State Roles and Responsibilities 
in the National Flood Insurance Program 
Elliott Mittler, Leigh Morgan, 
Marc Shapiro, and Kristen Y. Grill 
American Institutes for Research 
October 2006 
Prepared as part of the 20012006 Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program
This page left blank intentionally 


State Roles and Responsibilities in the 
National Flood Insurance Program 

 

 

Prepared as part of the 2001-2006 

Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program 

 

 

Elliott Mittler, Leigh Morgan, 

Marc Shapiro, and Kristen Y. Grill 

 

 

 

 

American Institutes for Research 

1000 Thomas Jefferson St., NW 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

 

September 2006 

 


EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 

This Evaluation is composed of a series of reports assessing questions identified and 
prioritized by a steering committee about the National Flood Insurance Program. The reports of 
the Evaluation will be posted on the FEMA website as they are finalized. The website URL is 
http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/nfipeval.shtm. The reports in the Evaluation are: 

The Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program  Final Report 

American Institutes for Research and NFIP Evaluation Working Group 

Assessing the Adequacy of the National Flood 
Insurance Program's 1 Percent Flood Standard. 
Galloway, Baecher, Plasencia, Coulton, 
Louthain, and Bagha, Water Policy 
Collaborative, University of Maryland. 

Assessing the National Flood Insurance 
Programs Actuarial Soundness. Bingham, 
Charron, Kirschner, Messick, and Sabade 

Deloitte Consulting. 

Costs and Consequences of Flooding and 
the Impact of the National Flood Insurance 
Program. Sarmiento and Miller, Pacific Institute 
of Research and Evaluation. 

Developmental and Environmental Impacts of 
the National Flood Insurance Program: A 
Review of Literature. Rosenbaum, American 
Institutes for Research. 

The Developmental and Environmental Impact 
of the National Flood Insurance Program: A 
Summary Research Report. Rosenbaum and 
Bouleware, American Institutes for Research. 

An Evaluation of Compliance with the National 
Flood Insurance Program Part A: Achieving 
Community Compliance. Monday, Grill, 
Esformes, Eng, and Kinney, and Shapiro, 
American Institutes for Research. 

An Evaluation of Compliance with the National 
Flood Insurance Program Part B: Are Minimum 
Building Requirements Being Met? Mathis and 
Nicholson, Dewberry. 

Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance 
Programs Building Standards. Jones, 
Coulbourne, Marshall, and Rogers, Christopher 
Jones and Associates. 

 

Managing Future Development Conditions in 
the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Blais, Nguyen, Tate, Dogan, Petrow, ABSG 
Consulting; and Mifflin and Jones. 

 

The National Flood Insurance Programs 
Environmental Reviews: An Assessment of 
FEMAs Implementation of NEPA and Executive 
Order 11988. Rosenbaum, American Institutes 
for Research. 

The National Flood Insurance Programs 
Mandatory Purchase Requirement: Policies, 
Processes and Stakeholders. Tobin and Calfee, 
American Institutes for Research. 

The National Flood Insurance Programs 
Market Penetration Rate: Estimates and Policy 
Implications. Dixon, Clancy, Seabury, and 
Overton, RAND Corporation. 

 

Performance Assessment and Evaluation 
Measures for Periodic Use by the National 
Flood Insurance Program. Miller, Langston, 
and Nelkin, Pacific Institute of Research and 
Evaluation. 

 

State Roles and Responsibilities in the National 
Flood Insurance Program. Mittler, Morgan, 
Shapiro, and Grill, American Institutes for 
Research. 


The research described in this report was funded with Federal funds from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency under contract # 282-98-0029 and under subcontract to the American Institutes for 
Research. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or 
organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Established in 1946, with headquarters in Washington, D.C., the American Institutes for Research (AIR) 
is an independent, nonpartisan not-for-profit organization that conducts behavioral and social science 
research on important social issues and delivers technical assistance both domestically and internationally 
in the areas of health, education, and workforce productivity. 

 


BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON REPORT AUTHORS 

Elliott Mittler is an independent consultant in natural hazards and public policy. Dr. 
Mittler has served as a principal investigator or consultant on a variety of floodplain management 
projects for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and 
several private, public, and non-profit organizations for the past twenty years. He recently was 
the team leader in charge of community studies in the assessment of the FEMA Hazard 
Mitigation Grant Program for the Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of 
Building Sciences on behalf of the United States Congress. He completed the first independent 
assessment of the National Flood Insurance Program through a study of the disaster recovery 
process following Tropical Storm Alberto in Georgias Flint River Basin in 1995. Dr. Mittler 
received his AB in physics from the University of California at Berkeley and his MBA and PhD 
in management from the University of California at Los Angeles. He was previously a faculty 
member at the University of Southern California, UCLA, and the University of Wisconsin at 
Green Bay. 

Leigh Morgan is a Certified Floodplain Manager and independent consultant in flood 
hazard mitigation and development services. Ms. Morgan has fourteen years of experience in 
supporting hazard and risk management at the Federal, state and local government levels through 
problem identification, alternatives formulation, and plan implementation. She has worked as a 
Technical Writer on the FEMA Technical Evaluation Contract and served as an assistant to the 
State NFIP Coordinator in South Carolina and Maryland. Ms. Morgan has a BA in Economics 
and History from the University of Virginia, and received her MS in Geography from the 
University of South Carolina. 

Marc Shapiro most recently has served as project director for the evaluation of Federal 
Emergency Management Administrations (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. He also 
has served as project manager for an educational reform project focused on vocational education 
and educational decentralization for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 
Macedonia as well as supervisor of an evaluation of all USAID-sponsored secondary education 
projects in Macedonia. His previous work focused on a variety of environmental and natural 
resources subjects and their intersection with energy and transportation/planning issues. He also 
served as the coordinator of surveys and policy research for the countrys largest Hispanic voter 
research institute. Dr. Shapiro consults regarding monitoring and evaluation issues and serves on 
the board of the Foundation for Sustainable Development. Dr. Shapiro received his BA degree in 
political science from Washington University in St. Louis and his MA and PhD degree in 
political science from the University of Rochester. 

Kristen Yarber Grill is a graduate student at the University of Wisconsins La Follette 
School of Public Affairs. She was previously a research assistant at AIR, and formerly worked at 
the United States Department of Energys Argonne National Laboratory, where she co-authored 
several reports analyzing the sources of pollution in Asia. Ms. Grill has a BA in Public Policy 
from the University of Chicago. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... vi 
Methodology ........................................................................................................................... viii 
Recommendations.................................................................................................................... ix 
FEMA................................................................................................................................. ix 
Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) ...................................................... x 
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................................................. 1 
1.1 Study Goals .......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 Report Structure and Approach............................................................................................ 1 
1.3 Background .......................................................................................................................... 2 
1.3.1 The Political Environment  A Historical Perspective ........................................... 3 
1.3.2 The Effect of State Programs on Local Land Use and Floodplain Management13 
1.3.3 The Current Situation.............................................................................................. 26 
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 34 
2.1 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 34 
2.2 Study Process ..................................................................................................................... 37 
2.2.1 Interview Protocol .................................................................................................... 38 
2.2.2 Characteristics of States and Reasons for Selection ............................................. 40 
2.3 Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 42 
3. CASE STUDIES.................................................................................................................... 424 
3.1 Arizona.............................................................................................................................. 44 
3.1.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 44 
3.1.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 44 
3.1.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 44 
3.1.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 46 
3.1.5 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 47 
3.2 California ........................................................................................................................... 47 
3.2.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 47 
3.2.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 48 
3.2.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 48 
3.2.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 49 
3.2.5 Problems and Recommendations............................................................................ 51 
3.3. Florida ............................................................................................................................... 53 
3.3.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 53 
3.3.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 53 
3.3.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 54 
3.3.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 55 
3.3.5 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 55 
3.4. Louisiana.......................................................................................................................... 56 
3.4.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 56 
3.4.2 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 56 
3.4.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 57 
3.4.4 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 58 
3.4.5 Problems and Ramifications ................................................................................... 58 
3.5 Maine ................................................................................................................................ 59 
3.5.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 59 
3.5.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 59 
3.5.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 59 
3.5.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 60 
3.5.5 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 61 
3.5.6 Problems and Recommendations............................................................................ 61 
3.6 Missouri ............................................................................................................................. 62 
3.6.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 62 
3.6.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 62 
3.6.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 63 
3.6.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 64 
3.6.5 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 64 
3.6.6 Problems and Recommendations............................................................................ 65 
3.7 North Carolina.................................................................................................................... 65 
3.7.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 65 
3.7.2 Legal Foundations and State Development in Floodplains .................................. 66 
3.7.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 66 
3.7.4 Problems and Recommendations............................................................................ 67 
3.8 Texas ................................................................................................................................. 68 
3.8.1 Program overview and effectiveness ...................................................................... 68 
3.8.2 Legal strength/formality .......................................................................................... 69 
3.8.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 70 
3.8.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 71 
3.8.5 Sub-state authorities ................................................................................................ 71 
3.9 Washington ........................................................................................................................ 72 
3.9.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness .................................................................... 72 
3.9.2 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................... 73 
3.9.3 State Development in Floodplains .......................................................................... 74 
3.9.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................... 74 
3.9.5 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................... 75 
3.9.6 Problems and Recommendations............................................................................ 75 
3.10 Wisconsin........................................................................................................................ 75 
3.10.1 Legal Foundations .................................................................................................. 75 
3.10.2 State Development in Floodplains ........................................................................ 76 
3.10.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program ............................. 77 
3.10.4 Sub-State Authorities............................................................................................. 77 
3.10.5 Problems and Recommendations.......................................................................... 78 
4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 80 
4.1 Analysis and Conclusions of Hypotheses .......................................................................... 80 
4.2 Overall Conclusions........................................................................................................... 89 
5. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................ 90 
5.1 FEMA................................................................................................................................ 90 
5.1.1 Essential Actions....................................................................................................... 90 
5.1.2 Other High Priority Actions.................................................................................... 92 
5.1.3 Medium Priority....................................................................................................... 92 
5.2 ASFPM.............................................................................................................................. 93 
5.2.1 Essential Actions....................................................................................................... 93 
5.3. State Officials.................................................................................................................... 93 
5.3.1 Essential Actions....................................................................................................... 93 
5.3.2 Other High Priority Actions.................................................................................... 94 
5.2.3 Medium Priority....................................................................................................... 94 
6. APPENDICES........................................................................................................................ 96 
APPENDIX 1........................................................................................................................... 96 
APPENDIX 2......................................................................................................................... 101 
APPENDIX 3......................................................................................................................... 108 
7. ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................ 117 
8. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 121 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1: Important Events and Judicial Decisions Affecting Land Use Policies in the United 
States.............................................................................................................................................. 5 
TABLE 2: Non-Structural Federal Flood Loss Reduction Programs Affecting Landowners...... 11 
TABLE 3: Important Assessments and Events Concerning Floodplain Management................. 16 
TABLE 4: Average Staff Time Spent on Floodplain Management Activities............................. 29 
TABLE 5: State Floodplain Management Laws and Personnel ................................................... 31 
TABLE 6: Interview Themes and Sample Questions for NFIP State Coordinator ...................... 39 
TABLE 7. Summary of Interviews Conducted or Reviewed ....................................................... 40 
TABLE 8: Key State Characteristics Considered During Protocol Development ....................... 42 
TABLE 9: Key State Program Characteristics Gathered from Case Studies ............................... 82 


This Page Left Blank Intentionally 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This study contributes to the comprehensive evaluation of the National Flood Insurance 
Program (NFIP) by examining state floodplain management roles and activities as defined and 
implemented through the NFIP. The study goals are to identify what activities and regulations 
adopted by states may or may not be working in the floodplain management system nationwide 
and to determine the most appropriate role for states in floodplain management. The study will 
also recommend ways in which state participation in the NFIP may be improved. 

Since its inception, more than 20,000 communities in all 50 states have joined the NFIP. 
In some states, federal requirements have been integrated into existing state floodplain 
management programs, while in others, the federal requirements make up the bulk of if not all 
the floodplain management activities carried out by states. 

State agency activity is important for the NFIP to function efficiently and effectively. 
Thousands of communities participate in the NFIP, far too many for Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) to advise and supervise. State floodplain management offices, 
established to coordinate NFIP activities, perform multiple functions that fulfill, supplement, and 
complement federal activities. However, despite the federal mandate for states to designate a 
coordinating agency, the legislation that created the NFIP is largely silent about the states 
potential contribution to floodplain management. The federal regulations at Title 44 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.25, which discuss state roles, do so in only a general way. As a 
result, FEMA has had to administratively create a role for the states. The void of mandatory 
federal directives, both before and after the implementation of the NFIP, resulted in statutes at 
the state level that might designate floodplain management roles and responsibilities for state 
agencies that conflict with, overlap, or exceed those roles and responsibilities designated by 
FEMA. 

All fifty states participate in the NFIP and the Community Assistance ProgramState 
Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE). By agreeing to participate in these programs, states must 
adopt certain roles specified in the Code of Federal Regulations and the annual Guidances to the 
CAP-SSSE, respectively. However, states are also encouraged to develop program elements that 
meet their specific needs. Therefore, state programs will share many characteristics but will also 
exhibit unique elements. When states join the NFIP, they take on two separate roles, both of 
which require the adoption of certain programs and policies. First, like local governments states 
are considered communities and must adopt adequate floodplain management regulations that 
at least meet NFIP minimum requirements (44 CFR 60.11 to 60.13). States must comply with 
the flood plain management requirements of all local communities participating in the program 
in which State-owned properties are located or establish appropriate regulations for state-owned 
property in non-participating local communities. They must also purchase Standard Flood 
Insurance Policies for state-owned structures or their contents. 

Second, state agencies designated as State Coordinating Agencies must perform certain 
duties in this role to guide and upgrade local government capabilities to meet NFIP program 
requirements. Appendix 1 contains the sections of 44 CFR which pertain to the state role. To 
summarize, Sub-section 60.25 outlines state responsibilities under the general umbrella of 


demonstrating a commitment to the floodplain management criteria by: enabling local 
communities to regulate development; guiding communities in ordinance administration; 
informing local government and the public about floodplain management requirements; 
providing floodplain mapping assistance; notifying FEMA of local compliance issues; 
regulating to prevent environmental and water pollution during floods; coordinating state 
floodplain management activities; and training. 

Expanding population bases and the associated development in many states have often 
created new problems, or exacerbated existing flooding problems. Today there is a growing 
awareness that state agencies can make many decisions that positively or negatively affect the 
NFIPs ability to achieve its objectives. In 2003, FEMA expanded the CAP-SSSE, which 
provides grants to states to provide technical assistance to communities, evaluate community 
performance, and help communities build and maintain their floodplain management capabilities. 

The current CAP-SSSE initiative specifies eligible activities that FEMA can fund, but 
FEMA has not prescribed best methods for states to employ, thus respecting the prerogatives and 
independence of state and local governments. There may, however, be practices and 
relationships among federal, state, and local jurisdictions that are more effective in achieving 
floodplain management goals. Given the limited resources assigned to these tasks, it makes sense 
to explore alternative arrangements to find different approaches that can improve state 
capabilities. A historical perspective on how states approach land use planning is included to 
indicate the limitations and opportunities facing states. 

Methodology 

The study team developed seven hypotheses regarding state roles in floodplain 
management by combining a review of the background analysis on state floodplain management 
programs, and extensive consultation with experienced floodplain managers, leaders of the 
Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), past and present FEMA officials, and other 
knowledgeable experts. The hypotheses include causal factors believed associated with a 
programs strength and effectiveness as well as a state programs ability to maintain those 
characteristics over periods of time in which budget priorities, politics, and organizational charts 
shift. 

To test the hypotheses, the study team purposively chose a group of ten states to 
investigate in detail. States were chosen in order to provide variance along several factors of 
interest, including: effectiveness of floodplain management programs; strength and formality of 
the legal and institutional foundations of the program; and, types of agencies housing the 
program. The study team conducted case studies of state programs directed by an interview 
guide or interview protocol. The interview questions intended to collect a variety of objective 
and subjective systematic and anecdotal evidence of factors that contribute to the evolution, 
structure, and effectiveness of state floodplain management programs. 

Based on a review of the background research, case studies, and an analysis of 
comparable data about the ten state programs, several conclusions are formulated and discussed. 
The conclusions form the basis for the reports recommendations. Each recommendation is 


prioritized and directed toward a specific participant in the nationwide program for floodplain 
management. The recommendations provide possible solutions to problems and avenues to take 
advantage of opportunities identified during the study process. 

Recommendations 

The NFIP has been based primarily on a long-term relationship between the federal 
government and local communities that choose to participate. By statute, the states role has been 
as a secondary assistant to the federal government in training and aiding local communities. The 
recommendations include major changes to the state role in the program and enhancements to the 
current role. The following recommendations are provided in summarized form. The full text for 
each recommendation is included in Section 6.1. 

FEMA 

Essential Actions 

State Roles and Responsibilities Recommendation #1 (SR1): FEMA should initiate in 
partnership with the states a process to amend the NFIP to provide the states with a substantial 
role in the NFIP, to take advantage of state capabilities and land use authorities that reside with 
states. One consequence will be stronger states that will help ensure that floodplain management 
can guide development and redevelopment to be at lower risk from flooding and to prevent 
increases in flooding potential. 

SR2: Review, update, publish and enforce a comprehensive administrative process for 
addressing NFIP compliance violations in a systematic manner, beginning with identification of 
the violation and ending with final resolution. Each party to the compliance action must be 
knowledgeable of the process and acknowledge the deadlines. This process must include public 
disclosure of the compliance action. Each party to the compliance action must be knowledgeable 
of the process and acknowledge the deadlines. This process must include public disclosure of the 
compliance action. 

SR3: FEMA should implement voluntary state Cooperating Compliance Partner (CCP) program 
modeled on FEMAs Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) mapping program. The CTP 
Program allows communities, regional agencies, and State agencies that have the interest and 
capability to become active partners in the FEMA Flood Hazard Mapping Program. 

SR4: FEMA should assign FEMA Natural Hazard Program Specialists in the regional offices to 
State NFIP Technical Assistance duties only. 

SR5: Improve the CIS, making it the single most valuable online tool for state officials to 1) 
access community claims information, 2) access FEMA policy interpretations through official 
and unofficial policy manuals, and 3) maintain community contact information. 


Other High Priority Actions 

SR6: At the region and headquarters levels, FEMA should accommodate state regionalization of 
floodplain management tasks by streamlining communication from state regions to the FEMA 
region. Regionalization refers to the delegation of state responsibilities to multiple field offices, 
district or regional offices. FEMA can do this by accommodating a single, direct state link to the 
FEMA Region and encouraging states to consider regionalizing staff when sufficient staff are 
available. 

SR7: FEMA should institute a two-tiered staffing requirement for states based on the number of 
NFIP communities in the state. Each state is currently encouraged by the CAP-SSSE agreement 
to employ at least one full-time employee, dedicated to NFIP tasks and funded through CAP. A 
threshold of 300 NFIP-participating communities, for instance, would trigger a new requirement 
for an additional CAP-funded full-time employee for NFIP tasks. 

Medium Priority 

SR8: FEMA should use the internet to open the lines of communication between FEMA regions 
and all state agencies and staff. Reinstate an on-line NFIP Policy Manual for states and Regions 
and create a question and answer blog for the benefit of all readers. 

Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM)1 

Essential Actions 

SR9: Continue to support the formation of state associations and chapters. In 2002, there were 
32 states with associations, including several states which participate in regional associations 
(ASFPM 2002). According to the August 2006 ASFPM web site, there are 41 states with 
associations. The associations play a critical role in supplementing the resources of states and 
communities, and in providing a non- governmental, peer-to-peer information source. FEMA 
should also continue supporting these associations to the degree possible by providing speakers, 
hosting workshops, and recognizing contributions and feedback from association leaders. 

SR10: The ASFPM should aggressively publicize the Certified Floodplain Manager CFM 
program to local communities where floodplain managers may not be aware of the ASFPM, to 
colleges and universities with hazard programs, to a multitude of state agencies only 
peripherally involved in state floodplain management, and to high level state officials who have 
the ability to influence the required credentials for state floodplain managers. 

1 The ASFPM is a private non-profit organization similar to the Red Cross. Within the organization are 24 local 
chapters made up largely of the local floodplain management professionals implementing the NFIP program. 


State Officials 

Essential Actions 

SR11: As evidenced by the conclusions of this report, state floodplain management 
responsibilities extend beyond the day-to-day tasks of the State NFIP Coordinator. State elected 
officials, legislators, agency directors, and departmental liaisons each have a responsibility to 
support the states overall program of floodplain management by ensuring that the State 
Coordinators have tools essential to their jobs. One example might be funding an inventory of 
state buildings in the floodplain and ensuring the states self-insurance status for flood damage. 
Armed with this essential knowledge, as well as a frank program assessment of the states 
strengths and weaknesses, the State Coordinator is prepared to take advantage of windows of 
opportunity, such as flood disasters or changes in administration. Also, the state can more 
effectively fulfill its role in the NFIP partnership. 

SR12: State officials should integrate state-level environmental reviews of floodplain projects 
into local government permitting processes. This recommendation is particularly relevant for 
local communities with efficient permitting processes and heavy development pressure. 

Other High Priority Actions 

SR13: State officials should implement agency policy to require that state staff receive CFM 
certification from the ASFPM and provide funding for staff to take advanced training courses in 
floodplain management-related topics. State staff must be recognized experts in the field. 
Provide training for other state agencies to allow development of a cadre of CFMs in various 
agencies who can coordinate actions to ensure effective implementation of state policies for 
floodplain development. 

SR14: State officials should explore the concept of regionalization for state staff. If geographical 
relocation of staff is not feasible, dividing staff responsibilities based on regions may be as 
effective. Ensure that staff relocated to regional offices still report to headquarters. 

SR15: State officials should take advantage of the capabilities of sub-state authorities such as 
ASFPM chapters, professional associations, councils of government, regional planning districts, 
and FEMA regional staff to ensure that all state program goals are met. 

Medium Priority 

SR16: State officials should create career tracks for state floodplain management staff, 
especially technical staff such as engineers. 


This page left blank intentionally 

 


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) created in 1968 with the passage of the 
National Flood Insurance Act, seeks to reduce the losses and risks associated with flooding. The 
Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the 
program, which aims to: 1) provide flood insurance to building owners in participating 
communities as protection against flood losses; 2) reduce future flood damages through 
mitigation and implementation of floodplain management regulations; and, 3) reduce costs of 
disaster relief to the general taxpayer. 

1.1 Study Goals 

This study contributes to the comprehensive evaluation of the NFIP by examining state 
floodplain management roles and activities as defined and implemented through the NFIP. The 
study goals are exploratory to help identify the types of activities and regulations adopted by 
some states that may be helpful for other states to adopt and to determine the most appropriate 
roles for states in the floodplain management system given the lack of legal specificity regarding 
this issue in the NFIPs enabling legislation. The study also recommends ways in which state 
participation in the NFIP may be improved. 

Specific questions to be answered by the NFIP Evaluation were set out in the Design for 
the Evaluation of the NFIP. This report addresses the questions that relate to the role of states in 
the overall program, including issues regarding state funding, the integration of the NFIP with 
other FEMA programs, and the institutionalization of floodplain management and flood 
mitigation throughout the fifty states. This report also addresses alternative institutional 
arrangements for states to enhance their role in floodplain management. 

1.2 Report Structure and Approach 

This report follows a scientific method of inquiry, although the nature of the study 
questions, data gathering techniques and small sample size are not conducive to quantitative 
analysis. Background information in Section 1.3 includes discussions concerning the evolution 
and current status of state floodplain management programs since the inception of the NFIP, how 
floodplain management programs are influenced by a states land use policies, and a general 
description of variables that best describe state roles in floodplain management. 

Following the background presentation, the report presents a description of the study 
methodology in Section 3, including the formulation of study hypotheses and how those 
hypotheses were used to develop the study protocol. The study team developed these hypotheses 
by combining a review of the background analysis on state floodplain management programs and 
extensive consultation with experienced floodplain managers, leaders of the ASFPM, past and 
present FEMA officials, and other knowledgeable experts. The hypotheses include causal factors 
believed associated with a programs strength and effectiveness as well as a state programs 
ability to maintain those characteristics over periods of time in which budget priorities, politics, 
and organizational charts shift. 


2 The question regarding whether FEMA has federalized the nations flood problem and thereby encouraged states 
to abdicate responsibility was determined to be unanswerable within the scope of the report. Also, initial interviews 
indicated that state and federal development in floodplains is a relatively minor problem that merits only general 
discussion herein. 

To test the hypotheses, the study team purposively chose a group of ten states to 
investigate in detail. States were chosen in order to provide variance along several factors of 
interest, including effectiveness of floodplain management programs, strength and formality of 
the legal and institutional foundations of the program, and types of agencies housing the 
program. The study team conducted case studies of state programs directed by an interview 
guide or interview protocol. The interview questions intended to collect a variety of objective 
and subjective systematic and anecdotal evidence of factors that contribute to the evolution, 
structure, and effectiveness of state floodplain management programs. Case study summaries are 
presented in Section 4. 

Based on a review of the case studies and an analysis of comparable data about the ten 
state programs, several conclusions are formulated and discussed in Section 5. The conclusions 
form the basis for the reports recommendations found in Section 6. Each recommendation is 
prioritized and directed toward a specific participant in the nationwide program for floodplain 
management. The recommendations provide possible solutions to problems and avenues to take 
advantage of opportunities identified during the study process.2 

1.3 Background 

The NFIP came into existence in 1968 when Congress realized that (1) flood disasters 
had placed an increasing burden on the nations resources; (2) structural mitigation works 
designed to prevent flooding and protect citizens were not sufficient to adequately protect against 
growing exposure to future flood losses; (3) the private insurance industry alone could not 
feasibly make flood insurance available on reasonable terms and conditions; and, (4) a federal 
flood insurance program was feasible and could be initiated. Congress further realized that a 
program of flood insurance could protect against future flood losses through sound land use by 
minimizing exposure of property to flood losses and that the objectives of a flood insurance 
program should be integrally related to a unified national program of floodplain management. 

Since its inception, more than 20,000 communities in all 50 states have joined the NFIP. 
In some states, federal requirements have been integrated into existing state floodplain 
management programs, while in others, the federal requirements make up the bulk of if not all 
the floodplain management activities carried out by states. 

State agency activity is important for the NFIP to function efficiently and effectively. 
Thousands of communities participate in the NFIP, far too many for FEMA to advise and 
supervise. State floodplain management offices, established to coordinate NFIP activities, 
perform multiple functions that fulfill, supplement, and complement federal activities. However, 
despite the requirement for states to designate a coordinating agency, the legislation that created 
the NFIP is largely silent about the states potential contribution to floodplain management. The 
federal regulations at Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.25, which discuss state 


3 The CAP-SSSE Guidance for 2006 is included in Appendix 1. 

roles, do so in only a general way. As a result, FEMA has had to administratively create a role 
for the states. The void of mandatory federal directives, both before and after the implementation 
of the NFIP, resulted in statutes at the state level that might designate floodplain management 
roles and responsibilities for state agencies that conflict with, overlap, or exceed those roles and 
responsibilities designated by FEMA. 

Expanding population bases and the associated development in many states have often 
created new problems, or exacerbated existing flooding problems. Communities, especially those 
under growth pressure and with limited geographical opportunities for expansion, have found 
themselves making what they believed were mutually exclusive choices, deciding between 
growth and public safety. Today there is a growing awareness that state agencies can make many 
decisions that positively affect the NFIPs ability to achieve its objectives. In 2003, FEMA 
expanded the Community Assistance ProgramState Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) 
which provides grants to states to provide technical assistance to communities, to evaluate 
community performance, and to help communities build and maintain their floodplain 
management capabilities. 

The current CAP-SSSE initiative specifies eligible activities that FEMA can fund, and 
outlines specific activities that states are required to conduct. States must develop five-year plans 
indicating how their program will meet the general goals outlined in the CAP-SSSE agreement. 
According to FEMA, the intent of the five-year plans was originally to get state and FEMA 
regional staff to think through their workloads over a multi-year period, and create a plan 
allowing them to provide a complete range of services to their communities. Secondarily, it was 
intended that the planning exercise document resource short-falls to support efforts to obtain 
additional resources.3 FEMA has not prescribed best methods for states to employ, thus 
respecting the prerogatives and independence of state and local governments. There may, 
however, be practices and relationships among federal, state, and local jurisdictions that are more 
effective in achieving floodplain management goals. Given the limited resources assigned to 
these tasks, it makes sense to explore alternative arrangements to find different approaches that 
can improve state capabilities. A historical perspective on how states approach land use planning 
is included to indicate the limitations and opportunities facing states. 

1.3.1 The Political Environment  A Historical Perspective 

 Although land use planning has only been a pervasive force in the United States 
since the start of the twentieth century, the relationships determining who would set policy 
among the federal, state, and local governments were established when the United States 
Constitution was adopted. (See Table 1 for the critical events and judicial decisions that shaped 
land use policy.) The 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved all rights not given to the 
federal government to the states. The Constitution initially made no mention of providing the 
federal government with any specific powers to make land use decisions nor did it delegate any 
powers whatsoever to local governments. Therefore, from a legal perspective, states alone had 
the right to determine land uses within their boundaries. 


4 Refer to Table 5 below for a listing of states and determination regarding whether states govern by Dillons Rule or 
home rule. 

The question of whether local governments have any inherent powers to make decisions 
affecting their municipalities arose during the 19th century as the country grew and moved west. 
According to Richardson et al. (2003), state constitutions gave local governments representation 
in state legislatures. These representatives ensured that their local governments were permitted 
a wide range of pursuits that resembled private activity including attempting to have railroads 
pass through their town (Richardson et al. 2003 p.7). One consequence of this process was 
widespread corruption. 

By the mid-19th century, a debate over local government autonomy emerged, 
accompanied by litigation in several states concerning the role of local governments in economic 
activity. The local government pursuit of revenue often conflicted with private property rights. In 
several key legal decisions, Judge John Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that 
municipalities are the creatures of the state, and their powers are limited to what state legislatures 
expressly grant, are necessarily or fairly implied, or are absolutely indispensable to carry out 
those powers that are granted. This decision, known as Dillons Rule, establishes that if a power 
in question is not expressly authorized by state statute or constitution, or cannot be necessarily 
implied from an already authorized power, it is presumed that the local government does not 
have that power. 

At the time when Dillons Rule came to dominate most judicial thinking, opponents of 
state control over municipal matters, led by Judge Thomas Cooley or the Michigan Supreme 
Court, argued that municipalities possessed an inherent right of local self-government. In the 
aftermath of Dillons Rule, many states amended their constitutions to be in line with Dillons 
Rule while some states began to permit local home rule, where the state transferred power to 
local governments for the purpose of implementing local self-government. 4 


TABLE 1: Important Events and Judicial Decisions Affecting Land Use Policies in the United States 

Date 

Event 

Discussion 

1791 

10th Amendment, 
U.S. Constitution 

The Tenth Amendment provides that, [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to 
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The constitution makes no mention of any powers delegated to 
local governments. 

