Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County floodplain office outlines study updates, data gaps and records plan
Summary
Newton County staff reported updates to a regional flood study, a pipeline project's revision that may reduce modeled flows, missing records for about 76 properties requested by the state, and proposed steps to improve elevation-certificate accuracy and public outreach.
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County's floodplain official provided an extended status update on the county flood study and related issues, reporting multiple technical and administrative matters for the court to consider.
Staff said LJA (with Spriggs and Nichols contributing) performed most of the county's flood study but were unable to complete work in the south end of the county due to restricted access in that area. A private pipeline project north of town agreed to remove a creek restriction, and staff said revised engineering data and lidar inputs could reduce modeled flow at a key location "a little more than 2½ feet," which the consultant will incorporate into the updated flood model.
The official reported that the Texas Water Development Board had requested files for about 76 properties; many files were missing from county storage but staff located most of them and recommended scanning and structuring records to avoid future gaps. The floodplain office noted recurring errors on elevation certificates submitted by private engineering firms and proposed piloting a software tool (referred to in the transcript as 'Full Runner') to flag submission errors and standardize rejections so firms correct certificates before building proceeds. Staff also requested administrative support such as a dedicated PO box, improved website contact information, and a scanner/computer to manage floodplain files.
Commissioners discussed outreach options—postcards to new homeowners and periodic public meetings in the north and south ends of the county—and asked staff for a list of county-owned mitigation properties with restrictions. Staff warned that some low-lying areas cannot be mitigated and noted the statutory limits on placing structures that would cause a one-foot increase in base flood elevation.

