Pierce County residents dodged a bullet – or more precisely, a deluge – in the great storm that flooded much of Southwest Washington this week.

But that near-miss still holds a lesson.

This time, even those who live near the Puyallup River and other areas hit hard by flooding in the past decade suffered no significant damage. No South Sound rivers topped their banks, and Pierce County officials said most problems were caused by leaves that plugged storm drains.

So county residents can be grateful that state and federal disaster declarations won’t be needed to help with the kind of cleanup and rebuilding efforts underway in other parts of the state.

The storm should serve as a cautionary tale, however, for county residents and officials involved in a current controversy over floodplain regulations.

Since 1996, county government has spent at least $20 million on floodplain acquisition. The county has also built several “setback levees” that allow rivers to follow a more natural course. These levees not only mitigate flooding but also improve fish and wildlife habitat.

County Executive John Ladenburg has strongly backed a policy of managing flood plains with long-term sustainability and risk management in mind. Constantly building up levees is hugely expensive and not always effective. Restricting development in the most flood-prone areas makes more sense – and costs taxpayers less – in the long run.

Two years ago, the Pierce County Council approved a so-called “Directions” package of regulations designed to protect the county’s most sensitive natural areas, including flood-prone areas and wetlands.

Since then, federal authorities have issued a new and more restrictive flood map based on a finding that lower Puyallup River levees may not withstand a 100-year flood. Although the federal map is not final yet, the county and the City of Fife are now using it to manage development in floodways.

That is why some county residents near the lower Puyallup are up in arms about “FEMA Nazis.” They complain that the new rules preventing them from even rebuilding homes and other structures on their property.

The outcry prompted council members to order a review of the flood plain regulations. The county Planning Commission is considering amendments in hearings that will resume in January.

There may be some minor adjustments to the rules that make sense. But by and large, the commission and the council should stick with with the 2005 policies. They are not only good for the environment but also – as this week’s flooding demonstrates – highly prudent.