1865 

Clark v. City of 
Des Moines 

Judge John F. Dillon of Iowa, the premier authority on municipal law at this time, ruled on the scope of municipal powers: It is a 
general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no 
others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied or incident to the powers expressly 
granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but essential. Any 
fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of the power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is 
denied. This language has become known as Dillons Rule. 

1868 

City of Clinton v. 
Cedar Rapids and 
Missouri River 
Railroad 

In his decision, Judge Dillon defined the relationship between the state government and local government: Municipal 
corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of 
life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and controlWe know of 
no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of 
the legislature. 

1903 

Atkins v. Kansas 

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Dillons law consistently, initially in 1903. The court held in Atkins 
[Local governments] are the creatures  mere political subdivisions  of the state for the purpose of exercising a part of its 
powers. They may exert only such powers as are expressly granted to them, or such as may be necessarily implied from those 
granted. What they lawfully do of a public character is done under the sanction of the state. 

1916 

The first New York 
City zoning 
ordinance 

The pioneering 1916 Zoning Resolution established height and setback controls and separated what were seen as functionally 
incompatible uses, such as factories, from residential neighborhoods. The ordinance became a model for urban communities 
throughout the United States as other growing cities found that New York's problems were not unique. 

1924 

Standard State 
Zoning Enabling 
Act 

A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SSZA), was developed by an advisory committee on zoning appointed by Secretary of 
Commerce (and later President) Herbert Hoover in 1921. After several revisions, the Government Printing Office published the 
first printed edition in May 1924 and a revised edition in 1926. 

1925 

Cincinnati adopts 
comprehensive 
plan 

Cincinnati is the first American city to endorse a comprehensive plan for its growth and development. 


1926 

Euclid v. Ambler 
Realty Company 

Opponents of zoning argued that it amounted to taking property without due process of law guaranteed by the federal 
constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court decided against the opponents in Euclid, recognizing that zoning is an appropriate 
extension of the community's authority inhered in the states police power to pass laws related to protecting the public health, 
safety, morals and general welfare. The historic opinion also contained a far-seeing passage suggesting that zoning must evolve 
to meet the changing needs of changing times: 

1927 

Publication of City 
Planning Enabling 
Act 

1966 

Reynolds v. Sims 

1970 

Congress fails to 
enact a National 
Land Use Policy 
Act 

". . the meaning of constitutional guarantees never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new 
and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation." 

In March 1927, a preliminary edition of the second model law, a Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA), developed by 
the Department of Commerce was released, and a final version was published in 1928. 

Following the decision in Baker v. Carr in 1962, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that state reapportionment issues 
were judicial questions and could be heard in federal courts, the Supreme Court decided in Reynolds that the standard for state 
legislative districting would be one-man, one-vote. The impact of the decision was to end the dominance of small population 
rural counties in state legislatures. 

The National Land Use Policy Act of 1970 (S. 3354, 91st Cong., 2d Sess.) would have created a system of federal incentives to 
encourage states to develop comprehensive land development and conservation plans in conjunction with their localities. 
Congress considered but failed to adopt several versions of this bill for five years. 


In a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1903 (Atkins v. Kansas), the 
justices ruled that local governments were subordinate to federal and state governments 
and upheld the basic principles of Dillons Rule. It can be derived from this and 
subsequent Supreme Court decisions that municipalities can have home rule but only 
after their states relinquished inherent state powers to them. 

During the 20th century, cities first became urbanized, and then suburbanized at 
an accelerated pace. Commensurate with the growth was the demand for municipal 
services. With the blessings of the state legislatures, large cities began to plan their 
growth and development and establish zoning regulations. New York City was the first to 
adopt a zoning regulation in 1916, and Cleveland, Ohio, was the first to adopt a 
comprehensive plan in 1925. In 1926, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of community 
zoning, noting that it is an appropriate extension of the community's authority inhered in 
the states police power to pass laws related to protecting the public health, safety, 
morals and general welfare. 

The spread of comprehensive city planning and zoning was fast, prompted by the 
actions of Herbert Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce. Hoover was an advocate of 
planning and formed the Advisory Committee on Zoning in 1921, later reformulated as 
the Advisory Committee on City Planning and Zoning (ACCPZ), to develop draft model 
planning and zoning statutes that could be adopted by states. A Standard State Zoning 
Enabling Act (SSZA) was created first, with the first edition being published by the 
Government Printing Office in 1924 and a revised edition in 1926. The publication of A 
Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) followed shortly thereafter, with a 
preliminary edition released in 1927 and a final edition in 1928. 

According to Platt (1976), both model laws contain identical characteristics: 
1) the delegation of state power to local units of government (the power to engage in land 
use planning, zoning, and subdivision regulation); 2) the power is discretionary; and, 3) if 
adopted, the procedure set forth in the state enabling act must be followed precisely. 

The decision to produce enabling laws for states to adopt was made because the 
laws would adhere to Dillons Rule and have a high probability of withstanding legal 
challenge, and because land use planning was considered a local or urban issue. At this 
time, states were not actively involved with local growth issues. The development of 
these laws also corresponded with the early development of land use planning as a 
professional endeavor, promoting the professionalization of the field. The two model 
codes remain the basis for todays laws. 

To deliver the services citizens sought and also to deliver those that were 
mandated by federal and state laws, communities have sought and often been granted 
home rule powers. Unfortunately, home rule cannot be categorized as a set of common 
characteristics. In some cases, home rule has been limited to specific powers delegated by 
states, and, in other cases, has been expansive. Healy (1976) also notes that communities 


granted local control over land use may mean one of three things: 1) no control at all 
by local government, with all rights reserved to the landowner; 2) control by and for the 
local community, with community interests given preference over those of the wider 
society; or, 3) control by the local decision makers, regardless of whether their decisions 
reflect the rights of property owners, the community, or the wider society. (p. 161-162) 

Variations in local control of land were common because state legislatures were 
dominated by rural counties where comprehensive plans and zoning were rarely 
endorsed. By 1900, most states had adopted constitutions that established legislative 
bodies using the federal model of house representation by population and senate 
representation by county, usually one senator per county. Because most counties never 
urbanized, as the 20th century progressed, state legislatures were progressively being 
dominated by rural counties with a smaller and smaller percentage of the states 
population. Often the most important county official was its state senator who could 
either shepherd legislation to aid the county or oppose legislation that threatened the 
countys way of life. In extreme cases, like South Carolina, senate rules permitted the 
opposition of a single senator to hold up undesired legislation and essentially veto it 
(Mittler 1993). One consequence of rural domination of state legislatures was opposition 
to any state involvement in local land use decisions, permitting local politicians to pursue 
land use as they saw fit. 

While urban communities and their citizens complained that they were unfairly 
represented in state legislatures, nothing was changed until 1962 when the United States 
Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr ruled that federal courts could hear reapportionment 
cases. Four years later, in Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court found that state 
legislatures that were apportioned using the federal model were unconstitutional and both 
houses in state legislatures must be apportioned by population. The one-man, one-vote 
ruling changed the balance of urban, suburban, and rural representation in state 
legislatures and has led several state legislatures to consider state involvement in land use 
decisions. 

Bosselman and Callies (1971) reported that there was a quiet revolution in land 
use control in the country during the 1960s to overthrow the feudal system under which 
the entire pattern of land development has been controlled by thousands of individual 
local governments, each seeking to maximize its tax base and minimize its social 
problems, and caring less what happens to all others. (page 1) New laws were replacing 
the old, each providing some degree of state or regional participation in land use 
decisions. Nine examples were discussed at length including three that directly affected 
floodplains, the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Program, the Wisconsin Shoreland 
Protection Program, and the New England River Basins Commission. 

On the heels of the quiet revolution in land use control, Senator Jackson of 
Washington introduced the National Land Use Policy Act of 1970 to create a system of 
federal incentives to encourage states to develop comprehensive land development and 


conservation plans in conjunction with their localities. The bill would establish a national 
land use policy and grants would be given to states to prepare and implement land use 
programs for the protection of areas of critical environmental concern and the control and 
direction of growth and development of more than local significance. 

Between 1970 and 1975, several versions of the National Land Use Policy Act 
were introduced and amended. (See Bosselman and Callies 1971, for a transcript of the 
National Land Use Policy Act of 1971 (92nd Congress, Senate 922, H.R. 4332.)) None 
was ever enacted. According to Plotkin (1987), the attempts in the early 1970s to enact a 
national land use policy failed for three reasons: 

 Standards  no agreement on what might entail federal goals or guidelines; state 
planners preferred no standards to accommodate project variations, which would 
be individually determined. 

 

 Sanctions  linking the bills to funding of several desirable federal programs 
caused the most resistance with the belief that program descriptions would have to 
meet federal ideas of what was right rather than local opinions. 

 

 Takings  senators from the west argued that the bills would foster takings and 
should permit the landowners compensation for unwarranted actions. 

 

Opposition was not surprising given that congressmen had usually served in state 
legislatures before election to Congress and were steeped in the tradition of keeping land 
use policy local. 

The failure of Congress to enact a national land use policy should not delude 
anyone into believing that there is no federal policy toward land use. Platt (1976) argues, 
in fact, that the country has too many policies. For 200 years, the only consistency in 
federal policies and actions with respect to land has been their mutual inconsistency 
(page 11). Congress has gradually enacted multiple laws, each focusing on one or a few 
aspects of land use and each supporting different land use goals. Laws and then decisions 
based on them are made independent of other laws and decisions leading to systematic 
inconsistencies and the pursuit of sub-optimal goals. 

While it is beyond the scope of this project to investigate all federal laws affecting 
floodplain management and determine how they interact, Table 2 displays a limited 
number of federal non-structural hazard mitigation policies that landowners may 
voluntarily subscribe that are intended to reduce future losses from flooding. This list 
includes just a fraction of federal programs affecting floodplain management, but they 
illustrate the three main avenues of public intervention in the private land use decision 
process: acquisition, regulation, and persuasion (offering incentives for the owner to 
conform voluntarily to public policy) (Platt 1976). Also, like the NFIP, many of these 
programs have limited state participation. 


TABLE 2: Non-Structural Federal Flood Loss Reduction Programs Affecting Landowners 

Program 

Federal Agency in Charge 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 
(HMGP) 

FEMA 

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) 

FEMA 

Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

HOME Investment Partnerships 
Program 

HUD 

HUD Disaster Recovery Program 

HUD 

Land Acquisition 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Post-Disaster Economic Recovery 
Program 

Department of Commerce Economic 
Development Administration (EDA) 

Physical Disaster Loans 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

Emergency Watershed Protection 
Program 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) 

Wetlands Reserve Program 

NRCS 

Conservation Reserve Program 

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation 
Assistance Program 

National Park Service (NRS) 

Floodplain Management Services 
Program 

U. S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

Public Law 84-99 Program 

USACE 

Conservation Contracts 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Section 206 Program 

USACE 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

FWS 

Section 1135 Program 

USACE 

Stewardship Incentive Program 

U. S. Forest Service (FS) 

Wildlife Protection Development 
Grants 

NRCS 

Program Goals  Flood Loss Reduction 

Acquisition, elevation, and relocation of structures after floods 

Acquisition and relocation of structures before floods 

Acquisition and relocation of low-income flood-prone homes 

Acquisition and relocation of low-income flood-prone homes 

Acquisition and relocation of low-income frequently flooded homes after floods 

Acquisition of easements and property for addition to the national wildlife refuge 
system 

Provision of low-interest loans for relocation of frequently flooded homes 

Provision of low-interest loans to restore wetlands and relocate non-farm structures 

Provision of assistance to flood-prone landowners, including easements and funds 
to set back levees 

Acquisition of easements to restore wetlands and floodplain habitat 

Offering of financial incentives to farmers to establish soil-conserving vegetation 
on eligible cropland 

Establishment of projects to manage and conserve river and trail corridors 

Provision of technical assistance and general planning guidance for non-structural 
floodplain programs including acquisition 

Provision for the repair of damaged levees and the acquisition of flooded land 
protected by levees 

Forgiveness of debt from farm loan programs in exchange for an agreement to 
conserve wetlands and other floodplain habitats 

Restoration of aquatic habit, including floodplain habitat 

Restoration of wetlands and riparian habitat on private land 

Restoration of wetlands and floodplain habitat previously impacted by a USACE 
project 

Provision of grants to private landowners to establish and maintain buffers and 
other conservation objectives 

Provision of technical and financial assistance to private landowners to develop and 
improve wildlife habitat on their property 


Wetland Protection Development 
Grants 

Development or enhancement of wetlands 

North American Waterfowl 
Management Program 

Restoration of waterfowl populations through habitat conservation 

North American Wetlands 
Conservation Fund 

Conservation of wetlands for migratory birds and other wildlife 

Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program 

Provision of assistance to farmers implementing conservation practices 

Federal Aid In Wildlife Restoration 

Restoration of wild birds and mammals by acquisition, development, and 
management of habitat 

Small Watershed Program 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Department of Interior (DOI) 

DOI 

USDA 

FWS 

NRCS 

Implementation of measures that reduce runoff from farms, including tillage 
practices and watershed restoration 


1.3.2 The Effect of State Programs on Local Land Use and Floodplain Management 

As stated at the start of this report, the goals of the NFIP are: 1) provide flood 
insurance to building owners in participating communities as protection against flood 
losses; 2) reduce future flood damages through mitigation and implementation of 
floodplain management regulations; 3) reduce costs of disaster relief to the general 
taxpayer. Considering the complex political environment in which land use policies are 
immersed, it can be argued that an effective state program supported by FEMA to meet 
these goals should at a minimum be applicable both to states that follow Dillons Rule 
and those that promote home rule, and to states that actively regulate floodplains or those 
that passively support local choices. It is also likely that a comprehensive national 
floodplain management program that includes mandatory regulations would challenge 
those benefiting from the status quo and be perceived in the same light as a national land 
use policy and thus not be likely to get congressional support. 

Before establishing what might constitute the guts of new federal initiatives to 
enhance the states ability to meet the goals of the NFIP, a review of critical research into 
what constitutes effective state participation in land use and a discussion of recent 
advances in state floodplain management is presented. The intent of this section is not to 
conduct an exhaustive literature search but to summarize critical publications and events 
that convey the development of state floodplain management comprehensively. 

Recent Research  Richardson and his colleagues (2003) investigated whether 
local governments in states that employ Dillons Rule to define the power of local 
governments were hindered in their ability to curb urban growth. They compared states 
that employ Dillons Rule with those that employ home rule. Their main conclusion was 
that Dillons Rule neither prohibits nor hinders growth management. They also 
reaffirmed a long-held belief that strong local autonomy can complicate regional 
collaboration, necessitating a more powerful role for states to manage more effective 
regional growth management. 

In their investigation of the effect of Dillons Rule on urban growth, Richardson, 
et al. (2003) noted that states that successfully managed urban growth used different 
approaches if they adhered to Dillons Rule or home rule. They concluded: 

In short, a states adherence to Dillons Rule in no way precludes strong action 
to deal with growth-related actions. In such states, legislatures retain the power to grant 
localities broad freedom to engage in growth management. Conversely, legislatures in 
home rule states can pass laws that restrict municipalities from engaging in exclusionary 
practices or other activities that appear to undermine important state objectives. 
(Executive Summary, unpaginated) 

The importance of the state in growth management could not be overstated by 
Richardson and his colleagues. They concluded that effective growth management 


efforts hinge on leadership and coordination at the state level whether a state uses 
Dillons Rule or not (Richardson, et al. 2003, p. 22). 

Leigh (2003) investigated the role of states in urban land redevelopment to 
identify how states could contribute directly to the redevelopment of vacant and 
abandoned properties. The importance of the state in urban land redevelopment mirrored 
the findings of Richardson and his colleagues in their investigation of urban growth. 
However, Leigh also identified a number of powers states can exploit to energize local 
redevelopment efforts as well as prevent future deterioration (Leigh 2003:v). While 
most of the programs do not directly correspond to floodplain management, the basic 
thrust of the investigation was to demonstrate how states can use their powers to aid local 
communities in land use programs. One particular idea was to add provisions for the 
rehabilitation of existing buildings to state and local building codes, making it easier and 
less expensive for owners to rehabilitate their structures. Leigh cited other research 
results that indicate that rehabilitation spending increases significantly after such codes 
are implemented and the cost of redeveloping old buildings drops by 10 to 40 percent. 

Using data provided by the Institute for Business & Home Safety in its 
Catastrophe Paid Loss Data Base for losses experienced by private insurers between 
January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2000, Burby (2003) tested whether state planning 
mandates reduced insured losses from natural disasters. After examining state statutes, 
Burby found that 26 states did not require local governments to prepare comprehensive 
plans and 24 did. Of the 24 that required comprehensive plans, 9 states specifically 
required the mandated plans pay attention to natural hazards. Burby reported the effect of 
state planning on insured losses thusly: 

Per capita insured losses to residential property in natural disasters between 1994 
and 2000 averaged over $33 in states that did not require local governments to prepare 
comprehensive plans. Losses to commercial property in those states averaged over $4 per 
capita. In contrast, per capita losses were much lower ($26 and $3 respectively) in states 
that required local governments to prepare plans, and lower still ($19 and $2 respectively) 
when states required both plans and attention to hazards. Difference of means tests using 
logarithmic transformation of losses to correct for the skewed nature of disaster losses 
indicate that these differences are statistically significant and not due to chance variation 
in the data (2003, p.13). 

Although Burbys data did not include flood losses because flood insurance was 
not offered by private insurers, the results do include wind losses from hurricanes that 
accompanied large flood losses in states that both required and did not require 
comprehensive plans. His results lend support to the hypothesis that the same results 
would be found for flood losses. 

Floodplain Management  The first comprehensive study of non-structural 
floodplain management, referred to regulating flood-plain development, in the United 


States was conducted by Murphy (1958), a protg of Gilbert White, considered the 
father of modern floodplain management. The study was partially inspired by the 
enactment of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956, which was never implemented 
because Congress failed to appropriate the necessary funds needed to carry it out. 
Murphys findings and observations provide a baseline and framework for understanding 
subsequent assessments of floodplain management related to flood prevention rather than 
flood control that may explain provisions of the NFIP enacted in 1968. (See Table 3 for a 
list and a discussion of important events and assessments of state floodplain management 
since 1956.) 

In his discussion of contemporary floodplain management, Murphy (1958) 
highlighted several provisions of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 that later were 
included in the NFIP. Two such provisions related to floodplain regulations: 1) no 
insurance or reinsurance shall be issued to any property to be in violation of state or local 
flood zoning laws; and, 2) no insurance or reinsurance shall be offered to any properties 
in a geographical area that has not adopted and kept in force flood zoning laws. 


TABLE 3: Important Assessments and Events Concerning Floodplain Management 

Year 

Discussion 

1956 

Extensive losses resulting from the Southwest floods of 1951 in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma and 
the 1955 floods following Hurricanes Connie and Diane in combination with the lack of private flood 
insurance were the catalysts that inspired Congress to enact the first national flood insurance program. 
However, the program was never implemented because Congress failed to appropriate the necessary 
funds. 

1958 

Francis C. Murphy conducts the first assessment of 
floodplain management in the United States 

Murphy finds that seven states have enacted and implemented effective programs to regulate 
development in floodplains. He further finds that only eight communities had developed flood zoning 
ordinances prior to the enactment of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 and 41 others had 
created ordinances after enactment. He concludes that floodplain management has been slow to take 
hold and up to then has been ineffective. 

1958 

Representatives of federal, state, and local government meet in December in Chicago to discuss 
methods of solving flood problems. The meeting is organized by Gilbert White, and provides a 
recommendation from experts that the 100-year flood standard be used by the NFIP. 

1960 

Section 206 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide technical information, 
technical planning assistance, and guidance to aid states, local governments, and Indian Tribes in 
identifying the magnitude and extent of the flood hazard and in planning wise use of the flood plains. 

1962 

Morse finds that, since 1958, only one state has enacted flood plain regulations and Hawaii has 
become the first state to adopt a state land use plan. For the most part, states are mostly concerned 
with flood control projects and programs. 

1965 

The Water Resources Planning Act established the federal interagency Water Resources Council 
(WRC) to maintain a continuing study and periodically prepare an assessment of the adequacy of 
supplies of water to meet national requirements. As part of its charge the WRC was to include an 
assessment of flood management, considering flood control structures and measures including 
reservoirs, channels, levees, and land treatment as well as flood prevention measures including land 
use regulation, flood proofing, flood warning, and flood insurance. 

1968 

Section 1302(C) of the NFIP stipulated that the objectives of a flood insurance program should be 
integrally related to a unified national program for floodplain management andthe President should 
submit to Congress for its consideration any further proposals necessary for such a unified 
program Responsibility for the development of the Unified National Program was first assigned 
by the Office of Management and Budget to the WRC. It was first submitted in 1976 and 
subsequently revised in 1979, 1982, 1986, and 1994. Each version of the report included an 
evaluation of the roles of federal, state, and local governments and recommendations to enhance their 
abilities to meet NFIP goals. 

1976 

The NFIP coordinators from 6 states in FEMA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Ohio, and Wisconsin) formed a loose association to coordinate their concerns about the NFIP and 
interact with FEMA with a single voice. Their success in affecting FEMA decisions led to the 
creation of a formal association that has grown into the leading professional advocate of floodplain 
management in the United States. 

Event or Assessment 

Federal Flood Insurance Act 

 

The First National Conference on Flood Plain 
Regulations and Insurance 

Flood Control Act (Public Law 86-645) 

Henry C. Morse conducts a survey of state agencies 
to determine the role of states in guiding land use in 
flood plains 

The Water Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89- 
80) 

The National Flood Insurance Act (Public Law 90- 
448) 

Formation of the Association of State Floodplain 
Managers (ASFPM) 


Discussion 

1978 

E. O. 11988 directed federal agencies to avoid unwise development in floodplains and to seek 
locations for development outside floodplains. 

1980 

President Carter created FEMA in 1978 to consolidate federal disaster related programs into one 
agency. In the following year, FEMA established the State Assistance Program to fund the 
development of state floodplain management capability to assist communities carry out their 
requirements in the NFIP. This program has evolved into the Community Assistance Program 
(administered through the states) and continues to be the most significant source of funds for state 
floodplain management programs. 

1982 

As part of the WRC charge to conduct research on important water resources topics, the council, in 
conjunction with the ASFPM, surveys NFIP coordinators to understand the state of state floodplain 
management. The results of the survey indicate that there were 27 states that had adopted statutes 
authorizing state regulations for channel, floodway, or flood fringe areas. In addition, most state 
programs were in their fledgling state, and implementation was impeded by inadequate enabling 
authority, inadequate funding, poor flood data, public apathy, and lack of intergovernmental 
coordination. 

1985 

Burby, French, and their colleagues assessed the state of floodplain management in the United 
States, focusing mainly on community adoption and implementation of flood plain land use 
management ordinances. In their study, the investigators evaluated the effect of state flood hazard 
management programs on local programs. They found that state flood hazard management 
programs are instrumental in stimulating local programs to protect property and preserve the 
environment, and they are instrumental in increasing the local administrative priority of flood hazard 
management (Burby, French et al. 1985, p. 129 and p. 133). 

1989 

The ASFPM begins conducting surveys of the NFIP State Coordinators to document what states are 
doing to further activities in the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, to update 
activities reported in previous surveys, and to gather 1-2 page descriptions of state programs. The 
surveys provide a reference for states and examples for others to evaluate. Subsequent surveys are 
published in 1992, 1995, and 2003. 

1991 

The CRS is the first incentive offered through the NFIP for communities to voluntarily adopt 
regulations exceeding NFIP minimums. Premiums for NFIP policy holders are reduced in 5% 
increments up to 45% as communities adopt more restrictive policies. 

1992 

This assessment provides the most complete history of floodplain management in the United States 
and a comprehensive description of the state of the unified national program of floodplain 
management. The report relies on published data rather than new surveys. 

2003 

Event or Assessment 

President Carter issues Executive Order 11988, 
Floodplain Management 

FEMA establishes the State Assistance Program 

WRC and ASFPM jointly survey NFIP 
coordinators to understand the state of state 
floodplain management. 

Raymond J. Burby and Steven P. French lead a 
team of investigators performing a national 
assessment of flood plain land use management. 

ASFPM publishes its first independent survey of 
state floodplain management. 

The Community Rating System (CRS) is introduced 
by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) 

L. R. Johnston Associates and a project team that 
includes ASFPM members conduct an assessment of 
floodplain management in the United States. 

ASFPM publishes Effective State Floodplain 
Management Programs. 

Thirty-seven years after its inception, ASFPM develops ten principles that characterize effective state 
floodplain management programs. The purpose of the report is to provide a set of guidelines rather 
than a how-to manual. 


5 Classifying states into categories related to floodplain management characteristics in the Murphy and subsequent 
assessments has not been uniformly accomplished. Murphy as well as other researchers has not left a paper trail to 
determine what criteria were considered to make judgments concerning the existence of a state program in flood 
plain management. In subsequent research, conflicting conclusions exist, such as which states adopted floodplain 
management regulations prior to 1958. The main reason for the discrepancy is whether the researchers included 
flood control regulations, which typically predated land use regulations. In addition to conflicting interpretations of 
state actions, one problem associated with decisions concerning whether states have adopted certain regulations, 
usually enabling acts transferring powers to local governments to enact ordinances concerning land use and zoning, 
is that states with broad home rule regulations are not required to pass such single topic enabling acts because the 
preexisting broad home rule regulations have already transferred the powers to the local governments. 
Consequently, some home rule states that may actively encourage and support local floodplain management are not 
included in lists of proactive states that are characterized by having enacted state statutes. As a result of these issues, 
findings of previous researchers presented in this paper should be interpreted fairly broadly and not necessarily as 
comparable. 

Also after discovering a low level of local community adoption of flood zoning 
regulations both before and following the enactment of the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956, 
Murphy (1958) questioned whether floodplain management could be adopted voluntarily by 
local communities without linking the provision of programs such as flood insurance to 
community adoption of flood zoning. He concluded: 

The reluctance of so many communities to enact zoning ordinances and building codes 
with any reference to flood restriction is so great that it may be doubted whether continuation of 
this voluntary, or permissive, approach to the problems of flood areas will produce the hoped-for 
results. Effective and widespread use of these regulatory measures may well require further 
action by the federal government in the form of offering some financial incentive to accomplish 
them or withholding some financial assistance if they are not accomplished (p. 155-156). 

The importance of Murphys comments are that critical provisions of the NFIP that were 
included in the 1968 law were understood as early as the development of the 1956 Federal Flood 
Insurance Act and the need to mandate the adoption of floodplain management ordinances by 
local governments as a condition of being eligible for flood insurance that was the high spot of 
the 1973 amendment to the NFIP was understood as early as 1958. 

 Murphys conclusions, stated above, were supported by three of his main findings. First, 
by 1958 only seven states had enacted and were enforcing laws regulating the floodplain and 
these were characterized by their focus on channel-encroachment, defined as the constriction in 
the width of the channel that aggravates flood conditions (page 14). All seven states uniquely 
defined floodways and areas where construction was prohibited, and state agencies in charge of 
mapping had different goals and standards to meet. The seven states and the year their laws were 
adopted5 were (in alphabetical order) Connecticut (1955), Indiana (1945), Iowa (1949), 
Massachusetts (1939), New Jersey (1929), Pennsylvania (1913), and Washington (1933). 

 Second, probably no more than eight communities had effective flood plain zoning 
before 1955 (Murphy 1958:44). Third, two years following the passage of the Federal Flood 
Insurance Act of 1956, just a total of 49 municipalities and counties had adopted flood plain 
zoning. 


6 A copy of the questions asked was not included in Morse (1962). 

The overall state of floodplain management in 1958 may be best characterized by one of 
Murphys overall conclusions: the record shows that, while they have been advocated for 
decades, the use of [flood plain] regulatory measures has been very limited; andthey have in 
many instances not been very effective (Murphy 1958:128). 

Four years after the publication of Murphys assessment, Morse (1962) conducted a 
survey of state planning and development agencies, state water resource agencies, and a small 
sample of city or regional planning agencies to determine how the states can cooperate 
effectively with Federal and local governments and with other states in reducing flood damage 
potential by guiding and controlling land use in flood plains (p. 2-3). Responses to written 
inquiries about state programs were received from 45 state planning and development agencies, 
43 state water resource agencies, and 15 city or regional planning agencies.6 

Morse (1962) found that states were engaged in four general activities related to flood 
damage prevention: (1) collection, distribution, and interpretation of flood data; (2) review and 
construction of flood control projects; (3) flood plain regulations; and (4) planning programs 
affecting land use in flood plains (page 4). According to Morse (1962), all but one state reported 
that they collected flood data but few had established policies and procedures for analyzing and 
publishing the information in forms that would be useful for any but the agency collecting the 
data. However, after the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1960, which authorized the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers to collect and present flood data for communities in a uniform manner, 
there was a belief that a national mapping program had begun. 

The review and construction of flood control projects has traditionally been the major 
activity conducted by state water resource agencies. Either by federal law, state statute, or both, 
states have been involved in the planning, construction, and maintenance of dams, levees and 
other protective works. Their reliance upon protective works to solve flood problems is further 
demonstrated by the fact that eighteen of the twenty-seven states that have authorized agencies to 
prepare over-all water resource plans have limited such plans to flood protective works (Morse 
1962:13-14). Federal funding may be one of the main causes for this outcome. According to 
Morse, since the major share of Federal monies goes to flood protection works, the strongest 
relationships are between Federal and state agencies whose primary concern is with flood 
control (Morse 1962, p. 52). 

Between 1958 and 1962, Morse (1962) found that one state, Kentucky, had enacted an 
encroachment of floodway statute. Adding this to the seven mentioned by Murphy (1958), there 
were now eight states with floodplain management statutes. In addition, the state of Hawaii 
enacted the first state land use statute that established the concept of state zoning in 1961, one 
purpose of which is to establish conservation districts for, among other things, preventing floods 
and soil erosion (Morse 1958, p. 21). 

Hawaiis comprehensive plan was the only one found by Morse. Six other states  
California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Wisconsin - reported having parts 


of a comprehensive plan to which state-wide water resource and flood damage prevention plans 
could be related (Morse 1958, p. 28). 

In a different vein, Morse (1962) noted that 26 states that had water resource agencies 
that prepared state-wide water resource plans did not include any mention of other state 
programs that might impact land use in flood plains. In his opinion, development programs in 
these states suffered because they did not consider potential adverse effects caused by flooding. 
He concluded that the most effective planning programs were found in those states where the 
state planning agency was located in the office of the Governor or in one of his staff agencies 
(Morse 1962:56). If located elsewhere, planning was generally limited to the single concerns of 
the home agency. 

