By Barry Chalofsky

On June 17, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released revised versions of its latest floodplain delineations. The maps cover 194 municipalities in Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Cape May, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Union counties. The remainder of the coast is expected to be released shortly.

Many mayors and residents were very happy about the revisions, since they significantly reduced the number of buildings that were in the “V Zone,” or “velocity zone” —areas that are most at risk for flooding. These areas are where buildings would have to be built to withstand 3-foot waves, on top of the flooding. The new maps now show many of these areas as an “A Zone,” an area that is subject to 100-year flooding. Thousands of buildings are now moved, at least on paper, to a lower-risk area, simply by moving a line on a map. So does that mean that these homes and businesses are now free from the biggest impact of future floods?

Unfortunately, predicting flooding is not an exact science. We use statistical analysis, tied to topography and previous data, to determine where the flood zones should be. However, Mother Nature has long scoffed at man’s efforts to predict her future. There are two big caveats to the recent FEMA mapping: The data were largely based on pre-Sandy conditions, and the maps don’t account for sea-level rise. While I understand the desire to rebuild the Shore and have advocated it as an intermediate-term solution, I am concerned that people will now think that because their house is “just inside” the line between the A Zone and the V Zone, that they are not at as much risk.

The A Zone is a high-risk area to begin with — floods within the “100-year” floodplain are becoming more commonplace. More important, the floods cause significant damage, even without wave action. It is impossible to accurately place a line on a map when it comes to water. To rephrase an old Humphrey Bogart movie cliché: “Water does not care about no stinkin’ line!”

I have seen many instances where homeowners have elevated their houses at or above the standards for the A Zone, only to find the flood line reach above that elevation. In addition, there are still plenty of other opportunities for damage from floating debris, high winds and torrential rains. Maybe the waves will not reach the homes near the boundary of the V Zone, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a high likelihood for damage. For most of the country, the A Zone is the area of highest concern.

Clearly, the costs of elevating houses, particularly in the V Zone, are significantly greater than in the A Zone, and astronomical when compared to the areas outside of the floodplain. Yet, it is important to remember that most houses at the Shore were never built to any flood standard and are not required to be elevated if their owners don’t have a mortgage. My biggest concern is that this latest revision will create a false sense of security for those residents who are not required to elevate, or to those who now find themselves moved to the A Zone.

According to Richard Lathrop of Rutgers University, “The problem with the FEMA maps is that they predict the current risk of flooding, but with climate change in the picture, past experience is not an accurate predictor of future events.” Lathrop adds, “It really is a question of over what time frame people are making their decisions, and what risk they’re willing to accept.”

I think the real risk is that we rely too much on the maps and decide that we are “OK” if we just build to the required standards (New Jersey requires that you build one higher than the federal standards require.)

It’s not just a question of building and insurance costs, but also of emotional costs. I recently spent two weekends at the Shore — at Belmar and Sea Isle City. Belmar had significant damage from Sandy and was working hard to replace what was lost, whereas Sea Isle had significantly less damage. However, in both areas, there was a strong sense of getting back to the old normal. As I have said in previous articles, while I understand this need both for our economy and our emotional well-being, I can’t help but wonder if we are just falling back into old, comfortable ways because it is easier than facing an uncomfortable future.

I think that we must ensure that we don’t fool ourselves into thinking it will never happen again. Perhaps instead of “Stronger Than the Storm” the motto should be “Better Than the Storm.”

Barry Chalofsky, P.P., former chief of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's storm water and ground water programs, is an environmental and land-use planning consultant and an adjunct instructor of environmental planning at Rutgers University. Reach him at

bchalofassociates.com.

2 trchristie HINDASH.JPG

CONNECT WITH US: On mobile or desktop:

• Like Times of Trenton on Facebook

• Follow @TimesofTrenton on Twitter