Municipality "earmarking" floodplain as floodway

[beej67]

It has come to my attention that a certain municipality near me may(*) have thrown out or ignored a calculated floodway width on a recent FIRM revision, and instead simply claimed that the entire floodplain is floodway. They may(*) have done this on purpose, to prevent future development in the floodplain.

Questions:
1) Anybody ever heard of a municipality doing that before?
2) Is that legal?

(*) "may" = relatively well founded conjecture

I don't intend to fight with them about it, because I want to maintain a good relationship with the municipality. It's just a fairly odd thing to see happen.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[emmgjld]

Without trying to sound like a complete cynic ... Sounds like a typical tactic of a planning department that has great plans and didn't quite agree with the engineering.

 

[gbam]

beej - what is in this agency's floodplain policy and/or does this agency own the land on which this floodplain/way is located? Our county Flood Control District has been purchasing flood prone lands to prohibit/minimize development in flood prone areas. I think the key is that they are purchasing the land. Keep us posted if you dig something up.

 

[beej67]

This land is not purchased. It's privately owned land that used to be floodplain but is now floodway on the new map, with the floodway going right to the floodplain edge, up an entire reach.

I don't want to say too much more, because I don't want a pissing match to inadvertently develop with these guys, and truthfully I quite like the folks who run the stormwater at this particular municipality. They are usually very reasonable. Just wondered if anyone knew whether this sort of act was legal or common elsewhere.

Obviously they could revise their flood ordinance to prohibit development in the floodplain entirely if they wanted to, but this act would seem like a way to get at that net result without having to put anything to a vote.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[pinkpig]

NFIP only provides the minimum requirements and NFIP always encourages local communities to take more stringent standards. That being said, the practice is not in conflict with NFIP.

However, when a community regulates an entire floodplain as a floodway, it takes the risk of being sued as "taking" if the property owners feel that the more stringent regulations deprive them of their economic rights for their properties located in the floodplain.

 

[beej67]

NFIP only provides the minimum requirements and NFIP always encourages local communities to take more stringent standards. That being said, the practice is not in conflict with NFIP.

That certainly gives them the freedom to draw their regulations up however they like for development in the floodplain, even to prohibit it entirely, but does that permit them to redefine the engineering definition of "floodway" itself? Do you see the distinction I'm trying to draw?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[pinkpig]

I am not a lawyer, but I guess the point is - they can regulated floodplain as floodway, but the risk is of being sued as "taking" from private property owners.

 

[cvg]

the local floodplain manager can regulate his floodplain or floodway any way they see fit and within the confines of the laws and ordinances. however, defining a floodplain as a floodway on a federal flood insurance rate map is not in accordance with NFIP, and would seem to be either illegal (federal law) or at the least, a very bad policy to take. this really does amount to an illegal taking and the city should expect some pushback from the landowners if this land is developable in any way.