One of the most interesting findings by Morse was the inverse relationship between the 
number of state agencies with responsibilities for water resource tasks related to flood damage 
protection (in the majority of states two or more), and the comprehensiveness of these tasks. 
When responsibilities were split between two or more agencies, he found that the state program 
has been weak and has generally been limited to data collection and project review (Morse 
1962, p. 35). When one agency had total responsibility, comprehensive programs flourished. Of 
the fifteen states having a single agency in charge of state water resources activities related to 
flood damage protection, six (Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Washington) were states that had enacted state floodplain management statutes and one (Hawaii) 
had enacted a state land use plan. 

After analyzing the collected data, Morse recommended that the states role in a 
comprehensive state flood damage prevention program include but not be limited to: (1) 
preparation of a statewide comprehensive plan and policy for development, and a statewide 
water resource plan that relates to the over-all development policy; (2) collection, distribution, 
and interpretation of flood data; (3) programs to promote public understanding of flood 
problems; (4) state regulation of land use in flood plains; (5) financial assistance to localities for 
solving flood problems; (6) technical assistance; and (7) review of Federal flood control 
projects (Morse 1962, p. x). 

 The next major assessment of state floodplain management took place in 1982, 20 years 
after Morses assessment. During that 20-year gap, several critical events occurred that 
transformed the fundamental nature of state floodplain management. First, the Water Resources 
Planning Act of 1965 established the federal interagency Water Resources Council (WRC) with 
the continual responsibility to study and assess the adequacy of supplies of water to meet 
national requirements. As part of its assessment, the WRC included the study of floods, flood 
control, and flood prevention as critical components of a national water resources program (US 
WRC 1968). 

 Second, Section 1302(c) of the NFIP enacted in 1968 called for the continual 
development of a unified national program for floodplain management integrating federal, state, 
local government programs and policies. The Office of Manpower and Budget assigned 
responsibility for the development of the unified national program to the WRC, which issued 
written reports in 1976 and 1979. A third report with the same title, A Unified National Program 
for Floodplain Management, written by the Interagency Task Force on Flood Plain Management 


7 An Executive Order (EO) has the force of law and may be issued by a President or Governor. EOs are typically 
based on existing authority and do not require additional action by a legislative body to be effective. 

(1986) updated the work of the WRC and some of its observations are discussed below. A fourth 
report, also by the Interagency Task Force (then chaired by FEMA) was issued in 1994. 

Third, in response to initial federal policies issued to implement the NFIP, NFIP 
coordinators from 6 states in FEMA Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and 
Wisconsin) formed a loose association to coordinate their concerns about the NFIP and interact 
with FEMA with a single voice. Their unified efforts led to the creation in 1976 of the 
Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM), a professional association dedicated to 
advance the state of floodplain management and to work with the federal government in creating 
national policy (ASFPM 2003b). As will be described below, the professionalization of the field 
of floodplain management has been a major factor in the growth of the knowledge base and 
capacity of state floodplain managers and their staffs. In essence, the void created by the inability 
of Congress to enact a national land use policy act has been substantially filled for floodplain 
management by the policies and programs advocated by the ASFPM that have gained 
widespread adoption. Examples of ASFPM suggestions incorporated into law or included in 
new federal programs [are] aspects of flood insurance to address repetitive losses, post-disaster 
mitigation funding, the Community Rating System, a national council on mapping standards, and 
. . the major increase in funding for Flood Map Modernization begun in FY03 (ASFPM 
2003:2). 

Fourth, in 1977 President Carter issued Executive Order7 11988, Floodplain 
Management, directing federal agencies to avoid supporting or participating in actions negatively 
affecting floodplains. This executive order has served as the model for states to emulate and led 
to equivalent executive orders issued by governors and/or statutes enacted by state legislatures. 

Fifth, in 1980, two years after President Carter created FEMA to consolidate federal 
disaster related programs into one agency, FEMA established the State Assistance Program to 
fund the development of state floodplain management capability to assist communities in 
carrying out their requirements for participation in the NFIP. This program was necessitated by 
the lack of floodplain management capacity in many states throughout the country. According to 
Wright (2000), State floodplain management capability to assist communities to interpret and 
utilize flood insurance study data and to enact and enforce required floodplain management 
measures did not exist in most states (page 38). As discussed in later sections of this report, the 
State Assistance Program has evolved into the current Community Assistance Program that 
funds states to assist local communities and has set the precedent of federal funding of many 
state floodplain management activities. 

The 1982 assessment of state floodplain management previously mentioned was 
conducted by the ASFPM, as part of Jon Kuslers Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas study 
which he completed for the WRC as part of its charge to conduct research on floods and to 
prepare written reports regarding intergovernmental relationships in a unified national program 
for floodplain management (Bloomgren 1982). A limited survey consisting of at least the 


8 Bloomgren did not include a copy of the survey instrument. The topics listed are those in her tables that were 
created to organize the responses for each state and do not likely reflect the actual questions or all the questions 
asked each respondent, some of which were mentioned in the text. She also noted that Not all states were able, in 
the short time available, to provide specific details on staff and budget (Bloomgren 1982:55). 

following seven topics8 was completed by each of the state coordinators of the NFIP: 1) number 
of communities subject to flooding; 2) local enabling authority; 3) existing state floodplain 
management; 4) state floodplain management activities; 5) problems; 6) innovations; and 7) 
selected state floodplain management publications. 
There were four findings of note in the 1982 assessment. First, there were at that time 27 
states that had adopted state statutes regulating the floodplain or established standards for local 
regulation. Second, implementation of state programs that were now on the books were impeded 
by inadequate enabling authority, inadequate funding, poor flood data, public apathy and lack of 
intergovernmental coordination (Bloomgren 1982:17). Third, many state programs were only 
partially effective. According to Bloomgren (1982), program success is hampered by 
fragmented floodplain management powers, lack of clear floodplain management goals, 
inadequate funding and staffing, exemptions, inadequate control of public uses, inadequate maps 
and lack of public awareness (page 37). Fourth, there were expectations that activities funded 
through the newly created State Assistance Program would expand and improve state floodplain 
management capabilities. Bloomgren (1982:28-30) divided activities initially funded through the 
State Assistance Program mentioned by survey respondents into the following five categories: 
1. training and education of local community leaders; 
2. development and/or distribution of promotional and informational materials used for 
training and education; 
3. technical assistance to local governments; 
4. flood hazard mitigation programs; and 

5. legislative/regulatory analysis to determine what changes need to be made to strengthen 
floodplain management. 
Based on a qualitative analysis of the responses, Bloomgren (1982) listed ten elements 
found in the more effective state programs (page xi). These were: 
1. a lead agency  a single location with experts in floodplain management that should have, 
at a minimum, the authority to coordinate activities, provide technical assistance and 
education and establish standards; 
2. adequate funding; 
3. expert staff; 


4. Regulation of private uses of the floodplain; 
5. Supplementary statutory authority to do such things as acquiring flood-prone structures, 
operating flood warning systems, and developing flood hazard mitigation plans; 
6. Rules  having adequate administrative regulations to carry out statutes; 
7. Mapping and data gathering capacity; 
8. Technical assistance provided to communities; 
9. Educational support for all involved with floodplain activities; and 

10. Planning responsibilities before and after floods. 

Because most states did not possess these elements, Bloomgren included 
recommendations for their development, most of which relied on the federal government to 
support greater state involvement in floodplain management and to provide the necessary 
funding or other assistance for states to upgrade their capabilities. 

In 1985, Burby, French and their colleagues published the results of a national 
assessment of the effectiveness of flood plain land use management based on the quantitative 
analysis of returned mail surveys from over 2,500 knowledgeable local, regional, and state 
officials. As part of their analysis, the investigators evaluated the role of states and how their 
programs affected local flood plain management programs. When state officials were asked to 
list their two most important roles, planning and coordination was included in 90% of the 
responses and technical assistance to local governments was included in 86% of the responses. 
Only two other roles were listed on more than 10% of the responses: public information/flood 
warning (56%) and regulation of flood hazard areas (52%). When asked what two roles they 
were most involved in, five were listed on 38% or more responses: technical assistance to local 
governments (74%), planning and coordination (68%), post-disaster assistance (66%), 
public information/flood warning (56%), and regulation of flood hazard areas (38%). These 
results coincide with Bloomgrens. State functions were limited and important roles were those 
that were funded by the State Assistance Program. 

To understand how effective state roles are, Burby, French and their colleagues asked 
local officials to relate their experiences with state programs. They found that a majority of 
local government officials (52 percent)were not familiar with their states flood hazard 
mitigation programs. Of those that claimed to know something about their states program, only 
11 percent reported they were very familiar with state efforts in this area (Burby, French, et al. 
1985, p. 124). Local officials were also asked about types of assistance they received from their 
state between 1978 and 1983. The investigators stated that The successful efforts of NFIP State 
Coordinators are clearly evident. A majority of local governments reported receiving information 
about the NFIP from state sources (53 percent) and almost a majority (49 percent) cited the state 
as their source for flood plain maps (Burby, French, et al. 1985, p. 125). 


Burby, French et al. (1985) finally conducted a multiple regression analysis to determine 
the effect of state programs on the scope and implementation of local programs (page 127). 
They found that state flood hazard management programs are instrumental in stimulating local 
programs to protect property and preserve the environment, and they are instrumental in 
increasing the local administrative priority of flood hazard management (p. 127 and 133). 

The state of floodplain management in the mid-1980s was summarized in the 1986 
publication, A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, written by the 
Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. It confirmed that states were then 
developing the necessary capabilities to provide local governments with information and 
assistance to implement the NFIP. Especially since the mid 1970s, State capability to carry out 
floodplain management activity has expanded and now many states have vigorous and 
comprehensive floodplain management programs (Interagency Task Force on Floodplain 
Management 1986, p.VII-7). 

L. R. Johnston Associates (1992), in its assessment of floodplain management in the 
United States, summarized the development of floodplain management in the 1970s and 1980s. 
The 1970s were characterized as a decade for states to become involved with floodplain 
management and the 1980s as a decade for state floodplain management programs to evolve. 
During the 1980s, the significant new legislative or institutional changes were few. Rather, 
more attention was given to implementing policies and programs. The federal government took 
on more of a coordinative role, providing direction and technical assistance. State and local 
governments gradually increased their role in fashioning floodplain management strategies 
appropriate to their jurisdictions (L. R. Johnston Associates 1992, Chapter 4 p.11). 

By 1990, the basic state role in the NFIP, assisting local communities comply with 
federal directives, had been established, and the majority of states had enacted floodplain 
management statutes (ASFPM 1992 and L. R. Johnston 1992). As a consequence, state 
floodplain management capabilities had begun to expand to provide local communities with the 
necessary information and skills to carry out the mandatory activities of the state and federal 
programs. The ASFPM also noted in its 1992 survey of state and local programs in floodplain 
management that recent activities initiated by several states since its first survey in 1989 
certification in floodplain management, establishing state or regional floodplain management 
associations, publishing newsletters, and training building inspectors in floodplain management 
were fostering professionalism in floodplain management (ASFPM 1992). In essence, states had 
become critical partners in the unified national floodplain management program, something first 
envisioned by the WRC in 1968. 

The state role in floodplain management has expanded greatly since L. R. Johnstons 
assessment in 1992. Two important developments were partially responsible. First, the 
implementation of the CRS has provided the incentive for states to further increase their 
floodplain management capacities. When states have the responsibility to train local officials and 
provide information on activities that exceed NFIP minimums, state personnel must be 
knowledgeable in these areas first and are forced to develop innovative programs that meet local 
conditions. Bosselman and Callies (1971) describe the problems that a program like the CRS 
overcomes in the NFIP: 


9 ASFPM web site, August 2006, www.floods.org/TheOrganization/offrpt.asp 

Any complex system of regulation has a natural tendency to reduce innovation. Minima 
become maxima. When regulators approve one design it creates a powerful incentive for 
other[s]to use the same approach (p. 319). 

This certainly was the case with the NFIP, which could have limited states to assisting 
communities implement minimum land use and building code requirements. To achieve CRS 
goals, state and federal officials have to encourage communities to go beyond the minimum and 
integrate floodplain management principles into all their development decisions. 

Second, in 1999, the ASFPM initiated its Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) Program. 
According to the ASFPM (2003b), the goals of this program are to (1) advance the knowledge 
of floodplain managers, (2) enhance the profession of floodplain management, and (3) provide a 
common basis for understanding floods and flood loss reduction approaches (p. 3). As more 
people are certified, over 3,300 by 20069, states adopt, support, and implement new ideas and 
innovations developed and advocated by state floodplain management practitioners. 
Consequently, state floodplain managers are moving toward the leading edge of advancements in 
the professional field of floodplain management and becoming less dependent on the federal 
government for program development. The CFM programs continuing education requirement 
will ensure that state floodplain managers remain at the forefront of their profession. In 
recognition of the value of the CFM program in improving community compliance, FEMA and 
other federal agencies have provided funding support for the establishment and operation of the 
CFM program. FEMA officials sit on ASFPMs CFM Board of Regents to coordinate the CFM 
program with FEMAs training initiatives. 
The advances in state floodplain management during the 1990s led the ASFPM to create 
its Effective State Floodplain Management Programs document in 2003. It was not intended to 
provide a one-size-fits-all program for states to emulate. Rather, it presents ten principles that 
underlie program components states should employ to manage floodplains incorporating local 
conditions. The following ten principles were presented as components of an effective program: 
1. State floodplain management programs need strong, clear authority. 
2. State floodplain management programs should be comprehensive and integrated with 
other state functions. 
3. Flood hazards within the states must be identified and the flood risks assessed. 
4. Natural floodplain functions and resources need to be respected. 
5. Development within the state must be guided away from flood-prone areas; adverse 
impacts of development both inside and outside the floodplain must be minimized. 
6. Flood mitigation and recovery strategies should be in place throughout the state. 


10 This section is based on an analysis of information included in the current Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
Guidance provided to states for the Community Assistance Program  State Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) 
for FY 2005 and FY 2006; forty-nine state Floodplain Management Work Plans required for states participating in 
the CAP  SSSE program composed in either 2004 or 2005, there being one for each state except Pennsylvania, 
which has not filed a work plan as of the writing of this report; and ASFPM 2003a, 2004a, and 2004b. 

7. The states people need to be informed about flood hazards and mitigation options. 
8. Training and technical assistance in floodplain management need to be available to the 
states communities. 
9. The levels of funding and staffing for floodplain management should meet the demand 
within each state. 

10. Evaluation of the effectiveness of states floodplain management programs is essential 
and successes should be documented. (ASFPM 2003A). 

The ten principles are not new. They are very similar to those presented by Bloomgren 
(1982) twenty years earlier and contain many of the components of excellent programs found by 
Morse (1962) forty years earlier. What the three lists have in common is their focus on 
conditions within states that support the implementation of floodplain management programs 
rather than their technical content, which changes over time as technology advances, or local 
conditions, which vary within and between states. 

1.3.3 The Current Situation10 

All fifty states participate in the NFIP and the Community Assistance Program State 
Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE). By agreeing to participate in these programs, states must 
adopt certain roles specified in the Code of Federal Regulations and the annual Guidances to the 
CAP-SSSE respectively. However, states are also encouraged to develop program elements that 
meet their specific needs. Therefore, state programs will share many characteristics but will also 
exhibit unique elements. The following discussion begins with a description of program 
requirements that essentially provide the minimum components of state floodplain management 
programs and is followed by an analysis of state programs to determine to what extent states 
achieve federal minimum requirements and also develop and implement additional tasks. 

When states join the NFIP, they take on two separate roles, both of which require the 
adoption of certain programs and policies. First, like local governments states are considered 
communities and must adopt adequate floodplain management regulations that at least meet 
NFIP minimum requirements (44 CFR 60.11 to 60.13). States must comply with the flood plain 
management requirements of all local communities participating in the program in which Stateowned 
properties are located or establish appropriate regulations for state-owned property in 
non-participating local communities. They must also purchase Standard Flood Insurance Policies 
for state-owned structures or their contents. 


Second, state agencies designated as State Coordinating Agencies must perform certain 
duties in this role to guide and upgrade local government capabilities to meet NFIP program 
requirements. Appendix 1 contains the sections of 44 CFR which pertain to the state role. To 
summarize, Subsection 60.25 outlines state responsibilities under the general umbrella of 
demonstrating a commitment to the floodplain management criteria by: enabling local 
communities to regulate development; guiding communities in ordinance administration; 
informing local government and the public about floodplain management requirements; 
providing floodplain mapping assistance; notifying FEMA of local compliance issues; 
regulating to prevent environmental and water pollution during floods; coordinating state 
floodplain management activities; and training. 

As can be discerned from the above list of responsibilities, FEMA has recognized that 
many issues are appropriately dealt with at the state level of government and then the agency has 
encouraged and mandated states to create and develop state floodplain management programs 
that incorporate mechanisms ensuring effective implementation at both the state and local levels. 
FEMA initially took action to assist states, including persuading and then mandating governors 
to designate NFIP State Coordinators and detailed roles for those State Coordinators. The agency 
worked with states to ensure they had adequate enabling legislation for communities, and 
allowed more restrictive state and local requirements. By the late 1970s, FEMA ensured that 
states had adopted compliant regulations either to be self-insured or to become NFIP 
communities. 

From 1981 to 1985, the agency funded state programs through the State Assistance 
Program (SAP) to build state capability. At that point, the FEMA program changed to the 
Community Assistance Program (CAP) in which the FEMA Regions reach an agreement with 
each state to supplement Regional resources in performing NFIP activities. Essentially, the states 
are treated as contractors to perform NFIP functions, with what some officials characterize as 
little effort to build state capability. 

While federal statutes do not provide advice on how to achieve specified activities, 
guidance from FEMA to states that elect to participate in the CAP-SSSE program specifies 
eligible activities and requirements they must or should perform. For fiscal year 2005, FEMA 
(2005) listed eleven categories of eligible activities and requirements, included in Appendix 2. 
States are required to conduct Community Assistance Visits and Community Assistance 
Contacts, to help communities develop and adopt appropriate floodplain management 
ordinances, and to play a significant role in the Map Modernization program. They are 
encouraged to provide technical and other assistance to communities and individuals. To meet 
the demands of CAP-SSSE, FEMA (2006) encouraged states to have at least one full time 
person dedicated to CAP-SSSE or other floodplain management activities to help maintain this 
expertise and capability (p. 6). Under the State Assistance Program in the 1980s, states were 
required to have one full-time, state-funded position in order to be eligible for NFIP cost sharing 
funds. This incentive process increased state capability because it required a commitment on the 
part of state decision makers, such as the governor and legislature. 

An examination of the extent to which states engage in the activities specified in the 
NFIP and CAP-SSSE program requirements can be found in the most recent ASFPM survey of 
floodplain management program coordinators (ASFPM 2004a). State floodplain management 


11 This table is taken from ASFPM 2004a, page 4. As noted there, the percentages do not total 100% because of 
rounding and the inclusion of other activities listed by state program coordinators. 

 

12 It is not clear how much time each activity should take, so one should not read into this observation any more than 
states actually spent their time differently than what FEMAs list would suggest. 

 

13 49 states, all but Pennsylvania, have produced state floodplain management plans. Of these, 45 included an 
evaluation of the gap between planned funding needs and available funds, and 36 of the 45 projected that there 
would be insufficient funds to meet all the funding needs. 

programs devote time to at least nine categories of activities (p. 4). As shown in Table 4 
below11, in 2003, state floodplain management staffs spent 42% of their time on average in 
training and education, 16% monitoring local programs, 6% working on local ordinances, 9% on 
administration, and about 25% on other activities. Comparing this work breakdown to the 
elements of the CAP-SSSE program, it appears that much more time was devoted to 
recommended activities rather than to requirements.12 

Because the ASFPM survey was conducted prior to the issuance of the first guidance for 
FY 2004, states were allocating resources according to their program needs. When new demands 
of the CAP-SSSE were added to ongoing state demands, it was likely that combined demands 
might exceed the available state staff resources of many states. In fact, 75% of the NFIP State 
Coordinators reported in their 2004 or 2005 state floodplain management plans that the costs of 
planned activities were higher than expected funding.13 

In its evaluation of what constitutes an effective state program, ASFPM (2003a) specified 
one of its ten guiding principles as the levels of funding and staffing for floodplain management 
should meet the demand within each state (p. 88). The Association further noted that a state 
program, no matter how well designed it is, cannot function properly if it lacks the resources to 
do so. 


14 This result is supported by the previously mentioned fact that the vast majority of NFIP coordinators thought their 
programs were underfunded to meet CAP-SSSE goals. 

TABLE 4: Average Staff Time Spent on Floodplain Management Activities 

Average 
percentage 
of state 
staffs time 

21% 

16% 

14% 

9% 

8% 

7% 

6% 

3% 

Floodplain management activities conducted by state staff 

Technical assistance to local governments 

Monitoring local floodplain management programs 

Educating and training of local officials and other professionals 

Administering grant programs (state and federal) 

Mapping flood hazards or conducting engineering activities or support 

Providing technical assistance to property owners 

Helping with enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances 

State-level enforcement 

Promoting the sale of flood insurance 

2% 

 

A determination as to whether state floodplain management programs are properly 
funded and staffed can be estimated using self-reported information in Table 2 of the 2003 
ASFPM survey of NFIP State Coordinators (ASFPM 2004a) reporting salaries and fringe in state 
floodplain management program annual budgets and data collected from several sources shown 
in Table 5 below for variables that have been identified by Morse (1962), Bloomgren (1982) and 
ASFPM (2003a) as being critical in discriminating between effective and ineffective state 
programs. To evaluate funding levels, salary data in Table 2 of ASPPM 2003a were used. They 
indicate that 73% (36 of 49) of the states received 50% or more of the total for salary and fringe 
from the Community Assistance Program (CAP) and 57% (28 of 49) received 75% or more from 
the CAP. Thus, assuming the statutorily required 25% state match, the majority of states were 
relying solely on CAP for personnel expenses and in some cases for part or all of the state match. 
These 28 states were clearly under-funded if they attempted to pursue state activities not 
specifically authorized under CAP regulations or exceeded the capacity of their personnel in an 
effort to achieve CAP goals.14 

If states are under-funded to accomplish floodplain management goals, then it is likely 
that they are also understaffed, an argument supported by NFIP State Coordinators in many 
recent state CAP-SSSE plans. Is there a way to determine if and which states are understaffed? 
Beginning with the findings by Murphy (1958), floodplain management research has consistently 
found that the difference between effective and ineffective state programs can be partially 


explained by the existence of statewide floodplain management regulations. Regulatory statutes 
typically require dedicated staff to carry out the statutory requirements and/or monitor their 
implementation. It follows then that the pursuit of both state and federal program goals is more 
likely to be related to larger staffs with the capacity to pursue and accomplish the combined set 
of goals. Using information on the scope of state statutes (those with and without regulatory 
statutes) and the number of personnel in state floodplain management offices displayed in Table 
5 below, a t-test was performed to determine if staff size is directly related to the existence of 
state floodplain management regulatory statutes. The result shows that the difference 
between states with and without regulatory statutes is statistically significant at the 0.001 level. 
As can be seen in the raw data in Table 5, states with regulatory statutes have significantly more 
personnel in their floodplain management offices than those that do not. In fact, the raw data 
imply that the difference between states with and without regulatory statutes is having more than 
one person in the state floodplain managers office. 

Existing information concerning state programs is insufficient to conduct more detailed 
analyses than those described above. Survey results do not provide the contexts within which 
states operate, making it impossible to compare activities. In the next sections, hypotheses 
concerning state floodplain management capability based on previous knowledge and opinions 
of experts and information collected from several states to test their validity are presented. 

Table 5 provides a summary of enabling legislation characteristics for each state, and the 
number of personnel currently in each state floodplain management office. 


TABLE 5: State Floodplain Management Laws and Personnel 

State 

Dillons Rule or 

Home Rule State1 

State Planning 

Mandate2 

Executive Order 

By Governor  

Floodplain 

Management3 

State Statutes 

Pertaining to 

Floodplain 

Management4 

Scope of State 
Statutes 

Pertaining to 

Floodplain 

Management5 

Number of 
Personnel in 

Management 
Office6 

Alabama 

Dillon  Some 

None 

Yes 

No 

4.5 

Alaska 

Home Rule 

General 

Yes 

No 

1.25 

Arizona 

Dillon  All 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

0 

Arkansas 

Dillon  All 

None 

No 

Yes 

2 

California 

Dillon  Some 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

10 

Colorado 

Dillon  Some 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

5 

Connecticut 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

2 

Delaware 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

No 

3 

Florida 

Uncertain 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

7 

Georgia 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

No 

2 

Hawaii 

Dillon  All 

General 

No 

Yes 

2 

Idaho 

Dillon  All 

Complete 

No  Yes 

No  Yes 

1 

Illinois 

Dillon  Some 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

2 

Indiana 

Dillon  Some 

None 

Yes 

(no mention) Yes 

5 

Iowa 

Home Rule 

None 

(no response) 

Yes 

(no response) 

Kansas 

Dillon  Some 

None 

No 

Yes 

5 

Kentucky 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

Yes 

11 

Louisiana 

Dillon  Some 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

4 

Maine 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

Yes 

3 

Maryland 

Dillon  All 

Complete 

No 

Yes 

2 

Massachusetts 

Home Rule 

General 

Yes 

Yes 

3 

Michigan 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

11 

Minnesota 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

9 

State Floodplain 

Inconclusive 

Inconclusive 

Enabling 

Enabling 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Inconclusive 

Regulatory 

Inconclusive 

Regulatory 

Enabling 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Enabling 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 


Management 
Office6 

Mississippi 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

No 

1 

Missouri 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

No 

6 

Montana 

Home Rule 

None 

No  Yes 

Yes 

1 

Nebraska 

Dillon  All 

General 

No 

Yes 

6.5 

Nevada 

Dillon  All 

General 

No - Yes 

No 

1.3 

New Hampshire 

Dillon  All 

None 

No  Yes 

No 

0.75 

New Jersey 

Home Rule 

None 

No 

Yes 

6 

New Mexico 

Home Rule 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

1.5 

New York 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

4.75 

North Carolina 

Dillon  All 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

4.5 

North Dakota 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

2 

Ohio 

Home Rule 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

11 

Oklahoma 

Dillon  All 

None 

No 

Yes 

2 

Oregon 

Home Rule 

Complete 

No 

Yes 

1 

Pennsylvania 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

(no written plan) 

2 

Rhode Island 

Dillon  All 

General 

No 

(no mention) 

1 

South Carolina 

Home Rule 

Complete 

Yes 

Yes 

3 

South Dakota 

Dillon  All 

General 

No 

No (Yes) 

1 

Tennessee 

Dillon  Some 

General 

Yes 

No (Yes) 

0 

Texas 

Dillon  All 

None 

No 

Yes 

2 

Utah 

Home Rule 

General 

No  Yes 

No 

1.25 

Vermont 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

No (Yes) 

1 

Virginia 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

Yes 

3 

Washington 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

Yes 

7.5 

West Virginia 

Dillon  All 

None 

Yes 

Yes 

1 

State Floodplain 

Inconclusive 

Inconclusive 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Inconclusive 

Inconclusive 

Regulatory 

Enabling 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Regulatory 

Enabling 

Inconclusive 

Enabling 

Enabling 

Enabling 

Inconclusive 

Enabling 

Enabling 

Regulatory 

Enabling 


Management 
Office6 

Wisconsin 

Dillon  All 

None 

No 

Yes (no citation) 

9 

Wyoming 

Dillon  All 

General 

Yes 

(no mention) No 

State Floodplain 

Regulatory 

Inconclusive 

1.5 

1Categorization taken from Richardson et al., 2003. Categories are DillonAll for states in which Dillons Rule applies to all municipalities; 
Dillon  Some in which Dillons Rule applies to some but not all municipalities; Home Rule for states that shun Dillons Rule, and Uncertain 
states that have conflicting statutes making it unclear when Dillons Rule is used. 

2 Categorization taken from Table 2 in Burby (2003:6). The categories are None for states with no local government planning mandate; 
General for states requiring local governments prepare comprehensive plans but consideration of hazards optional; and Complete for states 
requiring states to prepare comprehensive plans and mandate consideration of natural hazards. 

3 Categorization taken from Table A3 in ASFPM (2004:4). The categories are Yes for states with executive orders and No for states 
without executive orders. Also, there is a category No-Yes which represents the situation where there was a No in ASFPM (2004) but an executive 
order was mentioned in a CAP-SSSE 5-Year Plan prepared by the NFIP State Coordinator in either 2004 or 2005. Although not defined in either 
ASFPM (2004) or the CAP-SSSE 5-Year Plans, the executive orders generally identify the agency housing the NFIP State Coordinator and/or authorize 
state agencies to comply with NFIP requirements. 

4 Categorization taken from section on State Authority included in CAP-SSSE 5-Year Plans submitted by NFIP coordinators in either 2004 or 
2005. State statutes vary considerably from giving the municipalities the power to carry out floodplain management (often marked as No-Yes) to state 
requirements that municipalities have the option or are required to adopt items in state statute as (marked as Yes). 

5 Categorization is based on descriptions of state statutes in CAP-SSSE 5-Year Plans and a reading of state statutes on the Internet. Enabling 
refers to states with statutes that authorize local governments to develop and enforce floodplain management land use and zoning ordinances. State 
agencies are typically assigned to assist local communities. Regulatory refers to states with statures that mandate local participation in the NFIP 
and/or are more stringent than NFIP minimum regulations, and/or that may assign state agencies with certain floodplain management responsibilities. 

6 The information for this column comes from ASFPM (2004b) Table A-9. Particularly in states with state floodplain management laws and 
regulations, some listed personnel may support the states program and are not necessarily doing work that directly supports the NFIP. 

 


2. METHODOLOGY 

Each of the fifty states participates in the NFIP, and each state has developed a singular 
floodplain management program. Over the course of the NFIPs history, or earlier for some 
states, programs have developed that reflect the circumstances of each state, including flood 
history, legislative priorities, political forces, and numerous local factors. Actions in support of 
floodplain management that have a beneficial effect in some states can be detrimental in others. 
Through interviews with experienced professionals in the field of floodplain management at the 
state and federal level, the study team was able to gain an initial, albeit subjective, understanding 
of the broad forces that influence the composition of state programs. 

2.1 Hypotheses 

The literature summarized in the Background above contains presentations of historical 
information and discussions about what constitutes an effective state floodplain management 
program. However, there have been no significant studies that have attempted to test which 
factors may be causally related to a strong and effective state floodplain management program 
that would be robust over time. Part of the explanation for a lack of these studies is that the state 
role is poorly defined by law and there are no standards to measure outcomes related to state 
programs that are partially integrated within a larger federal program, the NFIP, as well as 
potentially other federal programs and state legislative requirements. These characteristics make 
it difficult to compare easily the set of multiple, often unique, state floodplain management 
programs relative to the NFIP. 

