For decades, the Lafayette community has grown into flood prone areas, taking advantage of cheap and easily developable farmland, much of it in the parish’s low-lying south.
Nearly half of these newly sprouted developments in Lafayette Parish between 2001 and 2021 occurred in areas within the 500-year floodplain, according to The Current’s analysis of national land cover data and modeling by UL Lafayette’s Watershed Flood Center.
That’s about 5,600 acres that have, for the most part, been converted into residential neighborhoods and other new developments in the span of just two decades. And it adds to more than 21,000 acres of developed land already in the parish’s 500-year floodplain, that is, development at some risk for flooding in a major storm.
For many, this is a hidden risk. Federal maps haven’t kept up with newer models or accounted for some of the principal causes of flooding — namely, intense rain events — leaving local policies virtually outdated. In other words, Lafayette developed largely unaware of the risk, not necessarily in spite of it. As local government spends tens of millions on stormwater management and insurance rates rise, the costs of that pattern are becoming more obvious.
Where Lafayette has grown is one of the biggest factors influencing its flood risk. Determinations about which parts of the parish can be developed and which parts can’t have essentially been made by FEMA’s official flood maps, which delineate areas vulnerable to flooding.
But there’s a major flaw in letting those maps dictate development patterns: FEMA doesn’t account for flooding from localized rainfall, a major source of risk for Lafayette. That obscures Lafayette’s true flood risk from policymakers and the public alike.
“FEMA does not do what’s called pluvial flooding, local rain flooding. It’s only riverine flooding,” says Emad Habib, director of UL’s Watershed Flood Center. “Pluvial is from the rain, and fluvial is from the rivers and channels flooding. FEMA is primarily fluvial, and they are working on updating that, but they are not there yet.”
The difference is stark. UL’s modeling puts almost 50% more new development in the parish’s 500-year flood zone than FEMA’s official flood maps, which cover about 3,700 acres developed between 2001 and 2021.
FEMA’s flood maps also put just 20% of the parish development inside the 100-year flood zone, according to Lafayette Consolidated Government. Meanwhile, the nonprofit First Street Foundation’s Flood Factor model, which accounts for surface water flooding and which projects a major increase in rainfall intensity caused by climate change, says that number is closer to 40%.
That statistic isn’t surprising, says Habib, whose own modeling, which doesn’t account for increases rainfall amounts, finds about 30% of buildings parishwide are within the 500-year flood zone, though only about 8% total would be expected to take on water because of their first floor elevations.
The parish’s flood risk is also growing because of increased rainfall caused by climate change, according to data from the First Street Foundation, which published estimates this summer that dramatically increased the amount of rain expected to fall once every 100 years in Lafayette.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that a 100-year storm in Lafayette would drop around 4.5 inches of rain in one hour, but FSF raises that estimate to 6.3 inches, above what would be considered a 1,000-year storm by NOAA.
“American communities continue to be surprised by these heavy rainfall events that are resulting in flooding,” First Street’s Chief Data Officer Ed Kearns said in a virtual press conference on the foundation’s updated model in August. “We’re trying to call out and quantify exactly what that risk is so people can be prepared and communities can be prepared for this current and growing risk.”
That’s at least part of the difference between FSF’s data and UL’s model, which was based on NOAA’s rainfall estimates. Habib says that while he does expect NOAA to update its estimates to show increased rainfall in Lafayette in the next few years, it’s not likely that they will be as high as First Street’s because they were last updated in 2013. First Street also relied on a much shorter time period of data for its calculations, which increases the uncertainty around those findings, he says.
But the prevailing result remains that storms are becoming more intense in Lafayette, adding to the parish’s risk of flooding, particularly as more of its open land continues to be developed.
In fact, FEMA’s Community Rating System, which gauges local efforts to reduce flooding, gives Lafayette a particularly lacking grade for its efforts to preserve open, undeveloped land. Preserving open spaces can help lower flood risk by reducing investments in areas that could be damaged by flooding and by giving stormwater areas to collect that don’t result in property damage.
The average community scores 25% of the CRS’s possible points for open space preservation policies, which include efforts to keep flood-prone land vacant and to restore it to its natural state. But the city of Lafayette gets just 6% for its efforts, and the parish doesn’t even break 1%.
Flooding
Flooding and drainage are major political issues in Lafayette every election year. Read more about how LCG impacts it here.
