Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03183/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03183-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3183

___________

Great Rivers Habitat Alliance; *

The Adolphus A. Busch Revocable *

Living Trust, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

 v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Federal Emergency Management *

Agency; Department of Homeland *

Security; William R. Blanton, Jr., *

Chief, Engineering Management *

Branch, Mitigation Directorate, *

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 2010

Filed: August 12, 2010

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

Great Rivers Habitat Alliance (Great Rivers) and the Adolphus A. Busch

Revocable Living Trust (Busch Trust) (collectively, appellants) appeal the dismissal

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
1

The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, presiding with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c).

-2-

of their case for lack of jurisdiction. The district court1

 found appellants failed to

exhaust their administrative remedies before the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA), 42

U.S.C. § 4001 et seq. and further found the judicial review provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. did not apply. Appellants

argue the case was dismissed in error because they had in fact exhausted their

administrative remedies, and in any event should be allowed to proceed under the

APA. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Finding the private insurance industry could not economically “make flood

insurance available to those in need of such protection on reasonable terms and

conditions,” Congress enacted the NFIA to “authorize a flood insurance program by

means of which flood insurance . . . [could] be made available on a nationwide basis

through the cooperative efforts of the Federal Government and the private insurance

industry” and to provide flexibility in the program. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4001(b), (d).

Congress therefore authorized FEMA to create and establish the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP). See § 4011(a). 

The NFIP is FEMA’s regulatory implementation of the NFIA. FEMA “is

required to identify flood-prone areas, publish flood-risk-zone data, and revise that data

as needed. Any federally regulated lender making a loan secured by improved real

estate located in a designated flood-risk zone must as a condition of making the loan

require the purchase of insurance through the [NFIP].” Paul v. Landsafe Flood

Determination, Inc., 550 F.3d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). As

part of the NFIP, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which are

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-3-

official maps of communities “delineat[ing] both the special hazard areas and the risk

premium zones applicable to the community.” 44 C.F.R. § 59.1. The FIRMs are then

used to assess premiums for flood insurance policies regulated by the NFIP.

Occasionally, a FIRM must be updated. When this is necessary, FEMA issues

a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which is a 

modification to an effective [FIRM] . . . . LOMRs are generally based on

the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or

hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the

modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective base flood

elevations, or the [Special Flood Hazard Area]. The LOMR officially

revises the FIRM . . . and, when appropriate, includes a description of the

modifications.

44 C.F.R. § 72.2. 

On December 29, 2006, the City of St. Peters, Missouri (St. Peters), requested

a LOMR from FEMA, seeking to remove a tract of land from the Mississippi River

floodplain. St. Peters’s LOMR request was based upon the completion of the Premier

370 Business Park and Lakeside 370 Levee District. According to the request, a new

levee, built as part of the project, protected the area from a 500-year flood. In the

parlance of the NFIP, St. Peters requested a zone change from its then-current AE Zone

(100-Year Flood Zone) to an X Zone (500-Year Flood Zone, or 100-Year Flood Zone

protected by a flood control structure). 

In considering St. Peters’s request for a LOMR, FEMA apparently expressed

concern about the levee’s closure structures and its ability to protect against either a

100-year or 500-year flood. Nevertheless, on June 13, 2008, FEMA issued a proposed

LOMR reflecting the changes and published it twice in a local newspaper and once in

the Federal Register. On September 29, 2008, appellants sent St. Peters a letter

challenging the proposed LOMR, pointing to alleged deficiencies in the levee,

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-4-

particularly its closure structure and the level of its freeboard. On October 10, 2008,

St. Peters forwarded appellants’ letter to FEMA along with St. Peters’s comments. St.

Peters commented, among other things, that appellants’ letter did not constitute an

appeal because it lacked required scientific or technical data. FEMA determined

modifications to the LOMR were unwarranted, and the LOMR became effective on

October 30, 2008, thereby revising the FIRM. 

On December 23, 2008, appellants sued FEMA; the Department of Homeland

Security; and William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief for the Engineering Management Branch

of the Risk Analysis Division in FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate (collectively,

appellees), praying for the district court to (1) declare FEMA based its LOMR decision

upon flawed scientific and technical information and upon an inadequately designed

and constructed levee; (2) vacate FEMA’s LOMR determination; (3) permanently

enjoin FEMA from issuing the LOMR until St. Peters’s levee meets NFIA standards;

and (4) award appellants fees and costs. Appellants alleged the levee did not meet

FEMA’s requirements and therefore FEMA’s decision to issue the LOMR was

arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the NFIA and APA. Appellees moved to

dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction under any of the cited statutes. The district court granted appellees’

motion and dismissed appellants’ complaint, holding appellants had not exhausted their

remedies under the NFIA and the APA did not apply because the NFIA provided an

adequate remedy. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

“We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).” Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir.