The study team thus developed hypotheses through consultation with experienced 
floodplain managers, leaders of the ASFPM, past and present FEMA officials, and other 
knowledgeable experts. This allowed the team to develop a set of potential expectations 
regarding causal factors that generate strength in a program, effectiveness, and an ability to 
maintain those characteristics over periods of time in which budget priorities, politics, and 
organizational charts shift. The team first held informal discussions individually with the experts, 
then formulated a long list of potential hypotheses. These hypotheses then were narrowed by the 
study team to ones that are testable given severe limitations on budget, resource constraints for 
data collection, and the available time to collect the information needed. 

An interview guide was written that included questions to test the reduced hypothesis set. 
During and following the interview process, problems arose that forced the study team to reduce 
the number of testable hypotheses. Among the problems were the lack of useful information 
gathered from the respondents and confusion among the respondents over what was being 
sought. The diversity of state programs was wider than originally expected, making many 
hypotheses irrelevant. Ultimately, the study team reduced its evaluation to seven hypotheses 
(presented below) for which sufficient data was collected from most, if not all, the states 
participating in the interviews. 


Hypothesis 1: States that take responsibility for floodplain management and floodplain 
development beyond the federal requirements of the NFIP, achieve more successes in 
floodplain management than states that concentrate solely on the NFIP. 

This hypothesis derives from Murphy (1958), Morse (1962), Bloomgren (1982) and most 
recently Effective State Programs (ASFPM 2003a) as well as interviews with numerous FEMA 
regional staff and ASFPM leaders. According to interviewees, the specific circumstances 
regarding a states adoption and implementation of floodplain management legislation are 
thought to be significant factors in determining a states level of activity in support of floodplain 
management objectives. 

The timing of adoption is important. States that adopted regulatory measures governing 
development in identified flood-prone areas before the NFIP was implemented, for instance, are 
believed to have a significant history of guiding development away from those areas and may 
have fewer flood-prone structures as a result. 

The nature of the adopted statutes, regulations or other guidelines is also significant. If a 
state only enacted an executive order for floodplain management in order to participate in the 
NFIP, then it is presumed that the state may have less than effective coordination among state 
agencies for floodplain management, low priority funding for floodplain management, and less 
emphasis on increasing local floodplain management capability. 

In order to examine Hypothesis 1, states with floodplain management legislation and 
states lacking floodplain management legislation were included in the sample. Legislation on 
floodplain development guidelines (public and private) and the presence of an executive order 
were used as indicators of taking responsibility. As shown in column six of Table 5, states may 
have one of two types of state floodplain management authority (enabling or regulatory), 
and states with each of these types of authority were selected for the protocol. 

Hypothesis 2: State coordinators located within agencies with state regulatory functions are 
more effective than those in planning agencies or lower-level administrative departments in 
determining how state programs for floodplain management are implemented. 

The NFIP regulations at 44 CFR (Appendix 1) allow great flexibility to states in 
determining which agency serves as the State Coordinating Agency for the NFIP. State agencies 
with regulatory functions, such as for water resource management, or the environment differ 
significantly from agencies with purely planning, assistance or infrastructure developmentrelated 
(i.e., roads, bridges, hospitals, levees) goals. State coordinators are often housed in 
emergency management agencies; sometimes these departments are in agencies with regulatory 
functions and sometimes they are located in planning agencies. Similarly, employees of cabinetlevel 
agencies versus administrative departments are subjected to different political influences 
and constancy. 

If the agency housing the NFIP State Coordinator is a natural resource management 
agency, the resultant focus of the states floodplain management program is expected to be on 
maintaining the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain through regulatory and 
performance measures. If the agency housing the NFIP State Coordinator is a planning agency, 


the focus of the states floodplain management program will likely be community technical 
assistance. If the agency housing the NFIP State Coordinator is an emergency management 
agency, the focus of the states floodplain management program will probably be mitigation 
projects, post-flood disaster assistance and integration with hazard mitigation functions. 

Hypothesis 3: Lower personnel turnover in the agency in which the NFIP State 
Coordinator is housed results in stronger floodplain management programs. 

State legislators and governors come and go, and with the transition, the NFIP 
Coordinator may transfer between agencies, or laterally within an agency, one or more times. 
Stability of an agency serving as the State Coordinating Agency and characteristics of the State 
Coordinators themselves (personality, time on the job, relative stature or rank, professional 
certifications) were suggested by our interviewees as factors that have significant influence over 
both the effectiveness of a state program and the prominence and importance of floodplain 
management within a state. 

Hypothesis 4: Physical proximity to other related state agencies and programs increases the 
strength of a floodplain management program. 

Experts consulted in the initial stages of this study believed that the physical location of 
offices and staff can have a significant influence on inter-agency and intra-agency 
communication. Physical location was hypothesized to influence who floodplain managers 
interact with on a regular basis and the availability of information on programs or projects that 
benefit from coordination with floodplain managers. 

Hypothesis 5: Regionalization of floodplain management functions within states increases 
accessibility to local floodplain managers, improving the relationship between state and 
local programs. 

Splitting state floodplain management responsibilities into regional offices statewide was 
thought to positively affect the relationships between the federal, state and local aspects of the 
NFIP. Some states divide responsibilities for such tasks as policing, emergency management, 
watershed management, and environmental monitoring as well as floodplain management across 
regions within a state. A sub-hypothesis that is related to hypotheses 4 and 5 is that co-locating 
regional staff for multiple responsibilities alongside regional staff from other projects with which 
the state program interacts also can improve other inter-agency purposes. 

Hypothesis 6: Activities undertaken by sub-state regional regulatory and non-regulatory 
authorities complement state floodplain management programs, particularly if the agency 
responsible for floodplain management is unable to meet many of its responsibilities. 

Sub-state authorities include a variety of agencies, departments, and other nongovernmental 
organizations that may play a role in floodplain management. Examples include 
levee districts, river basin authorities, councils of government, flood control districts, and 
watershed districts. In some cases, these sub-state authorities are granted the authority to tax 
property owners to raise funds and implement their regulations. State associations of the ASFPM 
and state storm-water associations are also considered sub-state authorities for the purposes of 


this report, although their charters are non-governmental in nature. It is postulated that one or 
more of these sub-state authorities will take on floodplain management tasks normally associated 
with the state floodplain management office when that office lacks the resources to meet its task 
requirements. 

Hypothesis 7: The dependence of states on federal action hampers implementation of the 
NFIP. 

A top-down control structure to floodplain management has developed haphazardly with 
FEMA at the top, states in the middle, and local communities at the bottom of the floodplain 
management hierarchy. Each partys perception of the hierarchy depends on position within the 
hierarchy. For instance, local NFIP officials stated in interviews that FEMA regional staff 
actively discourage locals from directly contacting the regions with policy questions or for 
technical assistance without going through the State NFIP Coordinator. FEMA maintains that 
they encourage local staff to contact the State Coordinator first, and that its important for states 
be kept in the loop if the goals of CAP are to be achieved. State officials and others perceive 
some of FEMAs actions as intentionally maintaining hierarchical integrity, while FEMA 
perceives the hierarchy as a fundamental element under-girding program success. 

Likewise, FEMA officials supposedly transmit information to communities through state 
officials, ensuring that the state serves as a clearinghouse for technical assistance to 
communities. Also, FEMA regions are supposed to enforce rigid reporting requirements as a 
condition of state funding each year. All of the work product associated with maintaining the 
federal-state-local hierarchy adds hours of work product that detract from time allotted to 
fulfilling technical assistance goals. Insufficient state personnel in some states make the 
reporting burdensome and decrease program effectiveness. 

The hierarchical program structure has beneficial aspects and a proven purpose in that it 
provides an agency with oversight responsibility that is separate from the state and local politics 
traditionally governing floodplain management. An undesired aspect of the hierarchy may be an 
abdication of floodplain management responsibility by some states. FEMA officials have 
indicated they feel that the existing federal-state-local partnership may have resulted in some 
state officials believing that states no longer need to take responsibility for floodplain 
management. When this hypothesis was conceived, it was unclear whether the hierarchical 
relationships among FEMA, the states, and communities were universally pervasive or existed in 
only some FEMA regions. If pervasive, the hypothesis would be difficult to test because then 
one would not expect great variation across states. 

2.2 Study Process 

Following generation of the seven testable hypotheses, the study team proceeded to test 
them. The study process consists of three parts: 1) defining the research approach; 2) data 
gathering; and 3) analysis. Determining how to conduct the research task proved to be an 
involved task. The literature study presented in the Background section of this report 
demonstrated that states likely did not share a uniform approach to floodplain management nor 
were there any objective studies that investigated indicators of effectiveness or success. What did 
exist were subjective assessments and many self-reported program status reports completed by 


NFIP State Coordinators that demonstrated that individual states have evolved differently and 
adopted their own approaches to floodplain management. To more fully understand state 
programs, it was decided to conduct intensive case studies. 

To overcome the assessment shortcomings found in the literature, the study relied on 
interviews with FEMA officials and ASFPM leaders to provide determinations regarding states 
with successful programs versus those states that struggle to maintain and enforce programs to 
reduce flood damage. The study team used interviews with state officials to provide indicators 
regarding the inner-workings of agency decisions with regard to funding, legislation, and 
enforcement and more subjective measures regarding effectiveness of a program. Interviews with 
regional officials had to be viewed through the perspective of providing strengths of state 
programs relative to only the other programs within the region. 

In summary, the study process included data gathering at several stages, development of 
an interview process for state officials, and analysis of state case studies. Because the team was 
limited by scope in the number of states it could interview, it purposively, rather than randomly, 
selected a sample of ten states to study in detail, as outlined in Section 3.2.2 below in order to 
attempt to have as much leverage with respect to the outlined hypotheses. Ten purposively 
selected states, representing 20-percent of the total, permitted testing the seven hypotheses and 
could be completed given time and budget constraints. Interview data and existing survey data 
together allowed development of a detailed case study for each state examined. Conclusions and 
recommendations followed the analyses of the case studies. 

Data gathering consisted of three parts. First, the team examined and compared existing 
state program survey data and state characteristics (i.e., population, number of NFIP 
communities, number of NFIP state personnel). Second, the team reviewed the existing literature 
to describe additional factors that may play a part in defining the state role in floodplain 
management, both before the NFIP and since the programs implementation. Third, interviews 
with state officials were conducted to learn details concerning how states managed their 
floodplains. The information collected formed the basis of the case studies. 

2.2.1 Interview Protocol 

In order to gain the necessary understanding of state-level actions and interactions 
affecting floodplain management, the study team relied on an interview guide or interview 
protocol. The interview questions intended to collect a variety of objective and subjective, 
systematic and anecdotal evidence of factors that contribute to the evolution, structure, and 
effectiveness of state floodplain management programs. Each question was related to one or 
more hypotheses that were created before the interviews began. Questions were not designed to 
grade, rank, or evaluate the performance of any individual agencies, states or staff, and 
interviewees were so notified. 

Table 6 provides an overview of the general themes and sample questions for the NFIP 
State Coordinator interview guide (Appendix 3). Interviews were primarily conducted via 
telephone, with email and other follow-up correspondence as necessary. 


TABLE 6: Interview Themes and Sample Questions for NFIP State Coordinator 

Sample Questions 

Background about the 
agency, department, and 
program 
 How long has your program resided in this department/agency? Why was it located 
here? 
 Does your agency/department/programs role in terms of reducing flood losses have any 
regulatory component? If so, what is the source of its authority? 

 What tradeoffs for floodplain management are there in these programs being located in 
their respective agencies/departments in your state? 

Information about 
floodplain management 
and mitigation 
 Which agencies or programs are most central to preventing and mitigating flood losses in 
your state? 

 Why did the institutional arrangements in your state take this pattern? 

Coordination with other 
agencies and groups 
 With which other agencies or groups are you in contact about issues relevant to flood 
loss reduction or mitigation? 
 What interactions, if any, do you have regarding these issues with communities? 

 How helpful do you think additional coordination and interaction would be? 

Development by state 
agencies 
 Are there any state-imposed statutory or regulatory restrictions on what other state 
agencies can do in floodplains? 
 Is there a law requiring review of development by state agencies in the floodplain? By 
whom? 

 To what extent are state buildings and projects within the state compliant with NFIP or 
state regulatory requirements for floodplain management? 

Recommendations for 
other states 
 Do you think the current way hazards in floodplains are dealt with in your state is the 
appropriate approach? If so, why, and if not, how would you reorganize it? 
 Do you know of any laws, regulations, or activities in your state that may be models for 
other states in terms of floodplain management or vice versa? 

Interview Theme 

 What activities is your program doing that programs similar to yours in other states 
might not that directly or indirectly enhances the effectiveness of flood loss reduction in 
your state? 

 Are there any sub-state authorities, such as regional water districts, flood districts, or 
planning districts that affect floodplain management or floodplain regulation? 

 Are there any ways to improve coordination with other agencies or groups? 

 Do local jurisdictions have the responsibility for approving state- or federal-level 
developments? Do they feel they have real authority to deny or require changes before 
issuing a permit? 

 Is there something specific missing in the authority of your program? What are the 
obstacles to obtaining additional authority? 
 Some people talk about policy windows  time periods after a major flooding event, 
during which the public and legislature are concerned about flooding and during which 
changes are more likely. If you were to put together a package of recommendations for 
other states after a major flood event, what would you include? 

 

The initial set of questions and issues underwent review, revision, and analysis based on 
pilot interviews with state officials in Louisiana in February 2005. No interviewee was asked all 
the questions in the interview protocol, the questions for each interview were specifically chosen 
to match the expertise of the interviewee. Interviewees were informed prior to the interview that 
the questions would involve discussions of their organizations role; their coordination with other 
state agencies, sub-state regional entities, and FEMA; and brainstorming about any other ideas 
they may have to improve the overall system of state-level implementation of the NFIP. 

The twenty-six interviews associated with this study report were conducted with selected 
officials between February 2005 and June 2005. In each state, interviews were conducted with 
the NFIP State Coordinator when available. Based on staff availability, additional interviews 
were conducted with State Hazard Mitigation Officers, local community floodplain 


administrators, or other state agency representatives. With the exception of official policy, no 
responses or opinions are reported herein that identify individual respondents. 

In addition to the interviews conducted specifically for this study report, information was 
also drawn from interviews conducted for the related report entitled, Evaluation of the National 
Flood Insurance Program: An Evaluation of Compliance with the National Flood Insurance 
Program Part A: Achieving Community Compliance (hereafter Compliance Study) (Monday et 
al. 2006). Table 7 provides a summary of the interviews either conducted or reviewed in 
preparation of the case studies. 

TABLE 7. Summary of Interviews Conducted or Reviewed 

State 

Number of Persons Interviewed for State Roles 
and Responsibilities 

Compliance Study and Reviewed for State Roles and 
Responsibilities 

Arizona 

=5 

California 

=5 

Florida 

0 

Louisiana 

=5 

Maine 

0 

Missouri 

0 

North Carolina 

0 

Texas 

=10 

Washington 

=5 

Wisconsin 

Number of Persons Interviewed for 

=5 

=5 

<5 

=5 

< 5 

< 5 

< 5 

< 5 

< 5 

< 5 

0 

 

2.2.2 Characteristics of States and Reasons for Selection 
The team chose ten states to investigate in detail to test the validity of the hypotheses. 
States were purposively chosen in order to provide variance along the primary factors of interest, 
including: effectiveness of floodplain management programs; strength and formality of the legal 
and institutional foundations of the program; and types of agencies housing the program. 
Because floodplain management needs vary so greatly across the country, several secondary 
factors also played a role in the selection of states, including: 
 existence of coastal hazards; 
 number of NFIP communities per state NFIP staff; 
 FEMA regionensuring some geographic distribution; 
 longevity of the state coordinating agency and agency structure; and 

 number of declared disasters and repetitive flood losses as an indication of flood history 
or disaster management experience and need. 

In addition to these variables, states were considered according to their flood risks as 
characterized by the number of disaster declarations, amount of land in the Special Flood Hazard 
Area (SFHA), and estimated number of structures in the SFHA. Rank orders for the states on 


15 Pennsylvania (1223 communities: one staff) and Hawaii (2 communities: one staff) represent the extreme 
ends of the ranked list of states based on staff ratios, and both outliers were excluded from further consideration 
based on this factor. 

 

each of these three variables were then created and the states at the bottom of each of the ranked 
lists were excluded from consideration. For example, Nevada was dropped from consideration 
because it had a low of two percent of its total land area designated as SFHA, and also it had 
only 13 declared disasters as of December 2003. 

Given the number of relevant factors and variance across states, there was no clear 
algorithm to solve for the best set of states to choose for the sample. Therefore expert opinion 
about what states were most likely to make up a representative sample was taken into account. 
Table 8 summarizes the factors considered in the selection of states. The states ultimately 
selected in the sample include (in alphabetical order): Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, 
Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

As shown in Table 8, states with a wide variety of State Coordinating Agency types were 
included in the study, including agencies with responsibility for: water resources (2 states), 
emergency management (3), natural resources/ecology (3), planning (1), and transportation (1). 
States with strong regulatory legislation (6), as well as states with enabling legislation (4) were 
sampled. The study team attempted to incorporate states with a variety of hazards in different 
parts of the nation by sampling states whose floodplains include coastal flood hazards (8) and 
states that do not (2), and examining states in nine of the ten FEMA regions. The number of 
participating NFIP communities and the number of staff employed by the state in floodplain 
management which determine the ratio of communities to staff was also taken into account when 
choosing states. Ratios ranged from a high of 486 communities to one staff member in Texas to a 
low of 37 communities to one staff member in Washington.15 


TABLE 8: Key State Characteristics Considered During Protocol Development 

State 

Secondary 
Factors 

 

State 
Coordinating 
Agency for 
NFIP 

Scope of State 
Floodplain 
Management 
Statutes 

Coastal 
Hazards 

Number of 
NFIP 
Communitie 
s 

Number of 
State 
Floodplain 
Managemen 
t Staff 

Ratio of 
Communitie 
s to State 
NFIP Staff 

Declared 
Disasters 
between 
1953 and 
2003 

Arizona 

Water 
Resources 

Enabling 

No 

97 

1* 

97:1 

17 

California 

Water 
Resources 

Regulatory 

Yes 

509 

10 

51:1 

65 

Florida 

Emergency 
Management & 

Regulatory 

Yes 

417 

7 

60:1 

50 

Louisiana 

Pl i Transportation 

Regulatory 

Yes 

286 

4 

72:1 

45 

Maine 

Planning 

Enabling 

Yes 

945 

4* 

236:1 

25 

Missouri 

Emergency 
Management 

Inconclusive 

No 

539 

6 

90:1 

32 

North 
Carolina 

Emergency 
Management 

Regulatory 

Yes 

395 

4.5 

88:1 

32 

Texas 

Natural 
Resource 

Enabling 

Yes 

972 

2 

486:1 

75 

Washington 

Ecology 

Regulatory 

Yes 

276 

7.5 

37:1 

37 

Wisconsin 

Natural 
Resource 

Regulatory 

Yes 

491 

9 

55:1 

Primary 
Factors 

FEMA 
Regional 
Office 

IX 

IX 

IV 

VI 

I 

VII 

IV 

VI 

X 

V 

29 

* This differs from Table 5 based on information obtained during the study process which is more current than ASFPM 2004b. 

2.3 Limitations 

The research methodology was designed to assess the current status of how states 
participate in the NFIP and whether they engage in activities that exceed NFIP minimums. 
Because of this focus, the roles of state legislatures in creating, reviewing, and amending state 
statutes and conducting oversight of executive agencies were not investigated. Clearly state 
legislatures play a crucial role in the creating and amending of floodplain management 
regulations, but past research (i.e., Rossi, et al., 1982) has shown that natural hazards issues 
including floodplain management seldom are salient enough to reach legislative agendas. 
Therefore, in most years, a state legislature would not conduct any hearings or consider any new 
legislation. As a consequence, any attempt to assess the actions of state legislatures would have 
necessitated a very detailed research effort to find supporters and opponents of greater regulation 
of floodplain management and instances of attempts, both successful and unsuccessful, to enact 
regulatory changes (Mittler, 1989). As described by Mittler (1998) in his study of the enactment 
of a state building code in South Carolina which took four legislative sessions or approximately 
eight years of dedicated work by one state senator, the law-making process can be both lengthy 
and complex. 

 


The state budgetary process, starting with agency budget requests and ending with 
legislative appropriations, was also not investigated. In most states, the governor requests budget 
figures from agency heads, then adjusts the numbers, which typically exceed revenue forecasts, 
and publishes a proposed budget. The state legislature then holds hearings to review the 
proposed budget and makes changes as it sees fit. After passage, many governors have line item 
vetoes and can eliminate or sometimes reduce specific expenditures. Finally, the governor signs 
the budget bill, which appropriates the amounts accepted. NFIP appropriations are very small in 
comparison to overall state spending and would seldom be debated during any open budget 
hearings. There might only be a debate if an extremely uncommon proposal to dramatically raise 
or totally eliminate funding was put forth. Discussions of budgetary changes normally take place 
when agency heads first prepare budget requests, and these discussions, if they took place, 
should be picked up during the interview process of this study. 


3. CASE STUDIES 

3.1 Arizona 

3.1.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

The State of Arizona has 97 communities participating in the NFIP and a single staff 
person at the state level to administer the state aspects of the program. There are over 4,200 
square miles of flood-prone land in the state, covering approximately 4-percent of the states 
total land area. Taxes levied by county flood control districts supplement state and CAP funds to 
create well-funded local floodplain management programs, especially in highly-developed or 
rapidly-developing areas of the state. With the exception of tribal areas that have not adopted the 
NFIP maps, communities appear to maintain good compliance with NFIP standards, and local 
programs in Maricopa County and the cities of Prescott and Tucson excel. Interviewees 
postulated that experience with devastating floods, including major flooding in 1993 and 1999, 
have served to reinforce the importance of good floodplain management. 

3.1.2 Legal Foundations 

The state statutes at 48-3601 through 48-3628 describe the creation of county flood 
control districts, provide the districts the ability to levy taxes through property taxes, and enable 
the districts to regulate flood-prone lands. In general, the annual operating budgets of the flood 
control districts are far larger than the state NFIP program budget. The Maricopa County Flood 
Control Districts budget, for example, includes revenues between $60 - $70 million received 
from a secondary property tax plus approximately $1 million in licenses and other fees. 
Approximately $10 million of this single flood control districts budget is allocated to personnel 
expenses. The technical capability and manpower of many of the county flood control districts 
therefore far exceed what the state offers. 

According to state statutes, communities can choose whether they want to regulate their 
floodplains or relinquish regulation to the county flood control district. The state law requires all 
counties or communities to adopt two regulations that exceed NFIP minimum regulations: 1) 
elevation to the regulatory flood elevation, which is defined as one foot above the base flood 
elevation; and, 2) the bottom structural frame of a manufactured home must be at or above the 
regulatory flood elevation. Flood control districts or public agencies that fail to adopt or enforce 
floodplain management regulations are not eligible for disaster relief. One interviewee indicated 
that although this requirement has resulted in 100-percent participation for communities with 
mapped SFHAs, the state does not have 100-percent community participation in the NFIP. As a 
result of the state statutes, every county in the state is also a Flood Control District. Each Flood 
Control District is then governed by the Countys elected Board of Supervisors. 

3.1.3 State Development in Floodplains 

There is some confusion about whether the state has established effective means of 
requiring state agencies to adhere to local floodplain management ordinances. At the state level, 
Arizona has not adopted any specific statutes establishing floodplain management requirements 


for development by state agencies. One interviewee mentioned that state agencies are expected to 
get local permits for development; however, another interviewee mentioned in contradiction that 
the states regulations do not apply to state agencies. Arizonas Executive Order 77-6, Floodplain 
Management, however, requires that every state agency comply with local floodplain board 
regulations. According to one interviewee, there is a belief that each community has 
responsibility for ensuring that all construction, including state construction, is compliant with 
NFIP requirements, but several interviewees indicated inconsistencies regarding whether 
communities feel they have sufficient authority to deny approval of noncompliant state 
construction. State officials indicate that communities do feel empowered to deny permits, while 
local officials indicated that state statutes do not allow communities to alter or stop state projects. 

Authorization from the flood control districts is required for development in 
watercourses; however, there are exceptions which are disturbing to some state officials because 
the exceptions do not appear to be compliant with NFIP minimum requirements. State statutes 
may be the cause of confusion among local officials regarding their ability to deny permits. 
Section 48-3613 authorizes several development activities in watercourses where written 
authorization is not required from the flood control district board and that the board may not 
prohibit the activity. The most egregious examples are the construction of bridges, culverts, dikes 
and other structures necessary for the construction of roadways, and certain kinds of dams. 
Officials from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) were quick to point out these 
exemptions during interviews. Although the flood control district board is directed to review and 
comment on these plans for construction, there is no mechanism for the county or the state to 
deny authorization to construct. 

The statutory exemption for roadways has produced conflicts between the state 
floodplain management program and ADOT, with interviewees providing numerous examples of 
activities undertaken by ADOT that did not comply with NFIP minimum requirements. In recent 
years, an interim resolution has been reached as a result of new staff in the transportation 
department who are very well-versed in floodplain management. ADOT now focuses on 
reducing the flooding impacts of their projects, and designing projects to avoid negative 
floodplain impacts. But the fix is not binding, and may not survive administration changes, or 
other political forces. Some interviewees indicated that wholesale removal of the exemptions for 
transportation projects is not required, but that revision is necessary to permanently remove the 
existing impediments to full NFIP compliance. Interviewees indicated frustration that 
memorandums and agreements between the Federal Highway Administration and FEMA have 
not been used uniformly by states, and that modeling and mapping needs of the agencies are not 
at all consistent. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision process mandated by FEMA for some 
types of projects allows pre-approval significant proposed changes to flood conditions, but the 
process is time-consuming and can easily derail a project budget and timeline. 

Other state agencies that state floodplain managers interact with on a regular basis 
include Dam Safety which is co-located with Floodplain Management in Arizona Department of 
Water Resources (ADWR), Arizona Department of Housing, and the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality. The Arizona State Land Department owns land in the state which, upon 
being sold for development, is used to support education. The latter department has an employee 
who is a member of the Arizona Floodplain Management Association (AFMA) in order to stay 
abreast of NFIP changes and safeguard the requirements during land transactions. 


The ADWR State Standards Work Group was formed in 1990 to develop standards and 
provide technical assistance to promote consistent responsible floodplain management and 
watercourse use on a statewide basis. These standards are mandated by state law, as stated in 
A.R.S.  48-3605(A), which states, The director of water resources shall develop and adopt 
criteria for establishing the one-hundred year flood and delineating floodplains. Funding for the 
State Standards program is obtained by voluntary donations from agencies and others who 
benefit from the State Standards. 
The membership of the State Standards Work Group consists of representatives of the 
following agencies and organizations who donate their time and resources to support the goals of 
the group: 
 ADWR, Flood Mitigation Section; 
 two urban counties; 

 two rural counties; and 

 AFMA Technical Committee. 

3.1.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

Upheaval in ADWR resulted in changes in the home-agency for the NFIP in recent years. 
Although the state statutes specify that ADWR is to house the NFIP State Coordinator, ADWR 
concluded in 2000 that the program was too expensive. The staff was cut by half and 
responsibility was transferred to the Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. The transfer 
was controversial, and not very successful. In 2003, disagreements among state agencies about 
which agency was in charge, and where to obtain matching funds led FEMA to withhold CAP 
funding. A new governor in 2003 shifted the responsibility back to ADWR, in accordance with 
the state statute, and refocused state priorities. Ongoing conflicts with FEMA over whether 
Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) can or should be conducted by the state or FEMA and 
conflicts over suspension of communities deemed in violation by the state may have led to 
frustration with the FEMA Regional staff. Interviewees indicated that there is inconsistent 
interpretation and application of NFIP requirements, including CAP contracts and enforcement 
of NFIP minimum requirements, according to a professional floodplain management consultant 
in the state. 

Regarding the value of having the states floodplain management program housed in a 
water resources agency, one interviewee summed up the differing opinions about this issue 
stating that it depends on who you ask. There is a perception among state officials that the 
FEMA regional staff prefer the ADWR arrangement over an emergency management agency 
because ADWR is a regulatory agency with a compliance element and ADWR has technical 
staff, such as engineers and hydrologists, to help the director uphold the directives of the state 
statute. However, interviewees also indicated a general view that emergency managers are first 
responders, not floodplain managers. 


3.1.5 Sub-State Authorities 

The AFMA, established in 1982, was one of the first chapters of the ASFPM. General 
meetings are held twice per year, usually in May and November. Meeting locations rotate around 
the state in order to obtain understanding of local floodplain issues. The May meeting is held in 
the Central or Northern region, and the November meeting is held in the Southern or Central 
region. The first day is reserved for informative programs and training, and includes a variety of 
guest speakers. Committee meetings and reports and sometimes a field trip of local interest are 
held on the second day. A newsletter is published twice per year, prior to scheduled general 
meetings. 

According to AFMA officials, the primary focus of the association is training, including a 
course on transportation design. Interviewees indicated that the association was originally 
founded as the education arm of ADWR, as the state budget and staff were limited. Without 
AFMA, many interviewed felt that the states floodplain management program would be 
imperiled. According to one interviewee, several courses offered by AFMA have included a 
particularly effective tool at encouraging local floodplain manager involvement  floodplain 
permitting case studies. Given a variety of individual permitting questions to resolve, the 
officials jumped in and a lot of cross-training took place within workshop subgroups. 

AFMA was instrumental in persuading the governor to return the NFIP State 
Coordinators office to ADWR after the short-term move to the emergency management agency. 
Members expressed their concern with the emergency management agencys control of the 
function to the governor and legislature through a letter-writing campaign. The campaign was 
deemed a success. Interviewees indicated that coordination between the NFIP Coordinators 
office and the association could be improved by sharing resources. For example, ADWR could 
use the association to work on policies that could be implemented at the state level. AFMA has 
two registered lobbyists with the states legislative branch. 

3.2 California 

3.2.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

In California state government, floodplain management is a large program of which NFIP 
coordination is a small element. The overall program is managed by the state floodplain 
management agency, but other important actors include the California Reclamation Board, 
numerous flood control districts, and the local communities, all of whom work with federal 
agencies involved in flood control projects. An explanation of each agencys role and known 
impacts on program effectiveness follows. Housed in the California Department of Water 
Resources (DWR), the state floodplain management program office consists of six full-time staff 
in the headquarters office, who devote approximately 75-percent of their time to NFIP-related 
tasks, and four district offices, each of which employs a regional coordinator for the NFIP. The 
offices represent Northern California, Central California, the San Joaquin Valley and Southern 
California. Regional office staff conduct CAVs and workshops and provide technical assistance 
to the communities, allowing the State Coordinator to focus more on policy issues. 