In 2001, just over 31% of the parish — about 53,600 acres — had been developed. But by 2021, that figure jumped to 38%, putting another 12,600 acres of undeveloped land into uses that exacerbate flood risk.
The sprawling nature of growth in Lafayette is a factor that contributes to increased runoff and potential flooding, says Gary Kinsland, professor emeritus of geosciences at UL, who authored a 1998 study on the correlation between increased development in Lafayette and rising water levels in the Vermilion River.
Just the shift from raised houses on piers to homes built on concrete slabs has made the parish more vulnerable to flooding, says Kinsland.
“Once you build on a slab, you’ve got to raise that slab and grade your whole yard because, if you don’t, just a normal, healthy rain will flood over your 3-inch slab,” says Kinsland.
“When it rains, there ain’t no water standing in that yard,” he adds. “But where’d it go? We’re not just draining the roofs that we have, or in fact, the parking lots that we have. We’re draining everything.”
5 Comments
Thank you Andrew Capps for this well researched article. FEMA methodology for mapping flood zones greatly underestimates the likelihood of flooding. In fact, FEMA mapping was developed as a nationally uniform way to set insurance rates, and was not developed to give a reliable risk estimate for individual properties. In Lafayette the FEMA zones generally underestimate flood risk for a number of reasons.
One big concern I have is that as Lafayette Parish completes flood management projects it will apply for FEMA flood map revisions. I don't wish high flood insurance rates on anyone, and revising the map to bring developed areas into a lower flood insurance area is laudable. However, revisions are also likely to bring more undeveloped area out of the flood-risk area and bring more investment for development in risky places. The 2018 Lafayette revision reduced the flood hazard area by more than 3000 acres, and was described as being the largest Physical Map Revision to date approved by FEMA in the United States.
It's a dilemma - as Lafayette Parish builds flood projects, how can it reduce insurance rates for existing structures without promoting new high-risk development?
Thanks Mike! The dilemma you mention is a great point that I'm hoping to address in the next story on this, and it drives home exactly why this is part of our election coverage. How we balance growth and risk is a decision made by our local leadership, and people deserve that understanding when they vote. Feel free to send me an email at [email protected] if you'd like to discuss more.
I apologize if they are linked and I miss them, but does the article provide a link to the maps it discusses - showing the neighborhoods in the flood zones according to the two studies?
The article is condemnatory of these new developments, and seemingly with good reason.
But I'd still find it helpful to identify what developments we're actually talking about. It would help us assess the cost of the policy supported (not having these developments).
It also could help us identify the actual culprit or policy mistake at issue. Perhaps the parish should not have allowed development in these areas at all (though given the article says they only are uninhabitable now, based on new climate patterns and data which did not exist or was not apparent before, I don't know how we could conclude this). That paints with a broad brush, however, a framing that flows through the rest of the article, which speaks only in generalities about "developments" and actions we/the parish should not have taken.
We did not develop these areas however, and neither did the parish itself; particular developers did. Why? Was it one or only a few developers, or widespread? Are these developers still active, and if so are they continuing their past mistakes or have they rectified their approach?
It strikes me that if the risk was apparent enough that the parish should have flatly forbidden development of these lands - something it is understandably loathe to do, and which makes it exceedingly unpopular with the owners of such properties hoping to sell their lands - it certainly should have been apparent to - or at least on the radar screen of - the developers (or at least most of them).
Regardless, they may have more to account for here than the parish (or the ephemeral "we" who mistakenly allowed these developments so long ago - when most of us had no involvement in or knowledge of what was going on). To the extent they are still active, or the mistakes were only committed by one or two parties, identifying the developers and developments/lands could present valuable lessons, or mistakes we can correct, going forward.
Or not - it could be random, just a general mistake everyone made - which would be less helpful going forward but also still informative, namely as it would indicate the condemnatory presentation here is unwarranted - or at least little more than hindsight.
Who knows? I'm curious!
Great work on the maps, but, as good as the maps are, don't they in some way reflect common knowledge? We all knew that the cane fields around Youngsville were prone to flooding, but no one worried when they were cane fields. Then we let developers build subdivision after subdivision of homes. The only thing more nuts than that is the people who bought houses in known flood plains and who now want other taxpayers to bail them out. We can't keep privatizing profit and then making liabilities public.
The flight from science and reason in a let's-pretend world. The O-rings will probably be OK.