FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 injunction. Consistent with the statutory language and the legislative history, the court was reluctant to hold up the effective date of the flood 411 elevations and allow development to take place below lEMA's elevations. Alabama v. Hacy (S.D. Ala. 1980). JURISDICTION. TWo cases have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In Valdez v. Hacy (D. Alaska), the court found that it had no jurisdiction to resolve the challenge to lEMA's flood elevations. The appellant community had not sub- mitted scientific snd technical information to support its contention. In fact, the community did not really submit an appeal, and the court had no jurisdiction over the community's hollow assertions that the flood elevations were too high. In City of Trenton v. lEMA (E.D. Mich. 1981). the court dismissed the chal- lenge to FEMA's floodplain determinations because plaintiff had failed to bring bring suit within 60 days after lEMA bad finalized sucb determinations, as is required by statute. Plaintiff did not bring suit until 6 montbs after the flood levels were finalized. It was "clear to the court tbat in cases of this kind a time period for the exercise of appellate rigbts is an impor- tant aspect of the full implementation of the program." (P. 7.) The court also cited a Supreme Court case in bolding that where, as here, Congress has provided an adequate means "to obtain judicial review of agency action, the statutory provision is the exclusive means of determining judicial review in tbose situations to which it applies." (P. 9.) Whitney National . Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411 (1965). The court also recognized public policy concerns bebind imposing a time limit in that "it promotes finality of administrative determinations and conserves adminis- trative resources." (P. 9.) The court concluded that because Trenton failed to meet tbe statutory pre- requisites for judicial review, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. RIGHT TO HEARING There have been a few suits in which communities bave asserted a right to have their appeal resolved by administrative hearing. This issue was raised and implicitly answered in Texas Landowners, supra. The court held that the program provided adequate due process protection, strongly implying that a hearing is not required. In Lee County v. FIA (M.D. Fla. 1981). the court dismissed a suit challenging FEMA's right to refer the appeal to an indepen- dent scientific body. In a very brief opinion the court cited FTC v. Standard Oil Co., 101 S. Ct. 488 (1980), thus implying that referral to an independent scientific body did not constitute final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The issue was squarely raised and decided in City of Wenatchee v. FEMA (E.D. Wash. 1981). The court held that in their challenge to FEMA's flood ele- vations, plaintiffs were not entitled to an administrative hearing. The .