Issues and Options in Flood Hazards

Management

February 1980

NTIS order #PB80-151087
Preface

Congressman Thomas L. Ashley, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Senator William Proxmire, Chairman of the Senate Committee on

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, requested that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) undertake a study in the area

of natural hazards. In response, OTA initiated a preliminary analysis to define what issues are

or would be of congressional concern and where further study could be useful.

This Background Paper, “Issues and Options in Flood Hazards Management,” is one product of that analysis.

For this study, a working paper was prepared as the basis for a workshop that included a

broad representation of interested parties in both the public and the private sectors, scholars

concerned with the field, and members of various congressional committee staffs. On the basis

of that workshop’s recommendations, a revised working paper was prepared and sent to all participants, and to numerous other experts, for extensive review and comment. This paper is the

responsibility of OTA, not of those who so ably advised us on its preparation.

An earlier draft of this Background Paper was made available to the staffs of the requesting

committees in the winter of 1978-79. Aside from editorial revisions, the principal

chapters VII, VIII, and IX. The basic analysis of information, study, and research

Congress in policy formulation, legislation, and oversight remains unchanged.

updating is in

needs to assist

The OTA staff wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the workshop attendees and the

subsequent reviewers to “Issues and Options in Flood Hazards Management. ” Special appreciation is due Gilbert White of the University of Colorado for his invaluable assistance in the

preparation of this paper.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

. . . 111

,

-1
OTA Project Staff

Joseph F. Coates, Head, Exporatory Program

Goldie Hallas, Secretarial Support

Terry Saunders Parsons, Administrative Support

Consultants

Robert E. Burke H. Crane Miller Rutherford Platt

Renee G. Ford, Editorial Consultant

OTA Publishing Staff

iv

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer

Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming

L

.—
Invitees to the OTA Workshop on

Issues and Options in Floodplain Management and Flood Insurance

Washington, D.C.

March 21, 1978

Regis Allison

Department of Urban and Community

Affairs

Baton Rouge, La.

Charles Anderson

National Association of Home Builders

Arthur Armstrong

Director, Office of Finance

Small Business Administration

Edgar Armstrong

Director of Insurance Protection

American Bankers Association

John Banta

Conservation Foundation

Tom Barlow

Natural Resources Defense Council

Richard Boisvert

Federal Insurance Administration

James Brown

National Law Center

George Washington University

Al Carrillo

Assistant National Liaison Officer

National Red Cross

Kenneth Christenson

Senior Operations Officer

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

Robert A. Clark

Associate Director for Hydrology

National Weather Service

Charles Culver

Disaster Research Coordinator

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau o/Standards

Department of Commerce

Walter Curtner

Johns Manville

Russell R. Dynes

Executive Officer

American Sociological Association

Glenn Flittner

Chief of Oceans Studies

National Weather Service

Charles Fritz

Executive Secretary

Committee on Socio-Economic Effects

of Earthquake Prediction

National Research Council

Charles Fritzel

National Association of Independent

Insurers

James Goddard

Consulting Engineer

Herbert Groper

Acting Chief

Disaster Preparedness Staff

Jerry Harbour

Chief, Site Safety Research Branch

Office of Nuclear Regulator Research

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Michael Helpa

Chief of Emergency operations

Office of the Chief of Engineers

C. Robert Hall

National Association of Independent

Insurers

Dwight Ink

Director, Office of Sponsored Research

and Continuing Education

School of Public Affairs

American University

D. Earl Jones, Jr.

Chief, Field Services Branch

Office of Technical Support

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Erie Jones

Director of Emergency Services

State of Illinois

George Jones

Coordinator

Office of Emergency Services

State of Virginia

Richard W. Krimm

Assistant Administrator

Federal Insurance Administration

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Howard C. Kunreuther

The Wharton School

University of Pennsylvania

John Kusler

Consultant

Nicholas Lally

Federal Insurance Administration

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Richard Leisker

Director for Emergency Loan Division

Department of Agriculture

Herbert Lieb

Chief of Disaster Planning

National Weather Service

Jim Lewis

Federal Disaster Assistance

Administration

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Charles Manning

Council of State Governments

Emergency Preparedness Project

J. McGoldrick, Jr.

Chairman

Massachusetts Mutual Life

Insurance Company

Joseph Mitchell

Director

Federal Preparedness Administration

General Services Administration

Roy Newsome

Special Assistant to the Administrator

Federal Disaster Assistance

Administration

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Clark Norton

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Frank Nutter

National Flood Insurance Association

George Phippen

Floodplain Management Services In the

Directorate of civil Works

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Roy S. Popkin

Assistant National Director of

Disaster Services

National Red Cross

E. L. Quarantelli

Disaster Research Center

The Ohio State University

Susan Sarason

Clean Water Action Project

Terry Sopher

Regional Environmental Management

National Science Found anon

v
Charles C. Thiel

Director, Division of ProblemFocused Research Applications

National Science Foundation 

Frank Thomas

Water Resources Council

Charles Thurow

Association of State Planning Officials

Bardyl Tiranda

Director

Defense Civil Preparedness Agency

David Tundermann

Council on Environmental Quality

Jack Warner

American Institute of Architects

Research Corporation

Samuel Weese

General Manager

National Flood Insurance Association

French Wetmore

Chief, Local Flood Plain Programs

Department of Transportation

Gilbert White

Center for Natural Hazards

University of Colorado

Hilary Whittaker

Project Director

National Governors’ Association

for Emergency Preparedness

John Wiggins

J. H. Wiggins Company

Richard Wray

office of Finance

Small Business Administration

Arthur Zeizel

Environmental Scientist

Office of Policy Development

& Research

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Congressional List

Kenneth Ackerman

Office of Senator Charles H. Percy

Martha Braddock

Senior Staff Member

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs

Anne Cheek

Office of congressman Jack Brinkley

Elmer Henderson

Staff Director of Subcommittee on

Legislation and National Security

House Committee on Government

Operations

Thomas Kraemer

House Science and Technology

Committee

David Johnson

Staff Member

Senate Committee on Government

Affairs

Jack Lewis

Office of Senator Thomas F. Eagleton

Robert E. Malakotf

Staff Director

Subcommittee on Housing and urban Affairs

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs

Richard N. Ma low

House Committee on Appropriations

Gerald McMurray

Staff Director

Subcommittee on Banking, Currency,

and Housing

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs

Mike McNulty

Staff Member

House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs

Judy Parente

Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works --

Kevin Phelps

Office of Senator Quentin Burdick

Clem Shearer

Office of Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.

Ricki Tigert

Subcommittee on Citizens Rights

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Thomas van der Vort

Senate Committee on Appropriations

OTA Consultants

Robert E. Burke

H. Crane Miller

In addition to comments received from the above workshop invitees and participants, we would like to express

our appreciation to the following reviewers:

George Antle Jerry Delli Priscolli Robert Rigney

Institute for Water Resources Institute for Water Resources County of San Bernardino (Calif.)

Maurice Arnold Henry Hitchcock Environmental Improvement Agency

U.S. Department of the Interior George Washington University Paul Slovic

Charles Belt Richard Liroff Decision Research

St. Louis Unversity Environmental Law Institute William Wilcox

Sally Davenport William Onopa .

Federal Disaster Assistance

Texas Coastal and Marine Council Office of the Governor, State of Arkansas Administration

Ronald Davis H. James Owen

Consultant Consulting Engineer

vi
Acronyms

CZMP —coastal zone management program

DOT – Department of Transportation

EDS — Electronic Data Services

FEMA —Federal Emergency Management

Agency

FHA — Federal Housing Administration

FIA — Federal Insurance Administration

FIRM – flood insurance rate map

HEW — U.S. Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare

HUD – Department of Housing and Urban

Development

IWR — Institute of Water Resources

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

NFIA —National Flood Insurers Association --

NFIP —National Flood Insurance Program

OCZM —Office of Coastal Zone Management

P&s — principles and standards

TA — technology assessment

VA — Veterans Administration

WRC – Water Resources Council

. “ vii
Glossary

common use open space: lands set aside for

public use and management by acquisition, as

contrasted to those held open by ordinance

provision (e.g., a floodway) that remain in

private ownership.

cost-benefit analysis: a systematic economic

comparison of alternative ways to achieve an

objective.

enabling statute: a State law that transfers some

of the police power residing in the State to localities within it for the purposes of zoning,

subdivision, regulations, building codes, and

the like.

encroachment: the occupancy of areas subject to

flooding, especially where such occupancy includes landfills and buildings.

flood: an overflow of lands not normally covered

by water and that are used or usable by man.

Floods have two essential characteristics.

These are: 1) the inundation of land is temporary, and 2) the land is adjacent to and inundated by overflow from a river or stream or an

ocean, lake, or other body of standing water.

flash flood: a flood that follows the causative

event (this might be excessive rains, a dam

failure, etc.) within a few hours. The rise in

runoff and stream levels is spectacular and

produces hydrography traces that reflect an

extreme jump in discharge volume.

100-year flood: a flood having an average

frequency of occurrence in the order of

once in 100 years although the flood may

occur in any year. It is based on statistical

analyses of streamflow records available for

the watershed and analyses of rainfall and

runoff characteristics in the general region

of the watershed. This term is used in the

National Flood Insurance Program to indicate the minimum level of flooding to be

used by a community in its floodplain management regulations.

hazard adjustment: see structural and nonstructural flood plain management measures.

flood insurance rate map (FIRM): an official

map of a community on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both

the special hazards areas and the risk premium

zones applicable to the community.

floodplain: an area adjoining a river, stream, arroyo, or other watercourse, ocean or lake, or -

-

other body of standing water that has been or

may be covered by floodwater. It includes, at a

minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or

greater chance of flooding in any given year.

floodway: the channel of a river of other watercourse, and the adjacent land areas, required

to carry and discharge a flood of a given magnitude without increasing the water surface

elevation at any point more than a specified

amount and without producing hazardous velocities. The floodway component of a flood insurance study indicates the portions of a floodplain that could be obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 100-year

flood more than 1 foot at any point.

flood profile: a graph showing the relationship

of water surface elevation to location. It is generally drawn to show surface elevation for the

crest of a specific flood- but may be prepared for

conditions at a given time or stage.

fringe (or flood fringe): is normally considered

to be that portion of the floodplain between

the floodway and the natural outline of the

selected flood.

hazard adjustment: see structural and nonstructural floodplain management measures.

institutional question: one that arises from the

body of rules, procedures, and authorities

under which governmental institutions function.

National Flood Insurance Program: the program under which communities may be eligible

for federally subsidized flood insurance on the

condition that the communities enact satisfactory floodplain management regulations.

Emergency Program: the program as implemented on an emergency basis in accordance with section 1336 of the Act. It is intended as a program to provide a first layer

amount of insurance on all insurable structures before the effective date of the initial

flood insurance rate map (FIRM).

ix
Regular Program: the program authorized

by the Act under which risk premium rates

are required for the first half of available

coverage (also known as “first layer” coverage) for all-new construction and substantial improvements started on or after the effective date of the FIRM, or after December

31, 1974, for FIRM’s effective on or before

that date. All buildings, the construction of

which started before the effective date of

the FIRM, or before January 1, 1975, for

FIRM’s effective before that date, are eligible for first layer coverage at either subsidized rates or risk premiums rates, whichever are lower. Regardless of date of construction, risk premium rates are always required for the second layer coverage and

such coverage is offered only after the Administrator has completed a risk study for

the community.

natural disaster: an extreme case of the realization of a risk.

natural hazard: an environmental or natural circumstance that is a source of danger.

nonstructural floodplain management measures: the nonphysical measures employed to

modify the exposure of people to floods, i.e.,

land use planning, warning schemes, and insurance.

opportunity cost: monetary or other advantage

surrendered from something in order to acquire it in competition with other potential

users.

risk: the works of man (and man himself) that are

endangered as a consequence of their exposure

to a natural hazard.

riverine: relating to, formed by, or resembling a

river (including tributaries), stream, brook, etc.

seiche: a standing wave oscillation of an enclosed

water body that continues, pendulum fashion,

after the cessation of the originating force,

which may have been either seismic or atmospheric. Tides are now considered to be seiches

induced primarily by the periodic forces caused

by the sun and moon. In the Great Lakes area,

any sudden rise in the water of a harbor or a

lake, whether or not it is oscillatory is a seiche.

storm:

storm surge: a super elevation of water surface by storm pressure as in a hurricane,

i.e., the height above the expected level in

the absence of storm conditions.

30-year storm: (meteorological) an artifact of --

the statistical averaging of storm experif ence. This should not be confused with a

30-year flood, which could come about as a

result of lesser or greater storms.

structural floodplain management measures:

those physical or engineering measures employed to modify the way floods behave, e.g.,

dams, dikes, levees, channel enlargements and

diversions.

taking issue: a possible basis for suit when an individual asks to be recompensed for lost property value resulting from governmental action

as is his right under the Constitution. Government cannot take property without just compensation. However, a mere diminution of value is not necessarily a taking. Courts have

upheld ordinances in cases where the governmental action resulted in substantially 

lower

market values, and even some cases where all

the recognizable economic values disappeared

because the only economic uses remaining

would be regarded legally as a nuisance or

threat to public health and safety.

tsunami: is a system of free-surface gravity waves

generated by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Although the term “seismic sea

wave” adequately describes such an event, the

Japanese word “tsunami” is now almost universally accepted in the scientific community. Its

literal translation is “harbor ('tsun’) wave

(’nami’).”

velocity zone: the portion of a coastal floodplain

having special flood hazards, which is subject

to high velocity waters especially waves—from

hurricanes, tsunamis, and extratropical

storms.

watershed: all the area contributing runoff to the

flow of a river or draining into a body of water.

Also sometimes, the margins of this area.

wetlands: land containing much soil moisture,

such as tidal flats or swamps.

x
Contents

chapter

L

11.

m.

Iv.

v.

VI.

VII.

vm.

I x .

x.

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Options.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floods: A National Policy Concern

The Physical Bases of Floods . . . . . . . . .

The Geographic Scope of Floods . . . . . .

The Costs of Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Elements of National Response . . . . . . .

● ☛☛✎ ✎✎☛✎ ✎☛✎ ☛✎☛☛ ✎ *e******** *

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛✎☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ☛

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Framework for Flood Hazards Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Lifecycle of a Flood Hazard Warning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Time Frame of Public Policy Planning and Implementation . . . . . . . . . .

Tools Available for Flood Hazards Management . . . . . . . . .

Beyond Calculating Costs and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trends and Images of the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trends Directly Related to Floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trends Related to Natural Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Public Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Issues in Flood Hazards Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The National Flood Insurance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Origins of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

The Present Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What NFIP Has Accomplished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some Recent Studies of Flood Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flood Insurance Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reorganization–Transfer to FEMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intergovernmental Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Emergency Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coastal Hazards and Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Postdisaster Recovery and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Government as Salesman and Agent for Technology Transfer

Legal Aspects of Floodplain Regulation in the 1970’s. .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Judicial Recognition of Flood Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inland and Coastal Wetlands Restrictions: Indirect Floodplain

The Roles of Federal, State, and Local Governments . .

Federal Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;

The Role of the States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Role of the Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

r

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Management.

Page

1

1

1

7 “ ‘-

11

13

13

14

1 4

23

27

27

30

30

31

34

39

39

41

43

43

43

47

47

48

52

53

57

57

57

60

62

62

63

65

65

66

69

73

73

76

76

xi
Contents—continued

chapter Page

X I .

XII.

Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Why Research?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What Is Currently Known With Respect to Flood Hazards Management? . . .

Knowledge Gaps in FloodHazards Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy Research Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some Policy Options ● *..*** ● *..**** . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Setting Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Land Use Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Federal Opportunity: Leadership by Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Flood Insurance Program as Hazards Manager. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An A1l-Hazards Approach to Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Mission of the Corps of Engineers, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mapping Delays and Alternative Entry Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes

A. Coastal Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Executive Order 11988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES

1. Policy Research and Study Needs in Relation to Congressional Functions . . . . . . . . .

2. Frequency and Cause of Flooding Between 1886 and 1972 in the New York State

Counties of Livingston, Steuben, and Chemung . . . . . . .“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Exposure to Floods of Selected Urbanized Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Losses in Individual Severe Floods in the United States Since July 1902 . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Annual Property Loss Attributable to Floods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Flood History of Rapid City, S. Dak.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.

8.

9.

100

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

A-1.

Chronology of Major Flood and Public Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Governmental Strategies and Tools for Flood Hazards Management. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relevance of Nonstructural Measures to Floodplain Management Objectives . . . . . .

Means or Policy Options in the Implementation of Nonstructural Measures . . . . . . .

Identification of Costs by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Identification of Benefits by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trends in Relation to Natural Hazards in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seven Issues in Flood Hazards Management Summarized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Growth of Coverage Under the National Flood Insurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Community Progression in the National Flood Insurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Individual Perception of Flood Damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flood Insurance: Residents and Businesses Through 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Patterns of Flood insurance Purchase in 43 Pennsylvania Communities. . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Elements in Floodplain Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Funding Levels for Research Opportunity Sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Opportunities-Hurricanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

An International Comparison of Flood Hazards: Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Research Opportunities-Coastal Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Lifecycle of a Flood Hazard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most Flood-Prone Areas of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Map of Southern New York State Indicating the Flood-Prone Counties of Livingston,

Steuben, and Chemung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Losses in United States Floods, 1905-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lifecycle of a Flood Hazard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Complexity and Confusion of Federal Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

National Flood Insurance Program’s History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

79

79

80 ‘-

81

89

89

89

89

90

90

91

91

93

95

8

17

18

20

21

2 3

23

32

32

33

36

36

42

44

50

51

54

55

56

75

82

83

85

93

3

15

16

19

28

29

49

xii
This preliminary analysis has two purposes: to

identify information and knowledge gaps in the

management of flood hazards, and to propose

some policy options for further consideration that

could beneficially affect such management.

THE APPROACH

Five basic elements are involved in meeting the

above purposes.

●

●

●

●

●

Determining long-term trends in relation to

floods and flood hazards management.

Identifying issues—the points of enduring

conflict.

Proposing the lifecycle of a flood hazard as a

diagnostic and prescriptive framework for

policy study.

Identifying knowledge and information gaps.

Proposing several policy options.

SUMMARY

Floods as a Policy Concern

Every year, flood disasters, which include hurricanes, flash floods, mudslides, subsidence, river

valley floods, and winter coastal storms cause hundreds of deaths and result in property losses of

about $2 billion. Some recent examples are:

● the 1972 Agnes floods— 105 lives and over $4

billion in damage;

● the 1972 Rapid City, S. Dak., flash flood

—237 lives and over $164 million in damage;

● the 1973 Mississippi Valley floods-33 lives

and $1.15 billion in damage;

 . a 1974 flash flood in Colorado’s Big Thompson Canyon, which destroyed virtually everything in its path— 123 lives.

The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration

reports flood-related assistance expenditures of

. . $872 million between 1974 and October 1978.

Despite an estimated $14 billion spent by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other Federal

agencies for structural flood control projects since

1936, losses have continued to rise. Concomitant1. Executive Summary

ly, Federal disaster assistance payments have in- --

creased sharply from $52 million in 1952 to an alltime high of ‘$2.5 billion in 1973. These dollar

figures, however, only represent a small fraction of

the total social costs of dislocations due to floods.

In vulnerable areas, urban expansion into floodplains and coastal hazard areas has been estimated

to increase flood losses an average of 1.5 to 2.5 percent per year. This represents roughly a doubling

of investment risk in one generation.

Urbanization and other changes in land use

contribute to the frequency and intensity of

floods. As permeable natural surfaces give way to

roofs, pavements, and sewer development, rainfall

and snowmelt are channeled directly to streams

instead of soaking into the ground. In one watershed north of Boston, the estimated 100-year flood

(having a l-percent chance of occurring in a given

year) became a 20-year flood (5-percent chance)

within the course of 15 years of rapid development. This, of course, applies to development anywhere in the watershed, not simply in the floodplain.

Any strategy for coping with flood losses must

contend with the fragmentation of political and

legal authority over the Nation’s river basins and

floodplains. Rivers and streams typically flow from

one jurisdiction to another, and frequently are

used as convenient boundaries between local governments, counties, and States. Actions in one jurisdiction may affect other jurisdictions downstream, across the stream, or even (in the case of

backwater flooding) upstream. Individual encroachments on floodplains cause cumulative impacts in the form of increased flooding in neighboring areas. Yet, land use and floodplain policy

has been viewed as largely a local matter. Floodplain management, therefore, has proceeded on a

parochial and fragmented basis, ill-suited to the

achievement of national or local flood loss reduction.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),

since its inception in 1968, and strengthened by

substantial

major new

amendments in 1973, has become the

instrument in national flood policy. It

‘ .-
reflects the recent emphasis on a mixed-strategy

approach.

The actual effect of NFIP on flood losses is questionable. Specifically, the program involved both

the sale of federally subsidized flood insurance,

and the management of floodplains by non-Federal public authorities. The insurance without floodplain management could lead to the increased development of flood hazard areas. This would drive

flood losses still higher. At present, the management component of NFIP lags far behind the sale

of insurance. Consequently, a special effort will be

required to attain the floodplain management

goals of NFIP.

A Framework for Flood Hazards

Management: The Lifecycle of a Hazard

Flood hazards, like other natural hazards, have

their origin in nature. F1ood disasters, however,

are a consequence of the intrusion of man and his

works into an environment that puts them both at

risk.

An effective management strategy for moderating a flood hazard, or any other natural hazard,

must take into account the hazard’s total lifecycle

as it evolves from its natural condition in an environment into the risk conditions created by the

people’s activities in that environment. The lifecycle shown in figure 1 presents an overall picture

from which the relative strengths and weaknesses

in current public policy can be identified.

At present, the relatively strong capabilities of

flood hazards management are its emergency organization and its planning for dealing with the immediate postdisaster situation (items 6 and 14 in

figure 1). The readiness to exercise an emergency

response (item 15) is a much weaker capability.

Damage assessment (item 17) is relatively welldone after minor floods but much less so after major floods in most areas.

Planning for rehabilitation and recovery (item

18) is seriously deficient in all areas subject to

floods. For maximum effectiveness, comprehensive plans to provide relief, as well as rehabilitation, must be readied before a disaster strikes. The

only long-term strategy that will reduce future

flood disasters is to rebuild properly designed

structures on suitable sites, avoiding the repetition

of past errors. At the present time, however, without proper planning for rehabilitation and recovery after a major flood, it is not likely that the

unsound building patterns of the past will be

changed.

Prevention has traditionally relied on controlling floods by means of civil engineering works.

The increasing inadequacy of civil works that are

not closely tied to land use planning is widely recognized. For this reason, how to make long-term ‘ --

land use planning an effective tool for controlling

development in flood hazard areas and for guiding

postdisaster recovery is a principal public policy

question in flood hazards management. Without

effective means for controlling floodplain development and guiding postdisaster recovery, the cost of

floods nationwide will continue to rise.

Three Basic Approaches to

Flood Hazards Management

The U.S. Water Resources Council in its 1976

policy statement, “A Unified National Program

for Floodplain Management” (revised in 1979),

assigns all possible public responses to flood hazards to three basic approaches:

● Modify flooding itself by using structural controls to alter the course or flow of the water.

● Moderate the impacts of flooding on individuals and communities through insurance, disaster relief, and tax adjustments.

● Reduce the risks of flood damage.

The traditional approach to flood hazards at the

Federal, State, and local levels has primarily been

to modify the hazard. Flood control dams and reservoirs may influence the volume of runoff during

peak stages of a flood and consequently affect

when a flood occurs and its duration, as well as the

extent of area flooded. Within the limitation of

their design capacity, levees and dikes can protect

certain downstream areas from floods. But both

types of structures affect the natural flow of

streams, thus increasing erosion and sedimentation, and impairing natural habitats and ecological processes. Furthermore, as noted above, flood

losses continue to rise despite the major national

investment in flood control. One reason is that it

is unfeasible to build works that will protect

against every conceivable flood. When the design

limits are exceeded, catastrophic losses may be inflicted on settlements originally attracted to the.

floodplain in the belief that it was protected.

Two other traditional approaches to flood hazards are emergency measures including flood

warnings and temporary removal of property, and

2

!
Figure 1-Lifecycle of a Flood Hazard

m ● ●

People They discover They ignore, 3.

enter or learn about forget, or #

area 1. the hazards 2. discount risks

●

●

r

----- -

Building Major/minor

takes disaster

place 4. occurs 5. rare

----- -- J

Institutional cycle starts

Relief local

or external 4

6.

I

I Rehabilitation 8.

Prevention 9.

Mitigation

(control) 10.

Protection 11

Prediction

and warning 12.

I

Monitoring 13.

Emergency

organizations

and planning 14.

Emergency organizations

.

Rehabilitation/

recovery

planning

18 (rare)

holding exercises Disaster occurs

(not usually done) 15. 16. . .

-

SOURCE. Office of Technology Assessment.

3
—.

disaster assistance. Again, it is recognized that the

consequences of floods cannot be effectively dealt

with by these measures alone. The most that can

be achieved through warning schemes is saving a

few lives and slightly reducing property loss. Disaster relief encourages continued occupancy of unsafe locations.

The approach to the management of flood hazards is shifting toward measures that would reduce

the susceptibility to flood damage by integrating

land management techniques, such as restricted

occupancy, with the traditional tools and strategies, such as civil works. Emphasis is being placed

increasingly on zoning codes, regulations, the implementation of development and redevelopment

plans, and policies to improve the design and the

location of structures.

Trends Related to Flood Hazards

Trends analysis is useful in at least three ways. It

defines the boundaries on alternative future developments; it forces one to search for underlying

factors that may either stabilize or perturb the

trend; and it suggests opportunities for policy intervention to modify what would be a stable but

undesirable development.

Trends that will shape the future of exposure to

flood hazards in the United States fall into four

categories:

● the degree of risk posed by floods,

Ž the effects of demographic trends on flood

hazards,

Ž evolving patterns of floodplain use, and

● trends in public policy responses.

Trends related to flood risk.–The most important risk-related trend is that public policies, by

continuing to encourage floodplain development,

are causing losses to continually rise and may

cause catastrophes of unprecedented scale. The ,

number of lives lost in these potential major

events could easily be in the thousands and property loss could amount to billions; far exceeding

any previous experience.

The loss of life from floods, while low compared

with that of developing countries, has shown a

slight upward trend over the past several decades.

Property loss has grown. It is not clear how much

the effect has been of true increases, inflation, better reporting

other factors.

4

schemes, insurance availability, or

Compounding the problem created by increased

urbanization of floodplains, watershed flooding

itself is increasing. As natural surfaces are covered

by impermeable-roofs and pavement, runoff increases and floods are magnified in frequency and

intensity. “Acts of God” are a decreasingly important aspect of flood hazards. As an understanding ‘-

of the causes and prevention of flood losses increase, the responsibility for such losses inevitably

must shift from unanticipated events to people’s

disregard of the known facts, along with their

reluctance to plan.

There is a downtrend in the original historical —

reasons for the occupancy of floodplains. Proximity to bodies of water is normally no longer required for energy, water supply, waste disposal,

and transportation. The growth of the highway

system, pipelines, railroads, electric utility grids,

and other similar infrastructures has virtually

eliminated the economic need to locate next to

rivers and streams. However, water resources and

adjacent areas are increasingly the subject of conflict over alternative uses and allocations. Among

the competing forces presently involved in the use

of floodplains are commercial and industrial development, housing, the growth of outdoor natural

and commercial recreation areas, the desire for the

conservation of natural resources-especially in

wetlands—and historical preservation. There is

more legislation today than in the past that relates

to floodplains and coastal zones.

Demographic trends.–Flood hazard potential is, in part, increased by the continuing migration of population to coastal areas on both a seasonal and permanent basis. Between 1960 and

1970, coastal counties of the United States gained

20 percent in population as compared with a 14-

percent gain for the Nation as a whole. This trend

is believed to be continuing. In most riverine

floodplains, the number of people is less important

than the expansion of investment in nonresidential property. However, there is evidence of continued development of mobile home communities

and lower cost, vulnerable housing in marginal

floodplain locations.

Space for building to meet a growing population

is fast disappearing in areas with mountainous terrain such as West Virginia, and in sites of heavy

industrial development. Where there is a need to

be near the workplace, development of marginally

hazardous areas tends to be promoted. Development pressure coupled with recreation demands

-
has increased the number of residences and people

exposed to floods, especially in coastal recreation

areas. Furthermore, the elderly and other retirees

are moving to warm coastal climates, often unaware of the natural hazards risks they may be

facing.

Trends in the management of flood hazards.–From 1936 to 1968, the prevailing national

response to flood hazards was to undertake flood

control projects, largely.at Federal expense. Since

the 1966 Report of the Task Force on Federal

Flood Control Policy (House Document 465), several trends have led to challenging the primacy of

flood protection by physical methods as the chief

public approach to dealing with flood hazards.

There is a shift in emphasis from “structural,” or

engineering, measures such as dams to moderate

losses, to “nonstructural” economic sanctions and

incentives. These latter are adopted instead, or in

addition to, physical measures. Together they

achieve what the Task Force on Federal Flood

Control Policy termed a “unified program for

managing flood losses. ” Implementation of mitigation, prevention, and loss reduction measures at

local levels is being emphasized as a precondition

for the receipt of Federal disaster relief. Such nonstructural measures as floodplain zoning, building

and design controls (e.g., minimum elevation requirements), and acquisition and relocation are

being increasingly applied. The last, however, has

not proven practical owing to the lack of consistent and timely Federal cost sharing. There is also a

growing trend to view land use planning as an essential tool of flood hazards management.

Lastly, there is a trend toward the use of flood

insurance as an alternative to outright disaster relief. Through insurance premiums calculated to reflect the extent of flood hazard at a particular location and elevation, it is intended that voluntary

private decisions will act to minimize exposure to

flood loss. 

issues in Flood Hazards Management

The issues or conflicts in flood hazards management fall into seven major areas.

