It hasn’t flooded since 1911. So, in some quarters, a certain complacency has set in about the 53,000-acre Natomas Basin.
The reality, however, is that the 43 miles of levees currently only meet a 30-year flood protection standard, the lowest level of flood protection for any major metropolitan area in the United States. A flood could put the area under 20 feet of water.
The bottom line is that Natomas levees don’t meet minimum 100-year federal flood protection standards. So new home construction has been banned since Dec. 8, 2008 (unless homes are elevated 21 feet). That’s a de facto building moratorium until levee upgrades are done – which is not expected until summer 2012.
During this levee upgrade period, potential homebuyers depend on developers, city officials and lenders to follow the rules and protect them from flood hazards.
That didn’t happen with 35 sites, where a city employee overrode a computer system to illegally grant building permits last year.
After this was discovered, construction stopped last October. But the city asked FEMA in December to grant exceptions to the rules to allow the 35 homes to be completed, occupied and follow insurance requirements as if they were in a low-risk flood zone (that is, voluntary rather than mandatory coverage).
Who was that request protecting? Certainly not potential homebuyers in that high-risk flood area. Fortunately, FEMA in a Feb. 8 letter rejected the city’s proposal as unacceptable. The agency insists that each violation must be “fully corrected or mitigated.”
So what now? Of the 35 sites, the city can easily deal with 25. Until levee upgrades are done, the 21 that are slab foundations and the four that are framed can sit tight. The city issued a notice of suspension on these sites Feb. 23.
But what about 10 completed homes that received final city inspection for occupancy in August and September last year?
FEMA made it clear that these “represent a significant exposure to flood damages, personal loss and potential emergency/disaster costs” and “must be brought into full compliance.”
City officials included one in the Feb. 23 notice of suspension, because closing hadn’t yet occurred.
That leaves nine completed, sold homes. Between now and April 8, the city must figure out a plan for these homeowners. As part of that, a lingering question should be thoroughly investigated: Did the lender tell each of these families that they were buying homes in a high-risk flood zone where federal law mandates flood insurance?
FEMA did not make suggestions for dealing with the nine homebuyers, especially the six who occupy homes. But FEMA did make it clear that the city would have to take “corrective action” or all Sacramento residents could lose premium discounts on flood insurance policies – or, at worst, be suspended from federal flood insurance or federal disaster assistance if a flood occurs.
Making things right, thus, is urgent for all city residents who buy flood insurance. Now and in the future, the new leadership in the city manager and development departments should make it clear that homeowners, not just developers, are part of “getting the customer to success.”