FEMA defends decision on Nassau flood map

The Federal Emergency Management Agency seven years ago considered creating a model for drafting Nassau's flood map, but rejected doing so because of cost. The agency relied instead on the Suffolk model - a decision that is now generating criticism.

FEMA's use of the Suffolk model sacrificed accuracy in the Nassau map, critics charge.

The 2009 flood map - using information extrapolated from a draft report for Suffolk County in an effort to save money - added 25,000 property owners to the flood zone, forcing homeowners with mortgages to spend as much as $3,000 annually for flood insurance.

But experts and critics say that a separate Nassau model would produce a higher level of confidence in the results. Critics still want FEMA to authorize such a model.

"The ideal solution would be to develop a model specifically for the southern Nassau area," said Jay Tanski, a coastal specialist with the New York State Sea Grant Extension Program.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), responding to a question about the flood map, said, "It appears FEMA decided to use Suffolk data to create flood maps in Nassau, not because it was the most accurate information, but because it was the cheapest. FEMA trying to force the square peg into a round hole is flat wrong, especially when the result is costly insurance premiums for Nassau homeowners."

Valley Stream civic leader Carol Crupi said, "Because of FEMA's cost-cutting efforts, thousands of people were forced to pay huge flood insurance premiums. That is just so unfair."

FEMA made the decision in order to save $1 million that it would have had to pay the Army Corps of Engineers to prepare a Nassau model.

FEMA spokesman Donald Caetano said, "Before deciding to use the Corps' Fire Island to Montauk study, we considered several options and factors, such as cost and the validity of data. One of the options included performing a Nassau County study. Ultimately, we decided to use the Corps' Fire Island to Montauk study because it was the most cost-effective option and provided the necessary data [through extrapolation]. FEMA strives to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars."

Caetano added, "FEMA continues to work with our local, state and federal partners to ensure we have updated and accurate data regarding flood maps."

Army Corps spokesman Chris Gardner said his agency "provided FEMA with an estimate for hydrodynamic modeling to develop water elevations for Nassau County; however they opted to go in another direction."

Gardner said the corps could not comment on whether a Nassau study would have made the map more accurate.

FEMA last year conducted spot checks of 100 locations in Nassau to verify elevation data, and the U.S. Geological Survey is expected to gather aerial laser survey data for Nassau this year that FEMA plans to use to further check the map.

Tanski and other independent experts say use of the Suffolk model is justifiable, but FEMA did not use enough data from Nassau to prove the map was valid.

After inquiries from Newsday, FEMA has agreed to look at additional tidal gauge data gathered by the Town of Hempstead as a way of assessing the map's accuracy.