Equity issues.–There are two key equity

issues. The first finds the right of property owners

to the unrestricted use of their property in conflict

with governmental responsibility to safeguard

health, safety, and the welfare of citizens. The second involves the distribution pattern of costs and

benefits from the mitigation of flood hazards and

from disaster relief. The central question is

whether the distribution should principally involve all local payers and beneficiaries or should

cover a broader national base.

State and local government versus the --

Federal Government.–The conflict between

Federal and non-Federal public authorities flows

from two considerations. The first reflects the constitutional limitation on federalism and the distribution of sovereign power among Federal, State,

and local governments. The second reflects the

piecemeal, contradictory, and poorly integrated

plans and programs of the Federal Government in

dealings with State and local governments.

Integration of Federal programs.–There is .

little integration within the Federal system in

terms of agency plans and programs concerned

with flood hazards management. This may be improved by the President’s reorganization of Federal

agencies responsible for hazards and emergency

preparedness.

Goal conflicts. -Goal conflicts arise from two

sources. First, there are no action-oriented national goals with regard to flood hazards management. Second, existing programs that are directed

at dealing with flood hazards areas are disorganized and at cross-purposes.

Means conflicts. –The traditional means of

flood control are increasingly seen not only as inadequate but also as methods that cause the situation to worsen. Yet, political, social, and institutional conflicts are inherent in any transition to

an integrated approach using nonphysical or socioeconomic strategies along with physical or engineering design strategies.

Short-term versus long-term interests.–

The short-term benefits of development in hazardous terrain conflict with the longer term risks. In

addition, conflicts arise over the calculations of

short- versus long-term costs and benefits.

Information.–Information about all aspects

of flood hazards is inadequate. A policy information base is not available and there is a reluctance

to generate it. Research programs are uncoordinated and information is not disseminated in a

useful and timely form to all concerned. (Information needs particularly relevant to policy development are discussed in chapter XI.)

5
The National Flood Insurance Program

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

seeks to promote two interrelated objectives in the

Nation’s coastal and riverine flood hazard areas:

To stabilize and eventually 

reduce flood losses

by stimulating the planning and management

of flood hazard areas by States and local governments.

To reallocate the costs of financial assistance

to flood victims from Federal taxpayers to occupants of flood-prone areas through the

mechanism of insurance.

These are related goals. Effective management of

floodplains will keep future losses from continuing

to rise; while the intent of establishing a federally

sponsored flood insurance program is to reinforce

the management of floodplains by setting insurance premium rates for new structures according

to the risks at specific sites.

The Accomplishments of the Federal

Insurance Administration (FIA)

A number of positive achievements can be cited

for NFIP.

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973

amended NFIP to provide for compulsory participation and emergency eligibility.

This succeeded in establishing the insurance as a standard feature of Federal flood

policies, as evidenced by the approximately

$67.3 billion in insurance coverage held by

over 1.7 million policyholders.

Progress is being made towards achieving the

national objective of completely mapping

about 20,000 flood-prone communities by

1983. The preliminary mapping has so far informed some 19,000 local governments about

their flood hazards.

Building codes and practices in many floodprone communities have improved.

The delineation of the Nation into floodprone areas has stimulated public awareness

of flood hazards.

The program is stimulating the purchase of

flood insurance.

The state-of-the-art has improved in such pertinent subject areas as home construction,

economics, environmental engineering, hydrology, and hydraulics.

Flood Insurance Issues

NFIP is confronted by a number of issues whose

resolution would greatly accelerate the achievement of its objectives. These issues deal with the

following problems:

●

●

●

Reorganization— By executive order, FIA has -

-

been reassigned to the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of this reorganization is to place Federal

emergency mitigation and response activities

in one agency and to provide “one-stop” service to States and local governments.

Coordination within the Federal Government—Collaboration between FIA (especially

as part of FEMA) and other Federal agencies

such as the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Environmental Protection

Agency needs to be improved in order to

more effectively pursue mutual goals.

Intergovernmental relations—Coord i nation

must be improved between public units, both

vertically (Federal, State, regional, and local)

and horizontally (between adjoining units of

government).

Premium rates and equity—As more communities enter the regular program of NFIP, the actuarial rates must be set accurately and fairly.

Coastal hazards-NFIP flood studies must reflect wave heights. Flood insurance should be

withheld entirely in the velocity zone (V).

Recognition of erosion hazards should be improved in NFIP mapping and regulations.

Postdisaster mitigation—SectiOn 1362 of the

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 should

be implemented. Postdisaster recovery planning should be required to provide for mitigation of hazards through land acquisition and

relocation.

FIA has assumed direct responsibility for the

marketing of flood insurance in addition to its

commitment to provide technical assistance

on floodplain management.

Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs

The purpose of this report is to identify what information is needed, which, if provided, will assist

Congress in policy formulation, legislation, budget

allocations, and oversight on flood hazards management. There are five main areas where additional knowledge is needed:

● the

● the

generation of information,

transmission of information,

..-
Ž the utilization of information,

Ž the effectiveness of already established hazards-related programs, and

. information gaps in NFIP.

Generation of Information.–Federal disaster research needs to be coordinated. There is no

procedure for identifying information needs for

policy setting, program planning, land use management, and engineering design utilization.

●

●

●

The means are inadequate for identifying and

transmitting State and local information

needs to the Federal agencies.

There is no mechanism for determining what

needs to be known to improve flood hazards

management.

There are not enough first-rate researchers in

the field due to the lack of steady and adequate support, and because there is no sense

of urgency on the part of the Federal Government.

Transmitting information.–There is no

single source for data and information produced

by the various Federal agencies that deal with

flood hazards. Until recently, there has not been

any focus on transmitting information about hazards. This could be accomplished by the newly established FEMA.

●

●

●

At present, no criteria have been established

for determining the relative value, success, or

failure of research projects.

The functions of the various components of a

delivery system. Who should be transmitting

information to whom; and in what form?

These questions are all unanswered at the

Federal agency level.

Information about the potentials of flood hazards is not well disseminated, either to the

public or to public officials and organizations,

owing to the lack of coordination among Federal agencies.

Utilization of information.– “ ‘

- -

●

●

●

The criteria for determining whether there

has been a discernible impact on the decision

processes of individuals and organizations,

have not been established.

In what way does the utilization of information differ from its dissemination and transmission?

The absence of programing and policy goals

and the lack of a client orientation undercuts

attempts at utilization.

Information gaps in NFIP.–NFIP plays a —

significant role in flood hazards management,

therefore particular note is made of inadequacies

in its information base.

●

●

●

●

●

Who purchases flood insurance and for what

reasons? . . .

Which communities drop out of the program,

and why?

How can the Federal agencies relate better to

local needs?

Who at the local level is responsible for identifying the needs and making plans for their

local communities?

How much new construction is going on in

floodplains during the emergency program?

Study and research projects to fill the above

gaps in knowledge, and their relationships with

the four congressional functions of policy formulation, legislation, budget allocation, and oversight

are shown in table 1.

POLICY OPTIONS

This report sets forth some suggested policy options for improving the management of flood hazards. These options are not recommendations, but -

proposals for further consideration. They fall into

seven categories.

Setting Goals

The absence of goals specific enough to guide

change and to evaluate progress acts as a major impediment to achieving an integrated strategy for

flood hazards management. Three alternative, but

not exclusive, goals are suggested below that

would allow standards of accomplishment to be

defined and evaluated.

●

Hypothetical goal I.–The national objective over the next 10 years is to put flood insurance on a fully actuarial basis.

Hypothetical goal 2.—National policy is

that over the next four decades population

and physical investments in floodplains at the

100-year risk level shall be reduced by 80 and

70 percent, respectively.

Hypothetical goal 3.–The annual losses

from floods as part of a national program

shall be reduced by 25 percent per decade (in

1975 dollars)

7

-
Table I.-Policy Research and Study Needs in Relation to Congressional Functions

Budget

● use of remote sensing and other advanced data collection techniques

• study of the 25- to 50-year cost implications of:

—insurance without regulation

—acquisition of fIood lands

—alternative management strategies

Ž general cost-effectiveness of alternative mitigation techniques

. cost-effectiveness of warning systems

● funding of implemental ion programs for warning systems in small towns

Policy

●

●

●

●

●

reassessment of the efficacy of the 100-year flood guideline, and study of the implications of alternative standards

a handbook of maximum credible flood disasters in each

flood-prone region of the United States

development of options for local governments to accumulate disaster “war chests”

preparation of manual for States to learn cost-effectiveness of different flood strategies

a comprehensive guidebook to Federal grants, assistance in all aspects of disaster planning, response, and rehabilitation

Legislatlon

. integration of fIood hazards with management of other

hazards

● further use of the “unified national program” approach to

identify operational steps for converting concepts into

programs and projects

. integration of flood warning with other natural and manmade hazards warning and information systems

● study of the existing authorities of the agencies, police

powers, the “taking issue,” and tort liability of the design

and structure professions

Oversight

case histories of successful and unsuccessful flood

management strategies

alternative modes of information delivery

effects of specific Federal predisaster, disaster, and

postdisaster actions on floodplain management

alternative decisionmaking arrangements for setting

plans and for the regulation of the floodplain

the perception, interpretation, and use of risk information

by the public-at-large

analysis of the long-term geophysical and environmental

phenomena related to floods

review of foreign experience pertinent to U.S. situation

National Flood Insurance Program:

—actuarial future

—subsidy and development in floodplains

—as substitute for disaster assistance

—choice of participation by individuals

—retargeting of premiums to local communities

—gap between adoption and implementation

—lessons for other hazards

effects of relocation on business

acceptability y of fIood losses by the public

examination of the land acquisition question

macroeconomic evaluation of impact of floodplain management

models for State government programs

evaluation of agency compliance with flood management

objective

opportunities in architectural design related to floods

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment.

Land Use Management

Land use management is the most effective tool

for mitigating flood hazards in the long term. Its

costs, however, are incurred in the short term and

its benefits are deferred and difficult to evaluate.

Therefore, it is politically the most difficult

measure to implement.

Land use control could largely be used to remove land from residential and commercial use

via acquisition by Federal, State, or local governments. Particular attention should be given, in

flood hazards areas, to long-term land acquisition

programs over a period of 30 to 40 years, the usual

turnover time for structures. Land management

can in this way be closely tied to other social goals

such as in urban and rural development, and

cause a minimum of dislocation in long-term land

tenure.

A Federal Opportunity:

Leadership by Example

The large number of buildings and structures

owned or subsidized by Federal, State, or local

governments that are located in flood hazards

areas offer an opportunity for leadership. The locations of federally subsidized structures, as well as

Federal buildings, is an opportunity for Federal

leadership and at the same time could help to develop a more detailed sense of the macroeconomics

and the social impacts of land use hazards management.

A move in the direction of leadership assumption by the Federal Government was made by Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977, which in section 1 states:

Each agency shall provide leadership and shall

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to

8
minimize the impact of floods on human safety,

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains

in carrving out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring,

managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed,

or assisted construction and improvements; and (3)

conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water

and related land resources planning, regulating,

and licensing.

The National Flood Insurance Program

as Hazards Manager

At present NFIP is a subsidized program that

operates locally to monitor the regulatory process.

Its function could be expanded to make it the chief

instrument by which flood hazards would be managed. This could be carried out by utilizing insurance premiums as a financial base for local flood

management programs.

An All-Hazards Approach to Insurance

An argument has been made for an all-hazards

strategy for dealing with the multiple problems

caused by natural events confronting man and his

works. A comprehensive catastrophe insurance

program has been proposed that would consist of

13 parts.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

standardized all-risk coverage for all catastrophe perils except war,

broad territorial divisions,

Federal subsidies,

coverage for residential and small business

properties,

land use control and loss prevention requirements,

incentives for participation,

elimination of Federal disaster assistance benefits for private property,

full availability of insurance,

Federal reinsurance,

establishment of catastrophe reserves,

adequate limits,

mandatory deductibles, and

administration by a combination of the private and public sectors.

The Mission of the Corps of Engineers

The historical role of the Corps of Engineers has

been to build and maintain civil works for flood

control. Although these have been beneficial, the

I

present problem is how to effectively integrate

them with strategies such as floodplain management. An examination of the successes and shortcomings of the Corps’ civil works programs could

provide insights for recommendations to modify

its operations, particularly with respect to flood

hazards control. . . 

Research for Policy Planning

The policy planning of Federal agencies currently dealing with flood hazards would benefit from

information generated by policy research.

Mapping Delays and Alternate Entry

Policies

Mapping is a legislatively mandated prerequisite

for joining the regular NFIP. Accomplishing the

mapping is excessively time-consuming as well as

extremely costly. This raises the question of

whether there might not be some alternative procedure for entering the program more readily.

A number of suggestions have been made for

simplifying the mapping requirement.

●

●

●

●

●

●

The Flood Hazard Boundary Maps produced

by NFIP are already in the hands of local

communities. If amended to eliminate gross

errors, these could be used locally until better

information arrives.

A method long in use at the State level is the

use of fixed setbacks from the stream center

or bank in the case of small streams and

creeks.

Refer to the area inundated by the flood of

record (largest flood to have occurred in an

area), or other significant historical flood, as

the regulatory floodplain.

Use the generalized relations between regulatory flood depth and readily measurable

stream and/or drainage basin characteristics.

Such an approach, using drainage area,

stream width, and stream slope (measured

from topographic maps) as independent variables, was proposed in 1961 in Pennsylvania.

Use normalized curves to estimate flood discharges and stages which have reasonable

correlation with regulatory flood stages estimated by traditional methods.

The mapping of soils has also been shown to

be a useful tool in identifying flood-prone

areas in some regions.

9

 , ’
This report is a preliminary examination of the

issues and options in flood hazards management

and flood insurance. Its goals are to identify the

needs of Congress for new or improved policy-related information, and to suggest specific information and knowledge that may be lacking which

could be supplied by congressional support agencies, executive branch agencies, State and local

governments, and private groups.

This report concerns:

●

●

H. Introduction

● The Iifecycle of a flood hazard, from man-’s --

first movement into a hazardous area through

a flood disaster and subsequent recovery. The

lifecycle concept is a useful new framework for

relating trends, issues, responsibilities, and

policy options.

From these three considerations, the report

moves on to identify what additional knowledge is

needed to improve the policy and operational

aspects of flood hazards management. It concludes

Trends with respect to the physical, social, in- by presenting some policy options for further constitutional, and other elements of society that sideration by Congress.

relate to flood hazards.

Policy issues (i.e., areas of enduring public

conflict) associated with reducing flood hazards. .

11
III. Floods: A National Policy Concern

There are seven reasons for the growing concern

about the management of flood hazards. These

are:

●

●

●

●

●

Repeated disasters from Hurricanes

Camille (1969) and Agnes (1972) to recent

dam failures and flash flooding have created

and reinforced a national awareness of floods,

and generated strong State and local political

pressure for action. State and local interests

are becoming more aware that the predominant measures of the past, physical flood control and disaster relief, are inadequate.

Federal actions are directly or indirectly

creating new legislation and regulation related to flood hazards management. A large

number of programs, integrated in principle

but not in practice, make up the complex of

programs and policies for improving the management of natural resources, for the preservation of wetlands, and for wildlife conservation. Some programs, such as the Coastal

Zone Management Act and the National

Flood Insurance Program, have planning arrangements for both urban and rural areas.

Structural or physical measures—in the

form of levees, dikes, and dams—are increasingly seen as inadequate by themselves for a

sound approach to flood hazards management that would both reduce risks and modify their impacts. Nonstructural measures,

such as land use planning, are now becoming

important complements to the physical approaches.

Huge new catastrophes with extensive loss

of life and property have become more likely

as the population-at-risk increases.

The political implications of adopting alternative strategies to the physical control of

floods could be significant. A reduction in

physical flood control measures implies a decrease in the direct economic benefits from

construction and employment. Furthermore,

adopting nonstructural measures to mitigate

flood hazards implies new land use controls.

These are widely perceived as being disadvantageous in the short term to some important

local interests.

●

●

Political boundaries are not respected by

floods. Consequently, their effects and their

management overflow the jurisdictions of

States, counties, and local governments. This

gives flood events a regional character and

thus poses problems of intergovernmental coordination in the management of floodplains.

New knowledge about the causes and effects of floods stimulates an interest in putting

that new knowledge into effective practice.

THE PHYSICAL BASES OF FLOODS

The three principal causes of floods in the

United States are the overflow of riverbanks, flash

floods, and hurricane-induced surges of water. Numerous other phenomena can also cause significant flood problems. For example, seiches, which

are surges of water that principally occur in lakes

and large water bodies as a consequence of sharp

changes in atmospheric pressure, do substantial

damage in the Great Lakes region. In addition to

Hawaii and Alaska, extensive coastal areas in the

United States are subject to tsunamis, formerly

called tidal waves.

Civil works, notably dams, may break, creating

their own artificially induced floods. Flooding may

also occur as a result of natural or artificially induced soil subsidence. Another manmade factor

in flooding is back flushing through water conduits, especially in sewer systems.

Flood hazards may also originate from causes

quite remote from the flood site itself. Land clearance of forests for farming may change the local

ecology, thereby altering runoff water retention

characteristics in a river basin. Depending on the

size of the basin and the extent of the changes

made, this may become a primary source of flooding.

A large part of the national shoreline is vulnerable to continuing erosion from flood-related

events. Average annual losses exceed $300 million.1 With the population continuing to move

IGilbert F. White, and Eugene J. Haas, Assessment of Research on

Natural Hazards (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1975), p. 361.

13
toward coastal areas in greater numbers as trends

indicate, coastal erosion will be responsible for a

greater percentage of flood losses. (This particular

hazard has its own set of problems, which are discussed in appendix A.)

When large areas of cities and suburbs are covered with concrete, asphalt, and buildings, a

drainage problem is created because the soil’s

natural ability to retain water is sharply reduced.

This can seriously aggravate flooding problems. A

classic example is the so-called Four Mile Run in

the northern Virginia area of suburban Washington, D.C. In part, as a result of extensive development, Four Mile Run experienced two officially

designated flood disasters in 1970.2

Occasionally, a geophysical event is indirectly

responsible for a flood disaster. For example, a

1andslide caused by heavy rains may, if it falls into

an artificial lake, cause a wave to overflow the

dam, and an earthquake may induce a landslide or

cause a dam to fail. (Dam failures will not be given

further consideration in this report since they are

a subject of current investigation and appear to be

receiving adequate attention.)

The principal sources of floods roughly in order

of attributable losses are:3

riverbank overflow,

conduit backwater flood,

groundwater flood,

headwater flood,

flash flood,

subsidence flood,

ice backup,

debris backup,

dam breakage, and

geological sink flood.

THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

OF FLOODS

Flooding is primarily a problem in river valleys,

on floodplains, in the coastal zone, and on the perimeters of large lakes. Unfortunately, historical

necessity and esthetic appeal make areas prone to

flood hazards among the most attractive in which

to live or work.

2Wesley Marx, Acts of God Acts of Man (New York: Coward

McCann and Geoghegan, 1977), p. 46.

3D. Earl Jones, Chief, Field Services Branch, Office of Technical

Support, Department of Housing and Urban Development, personal

communication, 1978.

The principal river basins and coastal zones that

are subject to floods are shown in figure 2. Both

rural and urban communities are vulnerable.

Figure 3 represents a principal river basin in New

York State. The historical pattern and frequency

of flooding in that area are shown in table 2. This

particular river basin illustrates a common pattern -

in the temporal distribution of floods, namely

their relative infrequency. Between 1886 and 1972

there were 12 major floods due to heavy rain,

snowmelt, hurricanes, or other causes. While their

rare occurrence may remove floods as a source of

constant concern to both residents and local governments, it necessitates bringing foresight in

long-range planning to flood management.

THE COSTS OF FLOODS

It is difficult to calculate accurately the costs of

flood hazards or of the measures taken to alleviate

or moderate them. However, useful calculations

can be made of the cost of prudent means for preventing or mitigating possible flood losses. Calculation can also give a sense of the magnitude of

damage that floods have caused, and can be used

to create an awareness of the role that current

choices play in determining future losses. In the

following sections patterns of loss of life and property, and of the geographic distribution of the

costs of floods are reviewed.

National Exposure to Flood Hazards

Seven percent of the 48 contiguous States are in

the 100-year flood zone. This means that these

areas are subject to a flood of such severity that

there is a l-percent probability of its occurring in

any given year. Goddard cites, in addition, potential catastrophes existing in other areas of the

United States:4

●

●

●

●

Over 200,000 square miles are subject to inundation, an area equal to the combined size

of California and Ohio.

One-sixth of all urban areas are in the 100-

year floodplain.

There are more than 20,000 flood-prone communities in the United States, and 16,500

square miles of urban floodplain.

There are more than 6.4 million single-family

houses located in floodplains.

Ja~6 E, G~dard, “’The ~acion’s Increasing Vulnerability Co

Flood Catastrophe,” )oumaf oj Sod and Conservarlon, March-Aprd

1976, pp. +8-52.

14
I

.-

15

—
—

.

16

‘t ‘ \ \

-—---
Table 2.-Frequency and Cause of Flooding

Between 1886 and 1972 in the New York State

Counties of Livingston, Steuben, and Chemung

Jan. 5-12, 1886

Elmira (snowmelt, heavy rain, ice)

June 1-2, 1889

Elmira (cause not stated)

Sept. 9-10,1890

South Canisteo, Schuyler, Chemung, Steuben

Counties generally (heavy rain)

May 20-21, 1894

Elmira (heavy rainfall)

Aug. 8, 1917

Binghamton, Elmira (heavy rain)

NOV. 30,1927

Hornell, Addison, Corning (heavy rains)

July 1935

Elmira (heavy rains)

May 25-28,1946

Corning, Elmira (heavy rains)

Dec. 10-11,1952

Elmira, Oneonta (heavy rains, snowmelt)

Oct. 15,1954

Binghamton, Elmira, Hornell (hurricane rains)

Mar. 30-31, 1960

Elmira–small stream flooding (heavy rains, snowmelt)

June 20-25, 1972

Bath, Corning, Elmira, Owego (heavy rains)

SOURCE: N.Y.S. Climatologist’s Records, U.S. National Weather Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

From: David W. Tregaskis, “Needed Changes in the National Flood Insurance

Act to Reflect Farm Flood Loss Experience,” Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, April 1975, app. 2.

Commerce, transportation, safety, and the necessity for water for industrial processes or domestic use are all valid reasons for people to live and

work in floodplains. Several of these historical reasons, however, have been largely superseded by

national roads and pipeline systems. Furthermore,

living near water is both esthetically and environmentally appealing. This attracts large numbers of

vacationers and homeowners. It thus creates a

long-term conflict with those who wish to convert

the floodplain into common use open space or

other low-density purposes.

By 1973, over half the floodplains in urban

areas had been developed. j This covered an area

of town and country totaling approximately 8,800

square miles (see table 3), which is 125 times the

size of the District of Columbia.

Despite over four decades of public investments

for controlling floodwaters and providing safety

for those living near hazard areas, the population

and resources at risk are greater than ever. Hood

losses are increasing, and the very construction

that has made floodplains safer in the short run

jIbd., p. +8.

has increased both the number of people at risk

and the degree of risk they will face in the long

run.

Costs—Annual and Cumulative Losses

Loss of life, which depends on the size of a flood, 

as fluctuated over the past four decades (see

figure 4). In this period, about 4,000 U.S. residents

have lost their lives in floods. The exact number is

uncertain. The Red Cross and the National

Weather Service, working with unpublished data,

indicate the average annual loss of life to be 47.6

and 57.2 respectively; and unpublished Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) data indicate that

in 1975 there were 89 lives lost. This appears

minor in comparison with the 1911 Yangtze River

flood in which 100,000 persons died or the repeated flood disasters in Bangladesh. By comparison with death tolls in the less well-developed

countries, the loss of life in the United States is

relatively insignificant. The U.S. flood in which

the most lives were lost—6,000—was caused by the

Galveston, Tex., hurricane of 1900.

The historical pattern of losses in severe individual floods is illustrated in table 4. The average

number of lives lost in 77 major floods from 1913

to 1973 was 52; 14 involved no known loss, and

the 4 worst took 467, 313, 237, and 187 lives.

Some sense of the annual loss of life in relation to

national development can be seen from figure 4,

which shows the annual loss of lives for each $10

million of property damage.

Property Losses

Property losses are rising rapidly. Between 1953

and 1973, the annual property loss, according to

one estimate, has risen from $1.5 billion to $3.8

billion (1973 dollars), and Federal outlays for

disaster relief for that same period rose from $52

million to $2.5 billion (1978 dollars). 

In the four decades since 1936, approximately

$14 billion has been expended on flood control

construction including dikes, dams, levees, channels, and sea walls. But there appears to be no

clear relationship between that construction and

any reduction in loss of life or property.

Coastal erosion, while not totally attributable

to flood hazard conditions, is closely associated

blbid., p. W.

Vbid., p. W.

‘Ibid., p. 50.

17
Table 3.-Exposure to Floods of Selected Urbanized Areas

Floodplain (FP)

Totala Total Developed

Population Area Area ‘/0 of Area % of

Urbanized areab(UA) (1000s) (sq. mi.) (sq. mi.) U A c (Sq. mi.) FPc

Asheville, N. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boise, Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boston, Mass.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Charleston,S.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago, lll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas,Tex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver Colo.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fargo, N. D.-Moorhead, Minn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GreatFalls, Mont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Harrisburg, Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lansing,Mich.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lincoln, Nebr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Monroe, La. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Omaha, Nebr.-Council Bluffs, lowa. . . . . . . . . . .

Phoenix, Ariz.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Portland,Oreg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reno, Nev. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond,Va.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

St. Louis, Mo.lll.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Salt LakeCity, Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanJose,Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spokane,Wash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tallahassee, Fla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texarkana,Tex.-Ark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72.5

85.2

2,652.6

228.4

6,714.6

1,338.7

1,047.3

85.5

70.9

240.8

229.5

153.4

192.3

90.6

668.3

491.8

863.4

824.9

99.7

416.6

1,882.0

479.4

1,025.3

229.6

77.9

58.6

35.3d

29.4

664.4

99.2

1,227.2

674.2

292.8

23.5

21.8

78.4

73.4

52.1

106.4

40.1

299.0

151.2

387.5

266.8

37.5

144.6

460.6

184.3

277.2

77.8

29.8

34.3e

65.0

84.0 - ‘-

19.1

53.3

57.0

19.2

62.2

54.3

97.0

83.5

18.8

49.6

11.3

82.4

26.2

45.5

89.2

58.7

45.0

13.2

67.4

78.3

84.7

47.4

83.9

44.2
●

el!dea J8d ‘atiewe~ Siiil[oa

=—.

19
uii

Table 4.-Losses in Individual Severe Floods in the United States Since July 1902

(Property losses in thousands of dollars)

Date” Location Lives* ● ProDerty

May-June 1903 . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas, lower Missouri, and upper Mississippi Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . .

March 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lower Mississippi River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

March 1913 . . . . . . . . . .

December 1913. . . .. .. .. .. Texas Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

June 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arkansas River in State of Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

September 1921. .. .. .. .. .Texas Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spring of 1927.... .. .. .. .. Mississippi Valley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

November 1927. . . . . . . . . .New England Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

May-June 1935... . . . . . . . . Republican and Kansas Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

July 1935. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Susquehanna tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

March-April 1936 . . . . . . . . .Rivers in Eastern United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

January-February 1937 . . .. Ohio and lower Mississipi River basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

March 1938. . . . . . . . . . . ... Streams in southern California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

September 1938. . . . . . . . . Rivers in New England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

July 1939. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Licking and Kentucky Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

August 1940.... . . . . . . . . . Rivers in southern Virginia, the Carolinas, and eastern Tennessee . . .

May 1942. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

July 1942. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upper Allegheny River and Sinnamahoning Creek Basins . . . . . . . . . .

November-December 1942 .Willamette River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

April-June1943.

August 1943 . . .

April-June1944.

February-March

May-July 1947..

May-June1948.

May 1949. . . . . .

June 1949.....

June1950 . . . . .

June-July 1951 .

April 1952 . . . . .

April-May1953.

June 1953 . . . . .

June 1954 . . . . .

October 1954 . .

March 1955....

August 1955 . . .

December 1955.

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

1945. .,...

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

January-February 1957 . . . .

February 1957.... . . . . . . . .

April-June 1957.... . . . . . . .

June-July 1957.. . . . . . . . . .

Maumee, Wabash, upper Mississippi Missouri White,and Arkansas

River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Little Kanawha River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Upper Mississippi Missouri, Arkansas, Red, and lower Mississippi

River Basins and eastTexas rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lower Missouri and middle Mississippi River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Columbia River Basina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Trinity River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rivers in central West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kansas and Missouri b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......:..

Red River of the North, upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins c

Louisiana andTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Northwestern Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middle Rio Grande and lower Pecos Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pecos River in New Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ohio River Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hurricane ’’Dianne” floods in the Northeast d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

West coast rivers e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Streams in southeastern Kentucky, southwestern West Virginia, and

adjacent areas inTennessee and Virginia f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Snake River and tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rivers in Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri,

and Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wabash River and tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$ 40,000

70,000

147,000

9,000 - --

25,000

19,000

284,118

45,578

18,000

26,000

270,000

417,685

24,500

37,000

1,715

12,000

13,000

10,000

6,900

172,500

1,300

82,000

30,000

235,000

101,725

14,000

8,850

4,020

923,224

198,000

38,959

32,950

19,079

1,783

14,396

714,079

154,532

58,000

20,500

105,000

63,000

63,000

5,850

81,921

3,238

97,600

54,279

415,832

81,602

181,325

30,802

415,076

2,715

58,340

20,100

35,275

98,239

98,550

166,690

399,233

151,000

87,915

20

—.-
Table 4.-Losses in Individual Severe Floods in the United States Since July 1902, cont.