16 Proposition 13 in this case refers to funds from a $2 billion bond authorized by California voters in 2000 to 
support safe drinking water, water quality, flood protection, and water reliability projects statewide. 

California contributes significant funding to the NFIP state program, in addition to the 
required state match for the CAP contract. The state contributes 32-percent of a $330,000 CAP 
contract, and supplements that with $500,000 appropriated from the general fund and $1 million 
in Proposition 13 funds16 to support additional workshops. The California Water Code, also 
known as the Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000, mandates a $2.5 million appropriation for 
long-term floodplain mapping projects that includes unmapped areas with increasing 
development pressure. One interviewee credited the diplomatic skills of state floodplain 
management staff with securing such ample, targeted funding. State staff used their knowledge 
of the states history of flooding, diplomacy, and persuasion to successfully convince the 
legislature of the need for flood mitigation and mapping funds. 

3.2.2 Legal Foundations 

Californias Executive Order for Floodplain Management, B-39-77, was signed in 1977 
in order to make the state eligible for participation in the NFIP. Although FEMA deemed the EO 
compliant at the time it was signed, FEMA notified Governor Pete Wilson in a letter dated July 
28, 1995, that subsequent changes to the NFIP necessitated updates to the EO in order for the 
state to remain in good standing in the NFIP. DWR first prepared an updated EO in 1994. The 
revised EO has been reviewed by various agencies since that time, and was included in the 
California Floodplain Management Report (CFMTF 2002), which contains the 
recommendations of the California Floodplain Management Task Force. At the time of this 
report, the proposed revised EO had not been signed. 

According to FEMA and several interviewees, the existing EO does not do enough to 
require state agencies to consider floodplain location in development decisions. In California, an 
Executive Order is interpreted as only applying to state agencies within the executive family 
and does not apply to constitutionally-established state entities, including the State Treasurer, 
California State Universities and Colleges, University of California, Superintendent of Public 
Instruction and the Public Utilities Commission. The proposed EO distinguishes between state 
agencies subject to its provisions, and those agencies not subject to its provisions, clarifying that 
the state can only encourage exempt agencies to comply and cannot force compliance. 
Compliance on the part of those agencies subject to the EO is also an ongoing concern, and the 
proposed revised EO specifically spells out how compliance can be increased in the course of 
state agency development. 

3.2.3 State Development in Floodplains 

Schools that do not meet NFIP minimum standards are a particularly troublesome 
consequence resulting from the inadequate provisions of the existing EO. Placement of school 
buildings is regulated locally by school districts and not by any specific agency at the state level. 
According to those interviewed, some school districts contend that they do not have to receive 
approval from a community for development. Portable classrooms have been identified as a 
specific problem, as there is currently no mechanism to prevent their placement in flood-prone 


17 FMA is the state chapter of the ASFPM for California, Nevada and Hawaii. 

areas. California floodplain management personnel have initiated several discussions regarding 
this trend with various state agencies, including the state architect, and FEMA, but a solution 
does not appear imminent. 

3.2.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

The floodplain management section of DWR is very visible within the field of floodplain 
management in the state. Local government officials generally know the NFIP State Coordinator, 
and they know who to contact for specific information related to floodplain management. A 
representative of DWR is always present at the Floodplain Management Association17 (FMA) 
meetings. Email communication with local officials, and face to face contact with DWR staff at 
the regional offices has helped increase the level of comfort local officials have when questions 
arise. 
The state convened a Floodplain Management Task Force and issued a report in 2002 that 
critiques the internal mechanisms that help and hinder the entire floodplain management program 
of the state. The general recommendations are broken down into three categories: 
 better understanding of and reducing risks from reasonably foreseeable flooding; 
 multi-objective management approach for floodplains; and 

 local assistance, funding and legislation. 

Recommendations are vague but include a revised EO, ensuring that the California 
Building Standards Code meets NFIP requirements, creating incentives to encourage 
coordination among various stakeholders in floodplain management, and reducing barriers to 
interagency multi-objective flood management projects. 

Before conducting the case study, floodplain management experts considered Californias 
program to be very effective. However, this opinion was not shared by one FEMA official that 
considered Californias overall program for floodplain management weak and another FEMA 
official that agreed with this assessment and also noted that weaknesses could be the result of a 
hiring freeze at the state level. Within the state, numerous interviewees pointed to the EO and 
CAVs as sources of ongoing angst between FEMA and the state. Additional issues regarding 
communication and the partnership with FEMA Region IX are discussed below. 

The approach to state floodplain management in DWR of dividing state floodplain 
management activity into regions largely is a result of the states relative size as well as its 
history as an agency involved with water issues through sub-state regions. One consequence is 
that DWR is mainly staffed with engineers. According to an interviewee, there is frequent 
turnover of district office staff, approximately every three to five years, because floodplain 
management is a dead-end job for an engineer at the district level. The interviewee further 
indicated that a higher status within state hierarchy or the hiring of non-engineers may be 


necessary to avoid turnover and retain experienced technical employees regionally. 
Unfortunately, the NFIP State Coordinator is unable to influence hiring decisions at the district 
office level. 

Despite the fact that District staff probably have more personal knowledge of the 
communities than the DWR staff at headquarters, interviewed California officials believe that 
their decentralized state floodplain management office arrangement might provide little benefit 
for other states thinking of adopting it. However, the opinion that the California model of 
decentralized staff would not work in other states was not strongly held, and the arrangement 
clearly provides a workable model for implementing a regionalized program. 

Effective communication and a good working relationship between the California Office 
of Emergency Services and the floodplain managers in DWR appears to have waxed and waned 
over the history of the NFIP in California. According to one interviewee, interagency 
communication was better in the past primarily due to two factors: the efforts of a single 
individual, as well as the formation of a Floodplain Management Coordination Group. When that 
individual left, the group meetings have been less frequent and less productive. Several 
interviewees mentioned that moving the NFIP Coordinator to the Office of Emergency Services 
(OES) has been discussed, but none believed it to be a worthwhile suggestion because OES lacks 
the technical expertise of engineers and scientists needed for effective floodplain management. 

One interviewee indicated that the placement of mitigation project management in OES 
initially altered state mitigation priorities, including insufficient attention to reducing repetitive 
loss structures. However, OES staff indicated that the agency is now committed to providing 
increased focus on other mitigation issues. Recently, the management of mitigation activities has 
moved higher in the agency from section to branch level, and new floodplain management staff 
are being brought in to fix the disconnect between mitigation and emergency management that 
has previously hampered agency actions. Much like Florida (discussed later), California OES has 
attempted to increase local community capability in applying for and using mitigation grant 
funds. State funds are being used to provide pre-disaster training to communities regarding the 
most effective uses for mitigation grant funds to prepare communities to apply for grants when 
funds become available. 
The California Reclamation Board oversees flood control in the Central Valley of 
California. The Board designates floodways and regulates development but is not a partner in the 
administration of the NFIP provisions. Permit requirements for the Reclamation Board are 
supplementary to local floodplain management ordinance requirements. The Boards purpose is 
threefold: 
 to control flooding along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in 
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 
 to cooperate with various agencies of the federal, State and local governments in 
establishing, planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining flood control works; and, 


 to maintain the integrity of the existing flood control system and designated floodways 
through the Board's regulatory authority by issuing permits for encroachments. 

Board members are appointed by the governor, which one interviewee indicated may 
insulate the Board from political pressure and allow them to keep DWR out of the line of fire. 
One interviewee in March 2005 indicated that the lesson for other states could be to have 
someone besides civil servants making policy decisions. However, in September 2005 California 
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced all seven board members amid speculation that the 
boards recent decisions to restrict urban development in flood-prone areas were too aggressive. 
Following the Governors decision, the boards staff likewise left. The former boards decision 
to review development behind former agricultural levees to determine if floodplain regulations 
were being adhered to was not well-received by developers (Weiser 2005). Political pressure to 
appease developers may have been the cause of the boards replacement according to newspaper 
accounts. 

3.2.5 Problems and Recommendations 

FEMA Region IX monitors NFIP activities in California. The relationship between the 
region and the state is strained, with each party wanting and needing more from the other. The 
regional office divides community compliance responsibilities for California between eight 
people. These assignments rotate intermittently with personnel changes or when staff arranges to 
switch communities. FEMA Natural Hazard Program Specialists are assigned to work with the 
NFIP, but split their duties with other programs, including CRS, hurricane program, Flood 
Mitigation Assistance, repetitive loss programs, and response to disasters of many types. 
Frequent reassignments are confusing and frustrating for state and community NFIP officials. 

One interviewee indicated that many FEMA Regional staff may not be adequately 
qualified for their many responsibilities. Several changes within FEMA were cited as causes. 
The regions mentor program was discontinued, biennial conferences with all regional staff are 
no longer held, and policy papers from FEMA Headquarters have not been published in several 
years. The end result, according to several of those interviewed, is a lack of consistent guidance 
to states and communities from FEMA at the regional and national levels, as well as differing 
policy interpretations from different FEMA regions. 

One state-level California interviewee indicated that state floodplain managers make a 
clear distinction between the states role versus FEMA Region IXs role with regard to 
compliance, suggesting that the state be responsible for conducting CAVs and workshops and 
FEMA be solely responsible for compliance. State enforcement of NFIP provisions, the 
interviewee felt, would blur the line between compliance and communication or technical 
assistance. Some state personnel interviewed would like to see California leaders step up and 
take responsibility by enabling state floodplain managers to stringently enforce the NFIP, for 
both state and local development. Other state staff would like to see FEMA be more assertive in 
mandating compliance from communities after violations are identified in CAVs. CAVs have 
little bite when violations are identified and no action is taken by FEMA. In addition, despite 
affirmations from FEMA that the state is noncompliant with regard to the EO and state agency 
development, FEMA has not taken any action against the state to force compliance. State staff 


indicated the need for a FEMA hammer to help them move their agenda forward with state 
lawmakers. 

The self-perceived roles of FEMA regional staff and state staff are at odds in California, 
and neither party seems clear on the actions to be taken by each nor do they agree on the proper 
responsibilities for each party. For example, Region IX staff and California floodplain 
management staff collaborate annually to determine which communities will be subject to a 
CAV. FEMA recommends 70 to 80 communities, which includes a subset of about 10 
communities where CAVs are required. California chooses about 40 additional CAV 
communities from the large, recommended set to conduct CAVs. However, state staff would like 
to provide more input to FEMA regarding the choice of recommended communities for CAVs. 
Another example of the conflicting roles involves violations. State staff also would like to see 
FEMA do more to handle compliance issues and violations, but one interviewee from FEMA 
indicated that the appropriate role for the FEMA Regional office is to only document rather than 
remedy violations. Another FEMA interviewee indicated the state coordinating agency has little 
incentive to pursue violations. 

Regarding remedying violations, some FEMA Region IX staff perceive difficulty 
enlisting the support of headquarters to suspend a community. This perception, whether real or 
just suspected, may deter regional staff from conducting mandatory extensive follow-up on 
major violations because they are not convinced that enforcement actions will ultimately be 
imposed. Consistent policy enforcement from headquarters on this issue is important for program 
effectiveness at the FEMA region level. In some cases, it was alleged that political pressure from 
congressional members has removed the decision-making power from FEMA. 
Several proposed recommendations for state level NFIP processes were offered during 
interviews with the numerous stakeholders in Californias system of floodplain management: 
 require floodplain management plans for all NFIP participating communities. OES 
indicated that review of community multi-hazard plans has helped the agency focus on 
the priorities of the communities as well as the priorities of the state. 
 add environmental review staff in every state agency to the Floodplain Management 
Associations (FMA) mailing list. FMA is the state association chapter of ASFPM and is 
a multi-state association formed with Hawaii and Nevada. 
 FEMA should develop a welcome packet for new community floodplain managers, 
available upon request by various parties. State NFIP staff have trouble learning of 
changes in local NFIP administrators, so a convenient method of identifying changes in 
local floodplain managers also was suggested. 
 several FEMA Regional staff suggested contracting out CAVs to independent groups in 
addition to the states conducting CAVs through CAP, although state-level staff thought 
doing so threatens a states ability to generate long-term agency capacity. 


 state-sponsored individualized training in floodplain management for each state agency 
would aid in overcoming deficiencies of the existing EO. DWR has successfully provided 
such training to the states Department of Transportation, also known as CALTRANS. 

Only some of these activities are ongoing in California. While the interviewees made 
recommendations for improving the overall program, they also mentioned several exceptional 
initiatives. For instance, California state floodplain management staff have been assertive in an 
oversight role advising communities to notify downstream communities about development 
actions upstream that may affect flooding. State staff also directly contact downstream 
communities personally, as necessary. 

In addition to state-specific recommendations, several interviewees extended the scope of 
recommendations to the NFIP as a whole, indicating that pulling FEMA Regional staff from 
NFIP responsibilities to respond to disasters disrupts the day-to-day business of processing 
follow-up and technical assistance to states, communities, and property owners. This has been 
particularly relevant in California, where most of the regional FEMA staff has been diverted to 
respond to the large number of recent disasters in other parts of the country. 

3.3. Florida 

3.3.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

Floridas program of floodplain management is closely aligned with the states hazard 
mitigation program. Seven staff serve the states 417 NFIP communities, producing a ratio of 60 
communities to one staff member. Three staff focus primarily on hazard mitigation and flood 
mitigation projects, while four focus on NFIP community and state technical assistance and 
CAP. The state earmarks funds specifically to support the NFIP and hazard mitigation programs. 

3.3.2 Legal Foundations 

According to those interviewed, Floridas statutes regarding land use planning and 
floodplain management are broad in scope. Table 5, presented earlier, indicates ambiguity over 
whether Florida land use is governed by Dillons rule, which reserves all powers not specifically 
authorized locally to the state, or home rule, and one interviewee reinforced that theme, saying 
cities and counties have county and municipal home rule and theyre authorized [by statute] to 
do various sundry things (emphasis added). Only general purpose local governments have the 
ability to regulate land use in general in Florida, so the NFIP must be implemented by these units 
of government. Unlike Arizona, counties only regulate unincorporated areas. Regional 
governmental bodies, however, such as the five water management districts in Florida, derive 
specific authorities from state statutes and the state constitution. Certain aspects of the NFIP are 
regulated by water management districts (e.g., floodways), although these water management 
districts focus primarily on storm-water management and drainage issues on a watershed basis. 
The primary responsibility for compliance and floodplain ordinance enforcement remains with 
the cities and counties. 


3.3.3 State Development in Floodplains 

State officials distinguish sharply between activities of the NFIP state program that 
support state and regional entities, and those that support cities and counties. The states NFIP 
program encompasses more activities than the minimum NFIP requirements and is funded by 
CAP-SSSE and funds allocated by the state. Interaction between state NFIP staff and other 
agencies is fairly common. Numerous state agencies are involved in private development review 
and state-owned construction, including the state floodplain management staff that participates in 
the review processes for both. 

One interviewee indicated that all Florida state government projects are required to obtain 
local government building permits, similar to any private development. Most agencies, including 
the Florida Department of Transportation, require the job contractors to submit the plans for 
review and go through the steps necessary to gain approval. Local governments are empowered 
to review, comment, and deny applications for agency development based on the Florida 
Building Code. The same interviewee implied that issues related to zoning may be treated 
differently, but did not provide any further information. 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is involved in all coastal 
construction and coastal zone management. State officials indicate that conflicts arise when 
FDEP performs flood studies using a different model than FEMA, but typically the FDEP model 
produces higher flood elevations, so major problems have, thus far, been avoided. FDEP also has 
a different definition of substantial improvement than the NFIP, and developers/homeowners 
reportedly become frustrated at having to revise plans approved by FDEP that are inconsistent 
with local floodplain management ordinances. There does not appear to be a formal method for 
resolving differences, but both programs are implemented on the local level meaning that local 
governments have become increasingly adept at advising developers/homeowners how to meet 
the requirements of both programs. 

The Department of Health oversees onsite septic system placement and uses Flood 
Insurance Rate Maps for this purpose. When areas are mapped as approximate A zones, or 
appear to be wetlands but are not marked as special flood hazard areas, the Department of Health 
officials will often consult with state NFIP staff for assistance in tracking down the best available 
data. Interviewees indicated that state staff put considerable effort into assisting in these 
situations and providing an estimated base flood elevation for septic system placement. 

DCA and state NFIP officials became involved with the formation of the Florida 
Building Commission beginning in about 2003. The Florida Building Commission is the group 
responsible for the statewide Florida Building Code. The original code became effective on 
March 1, 2002 and incorporates building, electric, plumbing, mechanical, and administrative 
codesaccessibility, energy, coastal, manufactured, and state agency codes. The code is updated 
annually. 

According to one interviewee, FEMA Headquarters officials were not pleased when state 
NFIP officials asked the Building Commission to exclude NFIP requirements from the statewide 
building code. State officials had determined that a specific provision of the code which 
precluded communities from changing local ordinances more than once per year would 


detrimentally affect communities wanting to become involved in the NFIP Community Rating 
System. Since the NFIP regulations stress the importance of a community taking action to reduce 
their specific flooding problems, such a statewide regulation would have been problematic for 
other reasons, as well. State NFIP officials were successful in excluding NFIP regulations from 
the code. The state feels that FEMAs objections to the seemingly pro-floodplain management 
measure may have alienated or confused officials affiliated with the Building Commission. 
Officials at FEMA Headquarters took the position that the advantages of having flood-resistant 
construction provisions in the state building code and improved enforcement statewide outweigh 
other concerns and that other changes to the state building code to accommodate the CRS may 
have been more appropriate. 

3.3.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

Floridas State Assistance Office for the NFIP and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) 
programs are headed by the same individual. The office is located in the Florida Division of 
Emergency Management, Bureau of Recovery and Mitigation. Emergency Management is 
located in the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA is primarily a land use 
planning entity with three divisions, including Division of Emergency Management, Division of 
Community Planning and Division of Housing and Community Development. In addition to 
coordination of emergency management, mitigation and flood insurance program issues, the 
agency is involved in growth management, housing issues and redevelopment. 

The potentially blurred lines between the NFIP, FMA, and HMGP program 
administration in Florida have resulted in very seamless, very informal, daily coordination 
between staff persons involved in the three programs, according to interviewees. Staff are also 
co-located, increasing opportunities for collaboration on both small-scale and large-scale issues 
and projects. Streamlined processes for reviewing local hazard mitigation projects at the state 
level have emerged, effectively forcing communities to increase capability in devising projects, 
preparing analyses and submitting applications. 

The frequency of recent hurricanes, state and federal funds for mitigation projects, and 
limited staff have necessitated shorter review times for proposed projects. Since staff can no 
longer spend hours working with communities to refine and correct their applications, the end 
result has been increased local capability; a positive outcome according to those interviewed. 

3.3.5 Sub-State Authorities 

Florida has a state-managed system of five Water Management Districts (WMDs): 
Northwest Florida, Suwannee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida. 
FDEP manages the districts, which derive their authority from Chapter 373 of the Florida 
Statutes. The districts are authorized to administer flood protection programs and to perform 
technical investigations into water resources. The districts are also authorized to develop water 
management plans for water shortages in times of drought and to acquire and manage lands for 
water management purposes under the Save Our Rivers program. Regulatory programs delegated 
to the districts include programs to manage the consumptive use of water, aquifer recharge, well 
construction and surface water management. Interviewees pointed out that the WMDs are not 
general purpose local governments; they are extensions of the state with regulatory authority. As 


18 Interviews with Louisiana officials were conducted in February 2005, prior to landfall of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita in summer and fall 2005. 

a result of their reviews and permitting authorities, management of storm-water, aquifers and 
floodwaters is conducted on a regional basis. 

The Florida Floodplain Managers Association is a chapter of the ASFPM, with the 
primary purpose of improving floodplain management in Florida by supporting comprehensive 
management of floodplains and related water resources. Their role is to foster communication, 
yet one interviewee indicated that the association does not appear to play a very active role in 
policy issues. Coordination among the association leadership and state NFIP officials is 
probably pretty high, as indicated by an interviewee, but a problem is that the association 
does not have any full-time staff. 

3.4. Louisiana18 

3.4.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

Louisianas program of floodplain management is located within the states Department 
of Transportation and Development (DOTD). There are four personnel at the state level who 
implement the NFIP. DOTD has no regulatory authority with regard to floodplain management. 
Interviewees indicate that agency staff members view themselves as an extension of FEMA, 
conducting compliance monitoring and training for NFIP participating communities. State 
regulations do not exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP, and the agency has no 
authority to require enforcement of NFIP minimum standards by communities. 

3.4.2 State Development in Floodplains 

Officials within DOTD stated that the role of the floodplain management program is not 
well understood by state agencies, and some agencies may not know the program exists. 
According to another state floodplain manager, the DOTD office is notified of state floodplain 
development during the planning stages, but they do not review plans and cannot stop work. The 
pre-notification system, also called a solicitation of opinion, is fairly good, according to some 
because it involves the floodplain management office, but the information provided to the 
developing agency is typically limited to floodplain maps and local permitting contact 
information. State floodplain managers did not know the conditions that trigger the solicitation of 
opinion and did not provide the statutory basis for the process. 

The ability of communities to regulate floodplain development by state agencies is not 
well understood by state officials, including floodplain management officials. Development is 
the responsibility of each state agency, with no single agency overseeing all state development 
projects. Interviewees within DOTD indicated that communities do not have authority over 
highway projects, but do have authority over development by state universities. Officials 
believed that Facilities Planning in the Louisiana Department of Administration is supposed to 
contact local permit officials with regard to their development projects, but did not believe that 
the contact was actually occurring. Interviewees indicate that some staff of the Louisiana 


Department of Economic Development may not be concerned about the impacts of development 
in the floodplain. Local officials interviewed as part of the Compliance Study (Monday et al. 
2006) stated firmly that they do not know the flood-prone status of state buildings in their 
communities floodplains because state buildings are exempt from the local permitting process. 
The level of coordination regarding state development in floodplains appears to be very low, 
with agencies tending toward self-regulation if there is any regulation. 

The state floodplain managers interviewed did not have knowledge about state-owned 
buildings in the floodplains. The State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan (LSHMT 2005) 
identifies high-risk state buildings, and indicates that all state buildings are self-insured. 

3.4.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

The Louisiana NFIP coordinating office for floodplain management has been housed 
within the Office of Public Works, DOTD since 1988. The transfer from the Department of 
Urban and Community Affairs (DUCA) to DOTD was mandated by Louisiana Senate Bill 1, 
First Extraordinary Session 1988, which also abolished DUCA and several other agencies, 
placing many programs in executive branch agencies under the control of the Governor. 
Interviewees indicated that an old Executive Order may have existed at some point prior to the 
1988 reorganization, but it was allowed to expire when the 1988 bill codified the floodplain 
management responsibilities of DOTD. Copies of the old Executive Order were not provided. 

DOTD is a large agency with 9 district offices and 14 agency divisions, and like some 
other states examined in this study, interviewees indicated that the floodplain management 
program is dwarfed by the agencys main focus on transportation. However, one interviewee 
disagreed with this assertion, indicating that the transportation function does not overshadow 
other functions of the department such as floodplain management. Some Office of Homeland 
Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP) officials indicated that they believe the DOTD 
does not provide the necessary resources to the floodplain managers in order to do an effective 
job of implementing the NFIP in Louisiana, although state staff interviewed disagree with this 
assertion. One interview conducted with state staff after Hurricane Katrina indicated that the 
state program has conducted CAVs or CACs in each community in the past five to seven years, 
produced a 450-page desk reference on floodplain management for local communities, and 
received accolades from other FEMA Regions and Disaster Assistance Employees in the 
aftermath of the disaster. A DOTD interviewee indicated that the location within DOTD 
insulates the floodplain management program from budget cuts, more than other state agencies 
might experience. Since 1989, DOTD has been funded through a dedicated trust fund from 
gasoline taxes, resulting in few internal budget cut discussions overall. 

Mitigation and floodplain management functions are housed in vastly different agencies, 
and interactions between the two agencies are difficult. State floodplain management officials 
have little coordination with OHSEP outside of the states Hazard Mitigation Team, which was 
created by Executive Order KBB 2004. Because of differences between the two agencies, the 
teams actions are not necessarily consistent with the goals and objectives of the floodplain 
managers, although all hazard mitigation applications must include comments from DOTD, and 
OHSEP indicates that DOTD staff are a major component of the Hazard Mitigation Team. The 
teams members are all volunteers and must take vacation from their regular duties to attend 


team meetings and functions. Yet the team meets monthly, and many team members have been 
participants for as long as ten years. 

Because the Hazard Mitigation Team was created by Executive Order, the group is 
subject to political forces and changes of administration as demonstrated recently. The current 
governor cut the size of the team in half in order to reduce overall committee membership and 
streamline operations. One recent event, the deployment of National Guard personnel, many of 
whom worked in the mitigation areas of OHSEP, has negatively affected mitigation programs in 
the state. The deployment has resulted in a dearth of staff to handle mitigation project review and 
coordination. 

Some floodplain management officials interviewed indicate that traditional hazard 
mitigation methods do not necessarily apply in their state because almost the entire state is floodprone, 
and elevating structures does not necessarily remove people from harm in areas 
completely inundated by floodwaters. The interviewees indicate a bias toward structural flood 
control measures to relieve flooding, rather than purchasing or elevating flood-prone structures. 

3.4.4 Sub-State Authorities 

Several sub-state authorities assist with floodplain management in Louisiana. The 
Louisiana Floodplain Managers Association is perceived by those interviewed to be a good and 
growing group of professionals, which offers valuable workshops and training for local officials 
several times per year. There are approximately 20 levee districts, funded by the local tax base or 
the state, that are responsible for maintaining levees to the Corps of Engineers standards. For 
example, the Amite River Basin was created in 1981 to resolve major regional flooding issues, 
and represents six parishes covering 2,000 square miles. 

3.4.5 Problems and Ramifications 

The states relationship with the FEMA Regional office, with regard to CAP activities 
such as CAVs, is limited by the states desire to use FEMA as the tough cop, and maintain a 
positive relationship between the state and local communities. Interviewees indicate that state 
officials prefer that FEMA be wholly responsible for sanctioning communities that are 
noncompliant with the NFIP. State officials indicated that a recent probation action toward a 
local community resulted in other nearby communities calling the state to request a CAV. This 
outcome pleasantly surprised some state staff, but reinforced the idea that if FEMA remains the 
disciplinarian, the state can have a more pro-active approach in assisting communities in need. 

Additional frustration is created by the CAP funding process and timeline which does not 
correspond with the states budgeting process. FEMA offers the state money after the state 
budget has been finalized. But the state cannot accept FEMA money if it was not anticipated in 
the state budget. So the state has had to turn down opportunities for additional CAP funding. As 
a result, when the state requested the same pot of money that was offered in previous years, 
FEMA cut the funding request because the money had been turned down in the past. Officials 
from both OHSEP and DOTD indicate that the existing process of providing CAP funds directly 
to OHSEP rather than to DOTD and then requiring the state to disburse the funds from OHSEP 
to DOTD is a time-consuming bureaucratic hassle. 


3.5 Maine 

3.5.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

NFIP program administration in Maine has benefited from the experience and longevity 
of the states NFIP State Coordinator. In the same position for over 16 years, the coordinator has 
been housed in several agencies, been through multiple program changes, and guided Maine 
communities through hundreds of training opportunities. The state has four staff at present, 
comprised of the state coordinator and three planners. Three of four staff have been in their 
positions long-term, at least ten years, and interviewees revealed pride in the overall longevity of 
the program and staff. 

3.5.2 Legal Foundations 

Maines floodplain management program derives its authority from the state Mandatory 
Shoreland Zoning Act, enacted in 1971. Every municipality must adopt a shoreline zoning 
ordinance, which regulates designated shoreline zones applying to every body of waterriverine 
and coastalas well as to NFIP-designated SFHAs. The states model ordinance includes all 
NFIP regulations. Floodplain management is designated as a task handled by local and regional 
governments and the state role is limited to providing technical assistance to the local 
governments. As such, the Maine Floodplain Management Program (MFMP) resides in the State 
Planning Office (SPO) with other agencies with similar roles. 

3.5.3 State Development in Floodplains 

Maines state floodplain managers work with other state agencies to ensure that 
development is designed and built to reduce future flood damages. Maine requires that state 
dollars be treated like federal dollars with regard to flood-prone development and applies the 
process in Federal Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, to those actions. 
MFMP calls upon this authority to mandate a floodplain management review of Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects, Department of Commerce grant projects, and Army 
Corps of Engineers permits, for example. However, MFMP has no authority to require 
compliance with the executive order. Interviewees indicate that enforcement and implementation 
of EO 11988 in this manner at the state level was initiated by the NFIP State Coordinator. 
Currently, Maines annual CAP-SSSE agreements include interagency review. 

Other state permits are reviewed by MFMP under authority granted by Maines Natural 
Resources Protection Act (NRPA) enacted in 1988. The NRPA recognizes the significance of 
specific natural resources and guides the state in preventing unreasonable impact to, degradation 
of or destruction of the resources and encourages their protection or enhancement. The Act 
applies to the following protected natural resources: coastal wetlands and sand dunes; freshwater 
wetlands; great ponds; rivers, streams and brooks; fragile mountain areas, and significant wildlife 
habitat. Projects implemented by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP), 
Maine Department of Conservation and the Land Use Regulation Commission, Maine 
Department of Transportation and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife are 
required to be reviewed. 


Review of state agency development in flood-prone areas varies across agencies. 
Interviewees indicate that the states storm-water management and shoreland zoning laws may 
not be as effective as possible, due to a lack of enforcement staffing. MDEPs statutes, 
regulations, and programs focus on the man-made causes of storm-water capability reduction and 
water-body reduction. MDOT staff believe that their projects are not subject to municipal level 
review, but state MFMP staff continue to pursue a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
agency regarding flood-prone development. One interviewee insisted that despite specific issues 
with some agencies, Maine has made significant inroads on state development review for floodprone 
development, especially for major developments. 

3.5.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

In the organization chart, the MFMP is three levels below the SPO Director. Floodplain 
Management reports to Community Assistance who reports to the Director of Administrative 
Services, who reports to the State Planning Office Director. The SPO oversees development of 
comprehensive plans, map modernization projects, Coastal Zone Management, land use 
regulations, the NFIP, and the CRS programs. MFMP provides technical assistance and model 
floodplain ordinances to municipalities, which are responsible for enforcing NFIP building code 
standards. The requirement for every municipality to have a floodplain ordinance is not 
mandatory and 10-percent of all municipalities have not enacted local ordinances. 

