Thurston County planning panel weighs broader flood mapping, fears for residents who could be barred from rebuilding

Thurston County’s Planning Commission on Feb. 4 discussed whether to expand the county’s approach to mapping frequently flooded areas beyond FEMA flood-insurance maps and how to balance stronger flood protections against harm to residents living in existing flood-prone neighborhoods. Claire Swearingen, the staff presenter, said FEMA flood-insurance-rate maps are the regulatory baseline but noted counties can incorporate other data — including high-groundwater maps, flood-of-record mapping and channel migration-zone analyses — to better capture local flood risk.

Why it matters: altering the maps or the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) could change what development is allowed in flood zones and affect insurance and rebuilding rights. Staff told the commission Thurston participates in FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) and currently holds a high CRS rating (a “2”), which produces discounts for policyholders; staff also said county participation helps reduce annual flood-insurance costs for residents and cited roughly 723 FEMA policyholders in the county and an estimated $372,000–$374,000 in annual CRS-driven savings for insured homeowners.

What was proposed and explained: staff described data sources counties use beyond FEMA, including state planning-level channel-migration-zone maps and newer lidar-based products. Swearingen and other staff said the main constraints are staff time, technical tools and, in some places, the absence of ready-made local maps. They urged the commission to consider a mix of approaches: keep FEMA maps as a countywide baseline, and apply additional datasets or higher standards in specific basins or drainage areas where more detailed mapping exists or where hazards differ.

Concerns raised by commissioners and public commenters: several commissioners and members of the public warned that stricter rules tied to expanded flood mapping could disproportionately harm lower-income residents who live in mobile/manufactured-home parks. Commissioner Eric Casino, drawing on personal experience, said the rules now can prevent homeowners from repairing or replacing flood-damaged homes: "If my dad wanted to do something to his place, like replace the floors and it costs $31,000, he wouldn't get a building permit... Now in 2023... if he wants to replace his floors and it's $31,000, he can't get a permit." Casino and others urged the commission to distinguish between new development and redevelopment, and to explore programmatic options — such as targeted buyouts or other assistance — rather than simply applying prohibitions that could leave residents homeless.

Insurance and regulatory trade-offs: staff emphasized that some strict requirements come from baseline National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participation rather than voluntary CRS crediting. Staff said local additions to frequently flooded-area mapping do not automatically change FEMA insurance determinations, but the county must remain NFIP-compliant to preserve the availability of federal flood insurance. Commissioners discussed reviewing which CAO provisions are NFIP baseline requirements versus CRS-credited measures to see where relief might be feasible without risking the county’s NFIP participation.

Next steps: staff said they will research which mapping products are available locally, how different map sources could be applied (countywide baseline vs. basin-specific), and which CAO standards are strictly NFIP requirements versus CRS-driven items. Staff also noted upcoming code review meetings where proposed CAO code language will be drafted and reviewed. The commission signaled interest in pursuing options that protect public safety and habitat while minimizing displacement risk for vulnerable residents.