2008) (quoting OnePoint Solutions, LLC v. Borchert, 486 F.3d 342, 347 (8th Cir.

2007)) (quotation marks omitted). “We must accept all factual allegations in the

pleadings as true and view them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-5-

Id. The burden of proving federal jurisdiction, however, is on the party seeking to

establish it, and “[t]his burden may not be shifted to” the other party. Newhard, Cook

& Co. v. Inspired Life Ctrs., Inc., 895 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1990). 

B. Sovereign Immunity

Appellants’ claims in this case are against agencies of the United States

government. As the sovereign, the United States of America enjoys immunity from

suit, absent a waiver. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The NFIA

contains two limited waivers of sovereign immunity based upon the subject matter of

the suit. The NFIA waives FEMA’s sovereign immunity for challenges to the agency’s

disallowance of all or part of a flood insurance claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 4072. In

addition, the NFIA allows federal court challenges to FEMA’s flood elevation

determinations. See 42 U.S.C. § 4104(g) (“Any appellant aggrieved by any final

determination of the Director upon administrative appeal . . . may appeal such

determination to the United States district court for the district within which the

community is located . . . .”). Disallowance of a flood insurance claim is not at issue

in this appeal and therefore § 4072 does not apply. Because appellants alternatively

argue their claims may be reviewed under either the NFIA or the APA, our first task

is to resolve whether FEMA’s revision of the FIRM constitutes a flood elevation

determination. 

The APA waives sovereign immunity as to suits seeking judicial review where

such review has not been expressly authorized by statute, except when either the statute

precludes judicial review or “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.”

See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). It is undisputed that decisions on base flood elevations (BFE)

are committed to FEMA’s discretion. Appellants contend this means if we “were to

hold that § 4104(g) of the NFIA governs only appeals of flood elevation

determinations, then judicial review of FEMA’s determination to remove a tract of land

from the floodplain is reviewable under the [APA].” Our review of the record reveals

FEMA’s action was in fact a flood elevation determination. 

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-6-

C. APA Claim

In order to determine whether FEMA’s decision to issue the LOMR is a flood

elevation determination, we first review the structure of the NFIP. A “flood elevation

determination” is “a determination by the Federal Insurance Administrator of the water

surface elevations of the base flood, that is, the flood level that has a one percent or

greater chance of occurrence in any given year.” 44 C.F.R. § 59.1. A “base flood

elevation” is a measurement of “the potential water level height during a base flood.”

Colum. Venture LLC v. S.C. Wildlife Fed’n, 562 F.3d 290, 292 (4th Cir. 2009).

Turning to FEMA’s LOMR, we recognize the revisions to the FIRM involve a

decrease in flood zone from Zone AE to Zone X. Zone AE is an “[a]rea of special

flood hazard,” which is “land in the flood plain within a community subject to a 1

percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.” 44 C.F.R. § 59.1. The parties

agree “Zone X” means a “500 Year Flood Zone, or areas protected from the 100 Year

Flood Zone by a flood control structure.”

 

Because moving land from Zone AE to Zone X is a flood elevation

determination, the case was properly litigated under the NFIA, and not the APA. By

definition, land in Zone X has a base flood elevation of zero, because it is protected

from the base flood by either its nature or by a flood control structure. FEMA’s act of

revising the FIRM to move land from Zone AE to Zone X is functionally identical to

adjusting the base flood elevation from its previous level to zero. This adjustment is

assuredly a flood elevation determination which may be reviewed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 4104(g). Because the APA only grants judicial review of final agency action

in cases “for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, the

district court did not err in dismissing appellants’ APA claim, because 42 U.S.C.

§ 4104(g) provides an adequate legal remedy.

D. NFIA Claim

Before challenging a flood elevation determination in federal court, a party must

first take an administrative appeal of FEMA’s determination. See § 4104(b) (“During

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-7-

the ninety-day period following the second publication [of flood elevation

determinations by FEMA], any owner or lessee of real property within the community

who believes his property rights to be adversely affected . . . may appeal such

determination to the local government.”). However,

The sole basis for such appeal shall be the possession of knowledge or

information indicating that the elevations being proposed by [FEMA]

with respect to an identified area having special flood hazards are

scientifically or technically incorrect, and the sole relief which shall be

granted under the authority of this section in the event that such appeal is

sustained . . . is a modification of the . . . proposed determination

accordingly.

