FLOOD03849 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . ~---. I . _-L 5 court found that in order to require the Agency to hold a hearing, the court would have to determine unconatitutional the statutory section providing for the Agency to choose from among the three aeans of appeal resolution. The court was unwilling to do this as: (1) the setting of flood levels is quasi- legislative a~d not adjudicatory, and (2) the Agency fsctfinding procedure was adequate. DE NOVO REVIEW Not only is there no entitlement to an administrative hearing but, once in court, judicial review is limited to the administrative record and there is to be no de novo review of the agency determinstion. Citing Overton Park and Camp V7PItts. the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Hississippi found that de novo review is appropriate only where there are inadequate factfinding procedures in an adjudicstory proceeding and ruled thst such wss not the case here. Roberts v. Harris, 473 F. Supp. 52 (1979). In Bsyou LaBatre v. Jimenez the U.S. District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of Alabama cited Texas Landowners in holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to de novo review because the flood elevations are not adjudicatory but rather rulemaking or quasi-legislstive. Thus, we have two decisions denying de novo review on two independent grounds: one because the fact- finding procedures of the NFIP are adequate and the other because the ele- vations are not adjudicstory in nature. Based on Overton Park, both of these obstacles would have to be overcome for de novo review to be obtained. Another issue raised in Wenatchee was whether the consulting firm of DAMES & MOORE was an independent scientific body for purposes of resolving the appeal. The court held that just because DAMES & MOORE has SOme involvement in the flood insurance study did not mean that the firm was not independent. .Plsintiffs' uncorroborated speculation about DAMES & MOORE does not con- stitute even minimal evidence of bias..' (P. 4.) TECHNICAL ACCURAcY In two of the cases discussed, Roberts and Wenatchee, the accuracy of the flood elevations themselves was challenged. In both cases the court upheld FEKA's determinations. In Roberts the question was whether the designation was rendered inaccurate by FIA's failure to take into account potential changes in the channelling, widening, and dredging of the Tombigbee River and potential changes to a highway. The court noted that FIA had reviewed these points. It held that since future flooding effects of the potential changes in the watercourse could not be anticipated with reasonable ac- curacy, FIA's decision, based on the known historicsl flood data, was not arbitrary and capricious. Rather, the court ststed, the procedural steps required by statute and regulation were carefully followed. In Wenatchee the court took a similarly restrained stance. The court limited its scope of review to (1) whether FEKA's decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors, and (2) whether there was a clear error of judg~ent. If there was a reasonable basis for the Agency's judgnent, it ~st be affirmed.