Preventing future flooding in Lawrence is a worthy goal, but simply adding on to federal standards isn’t the answer.

The problem of providing flood protection in Lawrence doesn’t lend itself to the kind of one-size-fits-all solution some local officials are trying to apply to it.

Tonight, the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission again will discuss a plan to broaden the local floodplain area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by designating all property adjacent to and up to 2 feet higher than the FEMA floodplain as a “floodplain overlay district.” That overlay district will include hundreds of additional property owners in the city not just developers but people who own houses that hadn’t previously been included in any floodplain designation.

Those people are understandably concerned that having their property included in the expanded area designated as floodplain would lower their property values and force them to buy flood insurance. Although supporters of the measure are dismissing those concerns, it seems likely that even the suggestion that a property is in a flood-prone area would diminish its value. And it seems logical that anyone making a loan on such a property would think flood insurance was a reasonable precaution. In an almost-comical effort to address those concerns, planning staff members have suggested that planners consider renaming the floodplain overlay district, as if calling it something else will alleviate the impact.

According to the proposed rules, building would be allowed in the floodplain only if a property owner could produce a hydrological study showing the new structure wouldn’t change the floodplain’s elevation or contours. That standard would be applied to everything from a warehouse expansion in East Hill Business Park to an addition to a North Lawrence home.

The requirement for property owners to produce an expensive hydrological study is particularly ironic. Although FEMA’s floodplain maps are based on statistical flooding data, the additional 2-foot requirement being considered by the city is purely arbitrary. Property owners would have to prove they wouldn’t aggravate a flooding situation that city officials haven’t proven exists and, if a problem exists, whether it was caused by the property owner or some drainage issue that was out of his or her control.

City officials are right to be concerned about drainage and flooding and how new development will affect those problems, but a blanket solution isn’t the best approach. Dealing with these matters on a case-by-case basis may be more trouble for the city, but it avoids placing an unfair burden on property owners.

If the city really wants to take a comprehensive approach to flooding and drainage, it might do its own hydrological study to identify problem areas that may not be covered by the FEMA map. As the city continues its efforts to preserve open space in Lawrence, perhaps it should consider purchasing some of that property or at least the development rights to prevent new flooding problems.

Tacking an additional 2 feet of elevation onto the FEMA requirements may seem like a simple way to protect the city against future flooding problems, but the easy solution isn’t always the best solution. This is one of those times. The city should accept the FEMA lines and continue to seek additional flood control strategies that don’t unfairly penalize property owners.