|
MASTER INDEX TO
FEMA-BFE FLOOD RESEARCH Researched, assembled and organized by: Larry Kunzler Index prepared by Larry Kunzler, 5/20/2007 |
||
|
DATE/ PAPER |
ARTICLE |
COMMENTS |
|
Floodway plan could “devastate” growth If the federal government designates a floodway for the lower Skagit River, it would be “devastating” to residential and commercial development, especially in Burlington and Mount Vernon, an official of the Federal Insurance Administration said Tuesday. . . . Designation of a floodway will have far-reaching effects on local property values, development and even commercial and industrial progress. No further development, including land fill and new construction, will be permitted within the floodway area, he said (Wes Edens). . . . “The dikes aren’t going to hold a 100 year flood”, Gardner said, “In fact you’d be better off without them.” |
AND SO IT BEGAN
This one article began a 3 year battle over the management of the Skagit River floodplain. |
|
|
Committee wants floodway The Skagit County Flood Committee will try to establish a floodway for the lower Skagit River all. At their March meeting, the committee members were, for the most part, against doing the floodway work which was requested by FEMA. Since then, however, FEMA officials have met with local government representatives and given them this message: if you don’t designate a floodway with local comments, then we will do it for you and you won’t like what we do. |
FLOODWAY DESIGNATION
The committee had no idea how contentious this issue would turn out to be nor how clearly in over their head they were going to get. |
|
|
Stop building in floodplain – Feds warn Construction should be stopped in the Skagit River flood plain until a flood for the river is designated, a federal official said Tuesday. Members of the Burlington City Council told during a study session that no significant construction should continue in the Skagit River flood plain until a floodway has been designated and approved by FEMA. . . . “If you allow indiscriminate development in the floodway, the water will rise, and according to FEMA regulations, it can’t rise more than one foot in any one point,” he said. (Chuck Steele). . . . “If you won’t practice land management for flood insurance that will reduce or avoid future losses, then we will,” Chuck Steele said. |
FEDS GIVE STERN WARNING “It’s really a zoning matter, in that should everywhere else be filled, there would be someplace that could take this 90,000 cubic feet of water. Using that concept, it becomes compatible with farm zoning,” Arnold Hansen said. Widening the 3 bridge corridor, setting the levees back and allowing the river to overflow in any event greater than 1995 would accomplish this. |
|
|
Flood group contemplates dam on Sauk Corps spokesman Dick Regan termed the containment dam a “logical” option. “As far as flood control for the Skagit River that’s the most logical way to do it,” he said. But he quickly noted the Skagit’s inclusion in the federal Wild and Scenic River system. . . . Meanwhile, Regan had a number of observations and suggestions to make to the committee, whose job it will be to recommend a designated floodway for the federal government. First of all, he said, “I think what FEMA is looking for is general ideas.” . . . At one point in the meeting he emphasized that FEMA does not necessarily have to call on the Corps for technical studies. They can, he said, select any consultant they wish to do the work. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, FLOODWAY, DREDGING
Skagit County Flood Control Committee began its foolish pursuit of the Sauk River Dam. A waste of time and energy. |
|
|
Sauk Dam – County’s cost for project could run $20-60 million U.S. Rep. Al Swift, D-2nd Dist., said Thursday local officials can expect a change in attitude from “brusque, arrogant” field representatives for FEMA. . . . FEMA’s role, said Swift, is basically to save the federal government money associated with disasters such as recurrent flooding. He agreed with angry constituents that “particular (FEMA) field people at work in Whatcom and Skagit counties will never qualify as diplomats.” . . . He said FEMA administrators Charles Steele and Carl Cook have already met with Whatcom County officials and he will arrange similar meetings soon in Skagit County. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, FEMA OFFICIALS
Dam very expensive and would need congressional approval. FEMA officials reprimanded for heavy handed tactics. This shows what can happen when you have positive leadership on a congressional level. |
|
|
Committee wants ‘definite answer’ on dam Subcommittee Chairman Bob Hulbert referred to recent news reports regarding the possibility of a Sauk River flood control dam and said, “I somewhat regret public debate on this before we submit it to you people.” Hulbert’s comments were made in reference to comments made by U.S. Rep. Al Swift, D-2nd District, who recently termed a Sauk River dam project “virtually impossible.” . . . In further discussion of their draft recommendations, subcommittee chairman Arnold Hansen said his group sees a “restricted density floodway” as the only realistic option to meeting floodway designation requirements of FEMA. A density floodway would restrict development of a percentage of each parcel of land in areas likely to be flooded by the Skagit River. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, DENSITY FLOODWAY
Fish concerns, high cost, and congressional approval were cited as reasons Sauk Dam would not be built.
