Would any type of records search available to a homeowner prepurchase have turned up these floodplain maps?
I've had flood plain maps included in my mortgage paperwork, but I've also had the other parties sit their being verbally impatient while I actually look through everything instead of just signing where they show me.
[Edit] fyi the proper way to make the seller care about such things is to extend due diligence and let them know you'll need a flood map before you'll move forward on the deal.
I would be pissed if I bought property that knowingly floods, but the seller's agent insists it is the responsibility of the buyer's agent to discover this.
What if the buyer relied on the seller's agent?
You believe the buyer is at fault?
Note we're talking about public records such as flood plains here, not the seller lying on a disclosure form or some other form of fraud.
You act as though the buyer is committing a crime, where it is questionable that the seller or their agent may have.
To be clear, the seller in this case also happened to be the developer in charge of the quasi-government entity responsible for these documents. The county referred me to them because State law gives them responsibility for those documents. They had violated time frames in the contract multiple times before this, I only proceeded because I wanted the house at that location and wasn't willing to walk away despite their violations.
I gave the title insurance company and the seller written notice of several weeks that I was still waiting on documents, and that if I didn't have them until we closed, I was going to make them sit there while I looked it all over. So I really don't care if they were confused or pissed, and I really don't care if you think so, either. I asked for them early in the process, didn't get them, so I was going to look them over and make a final decision when I got them - which was at closing, because they chose it to be at closing. I had money already on the table, and it was a calculated risk that I would eventually be okay with the documents, but I wasn't prepared to proceed with the rest of the mortgage without them.
My point is that it was obvious to me that in most of the mortgages they handled and in most of the contracts this developer / builder (one of the biggest in my area) handles, most people were not looking at these things EVER.
If you live near these reservoirs, you drive by them daily or at least weekly, and see them turn into giant lakes after a mild storm (which for us can mean dropping several cm/in in the course of an hour or even minutes), and are also aware that we get big storms from time to time.
Thinking you are not at risk of flooding anywhere in the area, or near these reservoirs especially, is basically living in denial.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but it doesn't seem like there was anything in the way of due diligence to avoid choosing this neighborhood. I certainly believe however that realtors and the local government said that everything was fine in pre-Harvey times, as both had something to lose with saying the opposite. That's why I never rely on those sources alone.
There's a lot of additional information to be gained from Google Maps and OSM, satellite views, walking in the environment, checking historic news, talking with residents, etc. before settling on a neighborhood.
I guess if you buy cash you might not know, but in general it's in the documentation you get while purchasing a house here in TX.
The federal map for our home is wrong and puts us in a flood plain. But that map was from before our development was built, which slightly relocated a creek. For whatever reason, our county refuses to submit their updated map. But the previous homeowner got a special note at the federal level saying it isn't in a flood plain.
In addition to that, the City of Oakland (and other cities in the area) have strict fire prevention ordinances for those who live in these high risk areas. You are required to maintain a defensible space around your house, to remove dead trees and shrubs, clean up dry leaves, keep grass short, remove tree limbs < 6' from the ground, etc etc. and the fire department comes by at least once a year to inspect your property to make sure you do it. If they find you in non-compliance they fine you $330 on the spot and schedule another inspection for a couple weeks later. Again, no excuse for not knowing your risks.
Similar regulations are in place for utilities and businesses to reduce the risk. Seems to me California is doing a much better job dealing with natural disaster preparation, but there's only so much the state can reasonably do.
So CA and its various governments have been either allowing or requiring developers to plat large homes on tiny lots with next to no separation. Fed by wind the fire leapt from one home to the next burning out whole subdivisions. While the efforts you cite to control brush are admirable they can't prevent this; the houses are too tightly packed and will burn en-mass with no help from brush at all given enough wind.
Bottom line; this is indeed a regulatory problem. Obviously that rankles those that habitually give CA every benefit of the doubt in all things but physics doesn't care.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Drone-footage-reveals-utt...