There’s an old aphorism, “Be careful what you wish for; you may just get it.” It may be old, but it seems to apply to the current situation here in Baldwin County with respect to the new areas designated as flood-zones.
Now in the old days (pre-now) everybody pretty much used the FEMA flood-zone maps. The Feds; counties and cities; insurance companies and mortgage lenders. One sheet of music and a tune that seldom changed, year-to-year or even storm-after-storm. Not even when FEMA flopped, post-Katrina, was their skill in mapping likely flood areas challenged – it was their ineptness after the flooding actually occurred that cost them their credibility.
But now FEMA’s flood-zones are being challenged as too optimistic (i.e. too small) by county planner Wayne Dyess. He and his staff have created a new flood-prone zone map, contained within the delightfully named report, “Exploring the Baldwin County Flood Plan and the Benefits of Mitigation.” It sounds a bit like something the local garden club might schedule as a field trip, but in fact it’s something less benign that the county staff wants to have implemented – now.
When I first read about this proposal, I thought that this was the answer to the county residents’ wishes. Year after year in planning meetings and before various councils, impassioned citizens challenged construction projects and new subdivisions based on water run-off and flooding. The maps and studies did not represent reality, these folks reported – usually adding that there is flooding already all over the place and the planned construction (or whatever) will only make it worse. Repeatedly people stood up and challenged (implicitly and explicitly) the FEMA flood-zone maps. These maps they alleged, understated the water problem, both in flooded area and in frequency of flooding.
So now that someone at the county level has taken action to correct this apparently serious shortcoming, I would expect to hear cheering and a push to get the county commissioners to approve the changes, posthaste. Their wishes have been fulfilled in an example of responsive local government. On such a popular topic, I assumed that there would be a rush by our politicians to take credit for this good deed.
In reality this isn’t the situation at all. None of the county commissioners seem to want to be associated with the proposed newer, bigger flood-zones. And at the city level the attitude can be summed up by Fairhope City Council member Mike Ford’s thoughts on the contentious topic. In a recent meeting he tossed out a simple hypothetical situation of a small pond in the middle of 80 acres. The proposed flood-zone designation and building restrictions when applied to this notional area, Mike suggested, would result in no development allowed over the entire acreage. Looking pained, he further suggested that this wasn’t right. No one disagreed with him.
This same reaction played out in other meetings around the county. One resident addressing the county commissioners claimed that the new flood-prone designation on his land was in an area that had never flooded, but in disregarding reality this designation by the county would strip his land of much of its value – essentially a “taking” of his wealth. At a time of uncertainty in the real estate markets, this sort of added complexity is an unwanted burden. Even if limited construction is allowed in these newly identified “risky” areas, how will mortgage lenders and insurance underwriters react? I suggest not well and buyers will avoid places like these.
Oh, I almost forgot – we’re not talking about a few parcels of land and a few folks being affected. According to the county over 600 square miles (note: big square miles – not wimpy little acres) are labeled as flood-prone, with more than a third of this area consisting of privately owned land.
Wow, somebody sure got what they wished for, but nobody seems to want it now that their wish is about to be granted. That “nobody” category appears to include the county commissioners responsible for voting on the plan’s implementation. There was a flurry of action at the last commission meeting over requesting an opinion from the state Attorney General on the legality of implementing the Baldwin County Flood Zoning Plan – apparently hoping that the problem of how to vote would be preempted by action in Montgomery. But “Sex-Toy” Troy will be denied the opportunity to weigh in on this local matter because proponents of the motion couldn’t muster a majority.
However, Fairhope’s Mayor Kant did weigh in by suggesting that this sort of thing required public involvement. He suggested getting this by putting the entire matter to a vote by county residents. County Commissioner Frank Burt responded that doing this would be hard as it required district by district polling – not adding that this could result in some strange, clearly impractical flood zones, varying at political boundaries rather than along terrain features.
Another – far simpler – approach was suggested by a second commissioner, David Bishop: Simply leave things alone and follow the FEMA map. But the last and likely most accurate thought on what should be done with this issue and the path to resolution came from yet another commissioner, Wayne Gruenloh, who concluded: “I don’t know where we’re going to go.”
Contact Pete Gleszer at jubilee@lagniappemobile.com.
Archives
Jubilee