The restricted density floodway concept was born. |
|
|
Flood group pushes ahead with Sauk dam Members of the Skagit River Flood Control Committee put their official stamp of approval Thursday night on a recommendation to seek construction of a dam on the Sauk River. The committee, established by the county Board of Commissioners last October, also recommended in a 13-2 vote that a “restricted density floodplain” be established in Skagit County as soon as possible to meet a requirement by FEMA.. Subcommittee chairman Arnold Hansen presented his group’s report, which concluded: “. . . approximately 25% of the flow area (downstream from Sedro-Woolley) kept at its current elevation, would accommodate the flood flow estimated.” In other words, property owners in the floodplain would be prohibited from altering 25% of their property in any way, this providing an unobstructed flow area for floodwaters. Hansen conceded in response to criticism by fellow committeeman Larry Kunzler that the 25% figure was not based on technically established flood flow figures. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, DENSITY FLOODWAY
Even after being told that the Sauk River Dam was next to impossible to achieve the flood committee still pursued it. The 25% density floodway concept was also an absurd proposal and a waste of time. In the end FEMA’s recommendation through Dames and Moore was 10% could be developed and 90% had to be left open. (See 1982 Dames & Moore Report ). |
|
|
Maynock urges war on regulation A Reagan task force member warned Sedro-Woolley Rotarians last week that the federal bureaucrats will continue to steal local decision-making rights unless private citizens begin to speak out against such encroachment. Ron Maynock, a Mt. Vernon building official, is one of two state representatives on a 95-member Reagan task force created in an effort to reduce federal regulations on housing and property development. . . . “In effect what they are telling me,” he said, “is, “We don’t want to come up with an equitable solution – we want the valley to flood.”” |
GOV’T REGULATIONS
This was one of the more “colorful people” who ever worked in our valley who didn’t work here very long before he overstayed his welcome. |
|
|
Flood pundit sees logic in density controls Skagit River Flood Control committeeman Arnold Hansen said Tuesday a “restricted density floodplain” is the only logical response to flood control demands made by the federal government. . . . That proposal would prohibit property owners in the delta from altering 25% of their land in any way that would restrict the flow of floodwater. Such a proposal is not a ban on development, said Hansen, because floodway property could still be used for such purposes as parking lots and streets as long as no landfill is required. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, DENSITY FLOODWAY
(See 1982 Dames & Moore Report ). |
|
|
Flood committee OKs control plan Members of the Skagit River Flood Control Committee gave overwhelming approval Thursday night to subcommittee recommendations hashed out in the course of 11 months of work. (Approved Sauk River dam and density floodway.) . . . Other committee recommendations include: --Constructing a floodwater bypass only as an alternative to a Sauk River dam. –Requesting aid from the Corps of Engineers in clearing numerous logjams on the river. –Assessing the ability of existing dikes to withstand 50-year floodwater levels and asking Skagit County commissioners to set aside $400,000 annually for a river improvement fund to be matched on a project basis with funds from dike districts. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, DENSITY FLOODWAY, BYPASS, REMOVAL OF LOG JAMS, LEVEES TO 50 YEAR PROTECTION
Ultimately the only thing that was instituted was the 50-year flood protection program which by the way was and is in violation of FEMA NFIP regulations and local flood ordinances. (See FEMA -- The Total Failure Package ) |
|
|
Mount Vernon favors restricting density in floodplain The city council here unanimously approved a recommendation from the Skagit River Flood Control Committee Wednesday in favor of using a “restricted density floodplain” method of controlling potential flood waters. The density floodplain proposal is based on setting a maximum level of development density allowable in the floodplain area of the lower delta of the Skagit River, downriver from Sedro-Woolley. Proponents of the restricted density method claim the concept causes the least adverse impact and would require “unified support of local officials”. Further recommendations by the committee include building a dam on the Sauk River and raising dikes in the delta area to a uniform level to handle a 50-year flood level. |
SAUK RIVER DAM, DENSITY FLOODWAY, LEVEES TO 50 YEAR PROTECTION
All of the lower valley communities signed onto this concept thinking that if they all stood together on the same page that they could force the federal government into accepting their 75% developed 25% undeveloped scenario. |
|
|
