Committee weighs H.106 changes to seller flood-disclosure rules amid outdated FEMA maps

At a May 9 meeting of the Zenith Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee, lawmakers and stakeholders discussed H.106, a bill that would change seller disclosure requirements for real property located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)–mapped flood hazard areas.

The bill would keep three core seller disclosure questions — whether the property is in a FEMA-designated high or moderate flood-hazard area, whether it has flooded while the seller owned it, and whether the seller maintains flood insurance — and add a statutory protection for sellers who, after trying to determine map status, notify buyers that they "cannot reasonably determine" whether the property lies within a FEMA special or moderate flood-hazard area. Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council summarized the proposed defense as language that allows a seller to notify the buyer that "the seller cannot reasonably determine if the real property is located within a special or moderate flood hazard area," and to show the buyer the subsection that requires disclosure.

Why it matters: several committee members, real estate industry representatives and legal observers said FEMA maps are inconsistent across Vermont — many are dated paper scans or lack property overlays — and that requiring sellers to use those maps can create liability problems. Peter Tucker of the Vermont Association of Realtors told the committee that flood status is "a material fact on a property" and that buyers should be informed, but he and others described practical problems that have forced the association to rework forms. Chris Deolio, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, said, "I think the approach that you've got in H.106 is a reasonable one," calling the mapping environment "complex" and noting that even professional flood certifications can be imperfect. By contrast, James (Jim) Knapp, co‑chair of the Real Estate Section of the Vermont Bar Association, warned that courts or litigants could interpret the statute differently and said, "You can't use the word reasonable and assume that everyone knows what that means."

Most of the meeting centered on two policy choices: whether to keep a seller-focused duty to research map status at the point of sale, and how specific the statute should be about what counts as adequate effort. Supporters said the proposed defensive language preserves buyer notice while limiting seller exposure in areas where maps are outdated or unavailable. Opponents said the requirement could expose sellers — including older Vermonters without computer skills — to costly litigation defending subjective determinations based on uneven mapping resources.

Participants identified a set of practical fixes the committee is considering: add a third response option on the seller disclosure form ("cannot determine" or similar) with a required explanation box; allow sellers to rely on several sources (FEMA digital maps, local town records, professional flood certifications, or climate‑risk products commonly used by listing sites); and adopt a delayed effective date so the realtor association and other groups can update forms (committee members discussed a proposed effective date of Sept. 1, 2025). Cameron Wood noted the underlying statute sits in Title 27 (conveying real property) and that the bill would not bar a buyer from conducting their own due diligence after receiving seller notice.

No formal vote occurred in the committee. Members agreed to continue the discussion at the committee's next scheduled meeting on Tuesday to consider language refinements, form changes and the proposed delayed effective date. Chair Amber (first name given in the meeting record) closed the item noting further debate would resume.

Ending: Committee staff and stakeholders will return revised language and a draft disclosure form for further review; the committee did not adopt or reject H.106 at the May 9 session.