(a) The Act provides that flood insurance shall not be sold or renewed under the program within a community, unless the community has adopted adequate flood plain management regulations consistent with Federal criteria. Responsibility for establishing such criteria is delegated to the Federal Insurance Administrator.
(b) This subpart sets forth the criteria developed in accordance with the Act by which the Federal Insurance Administrator will determine the adequacy of a community's flood plain management regulations. These regulations must be legally-enforceable, applied uniformly throughout the community to all privately and publicly owned land within flood-prone, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) or flood-related erosion areas, and the community must provide that the regulations take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting local laws, ordinances or codes. Except as otherwise provided in § 60.6, the adequacy of such regulations shall be determined on the basis of the standards set forth in § 60.3 for flood-prone areas, § 60.4 for mudslide areas and § 60.5 for flood-related erosion areas.
(c) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed as modifying or replacing the general requirement that all eligible communities must take into account flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and flood-related erosion hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official actions relating to land management and use.
(d) The criteria set forth in this subpart are minimum standards for the adoption of flood plain management regulations by flood-prone, mudslide (i.e., mudflow)-prone and flood-related erosion-prone communities. Any community may exceed the minimum criteria under this part by adopting more comprehensive flood plain management regulations utilizing the standards such as contained in subpart C of this part. In some instances, community officials may have access to information or knowledge of conditions that require, particularly for human safety, higher standards than the minimum criteria set forth in subpart A of this part. Therefore, any flood plain management regulations adopted by a State or a community which are more restrictive than the criteria set forth in this part are encouraged and shall take precedence.
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
Fanny Hudson v. City of Yazoo City, Mississippi (2018)
miss · cites it 2×
“" 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (b) (2009). ¶ 58. In response to the motion for summary judgment filed by Yazoo City and Yazoo County, Hudson presented uncontradicted expert testimony by Gillian Butler, a civil engineer in the field of hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, in the form of an…”
Oregonians for Floodplain Prot. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (2018)
cadc · cites it 3×
“§ 4022 (a)(1) (2012) ; 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a) (2018) ). Congress provided that "[t]he Director shall make flood insurance available in only those States or areas" which he has determined have (1) evidenced a "positive interest" in securing flood insurance under the NFIP and (2)…”
Matusevich v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Com (2015)
ca1 · cites it 2×
“§§ 4001(e), 4002(b)(3); 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 . The NFIP is administered by FEMA, which, in turn, is authorized to “prescribe regulations establishing the general method or methods by which proved and approved claims for losses may be adjusted and paid.”
Florida Key Deer v. Paulison (2008)
ca11
“The criteria now in effect are set forth in FEMA’s regulations at 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 -.26. The criteria relevant here are discussed below.”
Coalition for a Sustainable Delta v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2011)
caed
“§ 4022(a); 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a). The criteria must be designed to encourage state and local governments to adopt flood plain regulations that will: (1) constrict the development of land which is exposed to flood damage where appropriate, *1101 (2) guide the development of…”
Wozniak v. Colchester (2019)
connappct
“At all relevant times, the plaintiffs owned real prop- erty known as 159 Lebanon Avenue in Colchester (prop- erty), an undeveloped parcel of vacant land.”
Coalition for a Sustainable Delta v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (2010)
caed
“§§ 4012(c), 4022(a); 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (a). The NFIA mandates that FEMA design the criteria to encourage, to the maximum extent feasible, the adoption of state and local flood plain regulations that will: (1) constrict the development of land which is exposed to flood damage…”
Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland County (2015)
sc
“44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (d). In one important aspect, Richland County’s regulations are more restrictive than the FEMA minimum in that Richland County, by ordinance, prohibits construction in a floodway.”
Village of Oak Brook v. County of Du Page (1988)
illappct
“The Federal regulations relied on by plaintiffs provide that Federal flood plain insurance shall not be renewed unless the community has adopted adequate flood plain management regulations that take precedence over any less restrictive conflicting local laws, ordinances or codes.”
— 44 C.F.R. § 60.1(b) — 1 case
Fanny Hudson v. City of Yazoo City, Mississippi (2018)
miss
“" 44 C.F.R. § 60.1 (b) (2009). ¶ 58. In response to the motion for summary judgment filed by Yazoo City and Yazoo County, Hudson presented uncontradicted expert testimony by Gillian Butler, a civil engineer in the field of hydrologic and hydraulic engineering, in the form of an…”
— 44 C.F.R. § 60.1(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.