Flood Insurance – Does it cause more of a mess than it avoids The 100-year flood carries 270,000 cubic feet of water per second. During such an event the dikes and levees fail and, up to their ears in water, residents here look to floods like the one in 1975 as a blessing. . . . In 1968, Congress established this program for providing insurance to property owners in flood-prone areas. . . . Authorities around here differ in their opinions as to whether every city is following the FEMA building regulations. Two things seem certain, however: the county strictly enforces its FEMA-type building ordinance and Mt. Vernon is enforcing FEMA regulations weakly, if at all. Mt. Vernon Building Official Ron Maynock admitted he will not force a property owner to build above the 100-year flood plain if that owner doesn’t want to. He said he doesn’t want to be heavy-handed with people around here. However The Argus has learned that two FEMA officials came to Mt. Vernon recently and took pictures of a house on Hoag Road for which Maynock issued a building permit. The house is about 400 feet from the dike, and is not elevated at all. . . . Chuck Steele, director of natural and technological hazards with FEMA explained FEMA might have ignored such disobedience in the past. This new, waste-conscious administration, though, doesn’t look kindly on paying out money it doesn’t have to. |
FLOOD INSURANCE
“Regardless of what position local residents take on the issue of flood control regulations, it is obvious the complex issue will continue to spark debate here for some time.”
No truer words have ever been spoken in Skagit County. |
|
|
Town of Hamilton may be moved The feasibility of physically moving the Town of Hamilton to a location safe from flooding will be the subject of a preliminary study and a town meeting next month, conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. . . . Hamilton Mayor Tom Hooper said the present feeling he gets among the town population of some 280 people is “50-50.” “The way the town council feels, it is kind of leaning toward it,” he said of the idea. “Without knowing the particulars or the cost it makes it kind of difficult to say. If we have some more high water, the trend may change.” This is not something that is going to happen overnight. Nothing will happen within the next several years, it is years away,” Farrar said. “This just is an alternative that looks like it has promise if the town people are interested.” |
MOVING HAMILTON
“Congressman Al Swift, D-Everett, echoed the time factor involved and said he would support the decision of the residents of Hamilton. “The Corps moves at a glacial pace at its fastest,” Swift said. “Even if the people of Hamilton decided they were interested, we’re probably talking years, not months.” A quarter of a century later we’re still talking about moving Hamilton. |
|
|
Hamilton not easily moved by floods Opinions are mixed among residents of this riverside town on the potential of moving the Town of Hamilton to a new location, out of the Skagit River floodway. One man who is certain he does not want to leave Hamilton is Ted Ericson, who has been a resident of Hamilton since moving upriver with his parents in 1912. Now, at the age of 78 he has retired from his work in the woods and settled in a small house he fondly calls "home." Following the flood of 1980 which brought some 14 inches of water into his residence, the house itself was raised up on oil barrels to a height ten inches above the last flood level as a protection measure from future high water. Though Ericsson said he is unsure whether the house is up high enough yet to completely protect his few belongings, he knows he wants to stay where he is. The Hodgin family shares his sentiment in wanting to sty in the town they have been a part of for some 48 years. Irene and Dee Hodgin and their son, Martin Hodgin, are owners of homes and some 45 acres of land within the town limits, in what is considered the “high” end of town, at an elevation of 97 feet. . . . Martin cited that there were no floods in Hamilton from 1951 to 1975, followed by three flooding years in a row. |
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
It would be interesting to track down these families now some 25 years later and see how they feel about Hamilton now following the 1989, 1990, 1995, 2003 and 2006 floods. |
|
|
Hamilton plans fail to move residents Many residents of this upriver community told U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials Saturday they are not so sure they are in favor of a plan to physically move the town of Hamilton to an area safe from flooding. . . . The alternatives included no change, upstream storage, raising structures, dredging the river, a ring levee system and moving the town. The first five were rejected during preliminary studies for a variety of reasons including provisions for regulations imposed by FEMA and the Wild and Scenic River designation on the Skagit River, leaving the moving concept as the only viable alternative, Crow said. |
MAYBE NOT MOVING HAMILTON
Meeting started with 200 people and ended up with about 50. |
|
|
