episode of 20/20 or 60 minutes, not sure which. The reporter was interviewing a couple rebuilding their beachfront home for the third time in a decade after hurricanes went through. they said it was inconvenient, but they would keep rebuilding as long as federal disaster funds paid for it.

 

[AZjeff]

When you see the misery these people go through after a flood to get back to normal it just doesn't seem worth it, flood insurance or not. Like the idea above that you get one flood claim then it's on you, but is this for the lifetime of the building or every owner gets one claim? Run don't walk away from flood plains seems a better idea. Better yet don't build in them.

 

[maxdustington]

Originally Posted by ragtoplvr
I am sick of my tax dollars being spent to subsidize flood insurance so people can make bad decisions about where to live. It also bails out wealthy who build beach mansions and enable developers to make a fortune building where they should not build. In addition developers must be required to set up stormwater diversion ponds, so their development does not cause problems down stream from the additional runoff.

I live in the Midwest, they do not subsidize my homeowners to compensate for the hail storms and tornados around here.

Yes, when we have a disaster here Fema comes in and helps. They set up temporary housing until folks move away or developers catch up with the rebuilding. Something like that can stay, because it helps with the recovery, but does not encourage rebuilding in flood zones.

Basically flood insurance needs to bail out a location once, after that if it is rebuilt, they can not get the federal flood insurance for that location ever again. If they can buy private flood insurance good for them. Otherwise the next flood is on them. If that means some river/beach towns are going to die out, or all the houses will be on stilts, so be it.

Rod
Without that land to build on, housing prices skyrocket. We have significant greenspace here in the Greater Toronto Area that you cannot build on and that's one of the reasons housing is so pricey here. It's easy to say "stop building houses" when you own your own house, and stand to benefit from a rise in property values. That's what every baby boomer who has had their house triple in value in the last fifteen years says.

You can't have millions emigrate each year without a place to put them.

 

[PimTac]

Some of these flood maps have areas in the so called 100 year flood plain that nobody would ever think that was the case. It all depends on the source of these maps. If you live near a river or such then definitely you are at risk but I've seen areas marked that are well away from any drainage.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

We have that a lot here. The northern suburbs of Syracuse are all in a giant swamp. And there is constant new development on swampland. They fill in the swamp, put in a drainage system, then have a low grade mass produced home put in.

Then, the drainage isn't as effective as they would like because there's more new developments that end up flooding it. And the poorly constructed homes start to break slabs and sink.

 

[camryrolla]

Unless you want to buy flood insurance, keep searching. According to FEMA, from just one inch of flooding in your home can cost $27,000 or more in repair.