Training of state agency personnel and local community floodplain managers remains the 
primary focus of the MFMP. Interviewees indicate concern that a new state administration could 
change or weaken existing federal or state executive orders and statutes, which is why training 
other agencies in the importance of floodplain management is so important to state staff. About 
25-percent of attendees at typical state-sponsored training events for floodplain management are 
local NFIP officials, while about 75-percent are state and federal agency staff. NFIP 
professionals, including lawyers, engineers, realtors, and neighborhood associations also take 
part in training opportunities. 

Even though it is currently housed in the SPO, Maines NFIP Coordinators bureaucratic 
agency home changes frequently, almost every time there is a new administration, according to 
one interviewee. The group has been housed in the Department of Economic and Community 
Development, in the State Planning Office several times, and in the Department of Civil Defense 
for a short time. The group has never been housed in a natural resources agency. The current 
planning agency host was selected as a result of the states Growth Management Act, adopted in 
1988. The act required communities to do a comprehensive plan, and all of the agencies that 
support plan development were co-located for the convenience of the communities. 

Interviewees indicate that the offices current home works well and a move to an 
emergency management agency is not necessary, or would not necessarily be positive. One 
interviewee indicated that emergency managers tend to focus on monetary or project-funding 
aspects of floodplain management to the detriment of other more important program elements. 
One drawback of being in a planning agency, however, is the inability to stringently enforce 
specific NFIP regulations. The SPO currently has no regulatory authority or enforcement 
mechanism. 


The relationship between MFMP and the Maine Emergency Management Agency 
(MEMA) has been strained at times, but significant progress is reported in recent years. Whereas 
state floodplain management staff used to be involved in mitigation project review and were 
regularly consulted on floodplain management topics, the level of coordination may have 
declined. For example, MFMP staff were not very involved in writing the State Hazard 
Mitigation Plan, and indicated frustration that outside state agency review, including SPO 
review, was rushed. 

3.5.5 Sub-State Authorities 

Maine does not have a state chapter of the ASFPM, but many state and local staff 
participate in the New England Association of Floodplain Managers and Storm-water Managers 
(NEFSMA). NEFSMA is not an official chapter of the ASFPM. Interviewees reveal benefits 
from grouping the floodplain managers and storm-water managers together in these associations, 
as the interactions result in better coordination on overlapping issues. Interviewees indicate that 
NEFSMA is not as strong as officials desire because communities in New England are small, 
with busy, under-paid staff. New Englands geography also makes association activity more 
difficult. 

3.5.6 Problems and Recommendations 

Maine has successfully implemented a Code Officer Certification program, requiring all 
building code officers in the state to be certified. Each must attend regular training that includes 
the doctrines of floodplain management. Interviewees indicate that proof of success is revealed 
in the sophisticated level of flood-related questions from code officers. With high turnover in 
local code officials, the certification process and training in floodplain management have 
increased local capability. Communities have region-based interagency agreements as part of the 
code officer certification requirements. These agreements can be activated when a code officer 
leaves town or a new one comes on board. Code officers in other communities share work and 
mentor new officers. 

Interviewees indicated several opportunities for increasing the working relationship 
between the NFIP State Coordinators staff and the FEMA staff at Region I. The most important 
suggestion to come out of the interviews is for the FEMA Regional office to assign a single 
person to handle the state support elements of CAP-SSSE so that there is consistent advice, quick 
follow-up on compliance questions, and full attention given to issues of importance to the state 
NFIP staff. Interviewees indicate that some feel as though FEMA staff may not realize the 
importance of speaking with a single voice on important issues to communities, and the fact that 
dealing with multiple FEMA personnel on distinct issues (e.g., CAP, Map Modernization, 
HMGP, FMA) can be extremely frustrating when answers are not consistent. While a single 
person may not be able to adequately handle all aspects of all programs for a state, it may be 
feasible for a single person to serve as the state liaison and ensure that information going from 
FEMA to state staff is consistent. 

 Interviewees indicate a tendency for the hot issues at FEMA Headquarters to be the hot 
issues for FEMA Regional staff, when those issues may be of little importance to a particular 
state or community. One interviewee indicated that NFIP issues seemed to take a back seat to 


FMA, HMGP, Project Impact, and Map Modernization as each program reached its own heyday. 
In fact, the states need assistance with mundane tasks like follow-up on community violations, 
tasks which Regional staff tend to assign lower priority, to the dismay of interviewees. 

3.6 Missouri 

3.6.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

Currently, the state supports six full-time staff through its budgetary process and has 539 
NFIP participating communities. The ratio of 89 communities to one staff member is perceived 
by state staff to be effective. Unlike state officials interviewed in other states, Missouri 
interviewees indicated little impetus to hire more floodplain management program staff if 
additional funds were to be made available. Interviews with state agency officials and others 
outside the floodplain management program indicate that the program staff have built strong 
relationships with local officials and other state agencies, demonstrate a high level of 
understanding with regard to NFIP requirements, and have an in-depth knowledge of Missouris 
NFIP communities and the issues they face. 

Missouris Floodplain Management program experienced a clear window of opportunity 
for improvement when the state suffered severe flooding in 1993. Since that time, the state has 
purchased or assisted in the purchase of over 4,500 properties in the floodplain, and dramatically 
increased the number of state staff from one to six. The state also has stringently enforced open 
space requirements that together have had a significant effect on reducing the number of floodprone 
properties. In more recent years, however, some of those interviewed believe there may be 
a shift in public perception regarding flooding, and mitigation funding may now be focused on 
mitigating other hazards such as earthquakes and tornadoes within the state. First, previously, 95- 
to 99-percent of all Missouri mitigation funding went to flood mitigation projects; now 
interviewees indicate the number has been drastically reduced. One interviewee also expressed 
concern that support for floodplain management in the legislature and among the public may be 
waning as people forget the severe floods. An example provided by that interviewee indicates 
that state matches for HMGP grants for local projects are no longer provided by the legislature 
and must be raised by local communities. 

3.6.2 Legal Foundations 

The state does not have building codes, requirements for local comprehensive planning, 
or state statutes regarding floodplain management. One interviewee indicated the belief that the 
states role must therefore be as a facilitator or go-between for the communities, rather than as an 
NFIP enforcement mechanism. The interviewee further stated that with no authority to enforce 
NFIP requirements, the state cannot act as the enforcer and must rely on FEMA to perform this 
function. 
In 2003, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation prepared a report 
entitled Flooding Forgotten: The State of Missouris Floodplain Management Ten Years after 
the 1993 Flood (MCEF 2003). By pointing out the states lack of legal and administrative 
infrastructure for floodplain management and comparing the states program to seven other 


Midwestern states, the report intended to persuade the Missouri General Assembly to enact 
appropriate legislation to reduce future flood losses. However, the comprehensive floodplain 
management program proposed in the report has not been successfully enacted by the legislature. 
The reports proposals included: 
 assertion of state jurisdiction over floodplain development, including a permit program; 
 a low flood elevation rise standard for floodway delineation and floodplain development 
permits; 
 floodway development restrictions; 
 strong technical oversight and assistance programs for local governments and the public; 
and 

 a state-funded grant or loan program to facilitate pre-disaster, non-structural mitigation 
projects. 

Interviewees indicate that Missouri Floodplain Management staff members also have 
tried unsuccessfully to get the General Assembly to enact specific regulations. Proposals have 
included codifying the states Executive Order for state development (discussed below), 
requiring community variances be reviewed by the state, prohibiting development in the 
floodway, and enacting an insurance surcharge to fund mitigation. Even with help from the 
Missouri Floodplain and Storm-water Management Association in lobbying the legislature, the 
results have been disappointing. 

3.6.3 State Development in Floodplains 

Missouri Executive Order 98-03, signed by Governor Carnahan in 1998, requires that 
state agencies get a State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) permit for development, 
thereby helping ensure compliance with NFIP minimum requirements that are spelled out in an 
attachment to the E.O. An engineer on staff at SEMA reviews each permit proposal, and upon 
approval, provides a copy to the local community to file for future CAVs. The E.O. does not 
have the force of law, and can be overturned easily. In addition, there is no mechanism for 
Floodplain Management to require state agencies to comply with the E.O. Several interviewees 
indicated that, despite these drawbacks, there is very little state development occurring in the 
floodplains and that the 1993 floods may have influenced state agencies to more carefully 
consider structure placement with regard to flood risk. Interviewees noted that the Missouri 
Office of Administration complies with NFIP requirements for new office structures through 
their Design and Construction branch, as does the Missouri Department of Transportation 
(MoDOT) through a Memorandum of Agreement with SEMA. MoDOT also provides technical 
assistance to various emergency management programs, including the mitigation staff. 


3.6.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

According to interviewees, FEMA encouraged the state to move the NFIP Coordinators 
office from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to SEMA after the 1993 floods. DNR 
was reportedly pleased with this arrangement, although interviewees acknowledge that one 
drawback is that DNR had more technical and engineering expertise in-house than SEMA. 

The states HMGP management was also moved to SEMA at the same time, resulting in 
a single agency for dispensing mitigation funds. As a result, there are no other agencies currently 
involved in mitigation project review. Some SEMA interviewees indicate that the close 
relationship among the NFIP and mitigation funding programs has been very beneficial, and that 
the NFIP aspects may actually bring more visibility to SEMA and other programs. Interviewees 
indicated very little conflict between agency functions, and a relatively seamless implementation 
of NFIP responsibilities through this emergency management agency. 

3.6.5 Sub-State Authorities 

The 19 Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) in Missouri are established by statute 
and have quasi-state agency status. The commissions are funded by county and community 
governments, and each has a managing board. The smallest RPC represents three counties, while 
the largest represents ten. The RPCs have become active in floodplain management and hazard 
mitigation planning in recent years. This beneficial relationship developed when SEMA offered 
training to the RPCs to prepare hazard mitigation plans, recognizing that the groups could be 
contracted with for a massive statewide, cohesive hazard mitigation planning effort. 

The results have been better than expected, with numerous communities adopting plans 
that are relatively consistent, in a relatively short time frame, and at significant cost savings over 
private contractors. Now, many of the RPCs are beginning to assist the floodplain management 
program with other aspects of NFIP work, such as training and workshops, providing technical 
assistance to communities in their jurisdictions (especially in cases of staff turnover), and helping 
make grant applications. Interviewees indicate that the state is pursuing additional roles for the 
RPCs with regard to floodplain management ordinance review, and trying to get permission from 
FEMA to allow RPCs to use grant administrative funds to help communities and SEMA closeout 
mitigation projects. FEMA has not been amenable to this idea. 

The Missouri Floodplain and Storm-water Management Association has been 
instrumental in pursuing three main goals or activities, including: providing training and 
workshops, legislative lobbying, and acting as a liaison for local communities with SEMA. State 
employees cannot lobby the legislature, so the 300-member association takes on this role. 

The association recently changed its name and expanded its name and purpose to include 
storm-water managers. The change resulted from member statements regarding a noticeable lack 
of communication between state staff of storm-water management programs and state staff of 
floodplain management programs. While those programs are integrally linked at the local level 
due to permitting requirements for individual projects, the state agencies dealing with each have 
very different goals. Interviewees indicate that the results of the name change and inclusive 


invitations for membership have been positive, and have also resulted in streamlining of stormwater 
and floodplain permitting at the local level. 

3.6.6 Problems and Recommendations 

The Missouri Floodplain Management program tries to keep up with problematic local 
staff turnover by sending out an annual questionnaire. Recent return rates are relatively low, with 
little more than 60-percent of communities responding. Interviewees indicate that a biennial list 
of communities indicating whether they provided Biennial Report data to FEMA would be 
helpful, apparently unaware that this information is available through the Community 
Information System as a prepared report. 

Recommendations from Missouri interviewees indicated that state staff would like to see 
FEMA provide more guidance information to states. An example included a top ten list of 
mistakes that communities make when applying for grant funding. FEMA has indicated 
previously that it will not provide such a list based on the explanation that it may give one state 
an advantage over another. 

The permitting of state agency development in Missouri, although flawed, has worked 
well for the state, and staff recommended other states that may be having difficulty in that area 
should do the same. One interviewee recommended that the Missouri floodplain management 
program consider regionalizing or decentralizing staff and putting more employees in closer 
contact with local floodplain staff. 

The contracting of hazard mitigation planning to the RPCs has had many positive 
benefits beyond the time and cost savings originally envisioned as mentioned above in Section 
4.6.5, and state staff strongly recommend that other states adopt this approach. A final 
recommendation regarding the relationship with RPCs is for other states to post an electronic 
bulletin board. The SEMA blog has allowed the RPCs to trade information, lessons learned, and 
to post questions to the SEMA staff overseeing the hazard mitigation planning process. This idea 
served as a valuable training tool for each RPC and SEMA, reducing time spent on phone calls 
and repetitive questions because each RPC had access to the same bulletin board information. 

3.7 North Carolina 

3.7.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

Floodplain management staff in North Carolina have had considerable longevity in an 
emergency management agency (20+ years), with effective implementation of both NFIP and 
hazard mitigation projects, and a reputation of highly competent technical assistance provided to 
communities. The states recent focus on flood mapping, a result of severe coastal flooding 
associated with Hurricane Floyd in 1999, has proven to be a model for many other states 
pursuing FEMAs assistance through the Map Modernization program. 


19 The agency was renamed to exclude the term insurance and ensure that the name focuses on the floodplain 
management aspects of the NFIP. 

3.7.2 Legal Foundations and State Development in Floodplains 

The state statutes for floodplain management are enabling for local communities, and 
include the regulation of floodways beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP. The states 
Executive Order requires permits from the State Construction Office for state agency 
development; however, the university system claims an exemption to the requirements for 
projects under $500,000. Consequently, the Floodplain Management staff have little knowledge 
of such projects and whether or not any such development is protected from potential flood 
damage. 

Severe toxic waste in floodwaters during Hurricanes Fran and Floyd highlighted the 
importance of controlling these substances at the state level. Changes to the North Carolina 
General Statutes in 2000 for floodplain management at G.S.  143-215.54A now require NFIP 
communities to prohibit solid waste disposal and the placement of salvage yards and hazardous 
materials in floodplains through their floodplain management ordinances. 

In the mid-1990s, project delays within the North Carolina Department of Transportation 
(NCDOT) resulting from unavoidable environmental impacts spurred the agency to seek 
innovative solutions in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources (NCDENR). The agencies enlisted the help of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers in creating a wetlands-oriented mitigation program for development. After several 
false-starts, the partner agencies signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 2003 to establish 
procedures and permitting logistics for the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). 

Although the focus of the EEP is on pre-emptive wetland mitigation and stream 
enhancement, Floodplain Management has become an integral partner in the EEP and is working 
with other lead agencies on coordination of their permit processes in two key ways: 1) providing 
liaisons with local floodplain/NFIP officials in the communities; and 2) including floodplain 
management concepts in the EEP permitting process to streamline local permitting of the same 
projects. Staffs involvement in the EEP has provided an opportunity to teach the state agencies 
about the need for floodplain map revisions and the need for local floodplain development 
permits. The process is still relatively new at the time of this report, but the Federal Highway 
Administration recognized North Carolina in 2003 for their outstanding environmental 
stewardship, in part because of the EEP process. 

3.7.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

The North Carolina Floodplain Management Branch,19 the state coordinating agency for 
the NFIP, is housed in an emergency management agency. The North Carolina Department of 
Crime Control and Public Safety has 13 divisions, one of which is the Division of Emergency 
Management. Hurricane Fran in 1996 triggered several major department changes, including the 
appointment of a new director of Emergency Management. The new director reorganized the 
division, moving Floodplain Management from the Mitigation Branch to the Information and 


Planning Branch in 1996. Interviewees indicate that, as a result of personnel desires, floodplain 
management was returned to the Mitigation Branch recently. 

Between the states initial participation in the NFIP and the mid-1980s, the location of 
the floodplain management staff was unstable. Floodplain Management passed through several 
different agencies, including the Division of Community Planning, the Division of Community 
Assistance, and the Department of Commerce. Interviews with state staff indicate that the current 
location in Emergency Management is effective and aids in developing links between the 
floodplain management, mitigation, and mapping components of the states overall program for 
flood hazard reduction. Occasionally, state administrators have been successful at using various 
mitigation grant programs as leverage to increase or require community compliance with NFIP 
requirements. Grant applications, for example, will not be processed as long as there are 
outstanding NFIP compliance violations in the community. 

There are currently three planners and one engineer working in North Carolinas 
Floodplain Management program. Existing staff are regionalized into three geographic areas of 
the state: east, central and west. These regional boundaries coincide with the boundaries of 
regions used by the State for other emergency management purposes. Interviewees indicate that 
although regionalization was not particularly embraced by staff when first proposed by the 
Division director, the high quality personnel assigned to the regional offices made the concept 
successful. Very good, very knowledgeable staff who worked well on their own were critical to 
the success of regionalization of NFIP responsibilities for North Carolina. Communities have 
accepted the concept because they have continuing contact with a single person, making 
communication effective and efficient. Interviews with state staff indicate that, ideally, more 
than one person should be assigned in the regional offices because of the workload. 

3.7.4 Problems and Recommendations 

Interviewees indicate that the sense of professionalism among the practitioners of 
floodplain management at the state level is encouraging, but perhaps tenuous if changes in 
gubernatorial administration or department-level politics were to interfere again as happened 
after Hurricane Fran. Major hurricanes in recent years have had both positive and negative 
effects on the states program. Hurricane Fran apparently resulted in quick, politically-motivated 
appointments that did not necessarily benefit the overall program of flood hazard mitigation after 
a major flood disaster. Yet reoccurring floods focused the public and elected officials on 
associated risks, enhancing some of the tools necessary for leveraging local money and adopting 
innovative programs. 

North Carolina staffs relationship with FEMA Region IV is generally positive, but has 
been rocky in the past. Interviewees indicate that there have been issues with particular 
individuals at the region who did not get along with staff at the state for one reason or another, 
but the region has been cooperative in reassigning their staff as necessary. At one time, the state 
had four FEMA regional staff assigned to North Carolina, which caused problems because the 
protocol dictated communication with a single regional staff person. Interviewees indicated that 
the regions high opinion of North Carolinas program has probably resulted in more autonomy 
for the state. For example, when hurricanes in fall 2005 occupied much of the regional staffs 


time, FEMA purposely became more hands off and North Carolina staff were left to do their 
own thing. 

Interviewees indicate North Carolina staff are excited about the potential benefits of their 
Map Modernization efforts. However, there is concern that when the time comes for the 
communities to adopt the new maps, FEMA will not financially support the additional workload 
associated with state assistance to the communities as they adopt and learn to use the new maps. 
The technical mapping staff are not the same staff who will be providing assistance to 
communities and the funding has not been dedicated for the technical assistance portion of the 
project. Interviewees indicate that FEMA has been made aware of this issue. 

Because hazard mitigation and floodplain management are so closely linked in North 
Carolina, issues of hazard mitigation were prominent during interviews with state staff. An issue 
of concern to the state is the redundancy of effort created by what is termed the managing state 
concept. FEMA recognizes the ability of North Carolina to help prepare and review mitigation 
grant applications, and the idea behind designating managing states was to streamline FEMAs 
project review process based upon the work effort of the state. Interviewees indicate that FEMA 
is not necessarily taking advantage of the states proven ability in this regard, and this is 
discouraging to state mitigation staff. 

3.8 Texas 

3.8.1 Program overview and effectiveness 

According to some FEMA officials interviewed as part of the NFIP Evaluation, 
floodplain management is a low priority for Texas. One interviewee stated that Texas makes no 
effort nor provides any support for floodplain management or compliance, while another 
indicated that the existing floodplain management program has a lot of room to grow. The 
state has 972 NFIP participating communities, and a staff of two at the state level to implement 
the program. Texas does not have dedicated funding for floodplain management beyond the CAP 
program matching funds, although the state collects a surcharge on flood insurance policies 
which goes into the states general fund. 

Both state floodplain management staff and FEMA Region VI staff stated in interviews 
that high turnover of local floodplain managers and building officials has contributed to the 
inability of the state to assist local communities and the existence of numerous compliance issues 
with regard to both public and private development. But in spite of compliance issues locally, the 
most pressing problem, according to those interviewed, is a general lack of support for floodplain 
management from the legislature, probably resulting from the legislatures focus on protecting 
the property rights of individuals. 

FEMA Region VI has instituted a regional approach to its administration of the NFIP in 
Texas and employs five Natural Hazard Program Specialists, each assigned to distinct areas 
within the state. FEMA Region VI asserted that they have had to take up the states slack in 
some cases, where the state has fallen short of its responsibilities under the NFIP. Despite 
FEMAs additional workload, FEMA regional staff estimate that they still do not maintain 


regular annual contact with 80-percent of the NFIP communities in the state. The regional staff 
repeatedly emphasized in interviews that the provision of adequate training has resulted in higher 
compliance in communities within that state; however, they acknowledge a general lack of 
compliance in communities in their region. One local official also indicated that in a post-flood 
scenario FEMA has historically been more responsive to local needs than the state. 

Some FEMA Region VI problems that may negatively influence the effectiveness of the 
Texas program were mentioned during interviews, including: 1) few communities exceed the 
NFIP minimum standards; 2) consistent interpretation of standards from regional staff is lacking; 
and, 3) perception that compliance actions are thwarted by political pressure or by FEMA 
Headquarters, so enforcement of NFIP standards from a regional perspective is weak and 
developers know and exploit this. 

The relatively high ratio of 486 communities to one staff member is a main reason why 
the state can make relatively so few community visits (CAVs and Community Assistance 
Contacts) per year. Each participating community receives a CAV approximately every twelve 
years, compared to FEMA Region VIs goal of a CAV every five years. In order to bring this 
visitation rate more in line with the Regions goals, the state recently started contracting out 
CAVs to an engineering firm. State contractors do approximately 25 to 30 CAVs per year. 

3.8.2 Legal strength/formality 

As stated by one interviewee, Texas is a property rights state. As such, the state does little 
to interfere with private development in the floodplain and has adopted only enabling legislation 
to allow local jurisdictions to participate in the NFIP. There is conflict among those interviewed 
at both the state and FEMA Regional level as to whether new state law, adopted August 30, 
1999, requires participation in the NFIP by all communities. According to the Texas Water 
Code, 16.3145, The governing body of each city and county shall adopt ordinances or orders, 
as appropriate, necessary for the city of county to be eligible to participate in the National Flood 
Insurance Program. The difference between requiring communities to be eligible to 
participate versus requiring them to adopt ordinances and participate in the NFIP remains 
unresolved. 

Texas law makes a distinction between home rule cities and general law counties or 
smaller cities. The distinction is important to floodplain management because the Texas 
Constitution does not give explicit authority to counties or unincorporated areas to adopt, 
implement or enforce zoning or building codes. According to some interviewees, even in the late 
1990s, counties that had joined the NFIP lacked the legal authority necessary to require that 
developers adhere to their floodplain management ordinances. 

In response to devastating flooding in the late 1990s, the Texas Legislature passed Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 68 (1999), sponsored by Senator Ken Armbrister. SCR 68 established a 
Blue Ribbon Committee to develop legislative recommendations for improving state agency 
coordination in preventing and mitigating damage and flood relief. Blue Ribbon Committee 
members included: Texas Department of Emergency Management (chair); Texas Department of 
Transportation; Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Water Development 
Board, Texas General Land Office, and representatives from cities, counties, and river 


20 The study team requested copies of the MOUs but did not receive any. 

authorities. The resolution also directed that the Committee submit a report with its 
recommendations to the Legislature prior to the beginning of the 77th Legislative session in 
January 2001. 

The floodplain management related recommendations contained in the Blue Ribbon 
Committee Report prompted the 77th Texas Legislature to pass Senate Bill 936. The bill was 
supported by communities participating in the Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition. In 
their letters and resolutions in support of the legislation, these communities stated that the bill 
was critically needed to address the increasingly rapid rate of development in the floodplains of 
rivers, lakes and streams. 

The bill provided all Texas communities, cities and counties, the option to adopt 
floodplain development requirements above the minimum necessary to qualify for participation 
in the NFIP. Communities were also enabled to set permit fees for floodplain management, and 
participate in floodplain management initiatives such as the NFIPs CRS program by adopting 
regulations that exceed NFIP minimum standards. The bill was enacted by the 77th Texas 
Legislature and went into effect September 1, 2001. 

There are currently no active Executive Orders for Texas that address floodplain 
management. According to one interviewee, the current states Attorney General issued an 
opinion that Executive Orders do not carry over to subsequent gubernatorial administrations, 
thus invalidating an EO for floodplain management that was written by a previous governor. 

3.8.3 State Development in Floodplains 

The Floodplain Management section of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
has developed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the various state agencies that 
may develop in floodplains, including: Building and Procurement Commission, Department of 
Mental Health and Retardation, Criminal Justice, Parks and Wildlife, Low-Level Radioactive 
Disposal Authority, Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Military Facilities 
Commission. Each MOU is unique, and none are very strong according to those interviewed.20 
The documents were developed beginning in 1988 in response to lawsuits claiming TxDOT 
development was causing increased flooding. TxDOT had not been meeting with local officials 
prior to commencing development in the floodplain. 

According to other state staff interviewed, internal changes at TxDOT, in addition to the 
MOU, have led to a much more successful working relationship with communities regarding the 
placement of development. Younger staff at TxDOT, including an increased number of ASFPM 
Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs) on staff in the agency, and in-depth training for other 
staff have brought changes in the way TxDOT plans and implements development projects in 
floodplains. 

Floodplain Management does not have an MOU with the states university system, and 
the lack of an agreement has led to problems with flood-prone development in the past. For 


example, a University of Texas Medical Center was built below grade in the floodplain in 
Houston and suffered significant flood damage due to Hurricane Allison in 2001. Floodwater 
disabled emergency power generators and major medical equipment located in basements. The 
resultant media attention, according to interviewees, may have taught the university system a 
very necessary lesson, and the Medical Center now has a mitigation plan in place to help address 
their flood risk. 

3.8.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

The states NFIP Coordinator has been with the Texas program since inception, when the 
program was originally housed in the Water Development Board. The Board dissolved and later 
reconstituted, but the Floodplain Management program was moved to the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), formerly the Texas Natural Resources Conservation 
Commission. According to those interviewed, the state legislature is currently considering 
moving floodplain management either back to the Water Development Board or to the Division 
of Emergency Management. FEMA has indicated that the states floodplain management 
program must improve before the agency will approve enhanced status for the states Hazard 
Mitigation Plan. 

One interviewee indicated that the states program of floodplain management is 
extremely fragmented, with floodplain management and mitigation programs spread among 
Emergency Management (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Pre-Disaster Mitigation), Water 
Development Board (Flood Mitigation Assistance) and TCEQ (NFIP State Coordinator). The 
fragmentation creates additional work and requires complex coordination, especially with regard 
to mitigation grant project review and funding. 

One interviewee theorized that Emergency Management has traditionally been interested 
in only those aspects of floodplain management that involve distributing funds, or being the 
white horse, while keeping the compliance aspects of management in another agency, the 
black horse. Now that the enhanced mitigation plan will require additional efforts in floodplain 
management, Emergency Management may be reconsidering the separation of activities. 
Currently, the two agencies work together on a quarterly basis as part of the states hazard 
mitigation team. One interviewee with the Water Development Board mentioned that changing 
the home agency of the floodplain management program does not seem, to him, to be the 
solution to the states woes. Instead, the interviewee asserted that increased state funding for the 
program is the only way to solve the myriad problems. 

3.8.5 Sub-state authorities 

Numerous sub-state authorities assist the state with implementation of various aspects of 
floodplain management. The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), funded by the sale of 
water and electricity, has limited police powers, and no land use authority, but representatives 
generally support the tenets of floodplain management and have provided technical assistance to 
communities within their jurisdictions. The Texas Colorado River Floodplain Coalition helps the 
state by conducting unofficial community visits, and provides additional training in floodplain 
management to local officials. 


The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association 
of more than 200 cities, counties and special districts in a 16-county region. Staff assist members 
in planning for common needs. The NCTCOG is a Cooperating Technical Partner with FEMA, 
and is generally active in floodplain management. The group has instituted a regulatory 
permitting process for floodplain development in a designated Trinity River corridor. In 
conjunction with the Trinity River Association, NCTCOG developed a Common Approach 
vision for floodplain management along the Trinity River, and implemented the regulatory 
approach which supports and enhances the community floodplain permitting processes. 
According to state staff, the role assumed by the sub-state authorities has made the states job 
easier, especially in areas managed by NCTCOG or LCRA because compliance problems rarely 
come up in those areas. 

The Texas Floodplain Management Association is very active in two specific regards. 
First, the association coordinates communities that experience damaging floods with assistance 
from staff in other communities. These mutual aid teams used to be reimbursed by the state, but 
the funds are no longer available. Second, the association sponsors many training events for local 
floodplain management officials. State staff indicated that they would be interested in 
coordinating with the association to enhance this role, and to target the training for specific 
groups such as surveyors, insurance agents, engineers, builders and realtors. 

Recommendations arising from Texas interviewees for improving the states floodplain 
management program included requiring a hard match of CAP funding from states (50- 
percent/50-percent), granting the FEMA Regional office more authority regarding the NFIPs 
enforcement actions to make them less susceptible to real or perceived political influence, and 
penalizing communities (not just property owners) for NFIP compliance violations. Another 
interviewee recommended that the state implement a regional approach to floodplain 
management using district offices similar to other state agencies. One interviewee strongly 
recommended that state agencies need to lead by example with regard to development in 
floodplains, and that state development must be subject to at least the minimum NFIP standards 
if not more restrictive ones. 

3.9 Washington 

3.9.1 Program Overview and Effectiveness 

According to those interviewed, the State of Washington has implemented a strong 
floodplain management program with a foundation of state statutes supporting a high level of 
community compliance. The state contributes more money and staff than other state in FEMA 
Region X, according to FEMA interviewees. The state has a well-developed network of four 
field offices, including the central office, to aid in providing technical assistance to the states 
276 NFIP participating communities. The ratio of 37 communities to one staff member is a clear 
benefit to local NFIP administrators. FEMA Region X interviewees are complimentary of 
Washington, focusing on the states extremely well-managed program and effective use of CAP 
funds. 


3.9.2 Legal Foundations 

Washington has been a leader in floodplain management, beginning as early as 1935 
when the State Legislature enacted one of the first state floodplain management laws in the 
country in response to severe flooding in 1933. The law set up a permitting program for 
construction in specific Flood Control Zones. In 1969, the state prohibited construction of 
residential structures in floodways, but because floodways were not shown on the Flood Control 
Zone maps, enforcement was difficult. Nonetheless, the state maintained and strengthened the 
statutes over time (WDE 2004). 