Flood group amends recommendations after emergency meeting The Skagit River Flood Control Committee’s hopes for 100-year flood protection may be less sure after a run-in with some U.S. Army Corps of Engineers figures. . . . Its deficiency became clear, though, when Kunzler read his Army Corps of Engineers 1965 study. According to this study, a Sauk River dam would have to have 250,000 acre feet of storage to provide 100-year flood protection. Since this report was put out, however, the Baker River Dam was constructed (should read Baker River Dam storage was obtained) providing 75,000 acre feet of storage, Kunzler pointed out that this isn’t enough. In the Committee report’s summary of alternatives, it claims a 255-foot high Sauk Dam would provide 134,000 acre feet of flood control, a very desirable level of flood protection,” Kunzler pointed out, though, that such a dam, including Baker River dam storage, provides less than the 250,000 acre feet the Corps claimed necessary for 100-year flood protection. |
DAM STORAGE
So according to the figures presented we currently need 175,000 acre feet of storage to protect from a 100 year flood. So why is FERC denying the request for flood storage again? |
|
|
Editorial “…take your chances.” The proposal to move the entire town tends to fail as a viable proposition, not only by the reluctance of Hamiltonians to relocate but also because of the uncertainty of the availability of the higher ground property and, probably one of the greatest stumbling blocks, the fact that the Corps would pay only $2 million of the relocation costs. This, by current rough estimates, would leave $2.8 or more million dollars to be raised locally. Could the currently money-strapped state help? Not likely. Could the county government or the town itself produce this kind of financing? Dubious. |
MOVING HAMILTON DUBIOUS “Hamilton residents may wonder whether they are being given little more than excuses for doing nothing. With harsh memories of floods as recent as 1980, 1979 and 1975, they have cause for continuing concern.” And the floods of 1989, two in 1990, 1995, 2003 and 2006. |
|
|
County asked to back flood control package The plan involves a package of flood control recommendations including a dam on the Sauk River, dike and levee improvements, debris removal, floodplain management programs and a restricted density floodplain. . . . Aside from the wording changes outlined, the committee report maintains that the dam on the Sauk River would be the “only solution offering flood relief to all of Skagit County,” according to Bob Hulbert, chairman of the upriver storage sub-committee. . . . The proposed program would include analysis of the present condition of the dikes and upgrading of those problem areas to the “present highest level of protection” of the dikes which is estimated to accommodate approximately a 5O-year flood event. Funding for such an improvement program is proposed to be divided between the county and local diking districts with a minimum expenditure by each of some $400.000 in a year. |
SAUK DAM, LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS, DEBRIS REMOVAL, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, DENSITY FLOODWAY “Certainly a society that put-a man on the moon can solve .the flooding problems of Skagit County,” Hulbert said. You would think..
Important for the reviewer to remember is that no recommendation came from the committee regarding additional storage behind Baker or Ross because PSE had lied to the committee. See 11/10/81 BOC Minutes re floodway designations & dam storage . |
|
|
Feds check floodplain buildings If the City of Mount Vernon is to keep its federal flood insurance intact, it may have to prove “good intent” in building permits issued during the last few years for construction within the floodplain. Because of a statement attributed to Mt. Vernon Building Official Ron Maynock in the January 14 issue of a weekly newspaper, the Mt. Vernon Argus, FEMA will be “touring” building sites in Mt. Vernon sometime during March to see if buildings have been elevated above the 100-year flood level. That flood level is at least four feet in Skagit County. . . . “FEMA must assume that we are functioning with validity. They can’t take some reporters’ statement or (the statements) of some resident who starts complaining. It bothers me that they are reading articles in the newspaper and making assumptions,” Maynock said. |
FEMA CHECKING MT. VERNON
One has to be careful what one says to the press. It ended up costing this man his job. |
|
|
Federal Agency to review local permit practices MOUNT VERNON – The Argus has learned that the city of Mount Vernon has come under investigation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which suspects the city has not been enforcing FEMA floodplain building regulations. . . . One FEMA official described the investigation by saying the agency suspects “city policy is not consistent with city obligations.” If the officials find such a pattern and if the city refuses to change, Mount Vernon will be taken off the federal flood insurance program, Steele said. There are 374 federal flood insurance policies in Mount Vernon. . . . Maynock admitted there may be one or two slight violations, but he blamed these on the ambiguity of federal flood insurance rate maps, which outline the flood hazard areas in which buildings must be elevated above ‘ the lOO-year flood level. ..Maynock said the lines on these maps separating flood hazard areas from non-flood hazard areas can get confusing. |