(Property losses in thousands of dollars)

Date* Location Lives* ● Property

August 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . James River Basin in Virginiai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 116,000

January 1970. ... .... ... .. Sacramento River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 38,120

September 1970. .. ... ... .Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5,000

October 1970 .. .. .. .. .. .. Puerto Rico..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 62,000 . --

August 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . .NewJersey(’’Doria’’ rainfall) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 138,700

September 1971. . . . . . . . .. Southeastern Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 19,010

February 1972..... .. .. .. .Buffalo Creek,W. Va.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 10,000

May 1972. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. South-central Texas flash floods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17,500

June 1972 . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .Black Hills of South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 164,947

June 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eastern United States (Hurricane “Agnes’’floods) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4,019,721

Spring 1973. .. .. .. .. .. ... Mississippi system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1,154,770

May 1973. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Flash flooding in mountains of North Carolina and southwest

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 29,485

June 1973 . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . Connecticut Basin in Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire . . . 11 64,000

June 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .San Jacinto Basin and small adjacent basins in southeast Texas . . . . 10 62,500

Source Loss($)

Riverbank overflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . $I biilion

Conduit backwater flood . . . . . . . . 800 miilion

Groundwater flood. . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 million

Headwater flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 miliion

Flashflood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 million

Subsidence flood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 miilion

Ice backup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 million

Debris backup.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 miilion

Dam breakage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I0 million

Geological sink flood . . . . . . . . . . . I million

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.771 trillion

The situation has been continuing to worsen,

particularly with respect to the demography of urban, riverine, and coastal zone development. According to Gilbert White, the present rate of urban expansion into floodplains is between 1.5 to

bling of the risks per generation. Encroachment

on floodplains even occurs in areas with zero

growth or declining population.

.
Florida. -In south Florida, floods accompanying a hurricane, according to White, could

cause many deaths due to the vulnerability of

bridges, causeways, and drawbridges to storm

surges. Citing the transitory nature of Florida

residents, he contends that a large part of its

population has never experienced a severe

hurricane. That ignorance could hamper

evacuation and warning response:

In sum, the total loss of life is high. A

storm surge well in advance of the hurricane’s

center catches many still preparing to evacuate. Flooding of escape routes due co heavy

rain exacerbates the severe traffic tie-ups

which are normally expected with a large

number of automobiles. (Rush hour traffic

probably represents less than 25 percent of

the traffic which could be expected with a

warning to evacuate, and even this amount

cannot be accommodated without major delays.) Warning and evacuation as they now

are planned and proceed are inadequate reCalifornia. –In 1 month in 1966, the Santa

Ana River basin suffered two storms of such

severity that each was likely to occur only

once in 30 years. They caused $85 million in

damage and qualified three counties for Federal disaster relief. The flood control system

itself came close to failing. This compelled the

Corps of Engineers to study what ‘the postdisaster consequences would be if a storm of

greater magnitude should occur. The study

was referred to by the Corps as a “standard

project flood.” It is, however, a reasonable upper limit guideline for providing a high degree

of flood protection to an urban area.

According to its description by Wesley

Marx:

The corps exposed Orange County to a

standard project flood on paper. River levees

would breach. The junk autos needed to bolster levees in this situation simply do not exist, not even in auto-crazed southern California. Knotts Berry Farm and Movieland Wax

Museum would be in 3 feet of water. Sleepy

hamlets turned civic insomniacs—Anaheim,

Garden Grove, Westminster, and Fountain

Valley–would be wading in floodwaters. The

Disney Matterhorn and freeway overpasses

would be high ground. Rockwell International, McDonnell Douglas, Aerojet-General,

The above forecasts of disasters that would be

accompanied by a high loss of life and extensive

property damage reflect the consequences of conditions typical of many American regions. Public

policies that are largely limited to physical controls

create a false sense of security which encourages

the intensive development of vulnerable terrain.

The potential catastrophes described above

have had very real, tragic precedents in recent

history. On June 9, 1972, Rapid City, S. Dak., experienced the most destructive flash flood in the

Nation’s history. It took 231 lives and did more

than $100 million worth of property damage (see

table 6). Although the history of flooding in that

area is well-documented, major floods had not occurred for five decades, and development took

place unhampered by concerns about a flood hazard. Thus, it exemplifies the type of catastrophic

destruction that could be experienced by other

more densely developed areas as a consequence of

an unusual flood-producing event, if floodplains

continue to be developed without regard for the

possibility of severe floods.

The flood history of Rapid City (see table 6),

which was available to all of its flood planners, illustrates the consistent pattern of flooding that

should have alerted them to the potentiality of a

catastrophe.

Public policy in flood hazards management

needs to be concerned with two types of flood risk.

The first is a noncatastrophic flood. In this type,

there is a slow and steady rise in losses. The second

is the potential catastrophe, with enormous loss of

lives and property.

16wesley Marx, Op. ~lt., P- 1 13“

.-

22

 -- -
Table 6.-Flood History of Rapid City, S. Oak.

Date of flood Damages ($) Loss of life

1.1878 . . . . . . . . . . . ? 1

2. 1883 . . . . . . . . . . . ‘? —

3.1885 . . . . . . . . . . . 25,000 —

4.1890 . . . . . . . . . . . 50,000? —

5.1901 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

6. 1907 . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000+ 4?

7.1909 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

8.1909 . . . . . . . . . . . 5,000

9. 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . ?

10.1910 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

11.1920 . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000+

12.1926 . . . . . . . . . . . 7

13. 1929 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

14.1936 . . . . . . . . . . . ?

15.1942 . . . . . . . . . . . ?

16.1949 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

17.1952 . . . . . . . . . . . ? —

18.1962 . . . . . . . . . . . ?

19.1972 . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000,000+ 231

SOURCE: Gilbert F. White, Flood flazard in the United States: A Research As.

sessrnent(60ulderColoi University ofColoradO, 1975), P.60.

ELEMENTS OF NATIONAL

RESPONSE

Since the Lower Mississippi Flood of 1927, the

Federal Government has been closely involved

with the planning, design, funding, construction,

and operation of flood control programs. Table-i --

describes the significant Federal responses since

that year. From these it can be seen that specific

disasters have provided strong incentives for new

initiatives.

Between 1928 and 1968, the major emphasis

was on the construction of massive engineering

projects including flood control dams and reservoirs, widening and straightening channels, and

local levees, dikes, and floodwalls. The intent in

each case was to restrain floodwaters from affecting human activities and settlements. These measTable 7.-Chronology of Major Floods and Public Response

Date Major flood disasters Significant events in national response

1927. . Lower Mississippi— 1927

New England—1927

1930. .

1935. . Kansas River– 1935

Upper Susquehanna—1935

Eastern United States–1936

Ohio/Middle Mississippi— 1937

New England— 1938

1940. .

1945. .

1950. .

1955. .

1960. .

1965. .

1970. .

1975. .

Kansas and Missouri Rivers—1951

New England—1955

Gulf Coast—1960

Southwest and Midwest—1961

Atlantic Coast—1962

Louisiana—1964

Upper Mississippi— 1965

Upper Mississippi— 1969

Rapid, S. Oak.— 1972

Hurricane Agnes— 1972

Upper Mississippi— 1973

Mid-Atlantic—1975

Mississippi Flood Control Act of 1928

Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933

Report of Water Resources Committee of National Resources

Flood Control Act of 1936

Flood Control Act of 1938

Flood Control Act of 1944

Board– 1934

Publication of “Human Adjustment to Floods” by G. F. White—1945

President’s Commission on Water Resources Policy— 1950

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954

Publication of Floods by Hoyt and Langbein— 1955

Flood Insurance Act— 1956

Floodplain Information Program, Corps of Engineers— 1961

Southeastern Hurrican Disaster Relief Act of 1963

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

HUD Study on Flood insurance—1966

Report of Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy— 1966

Executive Order 11296-1966

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973

Water Resources Development Act of 1974

Executive Orders 11988, 11990–1977

Massachusetts Coast— 1978

Southern California– 1978

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.

23
ures have been accompanied, to a limited extent,

by floodplain zoning to prevent downstream channel encroachment (a condition frequently required

by the Corps of Engineers that appears to be more

honored in the breach than in the observance.)

Other measures that have been employed in rural

areas since the 1930’s include reforestation and

soil conservation techniques. Whenever floods

have occurred despite these measures, various

forms of public and private disaster assistance

have been supplied. The Federal share of this

assistance has been rising sharply.

Since 1968, the emphasis in national flood

policy has shifted towards an increasing reliance

on nonstructural measures, such as flood insurance and land management, for averting severe

flood losses and possibly redistributing their economic burden. The National Flood Insurance Act

of 1968 (see chapter VII) established a program for

insuring buildings and their contents against flood

damage in both coastal and riverine hazard areas.

The program requires the adoption by each community of local regulations that satisfy minimum

national standards for floodplain management, as

a prerequisite to the sale of insurance to property

owners. Additional legislation during the 1970’s

has broadened the National Flood Insurance Program to require the purchase of insurance as a condition to the approval of federally related financing in hazard areas. Two Acts in 1974 authorized

Federal cost-sharing for nonstructural measures

(such as land acquisition), and required that efforts be made to mitigate disasters as a condition

of Federal disaster assistance. These and other pertinent Federal laws are summarized below (see

table 7):

• Federal Flood Control Act (33 USCA

sees. 701a et seq.); Flood Control Act of

1936 (Public Law 74-738); Flood Control

Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-761); and subsequent Rivers and Harbors Acts.

These comprise the organic Federal law

concerning the control of floods by means of

structural projects: dams, channelization,

local protection works, etc. Primary responsibility is assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, with the Department of Agriculture assigned jurisdiction over small upstream

watersheds with problems of erosion and runoff. The 1936 Act set forth the fundamental

criterion that Federal funding is restricted to

projects whose “benefits to whosoever they

may accrue exceed their estimated costs. ”

● Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-566;

16 USCA, sees. 1001 et seq.).

This Act established the “small watershed”

flood management program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation

Service. The Service is authorized to undertake planning studies for watersheds of less

than 250,000 acres and to implement flood

control programs including land treatment,

construction of flood detention reservoirs,

and other measures.

Ž Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

(Public Law 89-80, 42 USCA 1962 et seq.).

This Act established the U.S. Water Resources Council as an independent Federal

agency responsible for the review and analysis

of water resource issues and for the supervision of studies by river basin commissions. It

also provided for the establishment of Federal

river basin commissions, six of which are now

in existence (New England, Ohio, Great

Lakes, upper Mississippi; Missouri, and Pacific-Northwest.) This Act also authorized

grants to States for water resource planning

and studies.

● National Flood Insurance Act (42 USCA

sees. 4001 et seq.).

Tide XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448)

- Housing and Urban Development Act of

1969 (Public Law 91-152)

Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973 (Public Law 93-234)

This Act established the National Flood Insurance Program as a vehicle for promoting

prudent management of floodplains, and for

allocating some of the costs of flood losses to

occupants of flood hazard areas through the

mechanism of insurance. (See chapter VII.)

● Water Resources Development Act of

1974, sec. 73 (Public Law 93-251)

This section requires those Federal agencies

responsible for floodplain management to

consider nonstructural alternatives to measures authorized in the Federal Flood Control

Act. Federal agencies are authorized to participate in the implementation of such nonstructural alternatives at a level of 80 percent

of total project costs or more.

● Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Sec. 406

(Public Law 93-288).

This section requires as a condition of any

disaster loan or grant made under this Act

---

24

‘ \

. 

-- 
that the recipient shall agree that reconstruc- Following this overview of the historical and

tion thereby assisted shall conform to applica- current basis for policy concerns, a framework for

ble building standards. States and local gov- flood hazards management is considered in the

ernments encompassing property eligible for next chapter.

disaster assistance shall evaluate the existence

of natural hazards and shall adopt necessary

measures to mitigate such hazards.

--- <

-— ,

-; \ - *, “

 - \

.
Flood

Flood hazards like other natural hazards have

their origins in nature. Flood disasters, however,

are a consequence of the intrusion of man and his

works into an environment that puts them both at

risk. The successful application of public policies

to the management of flood hazards calls for integrating a number of factors. The three most fundamental of these are: human behavior and the

choices people make; natural events and their

probabilities; and governmental responsibilities.

Four considerations that have been found useful

in addressing an integrated approach to the management of flood hazards are:

●

●

●

●

the lifecycle of a flood hazard,

the time frame needed for planning policy,

the tools available to Government, and

an analytical strategy to assist decisionmaking

that extends beyond cost-benefit analysis.

THE LIFECYCLE OF

A FLOOD HAZARD

An effective management strategy for moderating a flood hazard or any other natural hazard

must take into account the hazard’s total lifecycle

as it evolves from the natural condition in an environment into the risk conditions created by people’s intrusion in that environment. The lifecycle

shown in figure 5 presents an overall picture from

which the relative strengths and weaknesses in

current public policy can be identified.

At present, the relatively strong capabilities of

flood hazards management are its emergency organization and its planning for dealing with the immediate postdisaster situation (items 6 and 14 in

figure 5). The readiness to exercise an emergency

response (item 15) is a much weaker capability.

Damage assessment (item 17) is relatively welldone after minor floods but much less so after major floods, in most areas. Prediction and warning

capabilities (item 12) are being steadily improved,

and measures taken for relief, recovery, and rehabilitation (items 6, 7, and 8) are adequate both for

IV. A Framework for

Hazards Management

sudden disasters and for those that cause less than

$1 billion in damage.

Planning for rehabilitation and recovery (item

18) is seriously deficient in all areas subject to

floods. For maximum effectiveness, comprehensive plans to provide relief, as well as for rehabilitation, must be readied before a disaster strikes. The

only long-term strategy that will reduce future

losses from floods is to rebuild properly designed

structures on suitable sites, avoiding the repetition

of past errors. At the present time, however, without properly enforced planning for rehabilitation

and recovery after a major flood, it is not likely

that the unsound building patterns of the past will

be changed.

Prevention has traditionally relied on controlling floods by means of civil engineering works.

The increasing inadequacy of civil works that are

not closely tied to land use planning is widely recognized. For this reason, how to make long-term

land use planning an effective tool for controlling

development in flood hazard areas and for guiding

postdisaster recovery is a principal public policy

question in flood hazards management.

The disorganized, almost haphazard, nature of

the Government’s efforts and capabilities for addressing a long-term integrated strategy is illustrated by figure 6. This figure shows that there are

only a few Federal agencies with responsibility for

more than one or two of the key elements in the

lifecycle of a flood hazard, and that there isn’t one

single element which is the responsibility of a majority of the agencies. The President’s recent Reorganization Plan for Emergency Preparedness and

Response, which established the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), may help to

more effectively organize these multiagencv responsibilities. (The issues confronting FEMA are

discussed in a companion report mentioned in the

preface.) The problem of integration is discussed in

greater detail in chapter VI.

27
.

Figure 5.-Lifecycle of a Flood Hazard

Institutional cycle starts

I

Relief local

or external 6. t - -

I

I

v

I Recovery 7

I

Prevention 9.

I

I

Monitoring 13.

Emergency

organizations

and planning 14.

I

I Emergency organizations

Damage

needs

17. assessment

I I

holding exercises Disaster occurs

(not usually done) 15. 16.

28
Figure 6.-The Complexity and Confusion of Federal Responsibilities

Elements of the Iifecycle as related to Federal actors

ELEMENTS AGENCIES

1. Man enters area

2. Discover hazard

3. Building takes place 

4. Disaster occurs

5. Relief

6. Recovery

7. Rehabilitation

8. Prevention

9.Mitigation

10. Protection

11. Prediction

12 Monitoring

13. Emergency organization

and planning

14. Emergency organizations

excerised

15. Disaster occurs

DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

- Agr. Research Service

Agr. Stabilization and

Conservation Service

Farmers home Administration

Forest Service

Soil Conservation Service

DEPT. OF COMMERCE

Nat'l Bureau of Standards

Nat’l Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration

Internal Revenue Service

DEPT. OF HEW

Center for Disease Control

Health Resources Admin.

Office of Education

Public Health Service

DEPT. OF HUD

Community Planning and

Development

Federal Disaster Assistance.

Administration

Federal Housing Admin.

Federal Insurance Admin.

DEPT. OF INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Reclamation

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Geological SUrvey 

Fish and Wildlife Service

DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Admin.

Coast Guard

SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

WATER RESOURCE COUNCIL

DEPT. OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers

Defense civil Preparedness

National Guard

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION

DEPT. OF ENERGY

29
WARNING

Whether for flash floods, for severe weather, for

storm surges, or for tsunamis, flood warnings can

substantially reduce the loss of life and property.

Although the best estimates indicate that adequate warning would only reduce losses by about

10 percent, this represents a sizable saving with

respect to the property base at risk. Thus, there

appears to be a rising demand for warning services.

Flash floods affect over 15,000 communities and

recreational areas. Since 1971, about 3,000 localities have been identified as having a high flash

flood potential.1 All of these, along with another

3,000 areas with a somewhat less severe potential

for such flooding, would benefit from a local flash

flood warning program. To date, however, the National Weather Service only provides site-specific

flash flood warning programs to 675 high potential

areas.

2 This leaves over 5,300 areas in immediate

need of such tailormade warning programs. The

small number of new warning programs-75 to

100 annually–which are being put into effect by

the National Weather Service, cannot meet the

of its limited staff of 150 hydrologists for the entire

United States, the National Weather Service can

only handle about 15 percent of the nationwide

need for flash flood warnings.

There are approximately 9,000 remaining floodprone localities where the problem is relatively less

serious. These areas can be served by less sitespecific, more generalized warnings, which are curTsunamis, which are large ocean tides induced

by earthquakes, have great destructive potential.

In 1896, 27,000 Japanese were swept away by tsunamis, and in 1940, tsunamis wiped out every

town along 800 km of the Chilean coast. The

coastal areas of the contiguous 48 States have thus

far been free of these devastating waves (although

it is not certain whether earthquakes off the east

coast are a significant hazard). Alaska and Hawaii,

however, which are close to earthquake epicenters

and therefore could be subject to sudden tsunamis,

are most directly interested in the National

Weather Service’s tsunami-warning system. ReIA[len F. Flanders, National Weather Serwce, personai communication, Apr. j, 1978.

‘Ibid.

‘Ibid.

‘Ibid.

cent technical developments in understanding

these phenomena promise to improve the reliability and usefulness of their forecasting.

THE TIME FRAME OF

PUBLIC POLICY PLANNING

AND IMPLEMENTATION

Most of the lives and property at risk from

floods are in cities or other heavily developed

riverine floodplains and coastal zones. Considering that tens of millions of people and close to a

trillion dollars of investments* are located in these

flood hazard areas and that the average urban

structure has a lifetime of about 40 years, it follows

that if land use is changed too rapidly and too

radically or there is too forceful an effort to make

structural changes in property now at risk, excessive costs would be incurred.

To be effective, a national program for flood

hazards management should take into account the

40-year average lifetime of urban structures. Then

plans for removing and relocating structures at

risk and hence people at risk, would be based on

an implementation period of 30 to 40 years. A

strategy that takes advantage of this average turnover time for urban structures would be the most

acceptable from a socioeconomic point of view. It

should not be implied, however, that such a strategy can be left to the normal operation of traditional market forces. Inadequately controlled market forces have been themselves a dominant factor

in promoting flood hazard risks.

A major public policy objective framed over a

turnover time of 30 to 40 years would not only

*One way to roughly escimate the value of structures at risk in a

given flood zone is to multiply the per capita national investment in

structures by the resident population. To include all public and private costs, that ftgure should be increased by roughly one-third co reflect the public service infrastructure (e.g., roads, sewers, bridges, etc.)

at risk and increased even more CO include the concents of homes and

businesses.

Number o(housmg units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.+ million

Average size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,100 sq. ft.

Replacement cosrfsq. h.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $M

Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?20 mllhon

Totai resdentlai lnvesrrnent . . . . . . . . . . . j 11,350 per capita

Nonresidential sq. ft. . . . . . . . . . . . .......29 bliilon sq. ft.

Replacement cost/sq. k.. ... ... ... ... .. .$50

Popuiatlon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JJ) mlihon

Totai nonremientlai mvescment . . . . . . . . $6, W@ per captta

Totai national mvestmenr In structures. . . . . S17,WJ ~r capita

SOURCE: Prepared by OTA wlch che assistance o(John P. Eberhad.

30
minimize costs but would also make it possible to

closely examine change as it takes place. This

monitoring of change would provide Congress

and the executive branch with feedback useful for

ascertaining the progress of flood hazards management programs in meeting long-term national policy objectives.

TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR

FLOOD HAZARDS MANAGEMENT

Numerous Governmental mechanisms are avail- ,

able for managing flood hazards. These can be

conveniently organized in terms of three general

strategies:

●

●

●

Modifying the hazard by using structural control to alter the course or flow of the water.

Moderating the impacts of flooding on individuals and communities through insurance,

disaster relief, and tax adjustments.

Reducing the risks of flood damage.

Modifying the Hazard

The traditional approach to flood hazards at the

Federal, State, and local levels has primarily been

to modify the course or flow of water by the application of physical methods. The volume of runoff

during the peak stage of a flood; the time of occurrence and the duration; the extent of area flooded;

and the velocity and depth of the water, thus the

amount of pollutants and debris carried by the

flood, can all be modified by physical means such

as: dams, dikes, levees, flood walls, channel alterations, spillways, land treatment, and other civil

works.

The adequacy of such physical methods as the

predominant approach to controlling flood hazards is increasingly being questioned. Reliance

solely on civil works, which cannot possibly be

constructed to protect against every potential

flood, encourages “apparently” protected flood

zones to be developed. This, in turn, may lay the

groundwork for larger, rather than smaller, future

disasters. -----

Moderating the Impacts

Flood emergency measures, which range from

emergency flood-proofing and disaster contingency preparedness to the warning of impending danger, are other traditional approaches to flood hazards. These measures by themselves, however, are

recognized as inadequate for effectively dealing

with the consequences of floods. Warning

schemes, for example, may save a few lives but at

most reduce property loss only by about 10 percent, as brought out in the flood workshop.

Once a flood occurs, postdisaster recovery measures such as insurance and tax adjustments are

needed to moderate its impacts. A public policy

dilemma associated with postrecovery measures is

the extent to which they encourage risk-taking. If

a community knows that should a disaster strike it

will receive assistance and relief in the form of lowcost and subsidized insurance, this expectation

could act to discourage the use of more effective

preventive measures.

Reducing the Risks

The approach to the management of flood hazards is shifting towards measures that reduce the

susceptibility to flood damage by integrating land

management techniques, such as restricted occupancy, with traditional strategies and tools, such

as civil works. The emphasis is increasingly being

placed on such risk reduction measures as zoning

codes, regulations, the implementation of development and redevelopment plans, and policies to improve the design and location of structures.

These measures are not equally suitable for

every situation. Some, e.g., zoning restrictions, are

more applicable to the development of untouched

floodplains, others, e.g., flood-proofing, to urban

rather than rural areas. The chief difficulty in implementing these approaches is that they reverse

the traditional time sequence in which benefits are

dispensed. Consequently, the political advantages

to National, State, and local leaders would be considerably altered. Risk reduction measures also

shift the burden of integrating and applying

knowledge from the Federal Government to State

and local levels. This places great demands on

their skilled, but relatively small, professional

staffs. A further complication is that State and

local jurisdictions tend to be subject to pressure

from narrow and short-term special interests. The

principal policy tools for managing flood hazards

are shown in table 8.

The limitations of the strategies for each of the

three methods of flood hazards management:

modifying the hazard, moderating the impacts,

and reducing the risks are shown in table 9. Four

31
Table 8.-Governmental Strategies and Tools for Flood Hazards Management

Modify the hazard

Dams and reservoirs

Dikes, levees, floodwalls

Channel alterations

High-flow diversions and spillways

storm drainage

Land treatment measures

. reduction of erosion

. vegetation

● terraces

. runoff division

Onsite detection measures

Watershed treatment

Moderate the impacts

Flood insurance

Tax adjustments

● amortization for nonconforming

uses

. reinforcement of regulatory

policies

Forecasting and warning evaluation

Flood emergency measures

. emergency flood-proofing

● exercise of emergency response

groups

Coordination of response and rescue Development and redevelopment

. communication links policies

. preflood planning ●

● damage assessment

Disaster assistance ●

. loans

. temporary housing, etc. ●

Ž direct compensation ●

Postdisaster recovery: rehabilitation ●

coordination with other renewal ●

objectives

design and location of sensitive

public services

open space acquisition; public

ownership

easements

redevelopment and renewal

permanent evacuation

tax incentives/disincentives

subsidies, grants, loans

Remote sensing Preparedness and response planning

●

●

Reduce the risks ●

Regulations ●

● zoning

• subdivision regulations; standard ●

setting Flood-proofing buildings and structures

training

postaudits

research; futures research

coordination and support of

planning

impact analysis

● building codes ● public awareness programs

. housing codes ● training local hazard personnel;

● sanitary and well codes; health training residents

codes Program and project evaluation

• realtor disclosure of risk Priority setting and policy definition

● land acquisition

SOURC12 Officoof Tschnoiogy Assessment.

Table 9.-Relevance of Nonstructural Measures to

Floodplain Management Objectives

Reduce Prevent Redis.

existing increased tribute

Nonstructural measure losses -

Iosses losses

Flood insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flood warning and emergency

evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acquisition in fee . . . . . . . . . . .

Clearance/relocation. . . . . . . . .

Acquisition of rights less

than fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Floodplain zoning . . . . . . . . . . .

Tidal wetland regulations. . . . .

Building codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subdivision regulations . . . . . .

Flood proofing. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Control of utility location. . . . .

Encroachment regulations. . . .

Emergency relief . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education and information. . . .

no

yes

no

yes

no

no

no

no

no

yes

no

no

no

yes

no

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

yes

yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

yes

no

SOURCE: Philip B. Cheney and H. Crane Miller. “The Appilcation of Nonstruc.

tumi Measures to Cosstaf Flooding,”’ for The New Eng/and /7/ver

Basin’s Commission, June 1975, p. 12.

of the fourteen nonstructural measures listed

would reduce existing losses, eleven would prevent

increased losses, and two would redistribute losses.

None would accomplish all three. It follows, therefore, that there is a need to integrate nonstructural

with structural approaches.

Historically, the preferred measure has been to

use civil engineering to modify the hazard by constructing dams, dikes, levees, etc., which reduce

the risks for the typical more frequent but relatively minor floods. This approach, however, has several disadvantages. It is the only method that can

actually increase the risk of life and property losses

in many areas. This could happen if there were a

major event that exceeded the planning specifications of the protective physical construction in a

flood hazard area. Furthermore, by encouraging

development in areas that are not holly protected

against all possible events, the reliance on civil

works can place additional lives and property at

risk. There is no economically practical way to

modify a flood hazard that can protect against a

rare or catastrophic event.

The strategies that moderate the impacts of

floods do so in three ways: 1) by spreading the loss,

e.g. ) through insurance; 2) by relieving the shortterm stresses, e.g., through low-cost loans; and 3)

by cutting the losses by some small percentage,

e.g., through emergency flood-proofing or early

warning.

Regulations, development and redevelopment

policies, flood-proofing buildings and structures,

32
education, and information are some of the strategies that can be used to reduce the risk of floods.

It is socially desirable to redistribute flood losses

through such means as insurance and relief. By

themselves, risk-reducing strategies tend to incur

excessive opportunity costs,

level of risk reduction could be so costly as to

drain public resources away from other meritorious public projects. These strategies also fail to

deal effectively with the short-run and transitional

problems of existing communities that are at risk

during the changeover period from one set of strategies to another.

Ten approaches or policy options available to

Government for implementing nonstructural

measures are displayed in table 10. The desired

outcomes are qualified by the limitations of such

means. On the basis of surveys of the willingness

of individuals to employ particular loss reduction

or hazards management strategies, conducted by

L. Douglas James of the Georgia Institute of Technology, he arrived at eight “individual factors af-

@pportunity costs are the benefits forgone in making one choice

over another. Every economic decision involves opportunity costs.

fecting response

These are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The

time and inclination to execute individual

measures,

faith in availablilty to act,

seclusion versus access as a reason for floodplain occupancy,

sympathy for program goals and objectives,

willingness to conform to regulation,

philosophy of individual on public versus private responsibility,

perceived personal benefits, and

perceived personal losses.

individual response data coupled with the

policy options listed in table 10 suggest three determinants of successful policies for floodplain management:

● the establishment of a coherent Federal policy,

‘L. Douglas James, “Formulation of Nonstructural Flood Control

Programs,” Water Resources Builecm, August 1975, p. 693.

Table 10.-Means or Policy Options in the Implementation of Nonstructural Measures

Means or policy options Desired response Limitations

1) Disseminate information warning Immediate employment of short-term Some don’t receive the warning,

of an impending flood emergency measures and a later inducement to some don’t take it seriously, some

consider individual Iong-term measures don’t know what to do, some unable to

respond

2) Disseminate information detailing Induce greater use of individual Same as above, plus some pursue

hazards on the floodplain long-term measures personal, not public, goals

3) Disseminate information on ecologi- Induce personal long-term measures by Same as 2 -

cal effects of fIoodplain occupancy appealing to community welfare rather

than personal hazard

4) Penalize, tax, or charge those Add a financial incentive to Difficult to set fair rates,

failing to employ specified measures induce still greater use of individual burden on low-income groups

measures

5) Provide trained experts to analyze Add expertise to induce greater/ Poor communication, cost, different

and advise property managers efficient use of individual measures values

6) Deny group measures or financial Induce communities to require indi- Communities object of intervention leadrelief to areas not requiring indi- vidual nonstructural measures; ing to nonenforcement

vidual measures social pressure on mavericks

7) Legislate and enforce statutes re- complete compliance with statutes Puts financial burden for a pubquiring individual measures Iic policy on a few owners

8) Financially aid those who imple- Add financial means to respond Puts financial burden on public,

ment individual measure —insur- to expert advice subsidizes floodplain occupants

ance, subsidies

. 9) Purchase hazard areas and leave Ensure no development, improve Expensive to buy and maintain

in natural use recreation and natural areas

10) Purchase hazard area for redevel- Ensure optimum development and Planners unable to figure precise

opment in optimum use compliance optimums, puts Government in competition with private sector

SOURCE: L. Douglas James, “Formulation of Nonstructural Flood Control Programs,’” Water Resources Bulletin, August 1975, p. 690.

