Building in a flood plain - Arizona style

Unscrupulous developers buy land in flood plains here, level the site, grade in some streets without drainage systems and build houses in the flood plains when it is dry. Anyone who looks at a topographical map should see that the houses are in a flood plain, but they don't check and buy the houses anyway.

It doesn't happen often, but when a gully washer hits, those houses all flood. That's when they discover that the original developer is no where to be found, so they go on TV and cry because their houses flooded.

It's definitely a "Let the buyer beware" situation. But then, "DUMB" is our largest surplus.

My parish (county) requires any new construction to have a permit issued by the parish before any construction can begin. The primary reason for this permit is to make a determination as to whether the site is above the established flood level. The ordinance prohibits utilities from being provided in the absence of a permit. No permit, no lights. This flood level is pretty much an arbitrary elevation based on the "100-year flood". Problem is, we've had four or five 100-year floods during the past 40 years. But, it is an effort, at least, to mandate some common sense where it is lacking.

Something to note about 50-yr/100-yr/X-yr flood lines: Those are the levels that floods are projected to reach **at least once** every X years. It is NOT a probability statement in the way that many people take it - it does not mean that floods will hit a given level only once every X years.

I doubt that the civil engineer who corrected my long-held misunderstanding would agree that the lines are arbitrary. The lines aren't re-drawn every year; insurance rates & development plans obviously hinge on longer-term projections. It's a tough decision about when to re-draw, because lots of new development brings more paved & low-perm surfaces and increased runoff, but do you wait until the floods happen or try to forecast what will happen, not just because of one project but the totality of many? In relatively undeveloped areas, developers would cry foul, saying "But that area has never flooded", which is likely a correct statement, and local officials have little other data to go on in making their decisions.

Here in NH a developer cannot get far doing anything In a substandard manner. Everything is inspected. I knew a crook builder personally. He was constantly trying to get away with illegal construction, and lost a lot of money tearing out and rebuilding instead of doing it right the first time. One town made him tear up pavement and gravel in order to put the required sand down first. He fought them, and he lost the building season.

Everything in TH, In has to have a permit before they can build. However in 2008 some houses flooded that were not in a flood plane. The map of the flood plane had to be changed. They said it was a 100 year flood.

being a civil engineer living on the east coast I am familiar with lots of the data that goes into that educated guess of 100 year flood elevation---we have to deal with flood tides and have numerous tide gauges around the coast line and have data going back to the 30's.along with that data we have wave height data which in recent years has been added to the flood elevation proportionate to distance in from the coast and then on top of that is global warming which has definitely raised normal sea levels----so it produces an elevation that is somewhat in the ball park---it appears that in the last few years those elevations have been exceeded quite often

I was once caught in a rare downpour in Albuquerque, NM. When the streets started to flood, the highest ground I could see was a supermarket parking lot so I headed for it. The water came up about to the bottom of the doors on my car, then began to subside. In about 20 minutes, the water was down and I went on my way, but I know there were houses in the area that had problems. Plus the floor of the supermarket was on the same level as the parking lot, so I know they had water inside.

It only comes rarely, but it does happen. You have to ask, "Does it happen once in a hundred years or once a year?"

Well you better put a stop to that because after the flood your tax money will be paying to rebuild those homes .

100 year flood plain lines do change all the time. Due the changes in up stream and down stream developments. A bunch of new subdivisions up stream can pour out more water, faster, and the down stream historical levels are no longer accurate. Periodically they will go through and up date those levels... In some few cases, the level will move down a bit,, in a lot more cases, the level will move up due to increased water runoff. So if your in a low area, or even close to a low area, you can soon be in a flood plain,, or be subjected to higher water than before.

If there is a mortgage involved I would think the bank would put a big WHOA on that during underwriting.

One of the most ridiculous examples of building in a floodplain ever...

About 40 years ago there was a lake side resort near here that was, I assume, driven out of business by extended drought. They sold to developers who built large lake frontage homes on the property.

Seems they got a little carried away with the building and some of the homes were too close to the lake. When the rains finally came, at least 3 of the houses were submerged up to the eves when the lake was at normal level! Many more were flooded.

How is this possible? Outside city limits so no permits. But how could it have gotten by mortgage providers, insurance? Never heard much more about it, seems the houses were demolished, much of the land is vacant now.

County zoning will not allow you to build in a flood plain and your mortgage will have to have flood insurance included if you buy in an area that wasn't previously regulated. We always have to pay the bank for a flood certificate before we can close on a construction loan. Around here anyway.