FEMA CHECKING MT. VERNON
Only 374 flood insurance policies in 1982. Compare with today of 1,005. |
|
|
Federal Official calls audit routine Chuck Steele, director of natural and technological hazards with FEMA’s Seattle office reported last week an upcoming investigation of Mount Vernon building practices is routine. Steele said that if FEMA finds a pattern of non-compliance with these requirements, the city could be taken off the flood insurance program if it refuses to comply. This would mean citizens could not get flood insurance and therefore could not get housing loans from federally insured organizations. Ron Maynock. Mount Vernon building official. Said he doubts the city will be taken off the Insurance program. He guessed FEMA would only require the city to adopt an ordinance outlining the FEMA regulations to been forced. Maynock explained the city now only has a resolution outlining these regulations and no ordinance. He said Steele was surprised to find this out at a meeting here last month .with city officials. |
FEMA CHECKING JUST ROUTINE
Mt. Vernon had a loophole after all. Now about that ordinance. |
|
|
FEMA official frowns on flood proposal Chuck Steele, director of natural and technological hazards for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), told county officials on a visit to Mount Vernon last week that a waiver will be issued until the Skagit floodway problem is solved. . . . “We’ve had a horrendous time with the floodway here,” he commented. If Skagit County citizens do get under ‘.the second phase of the .federal flood Insurance program the increase in coverage will be marked. . . . Steele explained FEMA is wary of the limited density method because the lay of the land doesn’t lend itself to it. He said a limited density floodway does not pertain to a delta situation like downriver Skagit County. A designated floodway is possible for the upriver area, he said, because the floodwaters would be confined to the valley. Yet the wide-open down river has no such clear path. “Our scientific methods for deltas aren’t as refined,” he said, explaining . FEMA’s frustration with the downriver .floodway, problem. |
FLOODWAY
The Flo 2-D model provides a clear flow path. If you allow for overtopping in certain areas then that becomes your floodway. The natural floodway is Gages Slough to Padilla Bay. If you get the water past the City of Burlington and dump it before it gets to Mt. Vernon that becomes your floodway and the urban areas don’t have to worry about it..
Density floodway begins to exit stage left. |
|
|
Editorial – Land Use Proposal By FEMA Unacceptable This week, after months of quit work in Washington, D.C., FEMA officials released new Skagit County flood elevation figures – and a bombshell recommendation that only 10 percent development be allowed on property in the Skagit River floodplain. In other words, you would be allowed to build on only 10 percent of any land you own in the floodplain of the Skagit River. That policy would be palatable for those who own large parcels of land, but rendering 90 percent of a small piece of property useless is unacceptable. Who needs an outhouse when you can’t even build a one-room cabin? |
DENSITY FLOODWAY Needless to say that a figure of 10% development and 90% left open vs the ridiculous local position of 25% left open and 75% development sounded the death knell for the density floodway. What were they thinking? However this should be a good measuring stick in 2007. Has 10% of Burlington been filled with landfill? |
|
|
City Official Blast Feds for Blackmail Maynock claimed that FEMA has shown a “blatant disregard for people in the valley or what we can live with.” His complaint stems from what be sees as “blackmail” by the federal agency. Maynock said FEMA has told Skagit County that either it convert to an expensive federal flood insurance plan that doesn’t provide adequate coverage, or it will be denied flood insurance and be blacklisted –from federal grants and loans, disaster assistance or federal mortgage insurance. “They (FEMA) have the power to literally kill this valley,” Maynock said. |
FEMA NFIP
Justified or not some of these same complaints are still heard today. |
|
|
City officials face flood insurance deadline Maynock told a Mt. Vernon Chamber of Commerce crowd Thursday that officials from FEMA investigated Mt. Vernon’s building policies last week and decided the city must come up with a strict ordinance regulating floodplain construction or be kicked out of the federal flood insurance program. . . . In Mt. Vernon, for example, there are 374 policies totaling $13,469,900, according to recent FEMA statistics. . . . If Mt. Vernon fails to enact a FEMA-type building ordinance in approximately 30 days they will fall short of this regular phase and will be out of the insurance program altogether. . . . Piazza suggested Mt. Vernon citizens band together and tell FEMA to “take a hike,” pooling the money they normally pay to FEMA and, in essence, creating their own flood insurance program. |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