In 1987, the state amended the 1935 law by eliminating the Flood Control Zones and 
consolidating that program with the NFIP to avoid the confusion produced by the two separate 
permitting programs. In 1987, the legislature also enabled the Department of Ecology to 
establish minimum state standards for floodplain management and to disapprove ordinances that 
did not meet state and federal requirements. Ecology adopted rules including a prohibition on 
most new V Zone development, and a one foot freeboard. Both of these rules were immediately 
controversial upon implementation. In 1989, the legislature repealed the law authorizing Ecology 
to establish standards, and simultaneously tightened substantial improvement rules for floodway 
structures, prohibiting reconstruction of substantially damaged residences in the floodway. 
(Floodplain Management in the State of Washington: A Status Report as of February 2004). 

The states current floodplain management law is contained in Chapter 86.16 of the 
Revised Code of Washington, and supported by administrative procedures of Chapters 173-158 
of the Washington Administrative Code. In addition to the prohibition on residential construction 
in floodways, Washington also has enabling legislation at Chapter 86.12 RCW that allows 
counties to levy taxes, condemn properties and undertake flood control activities. Adopted in 
1984, Chapter 86.26 RCW establishes the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) 
which appropriates $4,000,000 every two years toward local flood hazard management efforts. 

Budget constraints in recent years have reduced the funding for FCAAP, but the 
interviewees still believe that being able to offer such funds to local communities dramatically 
increases local perception of the states floodplain management program. Rather than dealing 
solely with compliance, the state also has project and planning money to give to compliant 
communities. Interviewees feel that there may also be evidence that state legislative support for 
floodplain management is eroding over the long-term, but did not identify specific areas where 
this is a concern. Policy windows such as the time following big floods have historically helped 
push the states legislature toward more restrictive regulations or toward increased funding for 
mitigation. For example, in 1996 severe flooding prompted the legislature to double the FCAAP 
appropriation for a short period. 

FEMA Region X has developed an agreement with Washington wherein FEMA agrees to 
enforce any state regulation as it would the minimum NFIP requirements. A violation of state 
regulations therefore qualifies as a violation in the regions view, as well. FEMA interviewees 
reported that Washington communities have a high level of compliance in part because of the 
enforcement of state standards that exceed NFIP minimum requirements. 


3.9.3 State Development in Floodplains 

Washington Administrative Code 236-100 requires that all state development comply 
with the federal NFIP and state floodplain management standards. Ecology participates in the 
review process for government action, which is outlined as part of the State Environmental 
Policy Act, enacted in 1971. The review determines if an Environmental Impact Statement is 
required, but the application also requires a statement as to whether the project or action is 
located in the SFHA. The review process has been effective at mitigating flood risk to state 
structures, according to interviewees. One state interviewee could not recall any state facilities 
that have suffered flood damage, although the state does not maintain a list of state-owned 
structures in the floodplain. 

The Department of General Administration also reviews state development proposals, 
and Ecology has always had close contact with reviewers in that agency. Recently however, staff 
turnover in General Administration may have weakened this relationship. 

The primary exception to the state development processes outlined above is any project 
by the Higher Education Board. According to interviewees, Ecology staff have been involved in 
community college campus planning, but the process has raised concerns among reviewers 
because of its lack of formal procedures. An example was provided during interviews regarding 
the University of Washington. The university purchased and developed land that had been 
altered by a previous owner in violation of NFIP standards. The University ended up working 
with agency staff to minimize impacts, but floodplain managers and wetland managers had to 
insert themselves into the discussions to ensure their views were considered. 

3.9.4 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

The Washington NFIP coordinating office is housed in the states Department of 
Ecology, and has been since the state joined the NFIP. Interviewees indicate that the agency is an 
appropriate home for the NFIP because there are shared functions between the NFIP and other 
Ecology departments, such as water quality and dam safety. Ecology has floodplain management 
staff in four regions, all of whom conduct CAVs, assist with grant administration and provide 
NFIP technical assistance to local communities. 

The main disadvantage of being located in Ecology is that the program is separate from 
the hazard mitigation funding programs of Emergency Management (FMA, HMGP and Pre- 
Disaster Mitigation). However, staff of the two agencies maintain regular contact and have a 
good working relationship when reviewing projects for various grant programs. The large group 
that convenes to review grant requests has been able to cobble together money from various 
programs to support projects that warranted special consideration. The group contains 
representatives of numerous state agencies, as well as FEMA, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, and state planning agencies. 

None of the states in FEMA Region X have state NFIP coordinating programs housed in 
emergency management agencies. FEMA interviewees believe that this is a positive fact because 
state personnel can be used wholly for flood issues, rather than having to deal with all hazards 


and spending time as first-responders on disaster teams. The state floodplain management staff 
are thus able to develop much stronger relationships with local community officials. 

3.9.5 Sub-State Authorities 

Washingtons state and local floodplain management officials participate in the 
Northwest Regional Floodplain Managers Association (NORFMA), in conjunction with officials 
from Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and British Columbia. The association is not a chapter of the 
ASFPM, and does not appear to be very active in the legislative arena for Washington. In some 
cases, NORFMA has helped states with letter writing campaigns to support various legislative 
agendas. 

The Floodplain Management staff of the Department of Ecology have successfully 
implemented a cooperative program with the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC), which is 
located within Ecology. The WCC can be tapped to provide assistance to communities and the 
state for flood fights and flood recovery. This partnership provides state staff with yet another 
proffer to communities in need of assistance. 

3.9.6 Problems and Recommendations 

Interactions between Washington staff and FEMA Region X staff appear to be very 
positive and non-controversial, according to interviewees. Generally, the FEMA staff rely on the 
state staff for information and opinions and the state staff have found FEMA to be cooperative, 
knowledgeable and consistent. Turnover at the FEMA Regional office has been high, and 
Washington staff have had to work with numerous Natural Hazards Specialists over the years, 
but this does not appear to have been problematic. 

3.10 Wisconsin 

3.10.1 Legal Foundations 
Wisconsin takes a pro-active approach to floodplain management that extends beyond the 
NFIP minimum requirements for state participation. The states regulations for floodplain 
management at Natural Resources Chapter 116, as administered by the Department of Natural 
Resources (DNR), are extremely detailed with specific provisions for mapping techniques, 
residential and nonresidential construction in floodways and flood fringe areas, fill in the 
floodplain, and flood control structures such as dams and levees. Each of the requirements must 
be adopted at the local level, as well. The regulations outline DNR responsibilities for floodplain 
management, which include: 
 Assistance to municipalities; 
 Review and approval of floodplain zoning ordinances; 
 Monitoring the administration and enforcement of municipal floodplain zoning 
ordinances; and, 


 Enforcement of municipal floodplain zoning ordinances. 

According to those interviewed, the state regularly exercises its authority to impose direct 
enforcement actions, such as fines or ordering structures moved, and the ability to force-place 
floodplain management restrictions in communities. Most flooding that occurs in Wisconsin is 
on agricultural land. Interviews show that, as a result, the public has little exposure to flooding, 
which was believed by some to hinder public support for the NFIP statewide. 

The state prohibits encroachment in the floodway and requires dry road access to the 
floodplain for new development, meaning that the road providing access to a new structure in the 
floodplain must also be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Interviewees indicate that 
the dry road access rule has been extremely difficult to enforce and has rendered some rural 
development virtually impossible. Wisconsin also has a two foot freeboard requirement for fill in 
flood-prone areas. Strict wetlands regulations in Wisconsin have had the effect of eliminating 
much of the floodplain from consideration for new development. 

Multiple interviews indicate that the state legislature has recently trended toward 
weakening some state floodplain management regulations that exceed NFIP standards. There 
appears to be strong support for property rights in the state legislature at present, which 
contributes to an anti-regulation environment in general. For example, in 1990, the state 
legislature passed a law requiring that flood-prone structures damaged by any event other than a 
flood must be brought into compliance with the NFIP minimum standards, but not the more 
restrictive state standards. Another recent bill proposed that the substantial improvement 
threshold for the state be changed to 75-percent. The states NFIP administrators were able to 
thwart the measure by pointing out that this action would result in the state being deemed 
noncompliant with the NFIP requirements. 

DNR could conceivably exert more influence on the legislature in an effort to prevent 
weakening of state floodplain laws; however, one interviewee indicated that the DNR director is 
now a gubernatorial appointee, meaning that the departments actions are more likely to be 
politically motivated than motivated by the long-term public interest. A former state employee 
indicated that the states single-purpose focus on floodplain management through state 
regulations may have been detrimental. If regulations were to be rescinded, the state would not 
have a strong backup system in place for providing planning and other technical assistance to 
local NFIP communities. 

3.10.2 State Development in Floodplains 

State buildings in the floodplain are extremely rare in Wisconsin. A state policy 
memorandum regarding state construction in the floodplain, coupled with knowledgeable staff in 
the Wisconsin Department of Administration, and plenty of developable land outside the 
floodplain contribute to avoidance of flood-prone state development. The Department of 
Administration must approve all new state structures. Interviewees indicate that state agencies 
are well aware of the role of the DNR in managing floodplain development and have consistently 
supported state laws, despite a lack of regular contact or training at the state level. 


One interviewee cited an interagency agreement between DNR and the Wisconsin 
Department of Transportation (WisDOT) regarding transportation projects and review of those 
projects by DNR. According to interviewees, WisDOT conducts case-by-case flood 
encroachment studies, as necessary. Further examination of the cited agreement indicates that the 
policies for DNR review are part of the WisDOT regulations at Transportation Chapter 207 (or 
Trans 207). The standards cited therein are applicable mainly to municipal highway bridges in or 
over navigable streams, with the focus on maintaining navigability. The regional offices of DNR, 
not the central office, interact directly with WisDOT. 

3.10.3 State Coordinating and Other Agencies Affecting Program 

Wisconsins floodplain management program is housed in the DNR, one of the largest 
agencies in the state. Much like California, the NFIP coordination aspects are only a portion of 
an overall state program of floodplain management. The program currently has nine staff who 
work out of five DNR regional offices and the central office. The regional offices are organized 
along watershed boundaries. Interviewees at the state level indicate that the regionalization 
concept has worked relatively well in Wisconsin because the state capitol at Madison is 
geographically isolated from the rest of the state and budget restrictions on travel make trips 
throughout the state difficult to fund. However, interviewees identified two problems that 
hamper the overall effectiveness of regionalization of state floodplain management functions: 1) 
floodplain management staff report to regional managers, not to the central office or NFIP 
Coordinator; and 2) while regions are good for day-to-day management of the NFIP, there is a 
lack of overall consistency regarding CAP activities across regions. 

Before a 1996 reorganization within DNR, all CACs and CAVs were conducted by the 
central DNR office floodplain management staff. Following the reorganization, the state has tried 
to urge FEMA Region V staff to coordinate with DNR regional staff. According to interviewees, 
FEMA staff have resisted and prefer to deal instead with a single person responsible for NFIP 
coordination statewide. Echoing remarks from interviewees in other states, state staff are often 
frustrated that the states assigned FEMA Regional staff person is often unavailable to respond to 
NFIP-related questions in a timely manner. Field assignments to other disasters distract FEMA 
staff and make it difficult for state staff to get timely answers. State staff want FEMA to focus on 
floodplain management issues and community problems, rather than what seems to be constant 
distractions with disaster response. One interviewee disparaged FEMAs tendency to constantly 
count widgets, or try to quantify everything a state is doing for CAP, rather than truly assisting 
the states in solving permitting or regulatory issues in real-time. A former FEMA Headquarters 
employees opinion of Wisconsins program reinforced the fact that the state is often at odds 
with the Region, possibly because Wisconsins program wants to be entirely independent of 
FEMA except when FEMA is needed to assist with enforcement actions. However, overall, both 
parties agree that the states program is exemplary and relatively self-sufficient. 

3.10.4 Sub-State Authorities 

The Wisconsin Association for Floodplain, Storm-water, and Coastal Management is 
relatively new. Founded approximately four years ago, the state chapter of the ASFPM is not 
particularly active according to those interviewed. In some cases, the association has sent 
letters on topics of interest to various interested parties at the state level. The DNR has a 


legislative liaison, although the agency is not permitted to directly lobby the legislature. DNR 
can provide information to the legislature or to independent citizen groups who then lobby the 
legislature. 

3.10.5 Problems and Recommendations 

Interviewees indicated that state officials have concerns related to maintenance of 
FEMAs CIS. The information is not current, not maintained, and the database management 
system is outdated. State maintenance of a supplementary community floodplain manager 
database is necessary but difficult, and staff changes at the local level are hard to track. State 
staff indicated that FEMA sometimes sends official correspondence only to community Chief 
Executive Officers which often results in ill-informed local NFIP administrators, to the detriment 
of the overall program. Even though FEMA policy is to send correspondence to the State NFIP 
Coordinator and the local floodplain administrator, this does not always happen. 


This page left blank intentionally 


4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 

The individual case studies of states examined in this study indicate vastly disparate 
experiences and floodplain management program priorities and concerns in each of the ten states. 
The unique characteristics of each state, including such factors as legislative history, 
personalities involved in floodplain management, and geography have combined to weave a 
nationwide quilt of floodplain management programs that vary dramatically in content, strengths 
and weaknesses; however, each studied state appears to provide a minimally suitable level of 
assistance to communities participating in the NFIP. Moreover, each state program is a moving 
target as state statutes are constantly examined and changed, personnel turnover provides new 
vigor or deprives the state of valuable talent, major disasters alter at least for a while the publics 
grasp of the importance of floodplain management concepts, and increasing development 
pressures challenge state officials. During the course of this study alone, personnel changes in 
Wisconsin have created a new regime of floodplain managers, political upheaval in California 
resulted in the Governor appointing all new members to the Water Reclamation Board, and 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 are expected to result in major changes in the way the NFIP 
operates not only in Louisiana but also for FEMA and the NFIP as a whole. 

Despite the uniqueness of each states program, there are several common features that 
can be examined in more detail to help determine the validity of the study hypotheses and answer 
key research questions. Quantification of results in this study is not feasible; however, a 
qualitative analysis of key aspects of state programs has resulted in the formulation of many 
conclusions and then recommendations that are provided in the final sections of this report. What 
follows next are the analysis and conclusions of the seven hypotheses described in Section 3.1 
followed by some overall conclusions based on a combination of information generated from the 
background and case studies. 

4.1 Analysis and Conclusions of Hypotheses 

Table 9 provides a summary of information gathered in the case studies and categorizes 
the information based on the primary study hypotheses presented in Section 3.1. The table 
illustrates a variety of characteristics associated with both effective and moderately effective 
programs. Information provided in Columns 3 through 10 is related to the numbered hypotheses 
as shown in Row 2. 

Effective State Statute Implementation and Effective Regulation of State 
Development are subjective determinations based on the case study data presented in Section 4 
regarding the adequacy, implementation, enforcement, and continuity of state regulations 
governing floodplain development and particularly state construction. Length of NFIP 
Coordinator/Agency Relationship refers to generally how long the NFIP Coordinator has been 
housed in the same or related agency. Agencies are reorganized regularly, and administrators 
come and go, so this column represents a general perception based on anecdotal evidence from 
the interviews and case studies. State Staff Turnover refers to the staff of the NFIP 
Coordinators office, including the Coordinator, and their time in that position. In some cases, 
evidence gathered from interviews was insufficient to allow a conclusive determination. 
Criticality of Co-Location is an indication of the perceived importance of physical proximity 


to other agencies with floodplain-related activities. Involvement of Sub-State Authorities 
indicates a general level of involvement by agencies, associations and other groups outside the 
NFIP Coordinators agency. 

Because each of the state programs examined has achieved some level of compliance 
with NFIP state program standards, the designations effective and moderately effective 
(Table 9, Column 2) were used to differentiate between what are perceived by many floodplain 
management professionals to be strong programs versus those that still struggle to meet the 
minimum standards. These designations are not meant to express a finding of this report, merely 
to help differentiate between general levels of state programs so that their components may be 
analyzed more thoroughly. 


21 Information gathered for Hypothesis 7 indicated that states shared similar opinions of working relationships among Federal, state and local agencies; therefore, 
no column was included for this information. 

22 This designation refers to the type of agency that the program has been placed in rather than whether or not the agency has regulatory authority. 

23 A complete employment history of all floodplain management staff in each state was beyond the scope of the study. The information was gathered from some 
state personnel, but not all. 

TABLE 9: Key State Program Characteristics Gathered from Case Studies 

State 

 

Hypothesis21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

 

Effective State 
Statute 
Implementatio 
n 

Effective 
Regulation of 
State 
Development 

Agency 
Housing 
NFIP22 

Length of NFIP 
Coordinator/Agency 
Relationship 

State Staff 
Turnover23 

Criticality of 
Co-Location 

Involvement of 
Sub-State 
Authorities 

Arizona 

Effective 

Yes 

Inconclusive 

Regulatory 

Long-Term 

High 

Not Critical 

High 

California 

Effective 

Yes 

Partially 

Regulatory 

Long-Term 

High 

Not Critical 

Medium 

Florida 

Effective 

Yes 

Yes 

Regulatory 

Long-Term 

Low 

Not Critical 

Medium 

Louisiana 

Moderately 
Effective 

Partially 

No 

Planning 

Inconclusive 

Inconclusive 

Not Critical 

Medium 

Maine 

Effective 

Partially 

Partially 

Planning 

Short-Term 

Low 

Not Critical 

Low 

Missouri 

Effective 

No 

Partially 

Planning 

Short-Term 

Inconclusive 

Not Critical 

Low 

North 
Carolina 

Effective 

Yes 

Yes 

Planning 

Short-Term 

Moderate 

Not Critical 

Low 

Texas 

Moderately 
Effective 

No 

Partially 

Regulatory 

Long-Term 

Low 

Not Critical 

High 

Washington 

Effective 

Yes 

Yes 

Planning 

Long-Term 

Low 

Not Critical 

Low 

Wisconsin 

Effective 

Yes 

Yes 

Regulatory 

Inconclusive 

Moderate 

Not Critical 

Perceived 
Effectiveness of 
State Program 

5 

Regionalized 
NFIP 
Administration 

No 

Yes - Important 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes - Important 

No 

Yes - Important 

Yes - 
Important 

Low 

 


Hypothesis 1: States that take responsibility for floodplain management and floodplain 
development beyond the federal requirements of the NFIP, achieve more successes in 
floodplain management than states that concentrate solely on the NFIP. 

The wide variety of state floodplain management program characteristics, while difficult 
to fully understand from just a subset of ten states, roughly mirrors the range of differences in the 
full set of fifty states. The minimal direction provided by 44 CFR Section 60.25 and FEMA to 
each state at the beginning of the NFIP did not mandate common state goals or means to attain 
them in any detail and could only be expected to result in such disparity. The federal regulations 
provided only the key ingredients for state participation and directed states to take action. Just as 
ten professional chefs would prepare ten different recipes provided a few key ingredients, so too 
have the states examined in this study approached the significant problem of flood risk reduction. 

The case studies indicate that the lack of clear state statutes and guidelines can hinder the 
implementation of effective floodplain management programs, such as state agency development 
according to NFIP regulations. In particular, many state interviews, including California and 
Washington, revealed inadequate state requirements for the placement and development of the 
states educational facilities. The interviews also indicated state laws and regulations for 
floodplain management may be inadequate for one or more reasons, including: 1) failure to 
address a particular scenario; 2) ambiguous language that is open to multiple interpretations; 3) 
inability of the state to create and enforce specific regulations; or 4) in the case of executive 
orders, inability of the standards to withstand administration changes. 

As shown in Table 9, studied states that take responsibility for floodplain management 
beyond the minimum requirements and adopt regulations governing development (both public 
and private) have effective programs. States that do not have guiding legislation, however, have 
had divergent results. States such as Missouri, with no state statutes and little oversight of state 
development, still have effective state programs overall at least in the initial years since the 
motivating disaster resulting from the 1993 floods. In contrast, Texas, with no state statutes and 
little oversight of state development, has only a moderately effective program overall. This 
finding supports hypothesis one, with the caveat that state programs still may be able to be 
effective in the absence of guiding legislation. 

An additional finding of this report related to the commitment of state resources to 
floodplain management programs beyond the minimum is that the lower the ratio of 
communities to state floodplain management staff, the more likely the state program will be 
effective. Increased response times, increased training and more community visits strengthen 
local programs by increasing compliance and empowering the communities to actively enforce 
ordinance requirements. Whether those human resources at the state level are supported by state 
funds or federal CAP-SSSE funds appears to be of minor importance, although states that invest 
their own dollars toward floodplain management tend to have more comprehensive or detailed 
legislation governing how those funds are administered. 

Based on the experience of states examined for this study, states with tremendous 
population growth and development pressure will experience one of two outcomes with regard to 
the state program for floodplain management. Either the program gradually develops stronger 
support capability to respond to pressure to develop floodplains and wetlands, or pressure from 


developers gradually erodes the states commitment to managing floodplains beyond NFIP 
minimum requirements. 

Florida provides an example of the former that extends beyond floodplains to other 
environmental programs, in which state-level development reviews have been gradually 
integrated into local permitting processes. Staff in rapidly developing counties and municipalities 
conduct many of the reviews formerly performed by state staff. In Floridas flood mitigation 
program, project design capability within local governments has increased as resources at the 
state are stretched thin by successive disasters. The state floodplain management program has 
been instrumental in providing training to ensure this outcome. The growth of coastal population 
in North Carolina and overall population increases in California have contributed to both states 
augmented emphasis on flood hazard mapping. In coordination with FEMA, both states have 
committed large amounts of state funds toward map products that supplement or enhance 
traditional FEMA products. 

Although Arizona is faced with dramatic population growth and development pressure, 
the state seems to be in transition with regard to developing local capability. By creating local 
flood control districts, state statutes automatically passed responsibility from state staff to local 
staff. While state capacity and ratios of communities to staff are not ideal, the overall program of 
sub-state authorities appears to be developing strong support capability for floodplain 
management despite development pressures. 

Texas provides an example of a state program that is highly susceptible to developers and 
property rights proponents who seek to erode floodplain management regulations and guidelines. 
The state contributes only the minimum resources required by the NFIP despite the obvious 
inadequacies of those resources in fulfilling the goals of the NFIP and CAP-SSSE. As a result, 
local capability for effective floodplain management is hampered by a lack of training and 
coordination. 

Hypothesis 2: State coordinators located within agencies with state regulatory functions are 
more effective than those in planning agencies or lower-level administrative departments in 
determining how state programs for floodplain management are implemented. 

As shown in Table 9, five state coordinators in the case studies were housed in planning 
agencies and five in regulatory agencies. Both types of agencies were found in effective and 
moderately effective programs. Therefore, the hypothesis that the type of agency influences the 
approach and effectiveness of the states floodplain management program is not supported based 
on these case studies. Other factors may be more important. Looking at the details of where 
agencies have been located, in some cases the tendency of high-level state officials to 
periodically change the agency housing the program may have disrupted the continuity necessary 
to establish and maintain contacts and a pattern of effective technical assistance, but in both 
states where the program had been housed continuously in a single agency and also states where 
the program has been moved, program priorities were consistent. 

The longevity of an NFIP programs relationship with an agency may tend to increase if 
that agency has a regulatory or permitting function. Whereas non-regulatory programs may be 
viewed as optional, regulatory functions are understood by administrators and elected officials to 


be necessary and long-term funding and capability are established. In this sense, the regulatory 
versus non-regulatory designation for an agency may have a slight impact on NFIP program 
capability and longevity. One interviewee pointed out that this phenomena is also seen with state 
dam safety programs, which are likewise housed in a variety of agencies. 

In terms of approach, the focus for each program was providing technical assistance to 
communities and improving local capability regardless of the professional credentials of the 
coordinator or the type of agency housing the program. Enforcement resources within regulatory 
agencies (e.g., marine police or natural resource officer) do not appear to be used for resolution 
of floodplain management compliance problems as suspected, and the NFIPs system for 
compliance resolution does not require professional capabilities unique to a regulatory agency. 
Planning agencies may have a slight advantage in providing technical assistance to communities 
because the agencies are already structured to perform community-based tasks (e.g., workshops, 
training) for other initiatives. 

For example, Florida floodplain managers are able to more easily integrate flood 
mitigation planning assistance with other types of disaster-related planning assistance due to the 
structure of the agency and existing training programs designed specifically for community-level 
officials. Although Louisianas floodplain management program is similarly located in a 
planning agency, the transportation agency does not have a community-centric focus, and instead 
is structured on a regional breakdown of the state. The lack of agency-wide focus on the local 
community official may have hindered the floodplain management programs ability to 
piggyback on other agency programs and opportunities to interact with local NFIP officials. 

Hypothesis 3: Lower personnel turnover in the agency in which the NFIP State 
Coordinator is housed results in stronger floodplain management programs. 

The case studies indicate that benefits accrue to states when NFIP State Coordinators and 
other staff assisting in compliance and technical assistance remain in their position for a long 
time, even if the agency housing him or her changes. As a consequence of being in the position 
for a long time, effective administrators, as in Maine, provide consistent, firm interpretation of 
statutes and regular training opportunities for local NFIP administrators and other state agencies 
even without a state agency being underpinned by a regulatory function and a low ratio of 
communities to staff. Over time, interaction with other agencies leads to improved interagency 
communication, a greater willingness to work together, a wider implementation of NFIP 
provisions, and increased credentials of the state coordinators. Having low turnover also results 
in a better understanding of the NFIP at the local government level and among interested 
community groups. 

California provides a unique example to support this hypothesis. Turnover at the 
headquarters level of the NFIP State Coordinator is relatively low and the state has reaped 
numerous benefits from the long-term contributions and institutional knowledge of these 
employees. However, turnover in the regional offices has been relatively high due to the lack of 
career track incentives for technical, engineering personnel who maintain much more regular 
contact with local officials and are more actively involved in resolving compliance issues. The 
continuity at headquarters improves the overall program effectiveness with regard to intra- 


agency coordination, while the turnover in the regions seems to weaken the day-to-day 
interactions with local officials and resolution of specific permitting or compliance issues. 

Infrequent turnover at the state level increases the professionalism of the staff, and results 
in staff committed to the principles of floodplain management. Such long-term staff are more 
likely to pursue professional accreditations and tend to expand their credentials through 
continuing education opportunities. The Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM) professional 
certification program of the ASFPM is a testament to the increased professionalism within the 
entire field of floodplain management, particularly at the state level. The program recognizes 
continuing education and professional development that enhance the knowledge and 
performance of local, state, federal, and private-sector floodplain managers. Floodplain managers 
come from a variety of curricula and backgrounds; there is no college-level degree program for 
floodplain management. The CFM program is directed toward individuals from widely varying 
occupations, interests, and educational backgrounds who have routine floodplain management 
duties. This includes community/state/federal officials, the private sector, academia, interest 
groups, and private citizens. Several state officials interviewed indicated that new state policy 
requires that all state staff involved in floodplain management obtain CFM certification. It is 
expected that certification requirements such as the CFM for floodplain managers will result in 
more committed, long-term employees. 

Despite the affirmations above, professional floodplain managers interviewed indicated 
that small programs like floodplain management with few staff are inevitably driven by the 
unique personalities of the program and agency leadership over time. Strong leaders can achieve 
the benefits of a long-term program in a short period. A less dynamic individual in the NFIP 
Coordinator position for upwards of 15 years may never attain such success. States that hire or 
promote talented, knowledgeable, and outspoken advocates for floodplain management into their 
NFIP program will reap the benefits of the individuals commitment to reducing flood losses. 
The overall concept of a single NFIP Coordinator at the state level appears to function well in the 
case studies and their individual capabilities are strongly tied to the overall capabilities of the 
state program. In other words, each coordinator is instrumental in defining each states role. 

Hypothesis 4: Physical proximity to other related state agencies and programs increases the 
strength of a floodplain management program. 

Based on case studies, the physical location of state coordinating agencies with regard to 
other state agencies was unanimously believed not to be critical. At best, interviewees said colocation 
made only a minor difference in overall program implementation. Interviewees observed 
that co-location in a building or cluster of buildings supports unplanned or casual interactions 
and inter- and intra-agency communication. However, many of those interviewed indicated that 
they felt co-location was not a primary factor in how well the state administered their overall 
floodplain management program. More important than co-location may be the number of 
agencies involved in floodplain management, hazard mitigation planning and flood disaster 
response. If a large number of agencies are involved such as in Louisiana and Texas, the amount 
of influence exerted by a single person or group with strong interest in floodplain management is 
reduced, whereas, if only one or two agencies are involved as in California and North Carolina, 
the amount of control exerted by those agencies is much stronger. Morse (1962) first observed 
the inverse relationship between the number of agencies involved in flood mitigation and 


program effectiveness. Interview data supported this observation but was insufficient to confirm 
it. 

Hypothesis 5: Regionalization of state floodplain management functions increases 
accessibility to local floodplain managers, improving the relationship between state and 
local programs. 

Four of the states examined have regional offices to provide more frequent and available 
community contact with state officials. This regionalization of floodplain management 
responsibilities was thought by many to be an important component of effective state programs. 
Interviewees in North Carolina and California also mentioned that their programs were 
successful because only knowledgeable staff were hired in regions and those staff reported 
directly to floodplain manager(s) at the headquarters level. Programs were less successful when 
staff reported to regional supervisors as in Wisconsin. Based on Californias experience, regional 
staff, especially engineers, need a career track program to help prevent high turnover. 

In Texas, FEMA assigns its own staff to specific geographic regions of the state to help 
increase the availability of technical assistance for Texas communities. Although regionalization 
would appear to be beneficial for a state as large in area as Texas, limited resources at the state 
level prevent program officials from incorporating a regionalized approach to floodplain 
management. If a large states floodplain management program is regionalized with state 
floodplain managers assigned to several sub-regions, the program appears better equipped to 
provide assistance to local communities. If a small state has a single state floodplain manager, 
the states program is dependent on the personality, characteristics, work ethic and abilities of 
that individual, and a regionalized approach to floodplain management may or may not be 
prudent. 

Hypothesis 6: Activities undertaken by sub-state regional regulatory and non-regulatory 
authorities complement state floodplain management programs. 

Historically and currently, the primary focus of each state program studied is on 
improving the capability of local NFIP community floodplain managers to implement the 
program effectively. This focus is reinforced annually through the CAP-SSSE funding 
mechanism for the program in each state. However, not all states have sufficient program 
budgets and thus resources to meet local, state, and federal floodplain management goals, such 
that there is the potential for a large role for sub-state authorities to improve outcomes. The case 
studies support Hypothesis 6, especially when states have very limited resources or limited 
involvement in certain aspects of state floodplain management. In those cases, sub-state 
authorities and/or the FEMA Regional staff tend to fill the void by shouldering additional 
responsibilities rather than merely reinforcing what already exists. State programs with 
weaknesses or gaps are supplemented by outside organizations. 