Yes, you would think that the mortgage company would require flood insurance in a known flood plain, but that was not the case when my son bought a house in Cedar Rapids. He lost the house in the 08 flood. Fortunately for him, he didn't come out too bad with the flood bailouts. Unfortunately for us taxpayers we got stuck for him and several thousand more houses in that flood.

Whatever happened with the Dallas plan to build the rec park in the Trinity river bottom? I know they finished their bridge to nowhere.

Ft. Worth was talking about a big apartment type development northwest of downtown along the Trinity some years ago.

I haven't heard about these in a while since I'm not up in that area all the time like I used to be.

Just to give "the other side" of the story as it relates to government forced flood insurance...

We're lucky enough to live on the water in Tampa on a big parcel of land. The house was built in 1940 and is 125' from the water frontage, which is heavily tide influenced. I know the previous owner, who built the house, and he confessed that once the water came up about 30' onto the yard during the no name storm of 93 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Storm_of_the_Century) which was impressive. Still, that's 100' from my house and the back door is 2' off the ground where the deck meets it. This past summer it rained every day for a month... literally every day. We got over 28" of rain in that timeframe and 110" for the year. During that time we had a summer full moon tide and it was only 10' on my property.

Still, I'm required to carry FEMA's flood insurance at $1200 a year, which will go up to $1800 annually once the Biggert Waters Act goes into effect (right now 2017).

For those bemoaning that your tax dollars are going to rebuild people's businesses and homes, at least that's one thing you can point at and say "Hey, my tax dollars helped someone get their life back." As someone who's done a lot of government work over the last 25 years, that's the least of your worries as to where your tax dollars are going. It's not like they're going to lower your taxes when they institute the Biggert Waters Act, they'll just buy more $10k hammers.

Additionally, there are millions of us paying thousands of dollars annually to carry insurance in addition to the regular homeowners insurance. Between flood insurance, homeowners and property taxes, it's $800 a month.

Dismounting the soap box now. Carry on. [/url]

Many people feel the same way about crop insurance.

Plant I worked at in Green Bay Wisconsin had two "100 year floods" in 7 years, it was outside the normal flood plane when it was built in the 30's but subsequent construction on lower ground in the area (after said lower ground was filled) shifted us into flood planes. The addition of 4 lane highways also effected where water went during the rains. Not to whine because most of this land had been sold off by the owners of the plant, members of the family admitted they made almost as much money on land sales as they did in the business in the 50's and 60's. I'm not a big fan of government flood insurance, I feel they should offer the subsidy on insurance to those structures already built on a flood plane, when redevelopment or road construction shifts the plane the builders of the projects should "buy" the liability of the changed flood plane either by paying for private flood insurance for the effected properties or paying the current owners a one time fee to subsidize the property owner's assumption of flood liability. New construction in flood planes should only be allowed if the developers pay for a private flood insurance.

Yes I know I've mentioned private flood insurance, that doesn't currently exist,that's something that should be changed.

I know that the ultimate responsibility lies with the buyer, however here in Virginia county zoning laws usually preclude such nefarious practices.

I like the low taxes and freedom from regulation we have in Oklahoma (includes open carry). But away from city limits, it's pretty much a free for all, buyer beware. it's ok if you are willing to take personal responsibility. My cows still water in the creek that runs into a COE lake. And I'm thinking about using chicken litter this winter on my hay fields.

They did it for years in Northern California....and still have it if it ever rains too much there again.....It's called the Sacramento River Valley.....Good tip to remember.....the levees are there just for looks, they leak........that's why they have the flood plains....trouble is they leak bad and the flood plains can't hold the spillover, so it's possible to fill the rain gutters on your house from the bottom up. I saw it do that back in the middle 1990's, glad I lived up in Paradise at 2200 ft. elevation.

There is a mentality in this state that allows developers to do just about anything that they want to. I suspect that a little money changing hands will allow the developers to skirt the codes, if need be.

Ah, the AZ real estate developers. I've told this on here before so will be brief. About 1970 went on trip west. We were going from Flagstaff to the Grand Canyon and stopped for a pit stop at the intersection of hwy 180 and 64, which at that time had Open Range signs along the road. A few roads scraped out through the brush for a development, but only a mobile home or two. Not being interested in a lot in the semi desert 1k miles from home, we left. Mid 1980s we and our two children came back that way and stopped. More MHs, a motel , and a service station where the guy tried to sell me $140 worth of air shocks for the station wagon. Nope, didn't bite, later sold the wagon with the original shock still on it. The former real estate office had an nice lady in it who sold tourist junk. Short story is that the area has no water, some people drilled 3,000 foot wells and up dry. They have to have water trucked in. Not a sign of a flood plain there, they would have welcomed some flood waters.

KEH