Id. The district court agreed with FEMA that appellants did not adequately, if at all,

provide scientific or technical evidence and therefore did not file an “appeal” with the

agency within the meaning of the NFIA, leaving no final agency judgment upon which

to ground § 4104(g) jurisdiction. The jurisdictional question can therefore be reduced

to whether appellants challenged FEMA’s decision on the basis of the decisions’

scientific or technical accuracy in accordance with § 4104(b). 

In order to appeal a determination on the basis of scientific or technical

accuracy, FEMA’s regulations require supporting documentation. 

If an appellant believes the proposed base flood elevations are technically

incorrect due to a mathematical or measurement error or changed physical

conditions, then the specific source of the error must be identified.

Supporting data must be furnished to FEMA including certifications by

a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor, of the new

data necessary for FEMA to conduct a reanalysis. 

44 C.F.R. § 67.6(b)(1). Similarly, allegations that proposed BFEs are technically

incorrect due to alleged error in applying hydrologic, hydraulic, or other methods, or

use of inferior data, must provide certification from an engineer or surveyor. See 44

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
2

Nor did appellants’ filing challenge the BFE as scientifically incorrect.

“Scientifically incorrect” means “[t]he methodology . . . or assumptions which have

been utilized are inappropriate for the physical processes being evaluated or are

otherwise erroneous.” 44 C.F.R. § 59.1. An appeal of the proposed BFE asserting

FEMA’s calculation is scientifically incorrect must, among other things, “[p]rovid[e]

technical support indicating why the appellant’s methods should be accepted as more

correct.” 44 C.F.R. § 67.6(b)(3)(iv). 

-8-

C.F.R. § 67.6(b)(2)(v). “Technically incorrect” means “[t]he methodology . . . utilized

has been erroneously applied due to mathematical or measurement error, changed

physical conditions, or insufficient quantity or quality of input data.” 44 C.F.R. § 59.1.

Appellants did not point to any mathematical or measurement error, changed

physical conditions, or lack of sufficient quality data to support the allegations in their

letter to St. Peters.2

 Instead, appellants contested FEMA’s decision to grant the LOMR

generally on two grounds—the levee lacked a closure structure and the sufficiency of

freeboard. The district court found the exhibits appellants submitted in support of the

closure plan issue consisted of “nothing but blanket conclusions and

recommendations.” We agree. Regarding the freeboard issue, the district court found

the evidence submitted was supported by only one exhibit that contained any technical

data, and that table of data was provided by FEMA. Appellants argue (1) the

information submitted by FEMA’s technical consultant is “technical”; (2) appellants

were not required to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the proposed BFEs; (3) FEMA

cannot lawfully impose a requirement that appellants certify information submitted by

FEMA; and (4) their submissions satisfy the NFIA’s appeal requirements. 

We agree with the district court that appellants’ challenge was not based upon

the scientific or technical accuracy of the LOMR, and thus did not constitute an appeal

within the meaning of 44 C.F.R. § 67.6. A review of the relevant documents supports

our position. For example, the Baker Geotechnical Engineering Reviews are nothing

more than executive summaries of findings and proposed courses of action, not

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894
-9-

technical information FEMA could use to reevaluate its decision. Even if it is true

appellants are not required to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the elevations, as

appellants suggest, the requirement of new technical information exists so FEMA may

reevaluate its conclusions when new data is offered. FEMA is not required to rehash

data it already reviewed upon the chance FEMA would change its decision. Because

appellants offered no new data, we need not decide which party bears the burden of

showing inaccuracies in the elevations. 

The NFIP does not invite motions for reconsideration. Where FEMA’s

regulations require new certified technical information, this is not a command to certify

the existing information in FEMA’s files. Rather, the regulations require appellants

to certify new information so FEMA can conduct another analysis. This is precisely

what appellants failed to do in this case. Instead, appellants attempt to force FEMA

to reanalyze the existing data, hoping for a different result, without submitting any new

certified technical data showing the first analysis contained mathematical or

measurement errors, or physical conditions have changed. Because appellants did not

submit new scientific or technical information, and what they did submit was not

certified by an engineer or surveyor, appellants are relying on nothing but the data in

FEMA’s files. The district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction because

appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a proper appeal with

FEMA.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3183 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692894