The federal government has a public relations problem. And while much of this is unavoidable, equal parts can be blamed on its failure to explain complex policy and its knack for responding to legitimate questions with an air of indifference. Let’s look at the proposed floodplain update in Evergreen.
Recently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has concluded that the map, which can affect everything from insurance rates to land-use requirements, should be expanded. By a lot. The proposal, which is by no means set in stone, would add about 1,000 parcels to the 100-year floodplain.
FEMA sent out letters to unsuspecting landowners telling them about the potential changes. Some were confused. One landowner wondered why his property, which wasn’t flooded during the 500-year flood in 1964, would now be included in the 100-year floodplain. Others wondered why the agency decided to remap the area at all. There’s an interesting story behind that.
Apparently an Evergreen landowner raised concerns about the flood insurance rate map to a South Dakota senator, who then launched a congressional inquiry into the matter. Why a South Dakota senator, instead of one elected by – and representing – Montanans, is launching any sort of inquiry into the accuracy of maps in Flathead County is anybody’s guess.
“So, one property owner can cause mayhem?” Commissioner Pam Holmquist asked FEMA representatives at a recent meeting.
The answer to that is a resounding yes. In fact, anyone with technical data can prompt FEMA to update floodplain maps anywhere in the country, which seems like a system in need of an overhaul.
And then there are concerns over the maps FEMA is using during this preliminary stage. Along with politicians, local surveyors are questioning their accuracy. And there are real fears, among some in the area, that the government is simply “condemning” their property.
The whole ordeal reminds me of the controversy that unfolded last year over national monuments. In that case, the Interior Department began discussing – in “internal memos” – the idea of expanding federal land by millions of acres. No private landowners who would be directly affected by the new designations were involved in those discussions and, when the New York Times exposed them, it didn’t sit well.
In northeastern Montana, 2.5 million acres would potentially be set aside to create a new national bison range, one of 14 sites under consideration to be protected from development. Since the government was less than forthcoming, and landowners were initially excluded from the conversation, the move was quickly characterized as a “land grab.”
Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg introduced a House bill that would require Congress to approve the establishment of any new national monuments and ensure the president not abuse the Antiquities Act, which grants him that right.
The director of the Bureau of Land Management, Bob Abbey, was flown into Malta to explain that the memos were a result of a brainstorming session and no new monuments were imminent.
“There is no plan for a national monument in Montana. I want you to know that,” he told the crowd.
But the damage was done. And the suspicions persisted. And the federal government can blame itself for that.
The problem with FEMA deciding to revise the floodplain in Evergreen and the Department of Interior considering new monuments isn’t the ideas alone (although you can argue that they’re horrible). Much of the backlash can also be attributed to the fact that those directly affected by the federal government’s decisions don’t feel part of the conversation. That is, until they become controversial.
That is, until it’s too late.