33
the cooperation of community leaders and institutions in adopting and enforcing standards, and

the predictability of individual response to

specific policies.

As a rule, it should be recognized that in managing social problems and establishing a coherent

Federal policy, institutions rarely have effective

control over all or most of the fundamental variables affecting or likely to affect their interests.

Thus, the institutions most directly responsible for

the management of flood hazards have the least

control over those variables that affect flood hazards in the long term. For example, money-lenders, the mortgage industry, banks, and Federal

agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank

Board are the predominant institutions that influence and control building construction and land

use management. Often, the organizations that

have the capability and power to reduce the potential of flood risk are inattentive or insensitive to

this opportunity.

The limitations of the traditional approach to

analyzing natural hazards have been examined in

this chapter and three elements have been suggested as crucial to effective flood hazards management: 1) the lifecycle of a flood hazard, 2) the 30-

to 40-year time frame of planning, and 3) the need

to systematically integrate the three major methods of dealing with flood hazards; modifying the

hazard, moderating the impacts, and reducing the

risks.

The formal calculation of costs and benefits is a

well-established, if not a paramount, element in

flood control planning. The following section

highlights the practical limitations of this technique. A framework is presented for a larger range

of considerations that could usefully enter into

those aspects of policy planning concerned with

selecting and organizing the techniques and strategies for dealing with flood hazards.

BEYOND CALCULATING COSTS

AND BENEFITS

a consequence of earlier “308 studies”* carried out

by the Corps of Engineers, several hundred flood

control projects were under consideration in 1936.

The Act specified that no project would be authorized by Congress unless its total benefits exceeded its total costs “to whomsoever they may accrue. ” This rule established a requirement for cost- -

-

benefit analysis in planning water resource projects. It was supplemented by the National Environment Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190),

which requires that environmental impact statements be prepared for major Federal projects affecting the environment. An inherent shortcoming of applying cost-benefit analysis to water resource projects is that it has only served to justify

individual projects, and even in these cases it has

involved somewhat questionable assumptions

about future costs and benefits. On the whole,

cost-benefit analysis has been used to address

basinwide or regional planning.

Alternative nonstructural measures have often

been ignored as possible means of managing flood

losses. For example, floodplain zoning to define

land use could be used to limit the encroachment

of development on downstream floodplains below

a flood control dam. In the absence of a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of alternative or complementary measures, flood losses

have increased steadily since the 1936 Act as a

consequence of the continued encroachment on

downstream floodplains that are believed to be

totally protected by flood control structures. If

there is a flood that exceeds the capacity for which

the protective structure was designed, great damage occurs.

During the 4 years, 1974-78, there were 127

floods, which the President declared were disasare, in fact, several thousand civil works that were

designed to protect against the 100-year flood

level. (This is the flood level that is used as the

most common basis for designing protective civil

works. ) It would appear, therefore, from the above

statistics that every year a number of these will be

exceeded.

The Flood Control Act of 1936 established the

basic national flood management policy that pre- “’308 Scudies” are provided for by the Rivers and Harbors Act of

vailed for the next three decades. This policy em- 1927, Public Law X50. These studies were among the earliest mvolvphasized reliance on massive flood control projects ing integrated planning.

‘Richard Krimm, Federal Insurance Admmiscratlon. OTA W’ork.

that would be built largely at Federal expense. (As shop, Lklar. 21, 1978.

34
Unfortunately, encroachments on downstream

floodplains have frequently been anticipated and

counted as benefits in the cost-benefit analysis for

a given project. Initially, the benefits of flood control works were determined by the projected reduction of damage to existing buildings and associated activities in the floodplain. However, the

method and tone of justification have been modified to include the reduction of property losses to

future structures. Krutilla explains that “of 59

Corps of Engineers projects authorized by the

1965 Act that were ‘justified’ wholly or in part by

flood control benefits, from 3 percent to 85 percent of the total flood control benefits were accounted for by expected future development in the

floodplain. For half of all the projects, the proportion of benefits represented by anticipated future

development in the floodplain amounted to over

40 percent. Approximately half of the single-purpose flood control projects would not have been

‘justified’, save for the anticipated more intensive

use of the floodplain stimulated by the flood control projects "7

As civil works attract more people and property

into flood hazard areas, the groundwork is laid for

catastrophic floods because relatively unregulated

growth is permitted. The situation is exacerbated

by the possibility that poorly designed protective

civil works may fail structurally. White elaborates:

. . . Each stream reach protected by levees or

dams is candidate for a flood exceeding the design

capacity of the planned control works. The design

rarely attempts to cope with a theoretically maximum possible event.8

The total cost of floods and flood hazards

should include the losses directly associated with

the floods themselves, and the construction and

related infrastructure costs for flood control and

flood hazards management. It is also useful to consider the costs that are not directly reflected in the

Government outlays, such as changing land values and lost time and labor. The calculation of

costs is complicated by the related matter of benefits. It turns out to be surprisingly difficult to ferret

out and make sharp distinctions between costs

and benefits.

‘John V. Krutilla, “An Economic Approach to Coping With Flood

Damage,” Water Resources Research, 1966, p. 185.

BGi]bert F. White, F/~ ~aza~d fn che IJntred states: A Research 14ssessment, Monograph #NSF-RA-E-7 5-006 (Boulder, Colo.: [nsutute of

Behaworal Science, University of Colorado), p. 32.

As pointed out above, it is a frequent practice to

include in the benefits the development of a floodplain that results from the security provided by

flood control measures. But, viewing floodplain

development as favorable puts new resources at

risk that become potential costs when the flood

control measures fail, as they ultimately must. The --

costs and benefits of natural hazards management

should be treated in terms of a total lifecycle of

development, from initial occupancy of the floodplain or coastal zone, through the flood disaster

itself and the recovery period. Cost should also include the new risks generated by hazards management, operating costs, and private, personal, and

business costs. A number of the factors that enter

into a comprehensive cost-benefit calculation are

shown in tables 11 and 12.

The complexity of a broad framework for flood

hazards management cannot be overestimated. It

is reflected in the following conditions that must

be taken into consideration by any strategy for

reducing flood damage.

●

●

●

Impacts are marginal, not drastic or extreme.

Impacts are chiefly economic or can be readily

translated into economic or quasi-economic

values.

Impacts are chiefly direct.

However, even when cost-benefit analysis meets

the above conditions, it may have, in practice, a

number of serious limitations.

●

●

●

●

●

●

It only provides a narrow range in which to

search for possible impacts, and as normally

practiced, does not actively search for all the

impacts on society and the environment.

It cannot deal satisfactorily with questions of

equity involving the distribution of costs and

benefits.

It tends to distort or ignore impacts that cannot be directly measured in dollars.

It tends to exclude externalities, indirect, and

long-term effects.

It does not alert decisionmakers to previously

unsuspected risks or unidentified uncertainties.

All of the above tend to become magnified

when dealing with unprecedented technologies or projects ..?

W. T, Coates, A Hundbook of Teclmologv .4ssessmenc (The George

Washington Univetsitv, March 1979). -

35
Table 11.-ldentification of Costs by Sector

Category Agricultural Business Organizational Personal Public

Direct . . —Structural/building –Inventory -inventory –Structural/building —Structural/buiiding

—Croplosses —Structural/building -Structural/building –Contents —inventory

—Land and soil —Furnishings —Furnishings —Avoidance —Furnishings

—Damage —Machinery/equip. -Machinery/equip. -Cleanup -Machinery/equip.

-Machinery/equip. —Avoidance —Cleanup –Other —Avoidance

-Cleanup —Cleanup -Relief effort

.-

—Cleanup

–Other –Other -Other —Other

indirect. -Lost productivity -Lost man-days —Lost “man-days —Transportation -Lost man-days

—Lost man-days —Lost business problems —Redirection of effort to

—Land value profit –Man day of effort the flood

—Transportation to combat flood —To estimate damage

problems —Loss of wages —Transportation

—Property values —Property values problems

—Opportunity cost/benefit of funds used to

compensate victims

—Cost of disruption of

Government activity

lntan- -Elasticity of new —Loss of recreation -Exhaustion

gible . . investment enjoyment —Family separation

–Loss of life

—inconvenience

SOURCE Environment Canada, Technical Sulletin No. 81, P. 78, Haiifax, Nova Scotia. 1974.

Table 12.-ldentification of Benefits by Sector

category Agricultural Business Organizational Personal Public

Direct . . -Silt deposits —Sale of damaged

goods

Indirect. -Difference in price -Flood recovery —Relative decrease —Multipler effects of

business in property taxes block infusions of

prosper Federal cash into the

provincial economy

—Multiplier effects of

transferring public

funds into private

hands

lntan- —Flood experience — Flood experience —Emergency training—Flood experience —Emergency training

gible . . –Unaffected got —Sense of pride and

curiosity fulfilled accomplishment

—Unexpected public

holiday

—Other intangible

benefits

SOURCE: Environment Canada. Technicai Builetin No. 81, P. 79, Haiifex, Nova Scotia. 1974.

Further problems with cost-benefit analysis arise

when faced with decisions and choices about:

discount rates,

the scope of benefits and costs entering into

the analysis,

the selection of alternative projects for

parison,

double counting, and

when an effect is a cost or a benefit.

Considering the limitations of cost-benefit

ysis, a broader analytical framework appears

comanalto be

required to develop the policy approaches and

strategies needed to reduce flood damage. It is suggested here that the concept of technology assessment would provide such a framework.

Technology assessment (TA) is a type of policy

study that attempts to provide decisionmakers

with a base of information about the possible

societal consequences of developing a new technology or of significant changes in an existing

technology. It is an open-ended search, using various techniques both qualitative and quantitative,

36
for the potential impacts of a technological

development on the economy, on the environment, on the polity, on social behavior, and on

social institutions. TA examines what the need,

the desirability, and the justification are for

Government to intervene in order to stimulate or

control the development of a new technology. It

attempts to delineate the uncertainties involved in

such an intervention as well as the societal costs

and benefits; and it presents decisionmakers with

a set of alternative or complementary policy options along with their long-range implications.

Recently, the application of TA throughout the

Federal Government was reviewed. LO There was

little indication that TA under that or any other

name was being used by the Corps of Engineers at

the district or operating level as a policy tool for

flood management. The Institute of Water Resources (IWR), however, does carry out a substantial amount of TA related studies.

IWR was created by Congress in 1969 to assist

the Corps of Engineers in meeting new planning

requirements arising from the public’s concern

over the environment and the quality of life. The

principles and standards (P&S) published by the

Water Resources Council in 1972, required planners to take into account regional development,

economic development, environmental quality,

and social well-being. In response, in 1975 the

Corps promulgated a series of regulations (the 200

series) that provide guidelines to Corps planners

for multiobjective planning. Many of the concepts

of TA can be found in these regulations.

TA related activities are going on to some extent at the Waterways Experiment Station (Vicksburg, Miss.). The Station’s report on water resources assessment methodology contains impact

assessment and alternative evaluation intended to

assist planners in meeting the social impact requirements of Corps regulations. The Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (Champaign-Urbana, Ill.) is also conducting research related to social impact assessment and the North

Central Division of the Corps is in the initial

phases of a study of the impacts of winter navigation in the Great Lakes.

In working towards a more comprehensive and

effective decision-oriented planning process that

uses TA concepts, the following 12 preliminary

Ioproflam of policy !jtudm In Science and Technology, Technology

Assessment in h Federaf Agenctes (The George Washington Universltv, March 1’37%.

questions should be addressed before implement-

●

●

●

●

●

o

●

●

●

●

●

●

What systems are affected by floods? (i.e.,

what entities are susceptible to flood damage?

What are the kinds and causes of flood damage? What is the relative importance of the --

various kinds of damage? What priorities

should these be given?)

What are all the alternative strategies for

preventing or significantly reducing the various kinds of flood damage?

What elements of flood damage does each

strategy significantly address? What degree of

impact does it have?

Is each particular strategy based on, or can it

be supported by, adequate data?

How does each strategy compare with others

in its degree and scope of effectiveness, in its

costs, and in its feasibility.

What other strategies and measures must

each be linked to in order to be maximally

effective?

Would the strategy work at cross-purposes

to, or be neutralized by, any other measures

to reduce flood damage? Might the strategy

undermine another more effective strategy?

Might the strategy have the effect of actually

increasing certain kinds of potential flood

damage?

Is the strategy appropriate to or equally

adaptable for all types of flood-prone

areas?

Is the implementation of the strategy compatible with all the other requirements

of the system it affects? (For example, are

specifications for elevated foundations compatible with the specifications for earthquakeproof foundations in areas—such as the west

coast—where flood and earthquake zones

overlap?

What, if any, are the specific benefits of

flooding? Of locating within a floodplain?

How do these benefits compare with damage

costs for each vulnerable area?

Outside the issues of flood damage, what are

the positive and negative side-effects that

this strategy might have? What other policy

areas intersect with flood policies? (e.g., a national land use policy, environmental impact

policies, etc.)

1 IAmerIcan [nS[l[ute of Architects, An Etxduunt’e A/)pToudI co Akrnattt’e S[rategtes /or Ffooci-Damage Intert’entIon, June [ Q7+, p. 2.

37
Four elements useful in promoting an integrated ● technology assessment as an analytic strategy

approach to flood hazards management have been to expand the decisionmaking value of costconsidered in this chapter. benefit analysis.

● the concept of a flood hazard lifecycle, In the next chapter, trends in flood hazards

● the time frame in which to plan flood-reduc- management as they relate to the concept of a

ing policies, flood hazard lifecycle will be discussed in order to

● the array of tools available to Government elucidate current issues and future options. - ‘

-

for managing flood hazards, and

38

I
V. Trends and Images of the Future

Trends analysis is central to understanding the

future. It is useful in at least three ways. First, insofar as they are stable, trends define the boundaries on alternative future developments. Second,

the examination of trends automatically forces

one to search for underlying factors that may

either stabilize or perturb the trend. Such shifts

may come about gradually or they may be sudden.

The third use of trends is to suggest opportunities

for policy interventions to modify what would be a

stable undesirable development, or to promote a

desirable but otherwise unlikely change.

Understanding the long-term trends is one basis

for formulating public policy since they suggest

how the system is likely to evolve. Most public

policy actions are unlikely to have major shortterm consequences for the quality of life or the

public well-being. Therefore, the trends discussed

below cover an interval of 5 to 30 years. Two levels

of trends in relation to flood hazards management

are discussed:

• trends directly related to floods, and

● trends having to do with natural hazards in

general. These include long-term trends in

American society over the last several decades

that form an overall societal context for most

public policies including the management of

natural hazards.

The trends identified below are often conflicting

if not contradictory. This ambiguity and uncertainty about trends—their duration, significance,

and origin—make assessing impacts difficult but

fruitful.

Trends analysis cannot be limited only to those

trends that lend themselves to quantitative, fully

objective presentations. Some place must be made

for informed subjective judgment. There is a tradeoff in the sense that those circumstances most likely to be reflected in fully quantitative terms sometimes emerge as trends that are not on the leading

edge of important change. Some attempt is made

to accommodate judgment, opinion, and wisdom

in the identification of important trends.

TRENDS DIRECTLY RELATED - ‘

-

TO FLOODS

Trends that will shape the future of exposure to

flood hazards in the United States fall into four

categories:

Ž trends affecting the degree of risk posed by

floods,

• the effects of demographic trends on flood

hazards,

● evolving patterns of floodplain use, and

● trends in public policy responses.

Trends Related to Flood Risk

The most important risk-related trend is that

public policies, by continuing to encourage floodplain development, are causing losses to continually rise and may cause catastrophes of unprecedented scale. The number of lives lost in these potential major events could easily exceed even the

previous loss of 6,000 lives due to hurricane flooding in the summer of 1900 in Galveston, Tex.1 The

property losses would dwarf by comparison the

sizable and increasing losses that are currently taking place.

Additional trends are:

●

●

●

The increasing loss of life from floods. While

low compared with that of developing countries, the loss of life has shown a slight upward

trend over the past several decades.

Property loss has grown. It is not clear how

much the effect has been of true increases, inflation, better reporting schemes, insurance

availability, or other factors. Nevertheless,

there has been an accompanying trend to demand more Federal postdisaster assistance,

with or without adequate preplanning and

land use control.

Public policy continues to promote the potential for life and property loss by permitting—if

not actually encouraging—development on

hazardous terrain. In some areas policy, or its

IJame~ Cornell, The ~Teat rnt~mactonaf ~ISaSCtT B~k (~’~w’ ‘for~:

Simon and Schuster, 1S’79), p. 112.

39
absence, causes more problems that it resolves. An example is that hotels, motels,

highways, and housing are located along

coastal shorelines, with little regard to potential hazardous conditions.

● “Acts of God” are a decreasingly important

aspect of flood hazards. Advances in prediction and control techniques, in conjunction

with proven measures to mitigate loss, improves the capability to reduce the number

and severity of disasters.

● New and improved techniques for predicting

phenomena, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, have created problems as well as benefits. The problems principally have to do with

how to organize and manage an approach for

dealing with the undesirable side effects of

prediction.

● The technical ability to significantly modify

weather, including specific phenomena such

as hurricanes, is being continually improved.

Society is only beginning to examine the ramifications of this capability.

● There are an increasing number of requests

from communities for flood-warning services.

Trends in the Use of Flood Hazards Areas

The competition between land use and development interests for flood hazards areas has contributed to a variety of trends that are making development choices even more controversial. These

include:

●

●

A downtrend in the original historical reasons for the occupancy of floodplains. Business siting for cheap transportation, power,

water-dependent processes, and housing close

to the workplace no longer require proximity

to bodies of water. The growth of the highway system, pipelines, railroads, and other

transportation infrastructure has virtually

eliminated the economic need to locate in

floodplains.

An increase in the population of floodplains,

even in regions of zero or declining growth.

A heightened awareness on the part of both

the public and the Government of the need

to take innovative action.

An increase in policy conflicts over alternative uses and allocations of water, water resources, and bodies of water along with their

adjacent areas.

●

●

New competing interests for the use of floodplains: commercial and industrial development, housing, the growth of natural and

commercial recreation areas, the desire for

the conservation of natural resources—especially in wetlands—and historical preservation. -

An increasing amount of legislation relating

to floodplains and coastal zones.

Demographic Trends

The distribution and composition of the population is a major incentive for social change. The

emergence of flood hazards as compelling public

issues is largely the result of demographic trends.

Some of these trends are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

More than half the U.S. population lives

within 50 miles of the shoreline of an ocean

or a Great Lake, and their number is growing

annually.

The continual shifting of the population to

coastal zones and riverine floodplains that are

subject to flood disasters is aggravating the

environmental stresses in those areas. This

population mobility -brings a constant stream

of new residents, who are unfamiliar with the

hazards of a particular area. Since flood disasters tend to occur in decade-long cycles, the

existence of risks is not likely to be common

knowledge.

Increasing population density can create pressure to develop marginal hazard areas by, for

example, the location of mobile home communities or parks.

Space for building to meet a growing population is fast-disappearing in areas of almost

totally mountainous terrain such as West Virginia.

When there is heavy industrial development

in areas with a diminishing amount of space

on which to build but a need to be near the

work force, the development of marginally

hazardous areas also tends to be promoted.

The movement of the elderly and retirees, in

general, to warm coastal areas, coupled with

the recreational demands of tourists, has been

responsible for the intense development of

these areas. Consequently, the number of

people and homes that could be affected by a

disaster is increasing.

40
Trends in the Management of

Flood Hazards

The most consistent trend in flood hazards

management has been the historical emphasis on

structural control and protection measures as the

solutions to exposure to a flood hazard. Recent

trends have led to challenging the primacy of flood

protection by physical methods, and have succeeded in establishing the need for a strategy that

combines structural with nonstructural measures.

Specific trends include:

●

●

●

There has been a long-term preference for the

use of physical and technological solutions to

hazards, rather than of institutional or sociotechnological ones. For the most part, flood

control, rather than land use management,

has been preferred historically. Physical measures are apparently more acceptable since

they may bestow financial benefits with little

risk to short-term investments. As noted in

the following three trends, this situation is

changing.

There is an overall shift in emphasis from socalled structural to nonstructural prevention

and protection measures. Closely related to

this is a trend toward the integration of physical, economic, and administrative measures

for flood hazards management.

The traditional high priority on relief is shifting to emphasis on mitigation, prevention,

and loss reduction.

● Progress is being made in dealing with natural

hazards by a variety of legislative and regulatory mechanisms. (Chapters VII, VIII, and

Ix.)

● Land use planning is increasingly being used

as a tool of flood hazards management.

● There is greater dependence on insurance and --

other indemnification schemes for flood disaster relief.

● There continues to be a considerable lag between the generation of knowledge from research and its application to flood hazards

mitigation.

TRENDS RELATING TO

NATURAL HAZARDS

While it is useful to isolate flood-related problems in order to address the conflicts they present,

it should be kept in mind that flood hazards are

part of a larger class of natural hazards. There are

a number of similarities in the way natural hazards

are perceived and managed. The changes in these

perceptions and the responses to them are

prompted by many of the same underlying trends.

Table 13 presents more general trends in relation

to natural hazards in the United States. These

trends were identified by OTA staff during the

course of preliminary analysis, and were discussed

at the workshops.

41
Table 13.-Trends in Relation to Natural Hazards in the United States

General

1. The loss of life has remained relatively stable over the

past several decades. It is not clear to what extent this is

attributable to better planning, preparedness, fewer

severe events, social factors, or disaster-reduction efforts. This overall trend may not necessarily hold for

specific hazards.

2. There has been an increase in property loss. It is not

clear whether this reflects actual increases, inflation,

better reporting schemes, insurance availability, or

other factors.

3. There is a potential for catastrophes of unprecedented

size in certain areas, e.g., in coastal zones and in some

river basins. These could take thousands of lives and

cause many billions of dollars in property damage.

4. Public policy continues to promote the potential for catastrophic life and property loss by permitting—if not actually encouraging-the development of fragile, dangerous, or risky terrains. This is particularly so in flood- and

earthquake-prone areas.

Management of Natural Hazards

5, There has been a long-term trend toward the use of

physical and technological strategies for dealing with

hazards rather than institutional or social-technological

ones. Flood control, rather than land use management

is usually the preferred measure. Physical measures

seem to be politically more acceptable since they may

bring financial benefits and minimally dislocate shortterm investments. As is pointed out in the four following

trends, this situation is changing.

6. There is an overall shift in emphasis from structural. to

nonstructural prevention and protection measures.

7. There is a trend in hazards management from the current high priority on relief to mitigation, prevention, and

loss reduction.

8. The combination of prediction, control, and loss mitigation measures has reduced the unanticipatable, unplanned for elements in natural disasters. Consequently, they can no longer be thought of as “acts of God.”

9. Progress is being made in dealing with natural hazards

through a variety of legal approaches.

10. Land use planning is on the increase.

Governmental

11. Throughout government, Federal interaction and intervention in what had previously been nongovernmental

or State and local concerns is increasing.

12, There is an increasing Federal role in disaster assistance and indemnification for hazards losses.

13. There is a trend toward the partial transfer of risk

burdens for disasters from the Federal Government to

lower level jurisdictions and individuals through insurance programs and mandated land use planning. . 

Scientific and technical

14. Development of new prediction techniques, particularly

dealing with earthquakes and weather-related phenomena such as hurricanes and tornadoes, are creating both

new problems and new opportunities. The problems

15.

16.

17.

principally have to do with institutionalization of the

techniques and the identification of an appropriate management scheme for the undesirable side effects of prediction capabilities.

Attempts to control natural hazards are increasing and

may be expected to continue, e.g., earthquake control,

hurricane modification, hail suppression, fog dispersal,

and increasing snowfall.

Inadvertent and uncertain modification of weather and

inadvertent modification of climate are continuing

trends in the United States and throughout the world.

Similar trends exist for terrain in terms of modifications

of soil characteristics and modifications of land use and

water runoff patterns.

There is widespread agreement among climatologists

that the climate is shifting. The direction of that shift—

warmer or colder—and its relation to longer term

climate shifts is unclear.

18. Nonatmospheric changes are also occurring, such as a

rise in sea level.

19. Man’s actions are an increasingly significant component of geophysical and environmental phenomena in

the world. In some regions the generation of CO2 exceeds the local capabilities for assimilation.

20. There is an increasing amount of research on natural

disasters and natural hazards. There is. however, no

comprehensive or adequately coordinated hazards disaster program. Furthermore, the total volume of research on natural hazards from the point of view of the

Ii fecycle of hazards continues to be very poorly funded.

21. Remote sensing as a technological tool in relation to

natural hazards is now well developed. Application and

utilization of remote sensing remain to be more effectively institutionalized.

22. The mapping and the collection of hazards-related data

are increasing throughout the country.

SOURCf2 Office of Technology Assessment.

42

.
VI. The Issues

In the previous chapter, trends as a means of

understanding and presaging issues and determining policy decisions were discussed. This chapter

examines and reviews issues in flood hazards management. (These issues will then be dealt with

more specifically in chapter VIII, which deals with

the issues of the National Flood Insurance Program.)

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

A public policy issue is a fundamental conflict

among objectives, goals, customs, plans, activities,

or interested parties. Such an issue is not likely to

be resolved completely in favor of any extreme

position in that conflict. Over the long run, the

necessarily temporary resolution of issues by a

public policy is likely to move toward favoring one

interest over another. Thus, at any given time

public policy must strike a fresh workable balance

between conflicting forces.

THE ISSUES IN

FLOOD HAZARDS MANAGEMENT

The conflicts in flood hazards management fall

into seven areas (see table 14).

Equity

1. Right of private owners to unrestricted use

of their property conflicts with Government’s responsibilities.

2. Distribution pattern of costs and benefits

from flood hazards mitigation and disaster

relief.

There are two key equity issues. The first finds

the right of property owners to the unrestricted

use of their property in conflict with governmental

responsibility to safeguard health, safety, and the

welfare of citizens.

The second involves the distribution pattern of

costs and benefits from the mitigation of flood

hazards and from disaster relief. The central question is whether the distribution should principally

involve all local payers and beneficiaries or should

cover a broader national base. . --

State and Local Governments v. the

Federal Government

1.

2.

3.

4.

Conflict between Federal Government as

provider of disaster assistance and insurer

against loss and jurisdictional powers of

States and local governments.

Conflict between decentralization of Federal programs and integrated nature of

local programs.

Conflict between mandatory elements of

Federal nonstructural flood management

practices and greater awareness of local

needs by States and local governments.

Local governments confused by wide variety of Federal statutes related to flood control that have conflicting compliance incentives and objectives.

The conflict between State and local governments and the Federal Government arises from

two considerations. The first reflects the constitutional limitation on federalism and the distribution of sovereign power among Federal, State, and

local governments. The second reflects the piecemeal, contradictory, and poorly integrated plans

and programs of the Federal Government in its

dealings with State and local governments.

Lack of Integration Among

Federal Programs

1. Different agencies with different functions

2

associated with each aspect of Iifecycle of

a flood hazard.

Competing usage of floodplains; physical

development; open space; improve water

quality; and wetlands, wildlife, and historical preservation.

3. Conflicting Federal land use programs as

reflected in development activities of the

Corps of Engineers and the Federal insurance Administration.

4. Federal programs with flood management

responsibilities often contrary to historical

prodevelopment policies.

There is little integration within the Federal system in terms of agency plans and programs con43
- P

-P

Table 14.–Seven Issues in Flood Hazards Management Summarized

— ——— -—— .—

Lack of integration Short-term v.

State and local v. amona Federal long-term

Equity Federal Government programs Goals conflicts Means conflicts interests

1. Right of private 1. Conflict between 1. The traditional 1.

owners to unre- ways to control

stricted use of

their property conflicts with Government’s responsibilities.

2. Distribution pattern of costs and

benefits from flood

hazards mitigation

and disaster relief.

2.

3.

4.

Federal Government as provider

of disaster assistance and insurer

against loss and

jurisdictional

powers of States

and local governments.

Conflict between

decentralization of

Federal programs

and integrated nature of local programs.

Conflict between

mandatory elements of Federal

nonstructural flood

management practices and greater

awareness of local

needs by State and

local governments.

Local governments

confused by wide

variety of Federal

statutes related to

flood control, that

have conflicting

compliance incentives and objectives.

1. Different agencies

with different functions associated

with each aspect

of Iifecycle of a

flood hazard.

2. Competing usage

of flood plains;

physical development; open space;

improve water

quality; wetlands,

wildlife historical

preservation.

3. Conflicting Federal

land use programs

as reflected in development activities of the Corps

of Engineers and

the Federal lnsurance Administration.

4. Federal programs

with flood management responsibilities often contrary

to historical prodevelopment policies.

1. There are no specific national objectives for floodplain management

against which to

measure progress.

2. Single purpose

floodplain management conflicts

with multipurpose

community developmental, environmental, and social

objectives.

2.

3.

floods are being

seen not only as

inadequate but

also as causing

the situation to

worsen.

Conflict between

relying on single

means, e.g., protecting structures

or elevating buildings, rather than

integrated multiple

means, e.g., regulation, acquisition,

and relocation, design and location

of utilities, redevelopment, and renewal.

Inherent political,

social, and societal conflicts in

transition to approach integrating

socioeconomic

flood hazards control strategies with

engineering strategies.

2.

3.

—

Short-term

benefits of developing a flood hazard area conflict

with longer term

risks.

Present procedure

of Federal planning based on

flood that has one

chance in a hundred of occurring

conflicts with need

to determine more

suitable standards

for long-term planning.

Timelag for new

measures to take

effect conflicts

with urgent need

to achieve significant improvements

in floodplain management.

Information

1. Present information about flood

hazards is inadequate. New information needed

to coordinate

research and to

develop, sustain,

and evaluate programs to mitigate

flood hazards. Reluctance to

allocate funds for

information gathering purposes.

2. Different perceptions of magnitude

and immediacy of

flood hazards, e.g.,

Federal v. State

and local levels;

hydrologist and

Federal land manager v. private

property owner.

