Share
A Florida homeowner’s story highlights a critical, often overlooked risk: how new construction can dramatically alter water drainage, leading to catastrophic property damage. After successive hurricanes and persistent flooding exacerbated by a nearby 300-home development, Benjamin Catlett of Zephyrhills was forced to demolish his house. Despite having flood insurance, his payouts fell significantly short of his home's value, leaving him with limited options and a cautionary lesson for all property buyers.
This situation underscores the importance of investigating negative drainage impacts from planned construction near a potential property, a due diligence step that can be as crucial as checking a home's foundation.
The primary issue began after a large-scale development was built adjacent to Catlett's property in 2023. He reports that following this construction, his yard and those of his neighbors began to flood during routine rainstorms. The core problem was a change in the land's natural water runoff patterns. When large areas are paved over for new homes and roads, the ground loses its ability to absorb rainwater. This excess water must then flow somewhere, often onto neighboring properties that previously had no history of flooding.
Catlett had purchased the home in 2021 and was required to carry flood insurance—a common mandate in Florida. Upon his initial inquiry, he was correctly informed there had been no flood claims on the property since the 1970s. The new development, however, fundamentally altered the site's hydrology, creating a new and severe flood risk that existing maps and records did not reflect.
Catlett carried both flood and homeowners insurance, receiving payouts from both after the damage from Hurricanes Helene and Milton in 2024. He also received a $6,500 grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for personal property replacement. However, these combined payments did not cover the home's approximate $260,000 valuation.
This shortfall is a stark reminder of how insurance works in such scenarios. Standard homeowners insurance typically covers damage from wind and rain but explicitly excludes flooding; that requires a separate flood insurance policy. Furthermore, insurance is designed to cover the actual cash value or the cost to repair/rebuild, which may not align with a property's pre-disaster market value, especially if underlying land issues remain unresolved.
Insurance Payouts vs. Home Value
| Source of Payout | Amount Received | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Flood Insurance | Undisclosed | Damage from flooding |
| Homeowners Insurance | Undisclosed | Wind/rain damage (non-flood) |
| FEMA Grant | $6,500 | Personal property replacement |
| Total Payout | < $260,000 | Significantly less than home's market value |
With the house demolished, Catlett faces a difficult financial reality. He still holds a mortgage and a $25,000 solar loan on the vacant lot and remains responsible for property taxes. Based on our experience assessment, his options are limited and financially challenging:
His request for a government property buyout—where a local or state agency purchases flood-prone properties—has so far been denied. Pasco County officials have stated they consider the flooding concerns "resolved," directing homeowners to FEMA or the local water management district.
Catlett’s experience offers actionable advice for prospective buyers and current homeowners:
The key takeaway is that a property's flood risk is not static. It can be fundamentally altered by changes in the surrounding environment, making ongoing due diligence a critical part of homeownership, especially in susceptible areas.