Case study states such as Arizona show that the state role in the NFIP can be successful 
despite limited resources when other groups (county flood control districts in Arizonas case) are 
empowered to take responsibility. By default, AFMA has become the coordinating mechanism 
with the flood control districts and local governments in the state. The RPCs in Missouri have 
gradually become more involved in hazard mitigation planning at the local level after the state 


identified a need to expedite the planning process. Influences from outside the state (e.g., FEMA 
regional staff) can improve the state program as well. In Texas, FEMA regional staff have 
stepped in to help the state fulfill minimum CAP-SSSE responsibilities such as Community 
Assistance Visits, that have overwhelmed state resources. 

According to ASFPM members consulted for this report, state associations were formed 
to help solve issues of coordination and communication between states agencies and local 
communities, and to present a unified front to FEMA. However, these professional associations 
have also tended to take up the slack when states lack the resources to meet floodplain 
management goals. Professional associations tend to be strongest in states with moderately 
effective NFIP state programs. In these states, professional associations are very active and often 
will assist states in providing fundamental services to local communities such as training. 
Floridas effective floodplain management program adequately fulfills the states needs; 
therefore, the Florida Floodplain Managers Association plays a much smaller role in the overall 
system of managing the states expansive floodplains. Alternatively, the Texas Floodplain 
Management Association is extremely active and provides support to the state, specifically by 
increasing training opportunities and technical assistance. 

The history of activities and assistance provided by the state associations is emblematic 
of problems encountered by state floodplain managers. This finding, combined with those above, 
affirm that a states overall floodplain management program must be viewed as the sum total of 
all state activities, positive and negative, effective and ineffective, state-mandated or 
happenstance, provided by a combination of state agencies, sub-state authorities, and FEMA 
regions. 

Hypothesis 7: The dependence of states on federal action hampers implementation of the 
NFIP. 

The case studies prepared for this report indicated that the general structure of the 
relationship between federal, state and local community officials is nearly identical in every 
state. There were, however, individual nuances in each state indicative of the difficulties in 
perceiving and resolving similar problems. Based on the interviews for this study, there are 
several factors that appear to limit states from being as effective as possible. Interactions with 
FEMA regional staff were discussed in numerous interviews, and several common themes 
became evident. In many cases, neither FEMA regional staff nor state floodplain management 
staff felt they have ultimate responsibility to resolve compliance violations through enforcement 
actions. Lacking clear guidelines on how to handle violations at either the state or the federal 
level, responsibility may shift back and forth, sometimes resulting in little or no enforcement 
action being taken to firmly resolve violations. Frustration was evident among interviewees with 
both State and FEMA employees, and the issue presents a clear barrier to effective 
implementation of the sanctions available to FEMA to control compliance with NFIP standards. 

Part A of the NFIP Evaluation study on community compliance (Monday et al. 2006) 
included similar conclusions regarding the NFIPs cooperative enforcement approach. It notes 
that considerable frustration with obstacles to implementation of the program can be found at 
both the state and federal levels. Several state officials interviewed for that report expressed 
annoyance that requests for information or assistance from FEMA often do not result in prompt 


responses. The report further found that FEMA Natural Hazard Specialists have numerous 
responsibilities, only one of which is assisting a state with NFIP administration, and that duty 
assignments in disaster response also can lead to delayed responses and/or inconsistencies of 
policy interpretation. Monday et al. (2006) also question reassigning FEMA regional NFIP staff 
(whose positions are paid by flood insurance premium funds) to disaster duty, even temporarily, 
because disaster duty is a non-NFIP task. 

As stated previously, FEMA officials indicated they feel that the existing federal-statelocal 
partnership may have resulted in some state officials believing that states no longer need to 
take responsibility for floodplain management. Although frustration with the partnership is high 
among state officials interviewed and questions remain about ultimate responsibility for 
enforcement actions against noncompliant communities, state representatives did not share the 
belief that they no longer were responsible for floodplain management nor was it apparent that 
states have purposefully abdicated responsibility in any way. 

4.2 Overall Conclusions 

 The background research and case studies have uncovered an NFIP with important 
imperfections. While previous research and surveys of NFIP state coordinators have 
demonstrated that there is a noticeable difference between effective and ineffective state 
floodplain management programs, the case studies clearly show that the disparity between them 
is growing. At the same time, neither effective nor less effective state programs are immune from 
legislative cutbacks. The result is that previous gains in floodplain management are threatened 
and citizens in states with less effective programs are being denied the benefits of flood 
protection promised by the NFIP. Furthermore, a healthy NFIP should not have to rely on substate 
regulatory and non-regulatory authorities to provide fundamental services when state 
floodplain management or legally assigned agencies cannot. Clearly, a problem exists, and it is 
likely that one cause is a failure in the NFIP to adequately incorporate states as significant 
partners. The NFIP obviously works better when states play a prominent role in the NFIP and in 
states where a strong federal-state-local partnership exists. The development of both should be 
encouraged through enhanced federal statutes. 


5. RECOMMENDATIONS 

The NFIP has been based primarily on a long-term relationship between the federal 
government and local communities that choose to participate. The states role has been as a 
secondary assistant to the federal government in training and aiding local communities. Based on 
the conclusions reached in this study, major changes to the state role in the program should be 
made, and in a way that enhances the value of the states contribution to the federalstate-local 
relationship and to assist states with making sure development undertaken by state agencies is 
compliant with NFIP requirements. 

As stated previously, a state floodplain management program is the sum total of all state 
activities, whether or not they are positive, effective, or purposeful, including activities 
undertaken by a combination of state agencies, sub-state authorities, and FEMA regions. The 
recommendations below are directed toward specific entities, both public and private, for whom 
ability to implement will vary based on their specific situations. Recommendations for ASFPM 
are included in recognition of their role in advising all levels of the hierarchy affecting state 
floodplain management programs. Examination of the state programs indicates that measures 
that may prove successful in one state can be a failure in another; therefore, every 
recommendation is understandably not applicable in every state. 

Each recommendation is based on background information and case studies, not a 
scientific sample or a comprehensive review of all programs. As a result, the recommendations 
are generalized from the information gathered. Such anecdotal information indicated avenues to 
pursue rather than details of potential programmatic changes. The recommendations reflect this 
fact and do not include detailed analyses of potential pros and cons or methods of 
implementation. 

5.1 FEMA 

5.1.1 Essential Actions 

State Roles and Responsibilities Recommendation #1 (SR1): FEMA should initiate in 
partnership with the states a process to amend the NFIP to provide the states with a substantial 
role in the NFIP, to take advantage of state capabilities and land use authorities that reside with 
states. One consequence will be stronger states that will help ensure that floodplain management 
can guide development and redevelopment to be at lower risk from flooding and to prevent 
increases in flooding potential. The new requirements should accommodate currently effective 
states by providing incentives for the continued adoption of additional policies and tasks as well 
as less effective states by providing needed resources to build capacity. As there are many 
existing models in existing federal laws such as clean water and environmental protection that 
demonstrate how responsibilities are delegated to states, the process should include a 
comprehensive review of existing relationships to help establish the most satisfactory option. 
This recommendation should be implemented through convening a panel of stakeholders as soon 
as possible because changes to federal statutes typically require considerable time. 


The following recommendations are intended to improve the current NFIP conditions. 
They are also ideas that can be incorporated into an enhanced statutory role for states. 

SR2: Review, update, publish and enforce a comprehensive administrative process for 
addressing NFIP compliance violations in a systematic manner, beginning with identification of 
the violation and ending with final resolution. Each party to the compliance action must be 
knowledgeable of the process and acknowledge the deadlines. This process must include public 
disclosure of the compliance action. Similar recommendations resulting from the study on 
community compliance as part of the NFIP Evaluation (Monday et al. 2006) may be consulted 
for additional guidance on this issue. 

SR3: Implement voluntary state Cooperating Compliance Partner (CCP) program 
modeled on FEMAs Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) mapping program. The CCP Program 
would allow state agencies that have the interest and capability to become active partners in the 
NFIP by encouraging states to partner with FEMA in taking official action with regard to 
sanctioning communities. States would have to demonstrate the means and the authority to 
assume responsibilities as delegated by FEMA, recognizing that there may be gradations of 
partnerships based on a states existing authorities. The program would allow participating states 
to resolve NFIP violations through: 1) working with the community to fix violations; 2) notifying 
the community of potential sanctions, and 3) enacting sanctions. CPP would make FEMA 
resources available to focus on other NFIP aspects. Changes to Federal NFIP regulations at 44 
CFR may be necessary to allow FEMA to delegate more responsibility to the states. Other 
FEMA programs (e.g., Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs Managing States concept) and other 
Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation) 
may have state participatory program models that would prove useful in developing a CCP or 
similar program. 

SR4: Assign FEMA Natural Hazard Program Specialists in the regional offices to State 
NFIP Technical Assistance duties only. Some specialists may, therefore, be assigned to more 
than one state; however, their duties would no longer be split between FMA, HMGP, and 
disaster response allowing them to become true specialists focused on providing prompt, 
consistent assistance and guidance to states. In order for individuals to gain knowledge from 
participating in multiple activities, a rotation system should be employed. Clarification as to 
whether FEMA regional NFIP staff can legally be assigned to non-NFIP duties while being paid 
with flood insurance premium funds should be accomplished immediately. Although this is 
understandably a sensitive issue within FEMA, consistent and quick FEMA regional response to 
issues of NFIP technical assistance must be the agencys primary consideration to support the 
goals of the program. 

SR5: Improve the CIS, making it the single most valuable online tool for state officials to 
1) access community claims information, 2) access FEMA policy interpretations through official 
and unofficial policy manuals, and 3) maintain community contact information. Several state 
officials expressed dismay with the CIS in general, but it was unclear from the interviews exactly 
what aspects are troublesome. Therefore, state officials are advised to communicate with their 
FEMA Regional offices to clarify problems and propose more specific solutions. The CIS has 
been under revision as an online tool for state officials in recent years, although not all of those 
changes are obvious yet to end users. Access to insurance data, such as Biennial Report data and 


FIA claims data, is dramatically improved yet still not available to communities without a formal 
request to the state. State officials express a need for timely and up to date contact information 
for local NFIP administrators, and FEMA often lacks up to date information on community 
elected officials for official correspondence. Including this type of data on CIS and allowing 
editors and editing of community contact information by state and local officials would improve 
the usefulness of the CIS tool. Monday et al. (2006) includes a similar recommendation for 
revitalizing the CIS as a compliance tool because better record-keeping of community visits is 
necessary. See also SR8 for an additional suggestion for CIS. 

5.1.2 Other High Priority Actions 

SR6: At the region and headquarters levels, FEMA should accommodate state 
regionalization of floodplain management tasks by streamlining communication from state 
regions to the FEMA region. Regionalization refers to the delegation of state responsibilities to 
multiple field offices, district or regional offices. FEMA can do this by accommodating a single, 
direct state link to the FEMA Region and encouraging states to consider regionalizing staff when 
sufficient staff are available. Several states may never have the resources necessary to 
regionalize including sufficient personnel to staff a headquarters operation and multiple regional 
offices. Each state must balance economies of scale versus the benefits of regionalization. 

SR7: FEMA should institute a two-tiered staffing requirement for states based on the 
number of NFIP communities in the state. Each state is currently encouraged by the CAP-SSSE 
agreement to employ at least one full-time employee, dedicated to NFIP tasks and funded 
through CAP. A threshold of 300 NFIP-participating communities, for instance, would trigger a 
new requirement for an additional CAP-funded full-time employee for NFIP tasks. This 
recommendation would alter the staffing levels of states with large numbers of participating 
communities, enhancing their ability to provide technical assistance to more communities each 
year and increasing the number of CAVs and CACs conducted. An alternative recommendation 
reviewed as part of this study was allowing states to contract CAV responsibilities out to private 
contractors. According to FEMA officials, FEMA has discouraged contracting of CAVs because 
it is generally proposed in weak states that will never develop in-house capabilities if they 
contract out these services. 

5.1.3 Medium Priority 

SR8: Use the internet to open the lines of communication between FEMA regions and all 
state agencies and staff. Reinstate an on-line NFIP Policy Manual for states and Regions and 
create a question and answer blog for the benefit of all readers. FEMAs recent strategy has been 
to incorporate information from an older policy manual into other guidance documents available 
to communities, such as FEMA 480 and the various technical manuals. These guidance 
documents generally did not exist when the original policy manual was issued. The states 
expressed a need, and FEMA has acknowledged a need for some formal mechanism for 
providing those policies that are not appropriate for inclusion in more formal publications. 


5.2 ASFPM 

5.2.1 Essential Actions 

SR9: Continue to support the formation of state associations and chapters of the ASFPM. 
In 2002, there were 32 states with associations, including several states which participate in 
regional associations (ASFPM 2002). According to the August 2006 ASFPM web site, there are 
41 states with associations. As shown in this report and ASFPM 2002, the associations play a 
critical role in supplementing the resources of states and communities, and in providing a nongovernmental, 
peer-to-peer information source. Individual state chapters, rather than multiple 
state associations, appear to be more effective at helping train community officials to become 
knowledgeable at integrating various programs related to reducing flood losses, and targeting 
specific activities that need to be addressed in a state, such as lobbying for legislation or 
providing state-regulation specific training to specific audiences. FEMA should also continue 
supporting these associations to the degree possible by providing speakers, hosting workshops, 
and recognizing contributions and feedback from association leaders. 

SR10: Aggressively publicize the CFM program to local communities where floodplain 
managers may not be aware of the ASFPM, to colleges and universities with hazard programs, to 
a multitude of state agencies only peripherally involved in state floodplain management, and to 
high level state officials who have the ability to influence the required credentials for state 
floodplain managers. These actions will improve state programs by enhancing state and local 
capability and attracting interested college graduates to the field. ASFPM should continue to 
enlist FEMAs support for the CFM program through resources and added training programs 
which increase the level of knowledge for floodplain managers. 

5.3. State Officials 

5.3.1 Essential Actions 

SR11: As evidenced by the conclusions of this report, state floodplain management 
responsibilities extend beyond the day-to-day tasks of the State NFIP Coordinator. State elected 
officials, legislators, agency directors, and departmental liaisons each have a responsibility to 
support the states overall program of floodplain management by ensuring that the State 
Coordinators have tools essential to their jobs. One example might be funding an inventory of 
state buildings in the floodplain and ensuring the states self-insurance status for flood damage. 
Armed with this essential knowledge, as well as a frank program assessment of the states 
strengths and weaknesses, the State Coordinator is prepared to take advantage of windows of 
opportunity, such as flood disasters or changes in administration. Also, the state can more 
effectively fulfill its role in the NFIP partnership. 

SR12: Integrate state-level environmental reviews of floodplain projects into local 
government permitting processes. This recommendation is particularly relevant for local 
communities with efficient permitting processes and heavy development pressure. Streamlined 
procedures for permitting and increasingly knowledgeable local permit officials result in better 
projects with more careful consideration of a range of hazards and impacts. 


5.3.2 Other High Priority Actions 

SR13: Implement agency policy to require that state staff receive CFM certification from 
the ASFPM and provide funding for staff to take advanced training courses in floodplain 
management-related topics. State staff must be recognized experts in the field. Provide training 
for other state agencies to allow development of a cadre of CFMs in various agencies who can 
coordinate actions to ensure effective implementation of state policies for floodplain 
development. 

SR14: Explore the concept of sub-state regionalization for state staff. If geographical 
relocation of staff is not feasible, dividing staff responsibilities based on regions may be as 
effective. Ensure that staff relocated to regional offices still report to headquarters. 

SR15: Take advantage of the capabilities of sub-state authorities such as ASFPM 
chapters, professional associations, councils of government, regional planning districts, and 
FEMA regional staff to ensure that all state program goals are met. 

5.2.3 Medium Priority 

SR16: Create career tracks for state floodplain management staff, especially technical 
staff such as engineers. 


This page left blank intentionally. 


6. APPENDICES 

Appendix 1 

 [Code of Federal Regulations] 

[Title 44, Volume 1] 

[Revised as of October 1, 2000] 

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access 

[CITE: 44CFR60.11] 

 

[Page 262] 

 

TITLE 44EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE 

 

CHAPTER IFEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

 

PART 60CRITERIA FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AND USETable of Contents 

 

Subpart BRequirements for State Flood Plain Management Regulations 

 

Sec. 60.11 Purpose of this subpart. 

 

(a) A State is considered a ``community'' pursuant to Sec. 59.1 of this subchapter; and, 
accordingly, the Act provides that flood insurance shall not be sold or renewed under the 
Program unless a community has adopted adequate flood plain management regulations 
consistent with criteria established by the Administrator. 

 

(b) This subpart sets forth the flood plain management criteria required for State-owned 
properties located within special hazard areas identified by the Administrator. A State shall 
satisfy such criteria as a condition to the purchase of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy for a 
State-owned structure or its contents, or as a condition to the approval by the Administrator, 
pursuant to part 75 of this subchapter, of its plan of self-insurance. 

 

[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Re-designated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 
FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984] 


Appendix 1, Continued 

[Code of Federal Regulations] 

[Title 44, Volume 1] 

[Revised as of October 1, 2000] 

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access 

[CITE: 44CFR60.12] 

 

[Page 262] 

 

TITLE 44EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE 

 

CHAPTER IFEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

 

PART 60CRITERIA FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AND USETable of Contents 

 

Subpart BRequirements for State Flood Plain Management Regulations 

 

Sec. 60.12 Flood plain management criteria for State-owned properties in 
special hazard areas. 

 

(a) The State shall comply with the minimum flood plain management criteria set forth in 
Secs. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5. A State either shall: 

 

(1) Comply with the flood plain management requirements of all local 
communities participating in the program in which State-owned properties are 
located; or 

 

(2) Establish and enforce flood plain management regulations which, at a 
minimum, satisfy the criteria set forth in Secs. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5. 

 

(b) The procedures by which a state government adopts and administers flood plain 
management regulations satisfying the criteria set forth in Secs. 60.3, 60.4 and 60.5 may vary 
from the procedures by which local governments satisfy the criteria. 

 

(c) If any State-owned property is located in a non-participating local community, then 
the State shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section for the property. 


Appendix 1, Continued 

[Code of Federal Regulations] 

[Title 44, Volume 1] 

[Revised as of October 1, 2000] 

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access 

[CITE: 44CFR60.13] 

 

[Page 262] 

 

TITLE 44EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE 

 

CHAPTER IFEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

 

PART 60CRITERIA FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AND USE--Table of Contents 

 

Subpart BRequirements for State Flood Plain Management Regulations 

 

Sec. 60.13 Noncompliance. 

 

If a State fails to submit adequate flood plain management regulations applicable to 
State-owned properties pursuant to Sec. 60.12 within six months of the effective date of this 
regulation, or fails to adequately enforce such regulations, the State shall be subject to suspensive 
action pursuant to Sec. 59.24. Where the State fails to adequately enforce its flood plain 
management regulations, the Administrator shall conduct a hearing before initiating such 
suspensive action. 

 

[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Re-designated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 
FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984] 


Appendix 1, Continued 

 [Code of Federal Regulations] 

[Title 44, Volume 1] 

[Revised as of October 1, 2000] 

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access 

[CITE: 44CFR60.25] 

 

[Page 265-266] 

 

TITLE 44EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE 

 

CHAPTER IFEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

 

PART 60CRITERIA FOR LAND MANAGEMENT AND USE--Table of Contents 

 

Subpart CAdditional Considerations in Managing Flood-Prone, Mudslide (i.e., 
Mudflow)-Prone and Flood-Related Erosion-Prone Areas 

 

Sec. 60.25 Designation, duties, and responsibilities of State Coordinating 
Agencies. 

 

(a) States are encouraged to demonstrate a commitment to the minimum floodplain 
management criteria set forth in Secs. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 as evidenced by the designation of an 
agency of State government to be 

 

responsible for coordinating the Program aspects of flood plain management in the State. 

 

(b) State participation in furthering the objectives of this part shall include maintaining 
capability to perform the appropriate duties and responsibilities as follows: 

 

(1) Enact, whenever necessary, legislation enabling counties and municipalities to 
regulate development within flood-prone areas; 

 

(2) Encourage and assist communities in qualifying for participation in the 
Program; 

 

(3) Guide and assist county and municipal public bodies and agencies in 
developing, implementing, and maintaining local flood plain management regulations; 

 

(4) Provide local governments and the general public with Program information 
on the coordination of local activities with federal and state requirements for managing 
flood-prone areas. 

 

(5) Assist communities in disseminating information on minimum elevation 


Appendix 1, Continued 

requirements for development within flood-prone areas; 

 

(6) Assist in the delineation of riverine and coastal flood-prone areas, whenever 
possible, and provide all relevant technical information to the Administrator; 

 

(7) Recommend priorities for Federal flood plain management activities in 
relation to the needs of county and municipal localities within the State; 

 

(8) Provide notification to the Administrator in the event of apparent 
irreconcilable differences between a community's local flood plain management program 
and the minimum requirements of the Program; 

 

(9) Establish minimum State flood plain management regulatory standards 
consistent with those established in this part and in conformance with other federal and 
state environmental and water pollution standards for the prevention of pollution during 
periods of flooding; 

 

(10) Assure coordination and consistency of flood plain management activities 
with other State, area-wide, and local planning and enforcement agencies; 

 

(11) Assist in the identification and implementation of flood hazard mitigation 
recommendations which are consistent with the minimum floodplain management criteria 
for the Program. 

 

(12) Participate in flood plain management training opportunities and other flood 
hazard preparedness programs whenever practicable. 

 

(c) Other duties and responsibilities, which may be deemed appropriate by the State and 
which are to be officially designated as being conducted in the capacity of the State Coordinating 
Agency for the Program, may be carried out with prior notification of the Administrator. 

 

(d) For States which have demonstrated a commitment to and experience in application 
of the minimum flood plain management criteria set forth in Secs. 60.3, 60.4, and 60.5 as 
evidenced by the establishment and implementation of programs which substantially encompass 
the activities described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Administrator shall take 
the foregoing into account when: 

 

(1) Considering State recommendations prior to implementing Program activities 
affecting State communities; 

 

(2) Considering State approval or certifications of local floodplain management 
regulations as meeting the requirements of this part. 

 

[51 FR 30309, Aug. 25, 1986] 


Appendix 2 


Appendix 2, Continued 


Appendix 2, Continued 

 


Appendix 2, Continued 

 


Appendix 2, Continued 

 


Appendix 2, Continued 

 

 


Appendix 2, Continued 

 


Appendix 3 


Appendix 3, Continued 

 


Appendix 3, Continued 


Appendix 3, Continued 


Appendix 3, Continued 

 


Appendix 3, Continued 

 


Appendix 3, Continued 

 


Appendix 3, Continued 

 


This page left blank intentionally 

 


7. ACRONYMS 

AIR 

ACCPZ 

ADOT 

ADWR 

AFMA 

ASFPM 

DWR 

CFM 

CFR 

CAP 

CAP-SSSE 

CAV 

CDBG 

CDBG 

CRS 

CCP 

CTP 

EDA 

DNR 

DNR 

TxDOT 

DOTD 

DUCA 

EEP 

EO 

FSA 

FEMA 

FIA 

FCAAP 

FMA 

FMA 

DCA 

FDEP 

American Institutes for Research 

Advisory Committee on City Planning and Zoning 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

Arizona Department of Water Resources 

Arizona Floodplain Management Association 

Association of State Floodplain Managers 

California Department of Water Resources 

Certified Floodplain Manager 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Community Assistance Program 

Community Assistance Program  State Support Services Element 

Community Assistance Visit 

Community Development Block Grant 

Community Development Block Grant 

Community Rating System 

Cooperating Compliance Partner 

Cooperating Technical Partner 

Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration 

Department of Natural Resources - Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources - Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation - Texas 

Department of Transportation and Development - Louisiana 

Department of Urban and Community Affairs - Louisiana 

Ecosystem Enhancement Program - North Carolina 

Executive Order 

Farm Service Agency 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Federal Insurance Administration 

Flood Control Assistance Account Program - Washington 

Flood Mitigation Assistance 

Floodplain Management Association 

Florida Department of Community Affairs 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 


HMGP 

HUD 

LCRA 

MDEP 

MEMA 

MFMP 

NRPA 

MOU 

MoDOT 

NFIP 

NRS 

NRCS 

NEFSMA 

NCDENR 

NCDOT 

NCTCOG 

NORFMA 

OES 

OHSEP 

RPC 

SFHA 

SCPEA 

SSZA 

SAP 

SEMA 

SPO 

SR# 

TCEQ 

USACE 

USDA 

FWS 

FSA 

DOI 

EPA 

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

Housing and Urban Development 

Lower Colorado River Authority 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

Maine Emergency Management Agency 

Maine Floodplain Management Program 

Maine Natural Resources Protection Act 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Missouri Department of Transportation 

National Flood Insurance Program 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

New England Association of Floodplain Managers and Storm-water Managers 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

North Carolina Department of Transportation 

North Central Texas Council of Governments 

Northwest Regional Floodplain Managers Association 

Office of Emergency Services - California 

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness - Louisiana 

Regional Planning Commission - Missouri 

Special Flood Hazard Area 

Standard City Planning Enabling Act 

Standard State Zoning Enabling Act 

State Assistance Program 

State Emergency Management Agency - Missouri 

State Planning Office - Maine 

State Roles and Responsibilities Recommendation 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

U. S. Corps of Engineers 

U. S. Department of Agriculture 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U. S. Forest Service 

U.S. Department of Interior 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


SBA 

WCC 

WRC 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Water Resources Council 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

WisDOT 


This page left blank intentionally 


8. REFERENCES 

Association of State Floodplain Managers. 1989. Floodplain Management 1989: State and Local 
Programs. Madison, WI. 

__________________________________. 1992. Floodplain Management 1992: State and 
Local Programs. Madison, WI. 

__________________________________. 1995. Floodplain Management 1995: State and 
Local Programs. Madison, WI. 

__________________________________. 2002. History and Future of State and Regional 
Floodplain Management Associations. Madison, WI. 

__________________________________. 2003a. Effective State Floodplain Management 
Programs 2003. Madison, WI. (Located on ASFPM web site www.floods.org) 

__________________________________. 2003b. History and Accomplishments. Madison, WI. 
(Located on ASFPM web site www.floods.org) 

__________________________________. 2004a. Floodplain Management 2003: State and 
Local Programs. Madison, WI. (Located on ASFPM web site www.floods.org) 

__________________________________. 2004b. Tables of DataAppendix to Floodplain 
Management 2003: State and Local Programs. Madison, WI. (Located on ASFPM web site 
www.floods.org) 

Bloomgren, Patricia A. 1982. Strengthening State Floodplain Management. Prepared for the 
U.S. Water Resource Council. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center 
Special Publication 3. Boulder, CO: Program on Environment and Behavior, Institute of 
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. 

Bosselman, Fred and Callies, David. 1971. The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. 
Washington. DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 

Burby, Raymond J. 2003. Have State Planning Mandates Reduced Insured Losses Resulting 
from Natural Disasters? Paper Prepared for the Natural Hazards Research and Applications 
Summer Workshop. University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. July 13-16, 2003. Chapel Hill, 
NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of City and Regional Planning. 

Burby, Raymond J. and French, Steven P., with Cigler, Beverly A.; Kaiser, Edward J.; Moreau, 
David H. and Stiftel, Bruce. 1985. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National Assessment. 
Studies in Water Policy and Management, No. 5. Boulder. CO: Westview Press. 

California Floodplain Management Task Force. 2002. California Floodplain Management 
Report: Recommendations of the California Floodplain Management Task Force. Sacramento, 
CA. 


Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2005. FY 2005 Community Assistance ProgramState 
Support Services Element (CAP-SSSE) Guidance. 

_________________________________. 2006. FY 2006 CAP-SSSE Guidance. 

Healy, Robert G. 1976. Land Use and the States. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University 
Press. 

Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management. 1986. A Unified National Program for 
Floodplain Management. FEMA 100. Washington. DC: Federal Emergency Management 
Agency. 

Louisiana State Hazard Mitigation Team. 2005. State of Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Plan. 
Baton Rouge, LA. 

L. R. Johnston Associates. 1992. Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment 
Report. Volume 2. Full Report. FIA/18. Prepared for the Federal Interagency Floodplain 
Management Task Force. Washington. DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Leigh, Nancy Green. 2003. The State Role in Urban Land Redevelopment. Washington, DC: The 
Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 

Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation. 2003. Flooding Forgotten: The State of 
Missouris Floodplain Management Ten Years after the 1993 Flood. St. Louis, MO. 

Mittler, Elliott. A Case Study of the Enactment of a State Building Code in South Carolina, 
Working Paper #97, Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, 1998. 

___________. 1993. The Public Policy Response to Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina. 
Working Paper #84. Boulder, CO: The University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, 
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center. 

___________. Natural Hazard Policy Setting: Identifying Supporters and Opponents of 
Nonstructural Hazard Mitigation, Program on Environment and Behavior Monograph #48, 
Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Natural Hazards Research 
and Applications Information Center, 1989. 

Monday, Jacquelyn; Grill, Kristen Y.; Esformes, Paul; Eng, Matthew and Kinney, Tina. 2006. 
Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program: An Evaluation of Compliance with the 
National Flood Insurance Program Part A: Achieving Community Compliance. Washington, 
D.C.: American Institutes for Research. 

Morse, Henry F. 1962. Role of the States in Guiding Land Use in Flood Plains, Special Report 
No. 38. Sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Graduate City Planning Program. 
Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, Engineering Experiment Station. 


Murphy. Francis C. 1958. Regulating Flood-Plain Development. Department of Geography, 
Research Paper No. 56. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. 

Platt, Rutherford H. 1976. Land Use Control: Interface of Law and Geography. Resource Paper 
No. 75-1. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers. 

Plotkin, Sidney. 1987. Keep Out: The Struggle for Land Use Control. Berkeley, CA: The 
University of California Press. 

Richardson, Jesse J. Jr.; Gough, Meghan Zimmerman and Puentes, Robert. 2003. Is Home Rule 
the Answer? Clarifying the Influence of Dillons Rule on Growth Management. Washington. DC: 
The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. 

Rossi, Peter H., James D. Wright, and Eleanor Weber-Burdin. Natural Hazards and Public 
Choice: The State and Local Politics of Hazard Mitigation, New York: Academic Press, 1982. 

U.S. Water Resources Council. 1968. The Nations Water Resources: The First National 
Assessment. Washington. DC: Government Printing Office. 

Washington Department of Ecology. 2004. Floodplain Management in the State of Washington: 
A Status Report as of February 2004. Bellevue, WA. 

Weiser, Matt. September 28, 2005. Governor Ousts Flood Board. Sacramento. CA: The 
Sacramento Bee. p. A1. 

Wright, James M. 2000. The Nations Responses to Flood Disasters: A Historical Account. 
Madison. WI: Association of State Floodplain Managers. 

 


AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH 
American Institutes for Research 
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20007-3541 
Tel: 202-944-5300 
www.air.org