I

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment.
cerned with flood hazards management. This may

be improved by the President’s reorganization of

Federal agencies responsible for hazards and emergency preparedness.

Goals Conflicts

1. There are no specific national objectives

for floodplain management against which

to measure progress.

2. Single purpose floodplain management

conflicts with multipurpose community developmental, environmental, and social objectives.

There are no clear, action-oriented national

goals with regard to flood hazards management.

Existing programs that are directed at dealing with

flood hazards areas are disorganized and at crosspurposes.

Means Conflicts

1. The traditional ways to control floods are

being seen not only as inadequate but also

as causing the situation to worsen.

2. Conflict between relying on single means,

e.g., protecting structures or elevating

buildings, rather than integrated multiple

means, e.g., regulation, design and location of utilities, redevelopment, and

renewal.

3. Inherent political, social, and societal conflicts in transition to approach integrating

socioeconomic flood hazard control

strategies with engineering strategies.

The traditional means of flood control are increasingly seen not only as inadequate but also as

methods that cause the situation to worsen. Yet,

political, social, and institutional conflicts are inherent in any transition to an integrated approach

using nonphysical or socioeconomic strategies

along with physical or engineering design strategies. Mechanical devices and engineered structures

tend to appeal to public officials and others with

the responsibility for making decisions because

their behavior is logical, consistent, and predictable; they yield easily quantifiable data; they perform their tasks objectively; and they can be put

into effect on order.

Short-Term V. Long-Term lnterests

1. Short-term benefits of developing a floodhazard area conflict with longer term risks.

2. Present procedure of Federal planning based

on flood that has one chance in a hundred of

occurring conflicts with need to determine

more suitable standards for long-term plan3. Timelag for new measures to take effect conflicts with urgent need to achieve significant

improvements in floodplain management.

The short-term benefits of developing a flood

hazard area conflict with the longer term risks. In

addition, conflicts arise over the calculations of

short- versus long-term costs and benefits.

Information

1.

2.

Present information about flood hazards

inadequate. New information needed to coordinate research and to develop, sustain,

and evaluate programs to mitigate flood

hazards. Reluctance to allocate funds for

information-gathering purposes.

Different perceptions of magnitude and immediacy of flood hazards, e.g., Federal v.

State and local levels; hydrologist and Federal land manager v. private property

owners.

Information about all aspects of flood hazards is

inadequate. A policy information base is not available and there is a reluctance to generate it. Research programs are uncoordinated and information is not disseminated in a useful and timely

form to all concerned. (Information needs particularly relevant to research and development are discussed further in chapter XI.)

45

— .

, k
VII. The National Flood

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

is the major Federal vehicle for promoting the

nonstructural management of flood hazards. As

such it brings many of the issues in chapter VI to

the fore. NFIP seeks to promote two interrelated

objectives in the Nation’s coastal and riverine ,

flood hazard areas:

●

●

To stabilize and eventually reduce flood losses

by stimulating the planning and management

of flood hazard areas by State and local governments.

To reallocate the costs of financial assistance

to flood victims from Federal taxpayers to occupants of flood-prone areas through the

mechanism of insurance.

These are related goals. Effective management

of floodplains will keep losses from continuing to

rise, while the federally sponsored flood insurance

program is intended to reinforce the management

of floodplains by setting insurance premium rates

for new structures according to the risks at specific

sites.

The flood insurance program is discussed in two

parts because of its importance as a major innovation in the public management of flood hazards

and their consequences. Background information

on the origins and operations of the program and

the results of some studies of flood and hazard insurance gathered with the assistance of the Federal

Insurance Administration* (FIA) are presented in

this chapter. Certain key policy issues that the

program now confronts are identified in chapter

VIII.

ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM

The private insurance industry abandoned the

coverage of flood losses in 1929. Their decision reflected an accurate perception of the- nature of

*Richard Krimm, Assistant Administrator of FIA, was particularly

helpful in this regard.

Insurance Program

-

floods. First, the risk of flooding within known

floodplains is certain; the only uncertainty relates

to the timing and magnitude of the event. Second,

when floods do occur they may cause severe losses

in the affected areas; this requires an insurer to

maintain sizable cash reserves. Third, premium

rates that reflect the actuarial risks in floodplains

are likely to be so high that those most in need of

flood insurance are discouraged from purchasing

it. Consequently, before the advent of NFIP in

1968 virtually no private insurance covered coastal or riverine flood losses.

In the absence of insurance coverage flood victims must turn to the Federal and State governments for the major proportion of their relief and

rehabilitation needs. As cited in chapter III, Federal disaster assistance outlays increased from $52

million in 1953 to $374 million in 1966 when NFIP

was proposed; in fiscal year 1973, Federal aid

jumped to $2.5 billion as a result both of Hurricane Agnes and the flood in Rapid City, S. Dak.,

the previous year.

Congress in the Southeastern Hurricane Disaster Relief Act of 1965 called for a study of flood

insurance as an alternative to ever increasing disaster relief outlays. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), recommended that flood insurance, through the mechanism of rate premiums, could shift some of the

costs of floodplain occupation to the occupants

themselves. In order to attract widespread participation in the program it was recommended that

the Federal Government subsidize insurance premiums paid by owners of existing structures in

flood-prone areas, but that this subsidy would be

inappropriate for new development, which should

not be encouraged in floodplains. New structures

should be insurable only at full acturial rates, reflecting the actual risk inherent in their location

and elevation.

1 ~’.s. Department of Housing and b’rban Development, insurunce

mci Ocher Prowums /or Fmunclaf ,Asststcmce CO Flood ~’icnrns (Commlrtee Print N’o. -+3) Wth Cong. 2cI sess. (W’ashlngron, D. C.: L’.S. Government Prlntlng Office, 1966).

47
.

This caution was reaffirmed by the 1966 report

of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy:

A flood insurance program is a tool that should

be used expertly or not at all. Incorrectly applied, it

could exacerbate the whole problem of flood

losses . . . It would not be improper to subsidize

flood loss insurance for existing property. That

might be done, provided owners of submarginal

development were precluded from rebuilding destroyed or obsolete structures on the floodplain,

however, to the extent that insurance were used to

subsidize new capital investment, it would aggravate flood damages and constitute gross public irresponsibility. z

Congress heeded this advice. NFIP, as passed in

1968 (Public Law 90-488 Title 13) made the adoption of local floodplain regulations a prerequisite

to the availability of flood insurance in any local

community. To avoid the charge of “federal usurpation” the form and precise content of such regulations was left to State and local governments.

But such regulations must be designed to meet

floodplain management criteria established by

FIA.

Since 1968, the historical evolution of NFIP (depicted in figure 7) has been characterized by persistent competition between lofty purpose and :

practical accommodation. The program as established in 1968 called for the immediate adoption of

floodplain management regulations by local communities in order to qualify for the sale of flood insurance to their residents. Although the interdependence of flood insurance and floodplain management appeared theoretically reasonable, NFIP

met with little enthusiasm on its adoption. During

its first year, only 4 communities out of some

20,000 with flood hazard areas joined the program

and only 20 policies were sold. (See table 15.) ,

Two deficiencies were remedied in subsequent

amendments. Recognizing that most communities

lack sufficient floodplain data on which to base

substantive regulations, a 1969 amendment (Public Law 91-152) authorized provisional eligibility

during an “emergency phase,” pending completion

of Federal floodplain mapping studies for each

community. Satisfaction of the full Federal performance standards was deferred and property

owners could purchase a modest amount of flood

2Task Force on Federal Flood Control policy, A Un@d i~’atlonui

Region For Mm.zgmg F&d I-mm, House Document +65 (Washington,

D, C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966).

insurance at subsidized rates even for new structures.

The program was substantially modified by the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law

93-234), which specified that no “federally related

financing” could be extended to owners of floodprone property unless they purchased a flood insurance policy. “Federally related financing” has

been construed to mean direct Federal funding or

subsidy as well as conventional mortgage loans by

financial institutions insured or regulated by Federal entities. Thus, the banking industry has become involved with NFIP to the extent that loan

officers are required to determine whether property on which a loan is to be secured is flood-prone

or not, and to notify the applicant accordingly.

(Failure to obtain flood insurance where available

results in denial of Federal disaster assistance in

the event of a flood).

These two modifications-emergency implementation and compulsory purchase of insurance

–have accounted for a sizable increase in NFIP activity. By September 30, 1979, 16,566 communities were’ enrolled in the program of which 3,381

were in the “regular phase. ” More than 1.6 million

policies were in effect covering a total of $60

billion worth of flood-prone structures and facilities. Total claims filed during the life of the program have exceeded 146,000 with about 40,000 of

these received since October 1, 1978. Total payments made to flood victims have exceeded $572

million. Flood insurance now exceeds either Federal grants or loans (reduced to the amount of Federal subsidy) as a source of postflood disaster

assistance.

With respect to the approximately 6,000 communities that do not participate in NFIP, a 1977

amendment eliminated the restriction on private

mortgage loans to owners of flood-prone property

in nonparticipating communities (where the owner cannot obtain flood insurance). Direct Federal

assistance under such circumstances remains proscribed, and Federal disaster relief is specifically

denied to nonparticipating communities, which

remain subject to the terms of the 1973 Act.

THE PRESENT PROGRAM

For the past 10 years NFIP has been administered by FIA, which until the formation of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

-

48
Figure 7.-National Flood Insurance Program's History

AUGUST 1966 AUGUST 1955

HUD Flood Insurance Feasibility Study required “A Unified National Program for Managing Flood

by the Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act Losses” (House Document 465) reiterates the need

of 1965 underscores the need for a flood for a federally sponsored flood insurance program

insurance program and recommends that a but cautions that such a program would constitute

federally subsidized flood insurance program be public Irresponsibility if subsidized insurance war.

established. This enunciates the basic used to stimulate new construction in the floodplains.

philosophy and goals of the program. Subsidized insurance should be available only to

Subsidized flood insurance available only in existing construction and only in areas mat reduce the

areas that attempt to reduce the flood risk to risk to new construction. The report reaffirms the

new construction: flood insurance to replace concept of quid pro quo for flood insurance: Federal

disaster relief; Federal engineering surveys to benefits of insurance in return for community

evaluate the risk and Chart premium rates. floodplain management.

b

I I

1 AUGUST 1968 I

The National Flood Insurance Act is

signed into law. For the first time

flood insurance becomes available to

consumers but only in communities

that adopt comprehensive floodplain

standards. The quid pro quo

envisioned for the program IS retained

as is the structure of a government.

private industry venture; however, the

purchase of flood insurance and

DECEMBER 1S69 I

community participation are voluntary. I 1972.1973

Congress recognizes that Communities

interested in joining the flood insurance

program must ● wait the completion of

time-consuming rate surveys before

adopting comprehensive standards

required for participation. As a result

few communities can enter the program:

few consumers have flood coverage.

Consequently an Emergency Phase of

the program IS established: limited

amounts of subsidized flood insurance

available in return for minimum floodplain

management measures: the quid pro quo I

IS in tact. J

Rapid City, S. Oak.; Tropical Storm Agnes:

Buffalo Creek, W. Va; Record Mississippi

Rlverflood . . . hundreds of lives lost, billions

Federal share of

of dollars in property losses, yet few

communities are in the flood insurance

insurance expenses...9O% program, few consumers have flood

insurance. Congress sees voluntary purchase

Industry share of of flood insurance and voluntary community

● xpenaes...lO% participation se the program’s major defects.

[

DECEMBER 1973

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 is

signed into law. The Act requires the

purchase of flood insurance as a condition

for federal or federally backed loans In the

floodplains, prohibits such loans in areas

that fail to adopt floodplain construction

standard% required HUD to identify all of

the Nation’s flood-prone areas. and required

all Federal agencies to accelerate detailed

ratemaking etudes. The Act requires

consultation and appeals in communities

before elevations can become effective. This

basic quid pro quo of the program (land use

for insurance) is reaffirmed and extended to

investments (insurance for loans).

I

Federal share of

insurance expenses is

reduced from 90%-55%

I

lndustry share of

expenses increases

from 10%...45%

f DECEMBER 1973- MARCH 1977 I

Community participation surges about

5-fold from c. 3,000 communities to over

. .

policies treble from c. 300,000 to over 1

million.

i

I

I

I

- — J

SOURCE: Federal Insurance Admimstration, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Table 15.-Growth of Coverage Under the National Flood Insurance Program

in June 1979 was part of HUD. Like several other

HUD programs, NFIP is characterized by a Federal-local relationship in which the States largely

perform a supportive role. The National Flood Insurance Act established a direct working relationship between FIA and the Nation’s 22,000 floodprone areas. Local communities and counties are

expected to adopt regulations for the management

of their respective flood hazard areas. The rigor

and specificity of such measures relates to the quality of information provided to them by FIA-the

more detailed the flood hazard maps and studies,

the more specific the local regulations should be.

Thus, under NFIP there is a phased adoption of

floodplain management restrictions by local communities in response to Federal technical assistance. If a community fails to adopt the level of regulation commensurate with available flood hazard

data, it is no longer eligible for participation in

NFIP and loses eligibility for the further sale or renewal of flood insurance policies within its jurisdiction. Existing policies remain in effect until

they expire.

The basic stages of the NFIP partnership between FIA and flood-prone communities is summarized below. A more detailed breakdown is

given in table 16, prepared by Illinois for the benefit of its local communities.

No Flood Data

When FIA has provided no local flood hazard

information, local communities are expected to require building permits. Before granting a permit,

the community should determine whether the site

appears to be “reasonably safe from flooding. ” If

not, structures should be anchored and built of

flood-resistant materials. If a subdivision will be

flood-prone, utilities should be flood-proofed and

adequate drainage should be ensured. The community must also ensure that all State and Federal

permits (e.g., wetlands) are obtained by the applicant before a building permit is issued (24 CFR,

sec. 1910.3(a)).

Flood Hazard Areas Identified

When FIA has formally identified flood hazard

areas within the community (through a flood hazard boundary map), the community must obtain

and utilize the best available flood data from any

source, to ensure that new residential construction

will be elevated above the 100-year flood level (if

known), and that nonresidential construction will

be flood-proofed to that level. Adjoining communities and the State Coordinating Office must be

notified before altering or relocating any watercourse. Mobile homes must be properly anchored

and a community evacuation plan should be developed (sec. 1910.3(b)).

Publication of a Rate Map

With the publication of its flood insurance rate

map, the community must formally adopt regulations within 6 months that require the elevation

or flood-proofing of residential and nonresidential

construction above the indicated 100-year flood

level (sec. 1910.3(c)).

Determination of Floodway

A “floodway” is that portion of the floodplain

required to convey the 100-year flood with no

more than a l-foot rise due to encroachment upon

adjoining land—the “floodway fringe. ” When FIA

has determined the location of the floodway, no

50
Table 16.—Community Progression in the National Flood Insurance Program

Community in

Community* not in NFIP* Community in NFIP’s emergency program Regular program

1. No FHBM, ” no requirements, no sane”

tions. ”

2. FHBM* issued, sanctions* take effect 1

year after initial

issue date.

3. Community applies to

join NFIP (see

“NFIP Local Government Application Procedure,” Local Assistance

Series 26). Community

may apply with or without

FHBM, before or after

sanctions take effect.

4. FIA* accepts community’s application and community

enters emergency program. 13.

5. Community amends ordinance as the Federal law and/or

regulations are amended.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

FIS* scheduled by FIA to begin 1 to 10 years after joining

NFIP. 14.

FIA schedules time and cost meeting, scope of FIS

planned out with community.

Study review meeting, community officials review draft FIS.

Final CCO meeting, FIS and regular program requirements

explained to the public.

FIA changes FIS as per comments and appeals from public

and community officials.

FIA issues final elevation determination, FIS is thereby

finalized and community has 6 months to pass a regular pro.

gram ordinance or be suspended. ●

Regular program ordinance passed and submitted to FIA

FIA accepts Regular

Program ordinance,

munity enters Regular --

Program on the effective date on FIS. *

Community amends

ordinance as the Federal law and/or regulations are amended.

(may be done during steps 10 or 11).

SOURCE: iiiinois Department of Transportation. Division of Water Resources, Fioodplam Regulation Workshop materiais, no date.
further fill or encroachment will be permitted

within such area (sec. 1910.3(d)).

Coastal Areas

Where FIA has designated a “coastal high hazard area” (V Zone), communities shall require new

or substantially improved structures in the V Zone

to be located landward of the reach of mean high

tide and elevated on piles or columns above the

100-year flood level. Within the V Zone, no new

mobile homes are allowed and manmade alteration of sand dunes and mangrove stands is to be

forbidden (sec. 1910.3(e)).

The objective of these standards is that communities will prohibit any further fill or encroachment on their regulatory floodway. Outside the

floodway, limited new construction will be provided as long as the 100-year flood elevation will

not be increased by more than 1 foot. Some States

or localities have adopted more stringent rules,

allowing encroachment to raise the 100-year flood

water height by only 6 inches or not at all. In the

latter case, the entire 100-year floodplain is treated

as a floodway.

WHAT NFIP HAS ACCOMPLISHED

NFIP is a new and rapidly expanding program.

It is therefore too early to assess the Program’s effectiveness for reallocating flood losses and for promoting improved floodplain management. Some

preliminary NFIP accomplishments are considered

below from three standpoints: 1) objective or

quantitative measures of program activity to date,

2) informed judgments expressed by experts, and

3) anecdotal evidence from recent flood experience.

Quantitative Data on Program Growth

The rapid growth of the program since its inception and modification is shown in table 15. As of

October 1, 1979, 1.6 million policyholders in

either the emergency or the regular programs in

16,100 communities were covered for $60 billion.

There were 2,262 communities in the regular program. Flood insurance rate studies for 8,691 communities were underway of which 3,147 were completed. Of these 886 were on appeal.

Informed Judgments

●

●

●

●

●

●

Building codes and practices in flood-prone

communities have improved.

Mapping of the Nation’s flood-prone areas

has promoted public awareness of flood hazards.

The program is stimulating consumer purchase of flood insurance in high-risk areas.

The state-of-the-art has improved in such pertinent subject areas as home construction,

economics, environmental engineering, hydrology, and hydraulics.

The preliminary mapping of flood-prone communities has informed some 19,000 local governments about their flood hazards. (The national objective of completely mapping about

20,000 flood-prone communities by 1983

raises some questions to be discussed below).

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

which amended NFIP to provide for compulsory participation and emergency eligibility,

succeeded in making the insurance scheme a

permanent feature of Federal flood policies, as

evidenced by the $60 billion in coverage in effect by October 1, 1979. Although some dissatisfaction has been expressed about filing

procedures and delays in the adjustment

process, NFIP is realizing its goal of flood loss

reduction.

NFIP in Action: Early and

Recent Experience

Early experience of NFIP was not promising.

When Hurricane Camille hit the Gulf Coast in

August 1969, only one community in the State of

Louisiana was eligible for the sale of flood insurance. (This situation led to the adoption of the

“emergency phase” amendment to NFIP in 1969).

In 1972, only 29 policies were in effect in Rapid

City, S. Dak., when it was hit by a catastrophic

flash flood. Three weeks later only $5 million in

flood insurance coverage was in effect in Pennsylvania as compared with an estimated $2 billion

in losses caused by Tropical Storm Agnes. Reasons

given for the failure of the public to take advantage of flood insurance included.

● Citizens were not aware of the program.

● Agents were not selling the program.

● Local officials were not seeking the eligibility.

52

.
●

●

●

The rates were too high.

The normalcy bias that “it can’t happen to

me” deterred interest.

Central to all major hazards insurance appears to be that ‘large numbers of people

would not buy the insurance at actuarial rates

voluntarily.

The Great Blizzard and Coastal Flood of February 6 to 7, 1978, was the most damaging weather

event to strike the northeastern seaboard of the

United States since March 1962. Successive high

tides driven by winds gusting above 100 miles per

hour caused what has been estimated to be a 75-

year flood along the Massachusetts coast north

and south of Boston. Some 9,000 homes were estimated to have been damaged or destroyed. Over

2,000 were demolished in the towns of Revere,

Hull, and Scituate. Additional damage was inflicted on public roads, shore protection works,

sewage treatment plants, recreational facilities,

and utilities. Damage to automobiles alone was

estimated at $23 million, mostly occurring in the

coastal area.

For the first time, flood insurance was widely

held by flood victims. In 15 of the most severely

hit communities in Massachusetts, 3,159 policies

were in effect on which 1,663 claims were filed by

March 1, 3 weeks after the flood. Payments authorized or actually made as of September 30, 1978

totalled slightly less than $20 million. The Boston

Regional Office of FIA provided prompt assistance

in processing claims.

The February 1978 storm proved a test of a different sort for NFIP. Among the 15 Massachusetts

communities with 30 or more flood insurance

claims, 8 were enrolled in the NFIP regular program. Reconstruction of the buildings in those

communities that were damaged more than 50

percent must comply with existing regulations for

flood-proofing, minimum elevation, and location

that reflect NFIP floodplain management standards. This makes it less likely that these structures

will be damaged again. It is still too early to state

with assurance that NFIP has, in fact, succeeded in

mitigating the exposure of coastal investments to

repeated loss. Research underway at this time

should clarify this question. FIA has made a

strong effort, however, to provide technical

assistance to the most severely damaged communities to help them direct their reconstruction away

from zones of high velocity wave action and to enforce minimum elevation requirements.

In April 1979, a massive flood along the Pearl

River in Jackson, Mississippi afforded an opportunity to test NFIP in an inland setting. With fewer

than 1,000 policies in Jackson where most of the

flood damage occurred, NFIP covered a smaller

proportion of losses than in the Massachusetts

storm. Nevertheless, FIA launched a pioneering --

effort to employ all available resources to reduce

future flood losses. Surveys were undertaken to investigate the feasibility of relocating certain flood

victims, and seminars on flood-proofing were arranged. FIA persuaded the Small Business Administration to limit the allocation of disaster loans to

sites outside the floodway. As in Massachusetts,

the results were not consistent. FIA then developed new approaches that it later utilized after

Hurricane Frederick in September 1979.

SOME RECENT STUDIES OF

FLOOD INSURANCE

Before turning to the issues in the next sections

it would be useful to examine three studies concerned with the behavioral and management aspects of flood hazards that comprise the background for the future evolution of the program.

●

●

●

Howard Kunreuther of the University of

Pennsylvania conducted a 3-year study on insurance protection from the point of view of

natural hazards, focusing on flood and earthquake insurance.3

From 1976 to 1977, Jiri Nehnevajsa and

others at the University of Pittsburgh studied

the preparatory activities that were carried

out in anticipation of severe flooding in the

Pittsburgh area.4

In 1975, Don Anderson of the University of

Wisconsin reviewed the strengths, weaknesses, and accomplishments of the program

through 1973. He presented suggestions from

a management and insurance perspective. 5

JHo\vard c. ~unreucher, et al. ~[m[red A’noukfge umf lmumncc Procection—im@cations jor Nacuraf Haw-d Po/IL--, Untverwv or Pennsvlvarua, March 1977.

‘Jiri Nehnevajsa and Henry Wong, Flood Prepuredrwss 1077:.4 Pirt~-

hurgh Area Study, Universltv ot_Pirtsburgh, Mav 1Q77.

jDan R. Anderson, “The National Flood Insurance Program–

Problems and Potennal,” The -lOurnui of hk ~nd fnsuran~~, D~~~mber

197-+, pp. 58&3~2.
Individual Perceptions and

Decisionmaking: The Kunrthuther Study

Howard Kunreuther and his associates at the

University of Pennsylvania recently completed a

3-year study on insurance protection from the

point of view of natural hazards policy. They focused on flood and earthquake insurance. The

study included extensive field interviews of 2,055

homeowners in 43 areas of 13 States subject to

coastal zone and riverine flooding, and an additional 1,066 homeowners in 18 earthquake-prone

areas in California. Half of the interviewers had

purchased insurance and half had not. The field

survey was complemented by laboratory investigations of choices among insurance alternatives.

Some of the conclusions drawn from this study

were:

●

●

●

●

The view of the citizen as an “economic man”

who makes fundamental decisions such as

about purchasing insurance based on maximizing his own utility, is a seriously inadequate model of what happens. Choices are

based on what Kunreuther and his associates

call a series of contingent claims.

At the time of the survey, individuals had extremely limited information about floods,

earthquakes, and the insurance options available. For example, even among those holding

flood insurance, only 17 percent were able to

give a reasonable estimate of the cost of the

insurance, and only 44 percent could estimate

the deductible amount. The awareness of the

potential for flood damage shows that the insured had the relatively more pessimistic

view. Fifty-five percent of the uninsured expected damage to be $10,000 or less and

almost 30 percent expected to incur no damage, whereas among the insured, only 31 percent felt they might incur $10,000 or less. (See

table 17.)

In general, the respondents did not expect to

receive aid from the Federal Government

should the disaster occur; but rather anticipated that losses would be covered by other

sources, notably personal funds.

Kunreuther’s studies sustain the earlier observation made by Robert Kates of Clark University that there is “a major limitation in the

human ability to use flood hazard informaOR&ert Kates, Fh:ard and Choice PerceptIon m Flood Plum ,Munugemenc, L.’niversitv of Chicago, Department of Geographv, Research

Paper #78. As cited in Howard Kunreucher, “Limited Knowledge and

Insurance Prorectlon,” Public Policy, vol. Z No. J, Spring l~i’(i, p.

243.

54

Table 17.-lndividual Perception of Flood Damage

Damage expected to property and contents from a severe

flood or earthquake (Qq, 119-122) (% of sample)

Flood survey Earthquake survey

Total damage class Insured Uninsured Insured Uninsured

Subjective probability

of flood or Flood survey Earthquake survey

earthquake Insured Uninsured Insured Uninsured

SOURCE: Howard Kunreuther, “Limited Knowledge and Insurance Protection,’”

Public Policy, Spring 1975. pp. 234.235.

son living on a floodplain appears to be

strongly influenced by personal experience.

There is a widespread inability to conceptualize floods.

The observations, in general, support the following conclusions with regard to the choice to

buy

●

●

●

●

●

insurance:

A person who is aware of the hazard when he

moves into a neighborhood is more likely to

be insured than one who is unaware.

A person who is experienced with flood hazards and whose home has been damaged is

more likely to purchase insurance than someone who has not had such an experience.

The person who has purchased flood insurance is more likely to know someone who

has purchased a policy than is an uninsured

individual.

An individual who purchases flood insurance

is more likely to have discussed insurance

with friends, neighbors, and relatives than is

an uninsured individual.

Kunreuther’s key finding is that people refuse

to worry about future losses from disasters

that they perceive as having little chance of

happening. Therefore, it follows that:

–Disseminating information is extremely valuable. In one area in New York State, for
example, he finds that individual communities were not properly advised by local

leaders about the procedure for joining

NFIP because of the political sensitivity of

land-use regulations involved.

–The degree of concern about the hazard is

likely to be strongly influenced by the way

in which risks are presented. Talking about

a 100-year flood would obviously have less

of a psychological impact than talking

about the likelihood of flooding over the

next 10 years (one chance in ten).

–The insurance agent plays a key role in the

effective delivery of insurance.

–The way in which insurance is marketed is

particularly critical in dealing with the

poor, the highly mobile, and the aged.

—The significant role of financial institutions

is growing by statute since flood insurance

is required for all new mortgages in flood

hazard areas.

–Coordination with other adjustments to

flood hazards is needed.

Response to Warning:

The Nehnevajsa Study

Following the severe winter of 1976 to 1977, the

University of Pittsburgh Center for Urban Research undertook a study of preparatory activity

in anticipation of serious flooding in the Pittsburgh area. They concluded that “given a prior

negative experience with the disaster (of the flood

type) and realistic warning of an impending flood;

given a reasonable time in which to develop ways

to prepare for the disaster, public agencies, businesses as well as households become quite motivated to attempt to prepare themselves for the

worst . . .“

Much time and effort is spent in activities appropriate for preparing to cope with an impending

flood. A majority of the residents in the high risk

region had purchased flood insurance, and in 3 additional communities almost half the sample residents had flood insurance. The overall participation fell below 30 percent in only two communities. Furthermore, in all of the communities, businesses tended to carry flood insurance although

there was a wide fluctuation in the average

amounts reported. Almost all of the residential insurance policies were new. These were purchased

in anticipation of the extent of flooding estimated

in 1977. Tables 18 and 19 summarize the purchasing patterns.

55
Table 19.-Patterns of Flood Insurance Purchase in 43 Pennsylvania Communities*

Residents without insurance were also asked about their

reasons for choosing not to acquire a policy.

●

●

●

●

●

37.1 percent of these uninsured residents gave general

reasons for not carrying insurance—disliking the idea as

such, not getting to it, not needing it, and the like.

27.6 percent of the residents felt that they did not need

insurance because they live on upper floors of homes and

apartment houses.

14.0 percent felt that they do not live in a potentially impacted area and that, therefore, they would not be directly threatened by flooding anyway.

10.2 percent thought that they did not need insurance because they lived in a rented property.

7.3 percent could not afford to purchase a policy though

they might have done so if money had been available. -

In all, 69.0 percent of the residents and 76.2 percent of

the businessmen expressed some opinion about the flood

insurance program itself:

●

●

●

42.1 percent of the residents and 38.5 percent of the businessmen considered it to be a good program.

19.4 percent of the citizens along with 17.4 percent of the

businessmen believed the program to be “adequate.”

A few additional respondents, both residents and businessmen thought that the insurance rate was favorable,

and a few others explicitly stated that they liked the Government’s backing of the program.

●

●

Among the negative comments, which in all account for a

minority of residents as well as businessmen the following types of concerns appear:

—that people don’t understand how the program works;

—that the program is good mainly for insurance companies;

—that it is open to abuse— both by insurance companies -

and policyholders;

—that the 15-day waiting period is unfair;

—that the coverage which the program facilitates ought

to be expanded to other items (basement items, carpeting, and the like);

-that it does not, in fact, cover the needs of residents or

of businessmen adequately at all;

—that full value for damaged items is not repayable;

-that it should cover a high percentage of reconstruction and rebuilding costs;

—that maximum coverage should be increased;

—that deduction rates are unfair; and

—that business disruption insurance should also be

added.