Currently there are 1,005 policies in Mt. Vernon for $191,918,400 coverage as of 2/28/07. |
|
|
Editorial – FEMA’s Skagit activities call for political attention Considering the tremendous social, economic and political effects its activities have on the residents of Skagit County, it is amazing how little public comment FEMA has drawn from this area’s elected officials. After a particularly blatant incident last year involving arrogant FEMA officials and upriver Skagit residents, Congressman Al Swift reported that he had met with FEMA administrators to suggest they clean up their act, at least on his turf. . . . |
FEMA “FEMA was created to serve the American public – not the other way around. It is time the politicians representing Skagit residents made that point emphatically clear.” This statement could be applied to a lot of federal agencies involved in the Skagit River flood issue. |
|
|
FEMA issues Mt. Vernon ultimatum FEMA has extended Mt. Vernon’s deadline to write a floodplain construction ordinance to June 1, 1982. FEMA officials had originally told city building official Ron Maynock the city had 30 days to write a strict ordinance or be kicked out of the federal flood insurance program. Word came last Friday, however, that the deadline was altered. . . . Jack Macauley, Mt. Vernon realtor who heads a special committee of the Skagit County Board of Realtors with the task of informing the Board of FEMA-related matters, said such a FEMA type ordinance would increase construction costs so that new houses would be “economically not feasible.” |
FEMA ORDINANCE
Construction cost fears did not materialize given the large amount of development in today’s floodplain vs. what there was in 1982. |
|
|
Argus Editorial Cartoon |
CARTOON Depicts FEMA beating up on Mt. Vernon while elected officials of Skagit County standby, including a County Commissioner who is now the Mayor of Mt. Vernon. |
|
|
Citizens Quite on Flood Insurance Issue FEMA officials recently investigated Mount Vernon’s building practices, finding the city has not complied with floodplain construction ordinances they established. . . . Chuck Steele, FEMA spokesman, said the citizens here have an incorrect concept of what FEMA is, adding that city officials are over-emphasizing the consequences of writing a floodplain construction ordinance. . . . Steele said the furor raised over writing an ordinance in Mount Vernon tells him there has been a total lack of compliance with the program” He pointed out Skagit County has a FEMA-type ordinance it now enforces and he said it has caused little controversy. |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
“Pointing out the effect of an ordinance on the economy is a backward focus, he claimed. He said people should be worried about the effect a large flood, like a 100 yr flood, would have on the economy.”
17,000 other communities had flood ordinances in effect at the time. Why should Mt. Vernon be treated any differently? |
|
|
Reprieve possible on deadline for compliance with regulations Mt. Vernon officials may get a reprieve from FEMA’s June 1 deadline by enforcing a building moratorium. . . . The letter, which was a response to a request from Gidlund, states the city can have until July 1 to write an ordinance. The only other alternative, the letter states, is a building moratorium in the city limits until an ordinance is written. Such a moratorium would affect certain large projects already planned here, including Skagit County’s new jail. |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
Write the ordinance or institute a building moratorium. |
|
|
City officials to discuss dispute with FEMA The City of Mt. Vernon has been ordered to comply with FEMA regulations or lose its federal flood insurance, and after several meetings and appeals has been given one extra month to adopt an ordinance enforcing those regulations, according to FEMA official Chuck Steele. . . . The city has been on notice for more than five years. That’s adequate time to prepare a study. The data has been there for 10 years in one way, shape or form, but the city obviously didn’t use it.” Steele said in a telephone interview Monday. . . . Our monitoring (early this month) revealed that builders are not required to build to the 100-flood level, and that could cost millions of dollars in flood insurance. Many of the houses were three feet below the known flood level,” Steele said. . . . “Our flood level elevations are conservative. The Corps’ (of Engineers) is even higher,” he said. |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
Mt. Vernon had 5 years to write an ordinance. During that 5 years many buildings were built with no elevation requirements. One has to wonder how safe the owners of those buildings feel now.
