The Coos Bay City Council on Jan. 9 unanimously directed staff to pursue membership in the Oregonians for Floodplain Protection Coalition and to evaluate potential financial support for litigation challenging recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance.

Council members said the dispute centers on FEMA’s new expectations for floodplain regulation that, they were told at the meeting, go beyond existing federal rules and could require local governments and developers to perform new environmental analyses and on-site mitigation for trees and other features when they propose construction or paving in floodplains.

City staff introduced the item and described the options. A city staff member said the coalition has organized potential legal action and that counsel had received notice that “a lawsuit’s been filed and a motion for a restraining order has been filed as well.” Councilor Troy moved the measure, saying, “I would like to make a motion that the council, direct staff to pursue membership in the Oregonians for Floodplain Protection Coalition, including potential for financial support for legal action against FEMA.” The motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote.

Why it matters: Council members and staff repeatedly said the guidance as presented would increase permitting complexity and costs for development in flood-prone areas of Coos Bay, including downtown sites that the city wants to activate for housing and economic activity. One councilor described cases where required on-site mitigation for lost trees and new impervious surfaces could consume much of a small lot, making projects “not pencil out.” Councilors and staff said the coalition’s legal action aims to prevent FEMA from enforcing these additional requirements while the courts consider whether FEMA followed required rulemaking processes.

City staff and councilors identified several practical consequences: more technical studies for ordinary development projects, added staff time to review permit applications, and possible reductions in feasible building area on constrained parcels. Staff also warned of potential long-term consequences if communities fail to meet elements FEMA might require, including impacts to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participation or future federal disaster assistance; whether FEMA could condition such benefits was a point raised in discussion and also one of the legal questions noted by city counsel.

Councilors who spoke said they were concerned both about environmental protection and local economic development. “For communities like ours where entire downtown is in a flood plain that impacts every development potential development,” one councilor said, “it’s one more step” that could limit housing and commercial projects unless clarified.

The council did not pledge a specific dollar amount in the motion. During discussion some speakers referenced a likely fundraising ask from coalition organizers; staff told the council that a $10,000 contribution had been discussed by other jurisdictions but that final details and potential additional requests would be a separate decision for the council.

What happens next: Staff were directed to pursue membership in the coalition and to report back on any recommended financial contribution and on other administrative steps. Staff also said they would continue to monitor the pending legal filings, the restraining-order motion and any guidance from state or federal agencies.

Meeting context: Council members framed the vote as a provisional step to join a broader legal and policy effort; it was not a commitment to any specific litigation strategy or funding level. Several councilors and staff emphasized the need to balance environmental protection requirements with the city’s economic-development goals.