Furthermore, a few respondents, both residents and businessmen, deferred judgment: they said that the adequacy

of the program will best be seen, or prove itself, after actual flooding.

SOURCE: Jirt Nehnev@3.a and Henry Wong, FIo08 Pr@p8facfnes$t97Z: A Plttsbufgh Afaa Study (Univarslty of Pittsburgh, May 1977), P. 102.

56
VIII. Flood Insurance Issues

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

is confronted by a number of issues whose resolution would greatly accelerate the achievement of

its objectives. These issues deal with the following

problems:

. Reorganization—Transfer to the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

● Intergovernmental Relations

—Within the Federal Government

–Federal/State: The Texas Landowners Suit

—Non-Federal Coordination

● The Emergency Program

—Subsidized Rates for New Construction

—Mapping of Hazard Areas

● Coastal Hazards and Erosion

● Postdisaster Recovery and Mitigation

● Government as Salesman and Agent for

Technology Transfer

Three additional issues concerned with flood

hazards regulations and the courts are discussed in

chapter X.

●

●

●

The administration of flood hazards restrictions.

The technical justification of flood hazards

maps.

The “taking issue.”

REORGANIZATION–TRANSFER

TO FEMA

During its first decade of operation, NFIP was

administered by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) as a unit of the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Under

a reorganization plan submitted by President

Carter to Congress on June 18, 1978, FIA has

been detached from HUD and reassigned to the

new FEMA. FEMA combines five existing agencies and four hazard-related programs. Its purposes

are to place Federal emergency mitigation and response activities in one agency, and to provide

“one stop” service to States and local governments. More detailed responsibilities are set forth

in Executive Order 12148 of July 20, 1979.

Removal from a large cabinet department chief- --

ly concerned with urban development to a small

noncabinet agency specializing in emergency management may be expected to have a substantial influence on the future operation of NFIP, but specific implications cannot yet be determined. A major priority for FEMA is to be the mitigation of

loss from all natural hazards, especially floods.

This should help to improve the performance of

NFIP in promoting the reduction of flood losses.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Coordination Within the

Federal Government

NFIP has not been effectively integrated with

other Federal programs and efforts that relate to

river basins; to the coastal zone; and to public construction, funding, and licensing activities in general. The decisions of such Federal agencies as the

U.S. Departments of Transportation; Health,

Education, and Welfare; Agriculture; and Defense; and even HUD, have, however, largely ignored the implications for flood hazards.

The coordination of Federal actions relating to

floodplains and wetlands is now mandatory under

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, issued by

President Carter May 24, 1977. Each of these

orders requires that Federal agencies attempt to

minimize the impact of their actions and policies

on the areas in question. Executive Order 11988

(reproduced in full in appendix B) states in part:

Section 1. Each agency shall provide leadership

and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood

loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human

safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by

floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for

(1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal

lands, (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements, and (3) conducting Federal activities and

programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning,

regulating, and licensing activities.
*JOn ~. Kusler, unpublish~ memorandum submitted CO

OTA Workshop on Flood Hazards, March 1978.

58

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

the coastal zone management program;

a proposed system of urban rivers with the

national scenic and wild rivers program;

section 406 of the Disaster Assistance Act of

1974, which requires hazard mitigation planning as a condition for Federal disaster aid to

local communities;

new emphasis on nonstructural management

within the Corps of Engineers and the soil

conservation fund;

broadened funding of the land and water conservation fund;

proposals for greenline parks and for national

heritage;

urban recreation study;

HUD community development block grants;

Federal Strip Mining Act;

section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 concerning areawide waste treatment planning; and

State and local critical areas programs.

Federal/State Relations

The uncertainty and disagreement over floodplain management goals between State and Federal officials is reflected in the absence of fully effective, integrated State enabling legislation. Unwillingness on the part of local officials to pursue

tough regulatory courses could be attributed to the

difference with which the magnitude and immediacy of flood hazards is perceived in each institutional setting. The flood program requirements demand that local governments spend money, which

they are reluctant to do, and provide technical expertise, which they are unable to do. A lack of

consistent access to costly personnel and equipment reduces their ability to monitor and enforce

guidelines, thereby aggravating the problem of

Federal certification of compliance.

Increasing Federal floodplain development authority in the form of financial sanctions, technical assistance, and other types of leverage, has provoked litigation challenging NFIP. State governments, local jurisdictions, and citizens’ organizations have cited financial loss, constitutional

standing, and philosophical reservations about

“big government.” These fundamental reservations have the effect of undermining the legitimacy

of the program. The following contentions, which

serve only to illustrate the kinds of charges leveled

at FIA in current litigation, demonstrate a wide

range of aI1eged negative impacts characteristic of
●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

demnation suits by landowners for lost or diminished property value.

These accusations have been expressed directly

in a lawsuit filed against FIA by a group of dissident communities and property owners discussed

next.

The Texas Landowners Suit.2–NFIP is currently under legal challenge by a coalition of plaintiffs consisting of the State of Missouri, 40 political

subdivisions in 12 States, and 30 individual landowners and associations of landowners. Their lawsuit seeks to have the mandatory aspect of NFIP

declared unconstitutional. The need for Federal

flood insurance or in some cases for local floodplain management, is not questioned. Objection is

raised, however, to the denial of federally related

financial assistance to property owners in communities that do not satisfy Federal floodplain manIJOn A. ~usler, private consultant, personal COrnrnUnlCation, 1978.

~Texm Landou,ners Rights A-$sociation v. Patricia Roberts Harm, et aL, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,

Civil Action 77-1962, 1977.

agement criteria. It is contended that section 102

of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234) converted NFIP from a voluntary

to a mandatory program, and as such the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are violated.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1977 upheld the constitutionality of”

NFIP stating:J

The public safety, health and general welfare

favor the Program. There is involved a legitimate

national goal. One aspect of that goal is to equitably spread the costs of flood disasters among those

landowners who most benefit from publicly funded

flood disaster relief. . . The Program does not

constitute a taking without the payment of just

compensation.

Plaintiffs currently have an appeal filed with the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Non-Federal Coordination

In many places, streams constitute boundaries

between separate jurisdictions. Elsewhere, they

flow from one jurisdiction into another. The result

is that river basins and floodplains are a mosaic of

political authority wherein each unit of State, regional, or local government has extensive autonomy in its use of the common riverine resource.

The consequences of flooding cut across jurisdictions almost everywhere. Both structural and

nonstructural efforts to mitigate flood losses in one

jurisdiction may be counteracted by inconsistent

actions upstream, on the opposite side, and even

downstream in the event of backwatering. Because

more reliance is being placed on nonstructural

measures such as land acquisition and land use

regulation, it is increasingly important that the

policies and actions of local governments bordering a common stream should be compatible.

Conflicts that arise among jurisdictions in the

management of flood-prone areas may involve:+

whether or not to adopt floodplain management measures,

the use of structural as opposed to nonstructural approaches,

‘Ibid.

4Ru[her{ord H. Platt, hwrgouemmewd IMamgement 0/’

Floodplains, draft report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Office of Chief of Engineers, 1978.

59
●

●

●

●

●

the degree of protection to be achieved

through either structural or nonstructural

means,

the management of natural water storage

areas lying in more than one jurisdiction,

the coordination of regulations,

the coordination of acquisition or relocation

of property, and

the exercise of extraterritorial powers.

Disputes between units of authority sharing a

common floodplain frequently do not emerge until

a major flood occurs. Potential areas of conflict remain unrecognized due to the infrequency of serious flooding, the prevalence of structural flood

control in many watersheds, and the human tendency to discount events that have a low probability of occurrence. Without effective coordination

of the policies and actions of individual units of

authority, the possibility of achieving sound use of

the Nations’s floodplains is seriously jeopardized.

There are a number of existing and potential

means to achieve some degree of intergovernmental coordination in floodplain management. At

the Federal level these include: the planning procedures established by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965; the National Flood Insurance

Program; the coastal zone management program;

the land and water conservation fund; the Soil

Conservation Service small watershed program;

the Disaster Relief Act of 1974; Executive Orders

11988 and 11990; and the mandatory referral procedures established by the Office of Management

and Budget Circular A-95. Interstate compacts

may be used to coordinate the actions of multiple

States within a watershed. State-level measures include statewide land use planning, State floodplain management programs, shoreland zoning,

critical areas regulations, and miscellaneous licensing and permit requirements. Substate regional coordination may be achieved through county governments, special districts and authorities, interlocal agreements, extraterritorial powers, and,

when all else fails, through litigation.

THE EMERGENCY PROGRAM

Among 16,100 flood-prone communities participating in NFIP on September 30, 1978, 2,756 were

enrolled in the “regular program” with fully established floodplain management measures in effect.

The other 13,344 communities were enrolled in

the “emergency program,” which was enacted in

1969 as an amendment to the original law. Under

the emergency program, communities may qualify

for the sale of flood insurance (up to certain limits)

on fulfilling some simple requirements (see chapter

VII). Insurance is sold at subsidized rates during

the emergency phase, even for new construction -

since the data for calculation of actuarial rates

have not yet been provided by FIA.

Subsidized Rates for New Construction

The possible construction actions in the emergency phase are contrary to the goals of NFIP as

originally conceived. Virtually no local regulations are required, and new structures are at least

partially insured at subsidized rates. For NFIP to

successfully reduce future flood losses it is imperative that communities in the emergency phase

of the program satisfy the full requirements of the

program as quickly as possible. In the words of

former FIA Administrator George Bernstein:

[t is the combination of effective land use controls and full actuarial rates for new construction

that makes NFIP an insurance program rather

than a reckless and unjustifiable giveaway programs

The adoption of land use controls and the application of actuariaI rates are tied to the completion

of “flood insurance rate maps” (FIRM) in each

local community. A FIRM depicts the 100-year

flood hazards area as determined from computer

simulation studies. The hazard area itself is divided into differential zones of risk depending on

topographical elevation. These risk zones are used

by insurance brokers to calculate the actuarial

rates applicable to each location in the floodplain.

Subsidized rates are generally felt to be appropriate for persuading owners of existing structures

in hazard areas to join the program and enjoy the

benefits of its coverage. There is general agreement

that new structures subject to hazards should pay

actuarial rates. However, those rates cannot be

calculated until the relevant rate maps have been

prepared. As a consequence, the present legislation states that actuarial rates are effective after

publication of the initial FIRM. FIA has interpreted this to mean that subsidized rates are available for new construction before the FIRM is available. Although it is difficult to obtain the data, the

JGeorge Bernstein, from Don P. Anderson, “DeVdOPrnent

of the Principal Elements O( a Comprehensive Catastrophe

Insurance System,” CPCUAnnuls, September 1975, p. 130.

60
consequences appear to be that construction has

been proceeding in the floodplains and coastal

zone with the benefit of subsidized rates. This creates the very kind of situation that the flood insurance program is supposed to discourage. Miller

has found that “the availability of flood insurance

in a coastal community acts as an incentive to

lending institutions to provide direct financing of

structures in a known hazard area, ” and that the

tendency is for insurance to sustain and often increase property values in the floodplain. b

Although losses due to moderate floods may be

reduced (a public gain) because of NFIP, catastrophe potential may be increased (a public loss)

because of higher property values and the increased availability of direct financing for floodplain structures. Extensive fieldwork is necessary

to determine the extent and seriousness of this

problem, and more importantly, to identify the institutions that are taking advantage of this provision.

Mapping of Hazard Areas

FIA is diligently attempting to fulfill its mandate

to map the floodplains of each community so that

regulations can be adopted and enforced locally.

As of November 1, 1978, 8,691 local studies had

been initiated by FIA, most of them under contract with other Federal agencies, river basin commissions, and private engineering firms. Of these,

3,147 have been completed and the rest are still in

progress. Priority has been given to those communities where flooding and/or development pressure are most extreme.

This process is expensive and laborious. A

perfect floodplain map is almost impossible to

achieve since error is bound to accumulate in the

process of analyzing flood flow characteristics from

stream gauge data. Furthermore, the base maps

themselves are subject to error. Flood profiles are

more accurate but local communities may lack the

capability to apply these data.

The very complexity of the mapping effort is delaying conversion of communities from the emergency to the regular program. Communities are requested by FIA to use “best available information”

while awaiting completion of their maps. But most

of the emergency phase communities lack any seri6H. Crane Ml~[er, “coastal Flood Plain Nlanagement and

the National Floud Insurance Program, ” Environmencd Comment, November 1975, p. 12.

ous floodplain controls, regardless of available information. As suggested in an article in Water Resources Research by Dingman and Platt, T it would

be desirable for NFIP to apply and enforce “quick

and dirty” estimates of flood hazard areas for purposes of regulation, pending completion of fullscale studies. They propose: . 

For interim protection on larger streams and

shorelines and for permanent protection elsewhere

it is imperative that quicker and cheaper methods

for flood hazard area delimitation be sanctioned by

the National Flood Insurance Program. A number

of expedient methods have been devised and could

readily be adapted as bases for regulation. Different

methods would probably be appropriate for different areas, depending on the type of information

available and the hydrologic and land use conditions.

The Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, produced by

the NFIP, are already in the hands of local communities. If amended to eliminate gross errors,

these could be used locally until better information

arrives. It is illogical to consider these maps to be

legally sufficient for determining who must buy

flood insurance but inadequate to identify which

land should be subject to floodplain restrictions.

A third technique is to refer to the area inundated by the flood of record (largest flood to have

occurred in an area) or other significant historical

flood as the regulatory floodplain. This approach is

suggested by the state of Vermont for use in areas

where other information is lacking and has been

used by Massachusetts in its floodplain-mapping

program along the Nashua River.

Another approach to delineation involves the

use of generalized relations between regulatory

flood depth and readily measurable stream and/or

drainage basin characteristics . . .

Soils mapping has also been shown to be a useful

tool in identifying flood prone areas in some regions [Cain and Beatty, 1968; Parker et al., 1970a,

b], and where it exists, it may provide a satisfactory

basis for regulation.

‘Lawrence S. Dingman and Rutherford H. Platt, “Flooclplain Zomng and Implications of Hydrological and Legal Llncertainty,” Wucer Resource Research, Vol. 13, no. 3, 1977’, p.

520.

61
Any of these or other “shortcut” techniques inevitably trade elegance for economy and detail for

efficiency. It has been suggested that the elegance

and detail of even the most sophisticated floodplain maps may be illusory. But unquestionably,

courts are impressed with the sheer cost and

weightiness of floodplain reports. Will less impressive techniques pass muster when legally challenged? Recent judicial trends indicate that if a

community proceeds in good faith and to the best

of its ability to try to protect the lives and investments of its citizens, the law will not stand in the

way.

A recent FIA policy change should respond to

some needs that have been identified above by

FIA staff for work on long-range flood management programs.8 The main goal is to “allow FIA to

concentrate its resources on studying those communities where there is development or development pressure while at the same time providing

more in-depth, sustained technical counsel directly to local governments on how to reduce local

flood hazards.”

COASTAL HAZARDS AND EROSION

The Corps of Engineers in 1971 estimated that

2,700 miles of the Nation’s coastal and Great

Lakes shorelines were experiencing “critical erosion,” with another 17,800 miles incurring “noncritical erosion. ”9 A major unresolved policy issue

within NFIP concerns the problem of managing

coastal hazard areas. In part, this is a mapping

problem. Delimitation of coastal hazard areas involves two zones:

● the A Zone, which contains the 100-year

coastal floodplains; and

● the V Zone, which is that portion of the A

Zone subject to heavy wave action.

The methodology for delimiting these zones is not

entirely satisfactory. FIA maps in the past, for instance, have not taken into account storm surge as

an element in the calculation of the V Zone.

Studies are underway to correct this deficiency.

The management of coastal erosion is itself a

major NFIP problem. NFIP regulations distinguish

between “rapid erosion,” which is an insurable

hazard, and “gradual erosion,” which is not.

Studies by the Great Lakes Basin Commission and

others have suggested this to be an unworkable

distinction since, for example, a bluff may be undermined gradually, and eventually collapse during a storm. A related issue is whether FIA should

establish minimum setbacks based on the vulner- -

ability of a shoreline to erosion. FIA regulations

contemplate the delimitation of E Zones based on

erosion susceptibility but none have yet been

mapped.

Theoretically, NFIP and the coastal zone management program (CZMP) are partners in the national effort to manage coastal areas. The two programs are complementary 

in their functions.

CZMP provides grants for the development and

implementation of State coastal zone plans and

programs. NFIP supplies minimum flood hazard

area management standards. As stated above,

however, there has been a failure of coordination

between the two agencies. OCZM has not explicitly required States to conform to NFIP standards as

a condition for approval of their coastal plans for

implementation grants.

Part of the difficulty lies within NFIP where policies towards coastal hazards have not been as

clearly defined as in riverine circumstances. Mapping of coastal hazard areas in particular has been

a source of problems.

POSTDISASTER RECOVERY AND

MITIGATION

An important issue to be addressed by the new

FEMA will be the improvement of control over reconstruction after a disaster in hazard areas. This

will require close cooperation between Federal and

State agencies, especially FIA and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration. Currently, the

potential utility of section 1362 of the NFIP legislation, which authorizes public acquisition of devastated areas following a flood, is being examined.

The Massachusetts Coastal Flood of February

1978 provided an important opportunity to initiate better procedures for postdisaster mitigation.

Most of the communities affected were enrolled in

NFIP, several of them under the regular program.

According to NFIP, rebuilding structures that are

damaged beyond more than half of their fair market value

mitigation

must conform with applicable hazard

regulations. The Massachusetts experi62
ence, which is still taking place, should provide information useful for improving mitigation procedures nationwide.

GOVERNMENT AS SALESMAN AND

AGENT FOR TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER

Marketing of Insurance

From its inception, until 1977, NFIP operated

on a partnership basis with a consortium of insurance companies, the National Flood Insurers

Association (NFIA). This arrangement presumably combined the fiscal resources of the Federal

Government with the marketing know-how of private enterprise. Communities would be certified

by FIA for participation in NFIP according to their

degree of floodplain management and NFIA

would handle the selling of policies through local

insurance agents. In the event of a major catastrophe, the Federal Government would supply the

monetary reserves needed to meet heavy claims.

(The latter has not been called on since the program’s inception.)

In 1977, the FIA-NFIA partnership was terminated by the Federal Government on the grounds

that NFIA was not sufficiently accountable and

was making too much profit. FIA then employed a

private computer firm, Electronic Data Services

(EDS), to serve as a “fiscal agent” in the processing

of flood insurance policies. EDS is directly accountable to FIA and no private insurance companies are involved, although policies are still sold

through local private agents. With over 1 million

policies in effect at the end of 1977, covering approximately $37 billion worth of flood-prone property, NFIA apparently made an effective effort to

market flood insurance. This effort will have to be

sustained and expanded under the new arrangement whereby FIA directly controls the marketing

side of the program.

Technical Assistance

FIA is responsible for providing technical

assistance to flood-prone communities and private

interests to enable them to meet the floodplain

management objectives of NFIP. Mapping has

been a major element of this task to date. As of

November 1978, FIA had initiated 8,691 studies of

local flood hazards. Of these 3,147 have been completed and 2,261 communities have been changed

over from the emergency to the regular program.

FIA is exploring new methodologies including

computer graphics and remote sensing (satellite

imagery) to speed up this effort and to update

maps already issued. Anderson-Nichols, Inc., has

been commissioned by FIA to thoroughly review

mapping alternatives. This study is subject to oversight by a special committee on flood insurance

studies of the National Academy of Sciences

under contract to FIA.

An additional element of this function is direct

contact between FIA staff and local officials. To

date, FIA has maintained about 100 professional

staff in nine field offices whose function is to meet

with the officials of local communities in order to

help them prepare and enforce floodplain management measures. The field staffs are backed up by a

small central staff at FIA headquarters in Washington, D.C. These few persons have accomplished a remarkable job in terms of the number of

communities contacted. Over 16,000 flood-prone

communities have now enrolled in the program, at

least on an emergency basis. But the task of converting about 13,000 of these to regular program

status during the next few years is formidable.

FIA proposes, therefore, to substantially enlarge

its field staffs, possibly to 600 persons nationwide.

Furthermore, it is exploring the feasibility of entering into contracts with certain States to fund improved floodplain management programs similar

to CZMPS. FIA might possibly establish criteria by

which States could be certified, as under the Federal water pollution control program, to administer their own floodplain management programs,

relatively free of Federal involvement. The feasibility of pursuing these innovative approaches to

technical assistance will depend on the financial

support provided by Congress.

It is suggested that the eventual success of NFIP

as a vehicle for achieving a reduction of national

flood losses will depend directly on the vitality of

its technical assistance effort. To date, NFIP has

not focused attention on public education concerning risks posed by floods, and options available for prevention, protection, and recovery.

63
IX. Legal Aspects of Floodplain

Regulation in the 1970’s

INTRODUCTION

The management of coastal and riverine flood--

prone areas through State and local regulation is a

comparatively recent phenomenon in the United

States. The widespread adoption of comprehensive land use zoning following the 1926 U.S.

Supreme Court decision of Ambler Realty Company

v. Village of Euclidl did not involve restraints on

the private development of floodplains. As recently as 1953, an authoritative study of flood problems stated:

Flood zoning, like almost all that is virtuous, has

great verbal support, but almost nothing has been

done about it. A few local governments have restricted the use of low-lying lands, but not enough

for us to point to any substantial amount of experience, or any great degree of progress.2

In 1959, a seminal law review article by Allison

Dunham “Flood Control Via the Police Power”3

was unable to cite a single major floodplain zoning

decision as of that year.

The long delay in the emergence of floodplain

regulation may be explained by three factors.

First, Congress in the Flood Control Act of 1936

and its successors declared that the management

of flooding would be the responsibility of the Federal Government to be discharged through construction of flood control works. To date, more

than $10 billion has been spent in the task of taming the rivers through flood control reservoirs,

levees and dikes, channelization and other structural means. Most of this work was performed at

Federal expense with little or no involvement by

States and local governments. The impression

naturally became widespread that flood problems

were thus solved, and no further action of a regulatory nature was required. Even where the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers required State or local

“assurances” that downstream floodplains would

be regulated to prevent encroachment,4 such as-

-

surances have not been widely enforced. A second

factor in the slow acceptance of floodplain regulation was uncertainty concerning the constitutionality of such measures. It was widely believed

that courts would only uphold restrictions based

on precise and unassailable engineering studies.

For example, two leading hydrologists Luna Leopold and Thomas Maddock, Jr., wrote in 1954:

Zoning to restrict the use of floodplain land is

. . . complicated. The degree and frequency of hazard vary so greatly that the delineation of zones to

which a given restriction will apply should be

based on careful study of individual areas, using

appropriate engineering information on flood frequency and flood heights.5

In the absence of such studies in most communities, it is scarcely surprising that, as the authors

noted, “few such laws have been written and

tested in the courts. ” While the importance of a

reasonable basis for any kind of regulation is indisputable, it is perhaps ironic that judicial decisions in other areas of zoning were commonly sustained on the most speculative or questionable

planning assumptions. Where loss of life and property were directly at stake, it was widely believed

that a higher burden of proof lay with the community.

Reinforcing these two factors, the third reason

for the long delay in the adoption of floodplain

zoning has been the tendency for communities to

avoid politically unpopular measures of this kind.

Apart from their hazard potential, floodplains afford level building sites close to transportation

systems that follow river valleys. Even where development has little relation to the river it adjoins,

floodplains are popular locations for shopping

centers, industrial parks, and even housing developments.

The inevitable price of this widespread encroachment of floodplains has been ever increasing flood losses. Despite the expenditure of more

than $10 billion in Federal flood control works,

average annual flood damages have been rising
consistently since 1936 to a currently estimated

total of $2 billion per year. The loss of lives has

decreased in major river valleys due to improved

flood warning systems, but is considered to be a

major concern in areas subject to flash floods or

coastal hurricanes.6

Following a series of devastating floods in the

mid-1950’s and early 1960’s, the Nation began to

come to its senses. The influential report of the

Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy7 recommended numerous changes in the national approach to floods. While admitting that structural

measures were still needed in certain areas, the report stressed the need for improved use of nonstructural measures including floodplain regulations, flood insurance, and relocation of occupants

from flood hazard areas. This report was forwarded to Congress by President Lyndon B. Johnson concurrently with the issuance of Executive

Order 11296, which ordered all Federal agencies to

consider the flood impacts of their actions. Congress in 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which for the first time

made floodplain regulation an integral component

of Federal policy.

Fortunately, by this time a firm legal basis for

the regulation of floodplains was finally in the

process of development. No decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court has directly addressed the question of floodplain zoning. However, in a 1962 decision involving the regulation of gravel quarries

within a residential area, the Court enunciated a

general test for the imposition of public authority

to abate hazardous situations:

To justify the state in . . . interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear—first,

that the interest of the public . . . require such interference; and, second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.8

The court went on to reaffirm its traditional view

that the legislative determination will be upheld

unless clearly arbitrary and capricious.

-——— . . . .— -- - -

In the absenceof further guidance from the

Supreme Court, the evolution of legal doctrine

with respect to flood hazards has occurred largely

in the State courts with a scattering of Federal

sGil&m F, Whice and Eugene Haas, Assessment of Research on

Natural Hazards (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1975).

7A Un[/led Pmgr~ jor,Nkwzging Fbod Losses (House llxurnem

+S5), 89th Cong., 2d sess. ( 1966).

uHmpstd v. Go/d&tt, 369 U.S. 5W ( 1~6z~.

decisions. The case law in this area maybe roughly

divided into two categories. First, those cases that

directly deal with flood hazards per se, either

riverine or coastal; and second, those cases that

address State and local wetlands regulations in

which flooding is an incidental consideration.

Both groups of cases involve common questions --

with respect to the “taking issue” as well as matters

of technical delimitation and administration. Each

group is reviewed below.

THE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF

FLOOD HAZARDS

In the surprisingly few cases that directly raise

the issue, courts have been almost unanimously

willing to give explicit recognition to the threat of

flood hazards as a proper object of public regulation. In a 1930 case arising in New Hampshire, a

Federal court of appeals stated the issue in terms of

consumer protection. Where the purchaser of a

flood-prone site from the City of Keene object to

the subsequent imposition of floodplain restrictions on his use of the land, the court upheld the

restraints as a “proper exercise of the City’s police

power in order to protect possible purchasers

being victimized by the City itself.”9 Protection of

the unwary buyer or tenant was cited by Dunham

as a proper ground for public intervention along

with the avoidance of public rescue costs and the

protection of downstream interests from the risk of

greater flooding due to individual encroachments. 10

Restrictions imposed following a flood disaster

to mitigate future losses were viewed favorably by

the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1958.11 The

case involved an “encroachment line” establishment by the State that prohibited all reconstruction within a specified distance of the Naugatuck

River upon challenge by a property owner who retained only 60 ft2

outside of the encroachment

line, the court declared:

Reasonable regulation of the size and area of

buildings and the type of material used in them

and the method of construction has long been recognized as legal proper . . . The loss of human life

and the destruction of property wrought by the

floods in August 1955, justified the legislature in

conferring upon the commission broad powers to

9American Lund Co. v. City oj Keene, 41 Fed.Zd +8+ ( 1930).

IODunham, op. cit., footnote j.

llvurte~a v. W@er Resources Comml.won, 153 A.2d S22 ( 1958).

66
adopt preventive measures against their repetition.

The trial court found that the encroachment lines

as established by the commission extend for several

miles along the Naugatuck River, in accord with

sound engineering principles and statutory requirements, and were designed to reduce hazard to life

and property in the event of recurring floods.

The problem of structures erected in violation of

applicable encroachment line restrictions was confronted by the Iowa Supreme Court in 1968.13 T h e

court strongly endorsed the constitutionality per se

of such restrictions declaring:

A river uncontrolled may at flood state become

a devil, a destroyer of life and property, a disrupter

of transportation and commerce vital to the state

and its citizens. 14

“But the court refused to order the removal of certain levees constructed by the defendant subsequent to the enactment of State floodplain restrictions. Instead, it merely required the filing of an

application for a permit. A strong dissent argued

that a mandatory injunction for removal should

be issued on the ground that such unauthorized

encroachment amounts to a “public nuisance. ” (A

contrasting view is expressed in a Florida coastal

wetlands case, where a U.S. District Court

ordered immediate removal of fill illegally placed

in a Florida bay.l5

Regulation of flood-prone areas at the local level

appeared with increasing frequency after 1960.

Perhaps the strongest judicial decision upholding

such municipal restrictions was the 1972 Massachusetts opinion in Turnpike Realty Co. v. Town of

Dedham. 16 Dedham in 1963 had amended its zoning bylaws and zoning map to establish a “floodplain district” that included most of the plaintiff’s

land in a “low swampy area” bordering the

Charles River. Within the floodplain, the use of

land was limited to “woodland, grassland, wetland, agricultural, horticultural, or recreational”

purposes. Citing the 1959 Dunham law review article and other authorities, the court stated:

The general necessity of floodplain zoning to reduce the damage to life and property caused by

flooding is unquestionable.17

12153 A.2d, at 825.

Ij[ou,a ,watur~ Resources Council v. Van Zee, 158 N.w.2d

(1968).

1+158 N,W.2d at 118.

11

I$L.,s. v. ~osepk G. .Moretrt, Inc. 331 F. Supp. 151 (S.D. Fla., 1971).

16~&34 N.E.~d 39 I ( 197~),

IiId., at 899.

In response to the plaintiffs challenge that the ordinance deprived him of any reasonable use of his

land, the court replied:

We are unable to conclude, even though the

judge found that there was a substantial diminution in the value of petitioner’s land, that the

decrease was such as to render it an unconstitutional deprivation of its property.