Corps of Engineers elevations were higher then FEMA’s. And today FEMA is adopting the Corps figures. |
|
|
Feds hold MV to July 1 deadline Following a meeting with federal officials Wednesday, the city of Mt. Vernon still faces a July 1 deadline with FEMA. . . . The session was attended by FEMA representatives Carl Cook and Herb McElvaine along with officials from Mt. Vernon. . . . Representatives from Rep. Al Swift and Sen. Slade Gorton offices also attended. . . . We either adopt an ordinance to their liking, or we are suspended from the flood insurance program,” Maynock said. “This meeting was an exercise in futility.” |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
Its clear Mt. Vernon brought this on themselves. They had 5 years to write an ordinance. They knew since at least 1894 the seriousness of the flood issue on their downtown area that sits 12 feet below the level of the river in 1990 and 1995. |
|
|
Editorial – Save front row for local officials at flood insurance meeting The most critical observers of flood control efforts by FEMA contend the agency’s construction restrictions will ultimately “turn the lights out in Skagit Valley.” FEMA defenders, on the other hand, argue that it would be irresponsible for local and federal officials to do anything less than imposing strict land-use policies in an area renowned for its periodic floods. . . . While pressure mounts with the approach of a flood regulation compliance deadline for Mt. Vernon officials, a set of recommendations from a hard working group of Skagit County volunteers gathers dust on a shelf somewhere. Despite over a year of work on their report, members of the county commissioner appointed Skagit Valley Flood Control Committee have never received the active endorsement their report deserves from the county commissioners. . . . Will Mt. Vernon and Burlington someday become “cities on stilts?” Will strict flood control regulations on building renovation projects turn parts of Burlington and Mt. Vernon into ghetto-like areas. Is any action short of full endorsement of FEMA’s proposals irresponsible to citizens of this valley? |
FLOOD INSURANCE MEETING
The answer to all of the questions proposed in the editorial was then and obviously is now, No! |
|
|
Feds warn city: “adopt flood rules or else” The City of Mt. Vernon could experience a federal aid boycott if it doesn’t’ conform to federal floodplain construction regulations, city council members and local residents were told last night. . . . Ramifications resulting from a denial by the city to conform will include no federal loan or grant money from federally insured banks or loaning institutions for residents in flood-prone areas; no federal disaster aid from agencies including the SBA, FHA and the VA for structural damage in the floodplain, no federal flood insurance for residents in the floodplain, including those who are presently insured. Their insurance would run its course but could not be renewed. . . . Councilmen also expressed worries about a halt on dike additions that would occur if an ordinance was passed. They were told that FEMA does not view dikes as flood fighting measures but as encroachment, an act which would raise or divert the level of floodwaters.
|
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
“Presently, Mt. Vernon rates fifth in the state in the number of flood insurance policies for communities, with 374. Sixty-seven of those are non-residential. The insurance provides 3.5 million in coverage for a total premium charge of $54,000. The average premium for a single family residence is $145.” Today Mt. Vernon has 1,005 policies, for $191,918,400 in coverage and spends $776,433 in premiums for an average premium of $772. Over the last 29 years FEMA has paid out $586,374.23 in damages. (See Policy Statistics and Loss Statistics) |
|
|
Editorial Cartoon |
CARTOON Depicts Mt. Vernon building official with his finger in the dike asking for help with FEMA regulations. |
|
|
Editorial – FEMA’S fame spreads; see agency in action Thursday In a presentation last week at a public meeting in Mt. Vernon, two FEMA officials outlined the history of their agency and described the intent of the federal government’s flood insurance program. The program, they emphasized at one point, was established only because few people were interested in flood insurance until after their property had been destroyed. In order to assist those affected by floods, the federal government kindly stepped in and established a subsidized assistance program. . . . The program is no longer viewed by federal officials as a subsidized program. Instead, the mandate is that the program – that is, its primarily involuntary taxpayer clients – will now pay its own way. The “voluntary” program of “subsidized” flood insurance is neither voluntary or subsidized. |
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE
The “voluntary” program of “subsidized” flood insurance is neither voluntary or subsidized.
|
|
|
Mt. Vernon in no-win situation WITH FEMA – Growth would be limited Apart from increased insurance costs for existing structures built below the 100-year flood plain, new construction costs will increase simply because all buildings will be required to be elevated above the 100-year flood level. In larger projects that will require adding several feet of fill and for residential construction pilings might be required. Fill dirt can costs as much as $7 a yard. . . . The great majority of Mt. Vernon’s commercial district is located in the flood plain, in varying stages to 11-12 feet below the 100-year flood level. . . . The increased costs caused by building to elevation regulations will adversely affect the tax base of the city because businesses are the major supporters of city services. . . . Questions about the city’s ability to maintain the dikes under th new program have also been raised. FEMA views dikes as encroachments because they are situated in the floodway and will divert flood waters. Increasing their size would be prohibited under FEMA regulations.