At the municipal level, conflicting motives and

objectives may confuse the floodplain management situation. In Turnpike Realty, the ordinance

listed among its purposes in addition to the protection of public health and safety from floods, the

conservation of “natural conditions, wildlife, and

open spaces for education, recreation and general

welfare of the public. ”19 The court admitted that

such objectives would not support the ordinance

in their own right, but that they are merely incidental to the ordinance which is “fully supported

by other valid considerations of public welfare.”

The court distinguished a 1963 New Jersey case20

in which a municipal wetlands restriction was invalidated on the grounds that it served merely environmental or conservation goals not the alevition of flood hazards.

Clearly an important factor in the willingness of

the Massachusetts court to approve Dedham’s ordinance was evidence of actual and frequent flooding of the site in question. Testimony of an “expert

hydrologist” stated that:

Petitioner’s lands “will have water on it ranging

anywhere from practically nothing up to . . . three

feet of water annually.” He further testifed that

once the flow in the Charles River exceeds 1280 cubic feet a second which is equivalent to the approximate elevation of the petitioner’s land . . . [the]

latter will be flooded. The flow of the Charles River

. . . exceeded that level in 1936, 1938, 1955, and

1968. Barrows stated that he personally went to

the petitioner’s land in March 1968, and observed

that it was covered with “approximately four to

five feet of water.”21

Where flooding is recent and notorious, courts

may take judicial notice as in the Vartelas case.22

But where the hazard is less obvious, expert testimony of the kind used in Turnpike Realty is normally involved. Given such assistance, courts are

‘sId., at 890.

‘91bid.

:OLMoms Collntw Lund Co. v. parslppan)-Troy Hills TWP. 193 ~.~d

232 ( 1963).

11284 N. E.2d, at 899.

‘%ee footnote 11.

67
willing to sustain measures of an unusual kind or

severity. The California Supreme Court in 1953

upheld a municipal ordinance creating a “beach

recreation district” with the benefit of testimony

that plaintiffs land on the Pacific shoreline was

subject to inundation during heavy storms.z3 A

California Appellate Court in 1972 upheld an absolute prohibition of residential or commercial

structures in a floodplain upon proof that the site

had been flooded four times since 1927.24 (The

zoning in question was adopted in 1965 as a prerequisite to the approval of a flood control project

to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) The New Jersey Supreme Court in 1966

sustained a total ban on construction of homes

seaward of a municipally established “building

line.”25 The court rested its judgment on:

Unrebutted proof that it would be unsafe to construct houses oceanward of the building line . . .

because of the possibility that they would be destroyed during a severe storm—the result which occurred during the storm of March 1962. Additionally, defendants admitted proof that there was

great peril to life and health arising through the

likely destruction of streets, sewer, water and gas

mains, and electric power lines in the proscribed

area in an ordinary storm.26

In what must be regarded as one of the most quotable examples of explicit judicial recognition of

flood hazards, the New Jersey Court concluded:

Such recognition prescribed only such conduct

as good husbandry would dictate that plaintiffs

should themselves impose on the use of their own

lands.27

Where proof to the contrary is offered, namely

that no flooding has been known to occur on the

site in question, judicial tolerance of floodplain

regulations is more problematic. A Michigan

Court of Appeals ruling in 1971 invalidated the

application of an ordinance to property where:

It is uncontested that the plaintiffs land has

never flooded and is separated from the flood area

by a shallow ditch which plaintiff has prepared to

repair, clean, and line with concrete.28

The court however upheld the constitutionality of

the ordinance as it applied to actual flood hazard

areas.

23 M&urthy v. C1m Oj’ )vtan~~n Beach, 264 P.2d 932 ( 1953).

Z+Tuma v._counti o/De/ iVO~e, App., 101 Cal Rptr. `93 (lWV

z~sxlgie v. Bomugk OjBewh Haven, 218 A.2d 129 (1966).

‘bId., at 137.

‘71bid.

Z8SM& home$, inc. V. Tomshtp O} Red/ord, 186 ~.w.~d 43 (1971).

The obvious question arises as to how courts

will deal with floodplain zoning where it applies to

land that has not been flooded within record but

which lies within reach of a flood of estimated

probability, e.g., “the 100-year flood.” The Federal

Insurance Administration (HA) requires communities to regulate such areas as a condition to par- .

ticipation in the regular phase of NFIP. As of September 1978, no known decision has directly addressed this question. However, a 1974 Maryland

decision29 suggests that where a public authority

bases its floodplain regulations on computer simulation, that such estimates must be updated in

light of actual subsequent flooding experience.

The case involved water pollution regulations

adopted by the State of Maryland in 1970 that restricted the operation of gravel quarries within a

designated “SO-year floodplain.” After Hurricane

Agnes in 1972, the operator of a gravel quarry

brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of

the restriction per se and its application to his

property. The court sustained the- overall validity

of the measure but agreed that the Department’s

estimate of the 50-year floodplain should be revised in light of recent experience:

The Court is aware that’’ the date from which

the Department’s computations were made was derived from storms occurring over the past 40 years,

but not Agnes. It is felt that the immediate data resulting from the retention of the Agnes waters

forms a more enlightened basis for the determination of the floodplain of Indian Creek.30

Plaintiff introduced testimony that Agnes was 1.4

times greater than a 50-year floodplain, even

though plaintiffs land was apparently inundated

by Agnes. The court rejected an argument by the

State that a broader area should be regulated in

the expectation of future development in the

watershed upstream from plaintiffs land.

A common practice of municipalities that experience frequent flooding is to impose a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits pending completion of a master plan or structural flood control project. As in cases involving

overloaded sewer systems, courts are inclined to be

tolerant of moratoria that are reasonable in purpose and duration. A New Jersey court for example, sustained a moratorium on development in

the floodplain of the Passaic River that had been

in effect for 2 years pending completion of flood

z9.4. I+. Smith .Sad and Gravtd CO. v. Department of water ~esource$,

313 A.2d 820 (197+).

‘“Id,, at 827.

68
control plans and adoption of permanent floodplain zoning.

31 In 1975, an appeals court upheld

the same ban but warned that:

The line between the exercise of the police and

zoning powers on the one hand, and a taking on

the other, although not precise may be found in

the not too distant future to have been transgressed as to plaintiff’s property, unless (the

municipality) acts with some degree of expedition

to complete the proposed project or to terminate

the moratorium.32

INLAND AND COASTAL WETLANDS

RESTRICTIONS: INDIRECT

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

The proliferation of State and local wetland

restrictions in coastal and inland areas has generated a number of judicial decisions beginning in

the early 1960’s. The cases discussed below differ

from those in the previous section in that little or

no judicial recognition of flood hazards is expressed. This apparently reflects the absence of

any mention of flood hazards as a stated purpose

in many wetland statutes. Furthermore, the issue

is seldom raised by counsel in the course of wetland litigation.

The nonrecognition of flood implications of

wetlands laws is ironic since wetlands are crucial

to the mitigation of flooding. Inland wetlands

associated with riverine drainage systems serve as

natural retention basins retarding flood runoff

and reducing flood peaks. The natural valley storage program of the Corps of Engineers in the

Charles River of Massachusetts is attempting to

protect upstream wetlands in lieu of construction

of flood control resevoirs. Coastal wetlands, depending on their location, serve to dampen heavy

ocean waves and to provide a buffer between open

water and landward development, while tidal

marshes do not, of course, include all areas subject

to coastal flooding by definition. They are directly

subject to periodic inundation by high tides. The

filling of coastal wetlands not only destroys the

marsh ecology but poses the threat of storm

damage to structures located thereon.

Wetland cases arising before 1970 struggled with

issues of public purpose and the “taking issue. ”

The leading case holding an inland wetland regulation to be invalid was the 1963 New Jersey decision in Morris County Land Improvement Company

v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township.33 Like many

subsequent wetlands cases, the activity in question -

involved excavation of swampland to be followed

by filling and development. By municipal ordinance, this activity was prohibited within a

1,500 acre wetland known as Troy Meadows. The

court took note that 75 percent of this swamp was

owned by a private conservation organization that

had been “energetic and apparently quite influential in urging the local authorities to restrict use of

all of the land accordingly.”34 The court held the

ordinance to be invalid on the ground that its

“prime object . . . is to retain the land substantially in its natural state.”35

Flood considerations are specifically rejected in

a footnote by the court stating:

There is no substantial evidence in this case that

the matter of intramunicipal flood control had any

bearing on the adoption of the Meadows zone regulations. It does not appear that the rise in the

water level in the Meadows in time of heavy rainfall affected any other area in the township. The

emphasis was on permitting that rise in that areas

as a detention basin for the benefit of lower valley

sections rather than on any effort to prevent or

channel it. This case, therefore, does not involve

the matter of police power regulation of the use of

land in a floodplain on the lower reaches of a river

by zoning, building restrictions, channel encroachment lines or otherwise and nothing said in this

opinion is intended to pass upon the validity of

any such regulations.36

This qualification was carefully cited by the

Massachusetts court in its Turnkpike Realty decision37 as ground for viewing the Morris County case

as inapplicable where flooding is in fact a stated

public concern. Morris County is even criticized in

a lower New Jersey court in the 1973 Cappture Realty case:

Increased urbanization and changing circumstances warrant a more

flooding problems.38

sophisticated-approach to

ll~Pp~re Re& corp. v. Board oj Adjustment of the B~ugk o~Elmwood Park, 313 A.~d 624 ( 19731

]Z~ppture Rea/C Corp. V. Board o~ Adjustment oft~ Borough of Elmuood Park, 336 A.2d 30 ( 1975), at 33. See also: iVew lersey Budders

AsSocumon v. Town otOceun, 319A. 2d 255 (1974).

‘]193 A.2d 232 (1%3).

‘+ 193 A.2d, at 234.

‘51d., at 239.

‘sId., at 2+2.

‘

i

See footnote 16.

’83 13 A. 2d, at 633.

69
Nevertheless, Morris County continues to be cited

by parties objecting to both wetland and floodplain regulations throughout the country but with

little effect.

The taking issue rather than the public purpose

has proved to be an obstacle in several other wetlands cases arising in the 1960’s. Where the Connecticut town of Fairfield had levied an $11,000

sewer assessment against a wetland parcel, the subsequent inclusion of the property in a “floodplain

zone” was held to be “practical confiscation of the

land.”39 The court took a patronizing stance on

the question of flooding:

Although the objective of the Fairfield Flood

and Erosion Control Board is a laudable one and

although we have no reason to doubt the high purpose of their action, these factors cannot overcome

constitutional principles.40

The same court took a similar position in a

subsequent case involving a wetlands restriction

by the Town of Old Lyme that allegedly reduced

the plaintiffs property value from $32,000 to

$1,000. 41 Again, lip-service is paid to the public

purpose: “Undeniably, the defendant’s objective

to observe marshland from encroachment or destruction is a laudable one. The preservation of

our natural environment is of critical concern. ”42

The high courts of Massachusetts and Maine

were meanwhile experiencing similar ambivalence.

In a 1965 decision concerning the Massachusetts

Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L.A. Ch.

130, sec. 27A), the court declared “the protection

of marine fisheries is undoubtedly a public purpose . . . . The Legislature clearly has power to

protect and preserve the fish and game of the

Commonwealth.

43 It was further held that

“Broad Marsh is a ‘saltmarsh’ necessary to

preserve and protect marine fisheries.”44 Nevertheless the court expressed concern about the

economic effect of restricting dredging and filling

in the marsh. The Maine Supereme Court in 1970

similarly granted a property owner’s request for

relief from the coastal wetland restrictions of that

State.45 The court stated:

JgDm~ v. Tw pfanning and Zoning commission Of the TOW Of

Fairfield, i97 A.2d 770 (196+), at 773.

40197 A.2d, at 7’74.

‘t~n~ett v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Old L.me, ~~1 A.~d

907 (1971).

41282 A.2d, at 91 I.

‘Jcomm~5~nn of ,Vamral Resources v. S. Volpe and CO., 206 N.E.~d

666 (1965).

44[d., at 671.

+Sscae v. Jo~mon, 265 A.2d ~ 11 (1970).

The benefits from its preservation extend

beyond town limits and are state-wide. The cost of

its preservation should be publicly borne. To leave

appellants with commercially valueless land in

upholding the restriction presently imposed, is to

charge them with more than their just share of the

cost of this state-wide conservation program,

granting fully its commendable purpose.46

The court declined, however, to hold the statute

to be unconstitutionally vague, and sustained

restrictions on the draining of sanitary sewage into

coastal wetlands. Neither this case nor the preceding Massachusetts decision discuss possible flood

hazards, although both note that the site in question is within reach of mean high tide before filling.

The year 1970, which began with the signing of

the National Environmental Policy Act, proved to

be a turning point in judicial handling of wetlands

cases. Decisions in many jurisdictions since 1970

have displayed a new willingness to condone

severe and even total reduction of economic value

as the necessary price of preserving the Nation’s

dwindling coastal wetlands. In contrast to the ambivalent decisions cited above the courts have, on

occasion, been enthusiastic about the virtues and

values of wetlands. While the question of flooding

remains obscure, there is no question that the national interest in managing coastal floodplains

benefits, albeit tacitly, from this new judicial style.

The new era was perhaps most eloquently proclaimed by a Federal court of appeals in the 1970

decision Zabel v. Tabb:47

It is the destiny of the Fifth Circuit to be in the

middle of great, often times explosive, issues of

spectacular public importance. So it is here as we

enter in-depth the contemporary interest in the

preservation of our environment . . . .

We hold that nothing in the statutory structure

compels the Secretary to close his eyes to all that

others see or think they see. The establishment is

entitled, if not required to consider ecological factors and, being persuaded by them, to deny that

which might have been granted routinely 5, 10, or

15 years ago before man’s explosive increase made

all, including Congress, aware of civilization’s potential destruction from breathing its own polluted

air and drinking its own infected water, and the

immeasurable loss from a silent-spring-like disturbance of nature’s economy .48

461d., at 713.

4?430 F.2d 199 (1970).

481d., at 200-201.

70
The following year a Federal District Court in

Florida ordered a developer to remove fill that had

been placed in Florida Bay without obtaining approval of the Corps of Engineers.49 The opinion

discussed in detail the ecological impacts of dredging and filling on mangrove and shallow and estuarine waters. State courts confronted by wetlands

issues during the 1970’s have generally followed

the Federal lead. The Massachusetts court in 1970

upheld the denial of a permit for a property owner

to dredge a boat channel through his wetlands.

The court sustained both a local by-law and the

State Coastal Wetlands Act, holding them to

properly operate concurrently .50 To be sure, a

boat channel may be regarded as an incidental

restraint on the use of the owner’s upland property.

The Connecticut court, however, was to sweep

away its own prior indecision in a case involving

substantial economic issue.

51 It upheld a denial of

a State coastal wetlands permit to a proposed industrial subdivision that had already received local zoning approval by the Town of Guilford, stating:

There can be no question that the plaintiffs wetland would have greater value to him if it were

filled. It must be presumed however, that the defendant’s denial of the application was based on

the standards set forth in the (stature) which require the hearing officer to “consider the effect of

the proposed work with reference to the public

health and welfare, marine fisheries, shell-fisheries,

wildlife, the protection of life and property from

flood, hurricane and other natural disasters, . . .“52

The court distinguishes its prior decisions in

Bartlett and Dooley, declaring that there has been

no “practical confiscation” of the plaintiff’s land in

this case.

Outside New England, Maryland, in 1972, upheld a total prohibition on excavation of and gravel within “state wetlands”- areas defined as lying

below the reach of mean high tide.53 The court

quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to the effect

that “a river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. ”54 Rhetorical elegance has also been supplied

‘W’.S. v. .loseph G. ,Morettt, he., 331 F. Supp. 152 (1971).

50Go/~ v. %Urd of Seletin of Fcdmoutk, 265 N.E.2d 573 ( 1970).

But see: Luuricelia v. Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals, 342 A.2d

37+ (corm., 1974).

~ IBr=&m/l v. Connectimt &mni$moner of Envuonrnental protection,

362 A.2d 948 (1975).

‘zId., at 952.

j>potmm &nd ad Gravel CO. v. Governor O/ iUa@wL 293 A.2d

2+1 (1972).

~+~d., at 2+8 citing ,Vew Jersq V. ,Vew York, 283 U.S. 336( 193 l).

by the Supreme Courts of New Hampshire and

Wisconsin. The former in upholding its State’s

coastal wetlands act declared:

The denial of the permit by the board did not

depreciate the value of the marshland or cause it to

become “of practically no pecuniary value.” Its value was the same after the denial of the permit as before and it remains as it had been for milleniums.55

The Wisconsin court in a landmark decision concerning that State’s Shoreland Zoning Act stated:

It seems to us that filling a swamp not otherwise

commercially usable is not in and of itself an existing use, which is prevented, but rather is the

preparation for some future use which is not indigenous to a swamp. 56

While the tide of State and Federal wetlands

decisions clearly is running in favor of validity,

this does not suggest that no further legal issues affect the regulation of floodplains. The necessity for

clear standards and fair treatment of permit applicants is illustrated in the protracted Massachusetts

case of MacGibbon v. Duxbury.57 Despite its firm

acceptance of coastal restrictions expressed in

Golden v. Falmouth, 58 the Massachusetts court in

three decisions refused to sustain the denial of a

permit for the filling of 4 acres of coastal wetland

on the grounds that the local board of appeals had

indicated its intent to deny all such applications

regardless of circumstances. The 1975 opinion in

this case does in fact discuss the coastal flooding

and erosion stating that: “We think the board (of

appeals) was entitled to consider flooding and resulting erosion in passing on the permit. ” However, in response to testimony that flooding and

erosion could be mitigated through protective

measures, the court held that the board should

have imposed suitable conditions rather than

denying their permit completely. It appears that

the issue of flooding and erosion could have been

better presented. In particular, the court did not

acknowledge the importance of wetlands in their

natural state as a buffer against storm tides. The

experience of Massachusetts in February 1978

when some 9,000 coastal dwellings were damaged

or destroyed suggests that the mitigation measures

discussed in MacGibbons would have been of no

avail. The only prudent course is to deter new development at the water’s edge.

j~slbson V. scare, 336 A.2d 239 (1975), at 2+3.

56JU5C v. ,~artnetce Counq, 201 N.W.2d 761 ( 1972).

j7,\fuGlbbon v. ~rd of Appea~ Of Duxbupl, 200 N.E.2d 25 4

(196+); 255 N.E.2d 347(1970); 340 N.E.M +37 (1975).

58 See footnote 50.

71
X. The Roles of Federal, State,

and Local Governments

This chapter is a brief review of the Federal system’s established and potentially useful future

roles in flood hazards management in relation to

its own internal directions, and in its relationships

to State and local government and the private sector. As new public institutions take initiatives in

policy areas that were traditionally influenced by

individual decisions or by the decision of local political jurisdictions, roles must be clarified to reduce uncertainty and promote

gram implementation.

more cohesive proFEDERAL ROLES

This report is written from the perspective of

Federal actions and options with regard to the

floodplain. Therefore, the question of what the

Federal role could or should be with respect to

each key element involved in flood hazards management is crucial. Some of these elements are:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Federal agencies;

State agencies;

regional agencies;

county agencies;

municipal agencies;

local groups generally favoring development

of flood hazard areas (realtors, builders, developers, local banks, local businesses, and some

people and companies that migrate into the

region);

local groups relatively opposed or hostile to

development (those with a desire for historical or environmental preservation, and those

wishing to preserve community amenities by

controlling size and growth);

the majority of local citizens who often seem

to have no fixed opinion in the matter, largely because of inadequate information about

risks, hazards, and options; and

local planners and those involved in response

to emergencies whose views of local development vary widely.

The Federal relationship to these public and private elements in the flood hazards system should

include a minimum of five functions:

●

●

●

●

●

information production and dissemination,

managing uncertainty,

financial assistance,

technical assistance, and

coordination within the Federal system and

with State and local government and the private sector.

Information

The generation and dissemination of information by the Federal Government through its commitment to research and in its central role in pulling together national and international data could

be a major factor in flood hazards mitigation.

Uncertainty

Organizing for the purpose of managing uncertainty is an important role of the Federal Government. The uncertainty may be on the part of the

private sector concerning investments, on the part

of local community about options and opportunities regarding Federal activities, or on the part of

citizens at large or individually about their choices

and obligations.

Financial Assistance

Traditionally, financial assistance has taken the

forms of physical structures for controlling floods

and assistance for emergencies and disasters. Even

assuming that established levels of assistance have

been sufficient, the Federal system is now trying to

determine whether those kinds of investments

would be best directed to other functions. As the

relative roles in land management of the State

and, more particularly, local governments increase, the professional and financial limitations of

resources in these communities will limit their

ability to respond to community needs and to statutory and regulatory demands. Attention should

be given to accurately defining the alternative

Federal financial assistance, including technical

73
assistance and training, offered to State and local

governments. As suggested below, in the section

discussing policy options, attention could also be

given to the utilization of flood insurance premiums as one major financial incentive for implementing regulations at the local level.

Technical Assistance

Disseminating information through technical

assistance is also an important Federal role. The

increased demands on local governments for setting floodplain management standards, and the

initiation of such activities and their promotion

through the flood insurance program, are hampered by the inadequate size and experience of

local professional planning staffs for drawing up,

adopting, and implementing floodplain regulations. Local governments, whether assisted directly or through State governments, need continuing

technical assistance from State and Federal agencies. An indication of this need is the fact that the

Corps of Engineers had approximately 1,000 requests for technical services in 1968. This has

grown to over 30,000 in 1977, for a total of

100,000 requests for technical services in guidance

during the intervening years.1 The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) had only 100 employees nationwide to offer assistance to 16,000 identified flood program communities and 1,700 comprehensive plan adoptees. It would appear that the

level of effort is not adequate relative to the size of

the problem. Even in the narrower area of early

warning, the demands for technical assistance

from the National Weather Service seem to exceed, by a significant degree, its ability to respond.

Studies of innovation and change have established that face-to-face personal communication is

the single most effective way to deliver information. Federal, State, and local governments are

failing to provide this type of direct technical information. There is an immediate need, therefore,

to analyze what must be done to provide such information delivery.

Coordination

There is a need to improve Federal coordination

of its own programs, and of its programs with

State, local, and private agencies. As of mid-1976,

there were at least 28 agencies and 9 programs

‘Alex Shwaiko,

tion, Apr. 3, 1979.

/

Army Corps of Engineers, personal communicadealing with floodplain management alone.2 In fiscal year 1974, there were 797 projects involving

$795 million, implemented by 11 agencies operating in 44 different legislative authorities. This fragmentation was shown by a Water Resources

Council study. (See table 20.)

The Water Resources Council, the principal or- -

ganization for achieving Federal coordination,

finds that “this service has been done most successfully when technical issues are involved as in

the case of the flood frequency procedures bulletin

prepared by the Interagency Hydrology Committee. ” The traditional Federal coordination mechanisms are largely mechanisms for information exchange. It may be that the needed managerial coordination could be achieved under the President’s Reorganization Plan for Federal Emergency

Preparedness and Response.

Flood hazards management must continue to attend to riverine problems. There are, however,

other major opportunities needing attention in

metropolitan areas, recreation areas, and the

coastal zone. To a great extent, the problems of

rural areas are the consequence of poor planning,

or the absence of planning accompanied by unchecked, unregulated development. Urban areas,

suburban areas, metropolitan fringes, recreational

areas and coastal zones, which are continuing to

be developed at a relatively vigorous rate, offer opportunities to avoid these historical errors. To implement a long-term plan in new problem areas

first may call for interim prohibition of development in questionable areas, and second for positive planning and comprehensive, regulatory management of growth.

In the development of flood hazards management in urban areas, a conflict exists between

flood protection and the desire to redevelop urban

waterfront areas for such purposes as housing and

recreation. The redevelopment of waterfronts is

a high-priority community-development project

supported by block grant programs in many cities,

thus subject to Federal influence. Urban fringes

and undeveloped suburban areas at present appear

to be giving little attention to hazards or other

developmental long-term considerations. Recreational area problems involve second homes to a

substantial, but by no means exclusive, degree. It

is possible that many people have a lower absolute

stake in a second home than they do in their main

residence.

‘John A. Kusler, “Discussion Notes” prepared for a Water Resources Council meeung, December 1977.

74
I

99!A49S uo!lewesuq I!o$

eapues 1S9JO:

Uo!ww!u!lupv 01.UOH sJeuJJe:

I

.

75
THE ROLES OF THE STATES

The States have both a constitutional and, by

custom, an essential role in flood hazards management. They are the intermediaries between the national bureaucracies and the local communities.

The police powers constitutionally vested in States

are basic for using most of the instruments of effective flood hazards management. The new approach to flood hazards management, would integrate the programs and effectively involve regulations, zonings, codes, land acquisition, and land

use planning. All of these tools are closely related

to State and local government prerogatives backed

by statutory police power.

As the size of disasters increase, the States often

require assistance to meet their needs. They are

the principal agent requesting Federal assistance.

For example, the Presidential declaration of emergency or disaster is initiated by a Governor’s request for assistance. Emergency response measures

must be coordinated at the State level, since local ,

communities lack the complex infrastructure required to deal with the range of hazards and disasters facing them.

The States are a key element in flood hazards

management. They have the option of selectively

overriding the local interests of smaller political

subdivisions with respect to land use management.

technical assistance and the resources, to identify

the crucial problems they face.

The adequacy of regulatory powers of local governments to comply with the floodplain management provisions of the National Flood Insurance

Act of 1968 (with subsequent amendments) and

the administrative guidelines promulgated pursuant to the Act were studied in a report prepared in

1976 for FIA by J. A. Kusler Associates. J

They found that more than 10,000 cities, counties, towns, villages, and boroughs have initiated

floodplain regulatory programs (at least to the extent that they qualified for national flood insurance). In addition, State agencies are authorized in

23 States to directly regulate floodway and floodplain areas, or to establish minimum standards for

local regulations.

In general, local units of government and State

agencies only possess those regulatory powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by State enabling statutes. Regulations that exceed the scope

of such authority are invalid. However, State or

local floodplain zoning, subdivision controls,

building codes, and other special regulations

adopted and administered in a manner that is consistent with enabling authority are likely to withstand legal challenge.

The Kusler study concluded that:

●

THE ROLE OF

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The local government’s role, which is perhaps

the most critical to flood hazards management,

has relatively the fewest professional, financial,

and political resources at its disposal for effectively

dealing with problems.

Local government has traditionally been, and

still remains, the main target of intervention by

short-term parochial interests. Flood hazards management, however, must, of necessity, involve a

long-term perspective, thus deferring some shortterm benefits. Consequently, the political pressures against effective flood hazards management

are particularly strong at the local level. A general

sense that growth is good, the desire to improve

the tax base, and other local community interests

that support building and construction tend to

work against long-range planning and management. Local governments are notably lacking both

●

In some instances, the adoption of regulations

has been hindered by a concern that agencies

or local units of government lack sufficient

power to adopt specific floodplain regulations

or broader zoning, subdivision controls, or

building codes containing provisions for the

reduction of flood damage.

With minor exceptions, enabling statutes in

all States provide sufficient authority for municipal (city and village) adoption of zoning,

subdivision controls, and building codes with

flood hazards provisions.

Rural units of government (counties in most

States, towns or townships in others) in all

but a few States have been delegated sufficient authority to adopt both zoning and subdivision controls with flood hazards provisions.

‘J. A. Kusler Associates, Sracuto~ Lund Use Concroi Enubiing ~uthoriry in the Fi@ States, prepared for the Federal Insurance Admn-tlstrauon, November 1976.

76
●

●

●

Despite generally adequate enabling authority, issues arise with respect to the scope of

particular regulations.

The types of regulations that have been most

frequently authorized and employed for controlling floodplain uses at local and State levels are zoning and subdivision regulations,

building codes, and other codes.

Most floodplain regulation continues to take

place at the local level. However, States have

assumed some measure of direct or indirect

State control over floodplain areas in almost

one-half of the States. Direct State control

through permit procedures has been authorized for dams, floodway uses, and, to some extent, floodway and flood fringe uses. More

often States establish standards for local

regulation of flood hazard areas but do not

themselves directly regulate areas unless local

units of government fail to adopt or enforce

regulations meeting State standards.

●

●

✎

Forty-three States have expressly authorized

one or more classes of local government (e.g.,

cities, counties) to specifically adopt zoning,

subdivision regulations, or building codes for

flood hazard areas or drainage control purposes.

At the State level, 23 States authorize some 

measure of floodplain regulation or set standards for local regulations.

Intervention in order to reduce the uncertainties associated with flood hazards management

programs is a major challenge faced by the Federal

Government. Providing technical information

directly, clarifying risks and options, enforcing the

adoption, principally through the National Flood

Insurance Program, of adequate regulatory plans,

and attentiveness to the problems and effectuality

of compliance, are all necessary and legitimate

Federal interventions.

77
Xl. Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs

The purpose of this chapter is to identify what

information is needed which, if provided, will assist Congress in policy formulation, legislation,

budget allocations, and oversight on flood hazards

management.

WHY RESEARCH?

Research and systematic study are increasingly

important to the policy process since they are primary tools for understanding complex interrelationships, for effectively gathering empirical information, for defining alternative actions, and for

providing a means of evaluating their practicality

and effectiveness.

With regard to flood hazards management,

there are at least five distinct considerations justifying research:

●

●

●

●

●

The empirical base is weak for policy formulation, decisionmaking, and implementation

with regard to floods, flood hazards, and

flood hazards management. In terms of the

dollars at risk, or the total and recurrent Federal commitment, the knowledge base is surprisingly sparse.

Reduction of uncertainty is a primary function

of Government, and research is an important

tool for providing credible knowledge to

those making policy, administrative, and

technical decisions.

P[anning for research and development by agencies is fragmented, underfunded, and too limited in scope. Much of the flood hazards research has neither a significant policy focus

nor a discernible client.

Emphasis on physical problems and measures,

the historical pattern of flood research is continuing in the face of new policy direction

toward nonstructural approaches.

Criteria of effectiveness can be major contributions of research, especially as they enable realistic and realizable goals to be set.