WITHOUT FEMA – Federal aid would be cut By joining the regular flood insurance program with FEMA Mt. Vernon residents and businessmen face higher construction costs and a possible no-growth after-effect. On the other hand, if the city doesn’t join, flood insurance will no longer be available in this area, and federal financial help on the local level will be severely limited. . . . The repercussions of withdrawing or being suspended from the program include no federal flood insurance for any resident or business. Policies which are active at the time the program ends will run their course, but they may not be renewed. Other than the federal program, the only kind of flood insurance available is a special policy for some mobile homes. |
FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE
These articles could give a whole new meaning to “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. The reality is that the Skagit River Valley especially the urban areas are subject to very severe flood events. Living behind a levee and not having flood insurance is as smart as jumping out of a plane without your parachute. |
|
|
Residents voice anger over flood regs “They’re not only selling insurance, they’re guaranteeing you’re gonna collect it. They’re going to turn the lights out in downtown Mt. Vernon.” That statement by Civil Engineer Denny LeGro (referring to dike restrictions) represented the general feeling at last night’s public hearing to consider proposed flood insurance regulations. . . . Major concerns were for the well-being of the Mt. Vernon business district which lies in the designated flood plain. Local businessmen claimed the program regulations would stifle their businesses with unfair costs and provide an inadequate amount of insurance. . . . Another issue of great concern locally is the restriction on increasing the sizes of the dikes if the city enters the program. FEMA views dikes as encroachments which would raise the level of flood waters. As existing structures, they may not be raised under the new program unless it is to the 100 year flood level. . . . Chuck Steele, deputy regional director of FEMA, countered by saying if the dikes were raised to the 100-year flood level, FEMA would have no argument. The area would then be flood-free, he said. And the dikes can be maintained, he said in answer to questions about breaks. “I don’t think there is an engineer alive who would say that (repairing the dike) would raise the level of floods. But there are grey areas between (raising and maintaining dikes),” he said. |
FEMA FLOOD ORDINANCE
Since this article was written, the lights are still on in Mt. Vernon, growth certainly has not been “stifled”, and the levees have all been raised and widened in the floodway. Proving once again that regulations aren’t any good unless they are enforced. Even when FEMA is notified of violations of local NFIP regulations FEMA Region X does nothing. As one FEMA employee once wrote, “Certainly FEMA bears some responsibility for the increased flood damage potential in the Skagit Valley.” (Source: E-mail from Patrick Massey, FEMA, 10/15/2001) (See ISYS QUERY FLOODWAY, 1/7/2007)
|
|
|
Citizens attack federal flood level estimates FEMA’s insistence that residents need flood insurance and local wariness of this insistence both precariously rest on the question of just how deep Mt. Vernon flood waters could get. . . . These elevations are of particular concern to residents here because if Mt. Vernon enters the federal flood insurance program all new construction and substantial improvements will have to be elevated above them. . . . Steele pointed out that Congress doesn’t accept historical data as valid for flood insurance studies. . . . Denny LeGro, former Mt. Vernon City engineer called the Corps flood elevations “overly cautious.” He said the problem with the flood elevation map is that it assumes the 100-year flood would be everywhere at its worst. . . . In a past study, the Corps determined the downtown Mt. Vernon levee would be the third most likely to break during a 100-year flood. |
FEMA FLOOD ELEVATIONS “Congress doesn’t accept historical data as valid for flood insurance studies” yet their whole hydraulic model is based on 4 historical flood estimates that were based on mostly “historical data”.
The current FIS elevation map assumes the right bank levee is not there and the left one is, then assumes the left bank levee is gone and the right one stays. Isn’t that “assuming” the 100 yr flood would be everywhere at its worst? Important to remember is that at this point in time FEMA was still using the Corps hydrology, not Dames & Moore. |
|
|
Government issues flood projections
| ||