Flood hazards research should have a multiagency base. For greatest effectiveness, research

units should be located within each agency concerned with flood hazards and the related institu- -

tional and economic infrastructure of a flood region. Many agencies, such as the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) and the Federal Home

Loan Bank Board, have, at best, weak internal research units. As a consequence, they cannot adequately define research needs or interpret research

results from outside sources that relate flood hazards to their larger mission. The following are the

key elements of an adequate policy R&D program.

●

●

●

●

●

Information needs should be determined by

the research sponsoring agency for itself while

taking the needs of other interested parties

into account. These include the executive

branch itself, Congress, State, local, and

other governmental users, private sector

agencies, associations, and individual citizens.

The plan should be systematic but allow for

its own evolution in terms of time, budget,

and topical priorities.

A plan to disseminate timely information effectively and actively to all parties-at-interest

must be built into each program and project

at its beginning.

The research plan should consider the utilization of research results, i.e., how to make the

information influence public and private decisions.

Research programs should have their own

evaluation plan including explicit criteria,

schedules, and mechanisms for correction

and feedback.

WHAT IS CURRENTLY KNOWN WITH

RESPECT TO FLOOD HAZARDS

MANAGEMENT?

Since research is primarily a mechanism for generating knowledge, before turning to specific research priorities, a brief inventory of what is currently known about flood hazards follows:

● The extent of aggregate (national) and (local)

exposure to floods, as reflected in mortality,

personal injury, and property loss data.

79
There are data on the historical frequency

and magnitude of floods in many specific

flood hazard areas.

Demographics, economics, and other social

studies are well enough understood to be used

to identify trends that impinge on floodplain

development, uses, and occupancy.

Past experience, with its strong reliance on

structural engineering controls, has shown

that nonstructural controls must be introduced and made to work in concert with the

engineering approaches.

There is a large flood insurance program in

place that has almost 16,100 participating

communities and 1.3 million policyholders indemnified for $43.8 billion. This suggests

grassroots support for a program with the

proper incentives.

KNOWLEDGE GAPS IN

FLOOD HAZARDS MANAGEMENT

There are five main areas where additional

knowledge is needed:

• the generation of information,

Ž the transmission of information,

• the utilization of information,

● the effectiveness of already established hazards-related programs, and

. information gaps in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Inadequate information about NFIP is specifically noted because this program plays such a prominent part in flood hazards management.

Generation of Information

Federal disaster research needs to be coordinated. There is no systematic plan across agencies,

with the private sector, with State and local governments, and with Congress for identifying information needs for policy setting, program planning,

land use management, and engineering design utilization.

The means are inadequate for identifying and

transmitting State and local information

needs to the Federal agencies.

There is little R&D being conducted at the

Federal level that could help generate integrated information. Case studies would be

useful.

●

●

There is no mechanism for determining what

needs to be known to improve flood hazards

management.

There are not enough first-rate researchers in

the field due to the lack of steady and adequate support and because there is no sense of

urgency on the part of the Federal Govern- -

ment.

Transmitting Information

●

●

●

●

●

There are, at present, no criteria that have

been established for determining the relative

success or failure of programs over the whole

lifecycle of flood hazards.

The functions of the various components of a

delivery system–who should be transmitting

information to whom and in what form—

have not been clearly determined and assigned at the Federal agency level.

There is no single information source for the

data and information produced by the various Federal technical, planning, and operating agencies.

The extent to which Federal

cerned with flood hazards

should take an active role in

formation about flood hazards

mandated.

agencies conmanagement

gathering inis not clearly

There are shortcomings in the dissemination

of information, both to the public and to public officials and organizations, about the potentials of flood hazards. The lack of coordination among Federal agencies is responsible.

Use of Information

The criteria for determining whether there

has been a discernible impact on the decision

processes of individuals and organizations

have not been established.

What are the ways in which the utilization of

information differs from its dissemination

and transmission?

The absence of programing and policy goals —

and the lack of a client orientation undercut

attempts at full utilization of information,

even when available.

The Effect of Long-Established HazardsRelated Programs

There is an almost complete lack of a useful

knowledge base about the extent to which hazards

are affected by such agencies as the Corps of

80

●
Engineers, the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, the Small Business Administration,

or those more remotely connected but potentially

important agencies such as the Federal Home

Loan Bank Board, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Veterans Administration. Similarly, the effects of the mortgage industry, insurance companies, and builders, are not known.

Flood Insurance Program

Information Gaps

●

●

●

●

●

●

Who purchases flood insurance, and for what

reasons?

Which communities drop out of the program

and why?

How can Federal agencies relate better to

local needs?

Who at the local level are responsible for

identifying the needs and making plans for

their communities?

What is the effect of new construction during

the emergency program on the demands on

NFIP that will be made in the future?

To what extent has NFIP reduced or altered

the need for disaster assistance? Which communities exemplify this change?

The recent formation of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) is a significant step

to correct or compensate for the above deficiencies

in information generation, transmission, and utilization. (The many critical issues that a new organization faces, which are discussed in detail in a

companion paper cited in the preface, suggest that

the necessary changes to correct these deficiencies

cannot come about without congressional intervention.)

POLICY RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The policy-oriented research topics suggested

below would put flood hazards management at all

levels of government on sounder footing. The

topics relate to six categories:

planning for flood hazards management,

integration and coordination of programs

and projects,

warning systems,

legal issues,

economics, and

insurance.

Forty-six study and research proposals are

shown in table 21. Rather than being presented in

the above categories, they are arranged in relationship to four congressional functions-legislation,

policy formulation, budget allocation, and oversight.

. . .

Professor Gilbert F. White and his associates at

the University of Colorado have proposed a comprehensive flood hazards research program.1 Their

recommendations for areas of research are shown

in tables 21 and 22. The recommendations suggested in this report emphasize policy and decision-oriented research. Although some of the subjects noted below have received some research support, on the whole it has been inadequate.

Budget

Use of remote sensing and other advanced

data collection techniques.–Remote sensing

from space and aircraft, mapmaking using digitalized data storage, and other technologically sophisticated methods of information gathering

could provide new and valuable data. Current efforts are largely uncoordinated and inadequately

supported.

The long-term (25 to 50 years) merits investigation for—

•

●

e

flood insurance with or without regulation

and with various levels and patterns of regulation,

acquisition of flood hazard lands, and

strategies for flood hazards management.

General cost-effectiveness of alternative

mitigation techniques.—The cost-effectiveness

of alternative techniques for mitigating flood hazards warrants examination. (This is currently

being done in the Connecticut River Basin under

section 73 of the Water Resource Development

Act of 1974.)

Cost-effectiveness of warning systems.–

Warning systems provide information immediately preceding a potential disaster. Additional research is needed to ascertain the costs, benefits,

and effectiveness of warning systems.

Funding implementation programs for

warning systems in small communities.—

Funds are needed to study ways that small-sized

IGilbm F+ ~lte, F/~ Haard m the United States, M-mph

#NSF-RA-E-75-006 (Boulder, Colo.: Institute of Behaworal Science,

University of Colorado), p. xviii.

81
Table 21.-Funding Levels for Research Opportunity Sets

Suggested

Current additional research Time horizon

Research opportunities annual levela

in person-years for research

100

50

100

60

40

10

5

30

8

30

100

25

100

100

60

10

10

10

10

10

5

5

10

5

10

10

5

3-10

3

10

5

10

10

5

‘O=noexwtikum80rlo-thMSIO,~ I=$lo,ooo-sloo,ooo

Z=$loo.-$l?m.000

3.S1,000,OO1.S2,000,000

4=$2.m.oo144,000,0013

SOURCE: Gilbert F.WhiteandEugene J. Heas,AssessmwMofRese8rch on Naturis/Hazards(Cambridge, Masa:TheMITPress, 1975LP.251.

communities can adopt suitable warning systems.

The requests to the National Weather Service for

implementing this objective are apparently beyond its capacity to meet the demand.

Policy

Reassessment of the efficacy of the 100-

year flood guideline and study of the implications of alternative standards.-The 100-

year flood, which is the present standard in general use for planning, needs re-examination, partitularly with respect to its long-term effectiveness

and the desirability of a transition to alternative

standards. In addition, the implications of such

standards on the various participants in floodplain

management, which include planners, engineers,

designers, developers, homeowners, and Federal,

State, and local officials, should be investigated.

A handbook of maximum credible flood

disasters in each flood-prone region of the

United States.–A handbook containing a description of the most serious flood hazards for each

flood-prone region of the United States on a State82

by-State basis should be prepared. It should particularly emphasize areas of high population density or those subject to extensive flood hazards.

There should also bean efficient means for distributing the information.

Development of options for local governments to accumulate disaster “war chests.”

–State and local governments could be motivated

and assisted by the Federal Government to develop some form of disaster funds.

Preparation of a manual for States to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of different

flood strategies.–A manual for State and local

governments containing information about costs

and benefits in flood hazards management should

be one element of the general delivery of information to these governments.

A comprehensive guidebook to Federal

grants and assistance for all aspects of disaster planning, response, and rehabilitation.

—A guide to Federal grants, aids, and assistance in

the form of a regularly issued bulletin would keep
—

Table 22.-Research Opportunities-Hurricanes

National aims Research findings

Hurricane modification . . . . .

Hurricane dynamics

Technology

Socioeconomic effects

Warning systems . . . . . . . . . .

Evacuation methods

Dissemination and

response

Land use management. . . . . .

Hazard mapping method

Adoption of management

Socioeconomic effects

Hurricane-proofing

technology adoption

Insurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policy formulation

Adoption of insurance

High

Low

High

Med

 , . Low-Neg - Low-Neg Hign Low-Neg

Low High High

High High High

Low Low Low

Relief and rehabilitation. . . . .Low-Neg Low-Neg Low Low

Trends, policy,

socioeconomic effects

Hign

Med

High

Low

High

Med

High

Med

High

?

NA

High

Low

NA

Low

Med

Low

Med

High

Low Med

High Med

High Low

Med High

Med Med

MM x Medium Neg = Negative 7 = In doubt NA = Nol applicable

SOURC12 Gilbert F. White and Eugene J. Ilaas, Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards (Cambridge, MaaS.: The MIT WeSa, 1975), P. 250.

those most in need of such information aware of

the available help. This, in turn, might serve to

encourage improved coordination among the various Federal programs.

One-stop government.–0ne stop in the Federal Government dealing with flood hazards management and information would simplify the efforts of State and local governments and private

interests. Attention should be given to alternative

ways of setting up specific management, budgetary, and organizational functions to coordinate

the flow of information in all directions and to

centralize responsibility and authority.

Legislation

The value of integrating the management

of flood hazards with the management of

other hazards needs further study.

Further use of the “unified national program” approach to identify operational

steps for converting concepts into programs

and projects.—”A Unified National Program for

Floodplain Management” is a Water Resources

Council report submitted in response to section

1302 (c) of Public Law 90-448, the National Flood

Insurance Act of 1968. This program could be

used as the starting point from which to develop

additional projects with the cooperation of States,

local governments, and others with a stake in the

outcome of reducing flood risks in floodplains.

The integration of flood warning with

other natural and manmade hazards warning and information systems merits research.

Study of the existing authorities of the

agencies, police powers, the “taking issue, ”

and tort liability as it applies to the engineering and design professions.-The existing

authorities, policies, and activities of Federal agencies as these relate to the lifecycle of natural hazards should be analyzed with the object of identifying their present capabilities with respect to the

management of flood hazards.

Alternative decisionmaking and conflict

resolution methods.—The necessary flexibility

in response to individual circumstances within the

framework of maintaining and achieving public

policy and statutory goals might be achieved bet83
— — —

ter through wider use of arbitration, mediation, or

other more flexible judgmental mechanisms.

Oversight

Case histories of successful and unsuccess~

ful flood management strategies.–Case histories could help to develop an understanding of

the conditions that lead to successful management

of flood hazards.

Alternative modes of information delivery.—Face-to-face information delivery, as exemplified by the Agricultural Extension Service, is

considered by many to be the most effective way

to deliver information on a continuing basis. Further study is needed to determine its applicability

to flood hazards.

Effects of specific Federal predisaster, disaster, and postdisaster actions on floodplain

management. —Study is needed of the effects on

floodplain management and flood risks and losses

of Federal actions with respect to flood disasters.

The effects of postdisaster aid, relief, and loans

programs on future hazards is not well understood, although such measures could reduce future

losses.

Alternative decisionmaking arrangements

for preparing plans and for the regulation of

the floodplain.—A systematic attempt should be

made to apply innovative decisionmaking techniques to hazards management.

The perception, interpretation, and use of

information about risks by the public-atlarge.–Improving the public’s understanding of

the statistics relating to risks, probabilities, vulnerabilities, and hazards could have substantial payoff in information delivery.

Analysis of the long-term geophysical

and environmental phenomena related to

floods.-The study of geophysical and environmental phenomena with particular emphasis on

the longer term effects would provide a perspective

for the next 25 to 50 years. Topics for study include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

84

catastrophic flood events,

shore erosion,

runoff patterns,

changing sea levels,

reservoir sedimentation,

climate and weather changes,

urbanization of watersheds and coastal zones,

. aging reservoirs and other fresh and waste

water systems, and

. effects of civil works (e.g., dams, levees, and

other similar flood control measures).

Review of foreign experience pertinent to

the U.S. situation.—The experience of foreign

industrialized nations in dealing with environmen- -

tal hazards similar to those in the United States

could be useful. For example, the recent Dutch experience in planning protection of the estuary at

Oosterschelee may be applicable to U.S. circumstances. A recent study by the Canadian emergency planning group—“Asset or Liability in Land

Use Control” (summarized in table 23) draws

many similar conclusions to those discussed in this

and other studies concerned with the flood hazards situation in the United States.

The role of the mortgage industry.–The

mortgage industry and its regulations have an

enormous influence on construction. Studies are

needed of the effects of this influence and their implications for flood management policies.

The National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).–

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

actuarial future,

subsidy and development in floodplains,

as substitute for disaster assistance,

choice of participation by individuals,

retargeting of premiums to local communities,

gap between adoption and implementation,

and

lessons for other hazards.

In view of the significance of the flood insurance

program as part of the national strategy for flood

hazards management, the program itself should be

subjected to examination, particularly with respect

to the following questions.

1. Are the present rates in the regular program

considered to be actuarial sound?

2. What is the long-term feasibility of converting the whole program to a folly actuarial,

self-sustaining basis?

3. What would be the necessary steps to accomplish this?

4. What would be the benefits and disadvantages to those involved in the program?

5. From the analysis of a series of maximum

credible flood disasters, what would be the effect on the program, on communities, the

Federal budget, on local economies?
Table 23.-An International Comparison of Flood Hazards: Canada

The following paragraphs are taken from the summary and highlights of the study Flood insurance—Asset or Liability:

1. Floods and the threat of flooding are recurring problems

in Canada; it has been estimated that floods pose a

menace to over 150 communities.

2. Despite flood protection programs extended over the

past 30 years the average annual flood hazard is now

greater than it was before such programs were initiated.

3. Rapid increases in flood damages have been accompanied by increases in the payment of disaster assistance

and relief by various levels of government.

4. The rising threat of flood damage is due not so much to

an increase in the incidence of flooding as it is to a rise

in the development of flood vulnerable land. In a sense,

then, inappropriate land use is a major factor contributing to the increases in flood damage.

5. Increases in flood damage potential cause escalation in

6.

7,

a.

9.

10.

demands for protection from the eventuality y of flooding.

The costs for providing structural flood control works

are spiraling yet flood damages also continue to increase. Obviously a new and complementary range of

measures is required if risk, costs, and damages are to

be controlled.

The benefits of flood protection accrue to a relative minority of the population but are financed out of “public

treasuries.” This transfer of income from a majority to a

minority has raised a number of questions which ultimately relate to the issue of equitable distribution of

costs and benefits.

Conventional structural measures aimed at controlling

floods and reducing flood damages provide only a shortrun prescription which fails to touch the roots of the

problem. Longer range, more permanent solutions must

also be considered.

Inappropriate use of land is one of the key reasons for

the increasing incidence of flood damage and the rises

in flood hazard. Social, economic, and political goals

often conflict with each other and with the mix of land

uses. Evidence indicates that present trends will persist

unless appropriate land use measures are introduced. In

the study at hand “floodplain management” is an important aspect of land use control.

Reduction of flood risk and flood damages requires a rational mix of both structural and nonstructural measures. Insurance is presented as a strategy aimed at balancing this mix and achieving stated objectives. Carrying the flood insurance strategy one step further it is

suggested that comprehensive disaster insurance also

merits investigation.

Measures for reducing flood damage are not standardized across the country. Because they are derived from

different sets of rules and regulations the magnitude of

the problem varies from region to region. The existence

of rules and measures is in some areas a reflection of

the existence of a flood problem while in other areas

their absence may serve to aggravate the flood situation.

11. Many flood-related programs are directed at relief rather .

than at control or prevention. Although it is recognized

that such “ex post facto” measures have a valuable

function it is also recognized that they tend to instill

apathy in the minds of individuals resident in floodprone areas. A central issue related to whether or not individuals should be asked to pay for a share of the risks

they assume. Associated with the above is the more

complex problem of how such measures could be implemented. Insurance is presented as one possibility.

12. If the present range of insurable items were expanded

(on a national scale) to include insurance of houses and

property (for example) against flooding then these items

would no longer be eligible for ad hoc disaster relief (except under conditions of extreme hardship). Through a

standardized insurance program people would thus be

asked to pay for some of the risk they assume.

13. A crucial question related to how people can be convinced that the insurance strategy is a viable alternative

(given that it is). How can individuals be “encouraged”

to take out flood or perhaps disaster insurance policies?

What range of choices or alternatives are available?

14. Before actuarial rates can be assessed on a sound and

standard basis it is necessary that flood- or disasterprone areas be designated and that an adjustable index

of “degree of risk” be assigned to relevant areas. The

flood hazard mapping program presently being undertaken by Environment Canada has the potential required

to fill that need.

15. Further to the above issues is the question of how pee”

pie living in disaster-prone areas will react to the

availability of an insurance program. Evidence indicates

that a system of incentives would be required to aid in

marketing insurance policies. Rendering items recoverable by law or insurance ineligible for ad hoc disaster

relief programs is one solution. In isolation, however, it

is felt that the above mentioned measure would have its

greatest impact after the fact. As it is not the aim of a

flood damage or hazard reduction program to bankrupt

members of the public it is obvious that parallel measures must also be adopted.

16. An example of such a measure exists in the idea that eligibility for federally approved housing loans and grants

should be made conditional upon the purchase of disaster insurance. Another possibility rests with refusing

loans or grants for development in areas with high flood

risk.

SOURCE: Jennifer D. Willis, Flood Insurance: Asset or Liability, for Emergency Planning, Canada, April 19?6, pp. 1-2.

6. Is the present insurance program structure,

with its provisions for emergency participation, to any significant extent subsidizing the

developments of new, vulnerable structures?

To what extent is it accelerating the development of the floodplain, coastal zone, and

other hazardous areas?

7. Should the actuarial and subsidized rates be

more flexible to reflect Federal, State, and

local planning needs for flood hazards mitigation, or only for flood losses?

8. To what extent is the insurance program,

which is based on historical cases, an effective

substitute, a complement, or irrelevant to disaster assistance? An investigation of case histories could shed light on this question.

9. A series of questions relating to the choice by

communities to participate or not participate

85
in the program, and the choice by individuals

to buy or not to buy insurance should be examined in the light of aiding agency planning.

Variables suggested as warranting examination are:

—physical environment characteristics;

—contextual characteristics-e. g., State regulations;

-demographic characteristics;

—community differentiation-i. e., complexity of organization network;

—political-legal characteristics;

—cultural characteristics;

—economic variables;

—community power structure; and

—implementing body characteristics.

10. Are there more effective alternative uses for

flood insurance premiums? Should such premiums be reconsidered as resources available

to promote and implement flood hazards

management? For example, could premiums

from a community form the base for its own

implementation plan?

11.

12.

The gap between the adoption of a flood

management program and its implementation

could be enormous. The promises implicit in

a program plan frequently fail to become explicit in action. This subject merits close continued review at the individual, county, and

municipality levels.

The experience and knowledge gained with

the flood insurance program should be examined in the light of their applicability to

dealing with other natural hazards as well as

with manmade hazards.

Effects of relocation on business.

Examination of the land acquisition question.—Altering population patterns in areas particularly prone to flood hazards, which are intensively developed, could be a long-term approach to

reducing the risks of disasters. One approach

would be land acquisition by Federal, State, and

local, or private agencies. An examination of historical and contemporary projects for land acquisition could help identify appropriate data on which

to base a three or four decade-long national program.

Microeconomic evaluation of impacts of

floodplain management.–Questions about

which homeowners and businesses, under what

circumstances, would be able or unable to pay the

cost of meeting alternative levels of floodplain

management regulation or changed construction

costs, modified taxes, flood-proofing, etc., need to

be resolved. The costs and effects of relocating

business districts in floodplain communities require investigation. This raises questions of means

and sources of financing.

Models for State government programs.– --

Expanding State roles could be facilitated and

enhanced by cooperative programs to develop

State model programs for flood hazards management.

Evaluation of agency compliance with

flood management objectives.–Federal agency compliance with flood hazards management objectives, Policies, and statutes should be examined

to determine whether more oversight and enforcement is needed to achieve effective integration of

the actions of Federal agencies. At the State level,

the objective should be to work towards integration of Federal activities with State programs.

Opportunities in architectural design related to floods.-New approaches in the architectural design of domestic and commercial structures to make them less prone to flood damage—

particularly in such flood-prone areas as coastal

zones and floodplains-should be considered. One

approach might be to investigate drastically different architectural designs for these areas. The

success of Frank Lloyd Wright in designing structures for hillsides gave us the split-level house.

Various measures such as contests and competitions to develop designs for domestic and commercial structures specifically for flood plain and

coastal zone hazards areas could lead to significant

and useful advances in design.

Role of tort liability in flood hazards management.–There is a trend toward accountability in all professions, which is also seen in architecture and engineering. Tort liability is a principal

means of activating that accountability. Because

architects and engineers make many of the decisions about building design, structural choice, and

siting, their potential liability could motivate them

to make more prudent decisions. Government and

its employees are also potentially liable for failure

to adequately warn individuals and organizations

of their exposure to risk.

Use and limitations of cost-benefit anal.

ysis in flood hazards management.—cost.

benefit analysis is mandatory in flood control projects under the Flood Control Act of 1936. A re86
evaluation of cost-benefit procedures as used in manipulating assumptions about such factors as ●

flood hazards management needs to be under- discount rate, scope of benefits, and cost evaluataken to promote uniform standards and to reduce tion of competing projects.

the potential for misusing this technique by

-

87
SETTING GOALS

The absence of goals specific enough to guide

change and to evaluate progress is a major impediment to achieving an integrated strategy for flood

hazards management. Three alternative, but not

exclusive, goals are suggested below, that would

allow standards of accomplishment to be defined

and evaluated.

Hypothetical goal I.–The national objective

over the next 10 years is to put flood insurance on

a fully actuarial basis.

Hypothetical goal 2 .–National policy is that

over the next four decades population and physical investments in floodplains at the 100-year risk

level shall be reduced by 80 and 70 percent, respectively.

Hypothetical goal 3.—The annual losses

from floods as part of a national program shall be

reduced by 25 percent per decade (in 1975 dollars).

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Land use management is the most effective tool

for managing flood hazards over the long term. Its

XII. Some Policy Options

costs, however, are incurred in the short term and

its benefits are deferred and difficult to evaluate.

Therefore, it is politically the most difficult measure to implement.

Land use control could largely be used to remove land from residential and commercial use

via acquisition by Federal, State, or local governments. Particular attention could be given in flood

hazard areas to long-term land acquisition programs over a period of 30 to 40 years. The success

of such a program might require a mechanism for

freezing land values at some specified date. A plan

that spanned 30 to 40 years could minimize the opportunity costs of redevelopment and deal with

the question in terms of both the natural hazards

lifecycle and the usual turnover time of structures

of 30 to 40 years.

Acquisition should also be looked at from the

perspective of other land tenure problems, such as

those on agricultural land, recreational land, etc.

This raises a more general question as to whether

the national land tenure system itself might not be

a suitable candidate for long-term re-evaluation

and restructuring. Flood hazards management

alone may be inadequate to motivate a re-evaluation of land tenure. But when viewed as concomitant with other developments such as manmade hazards, environmental concerns, preservation, and recreation, new tenure systems appear to

merit consideration.

A FEDERAL OPPORTUNITY:

LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE

The large number of buildings and structures

owned or subsidized by Federal, State, and local

government that are located in flood hazard areas

offer an opportunity for leadership in planning,

siting, design, and construction practices.

A move in the direction of leadership assumption by the Federal Government appears to have

been made by Executive Order 11988, May 24,

1977, which in section 1 states:

Each agency shall provide leadership and shall

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to

89
minimize the impact of floods on human safety,

health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains

in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring,

managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed,

or assisted construction and improvements; and

(3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water

and related land resources planning, regulating,

and licensing activities.

THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE

PROGRAM AS HAZARDS MANAGER

At present, NFIP is a subsidized program that

operates locally to monitor the regulatory process.

Its function could be expanded to make it the chief

instrument by which flood hazards areas would be

managed. This could be carried out by utilizing insurance premiums as a financial base for local

flood management programs.

AN ALL-HAZARDS APPROACH

TO INSURANCE

An argument has been made for an all-naturalhazards strategy for dealing with the multiple

problems caused by natural events confronting

man and his works. Such a strategy in which future floods would be incorporated together with

other potential disasters, is treated more fully in a

companion volume to this report, Confronting

Nature: A Preliminary Analysis of U.S. Policy Needs

Related to Natural Hazards. The present policy option focuses on a comprehensive catastrophe insurance program.

It has been noted by Anderson, an insurance

authority, that the present public/private insurance system is fragmented, unfair, costly, inefficient, and without incentives for loss mitigation.

Therefore, he has proposed that a comprehensive

catastrophe insurance system that would deal with

all of these deficiencies be established. Such a program would consist of 13 parts: 1

. standardized all-risk coverage for all catastrophe perils except war,

. broad territorial divisions,

IDan P. Anderson, “AI! Risks Rating Within a Catastrophe insurance, System,” -loumd oi Risk and lnsurunce, December 1976, pp.

629-651.

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Federal subsidies,

coverage for residential and small business

properties,

land use control and loss prevention requirements,

incentives for participation,

elimination of Federal disaster assistance ben- -

efits for private property,

full availability of insurance,

Federal reinsurance,

establishment of catastrophe reserves,

adequate limits,

mandatory deductibles, and

administration by a combination of the private and public sectors.

According to Anderson, these are not independent units, but parts of an overall, interdependent

system. The exclusion of any one of them could

jeopardize the effective functioning of the overall

program.

Anderson notes that the value of a comprehensive disaster/catastrophe insurance program has

been endorsed by Dacy and Kunreuther, leading

scholars of the disaster insurance field, who have

pointed out that:

If all disasters were incorporated in one package,

the large adjusting expense incurred today when

the actual cause of damage is determined would be

obviated and overall rates could be lowered accordingly.2

George Bernstein, former head of the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA), is also favorably

disposed to all-risk insurance:

Not only should classifications of insureds and

territories be broadened but so too should coverage

through the development of an all-risk policy offering full protection against a broad range of hazards. Under such a policy, all insureds could receive the same enumerated protections against

such perils as natural disasters, fire, and theft. The

Gulf Coast resident would receive protection

against his much-needed hurricane exposure on

the one hand and his less-needed crime insurance

and earthquake exposure on the other; similarly,

the midwest resident could be protected against

tornadoes and fire and also against his moderate

crime exposure. The eastern urban dweller would,

under the same policy, be protected against his

serious exposure to crime, fire, and riot, and also

have earthquake and windstorm protection. The

IHoward Kunreucher and I). Dacy, TIIe Economics Of Lvacura/ ~k.$-

rers (New York: The Free Press, 1969).

90
west coast resident would have needed earthquake

protection as well as mudslide and crime insurance.

All of these residents would be paying for coverages they might not ordinarily purchase, but would

be assured of receiving the essential protections

that today are inadequately available to them. The

pennies paid by policyholders for relatively unessential coverages would create a sufficient premium

spread to enable insurers to cover the hazards they

currently claim to be uninsurable.3

The current FIA administrator, Ms. Gloria M.

Jiminez, in commenting on the National Governors’ Association’s plan for a national disaster assistance fund, pointed out the necessity of including loss reduction elements. She stated that such a

plan must meet a number of requirements:4

●

●

●

●

●

●

it must provide for effective loss reduction activities;

it must provide for maximum participation by

the private insurance industry;

it must pay losses for nondisaster events as

well as for those covered by disaster declarations;

it must provide an appropriate transition

from a federally subsidized flood insurance

program;

it must protect insurers against catastrophic

losses; and

it must make the insurance coverage available

to all property owners, without discrimination.

THE MISSION OF

THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS

The historically key role of the Corps of Engineers in flood control civil works, coupled with the

undoubtedly continuing need for such civil works,

creates both a problem and an opportunity. The

problem is how to enjoy the benefits of civil works

while effectively integrating them with other strategies.

Consequently, there may be some major value

in a broadly based examination of the historical

role, successes, and shortfalls of the Corps’ civil

works programs with a view to recommending

modifications of practices, custom, staff, orientaJGmrge &rnSceln, horn Dan P. Anderson, “DeVe@nent of the

Principal Elements of a Comprehensive Carascrophe Insurance Svstem,” CPCU Annuls, September 1975.

‘Gloria M. Jimenez, Federal Emergency Management Agency, personal commurucation, Apr. 27, 1978.

tion, etc. This topic might be suitable for an 18-

month commission on the future of the Corps of

Engineers.

MAPPING DELAYS AND

ALTERNATIVE ENTRY POLICIES

Mapping is a legislatively mandated prerequisite

for joining the regular NFIP. Accomplishing the

mapping is excessively time-consuming as well as

extremely costly. This raises the question of

whether there might not be some alternative procedure for entering the program more readily. At

the same time, the existing structures could be improved. At some future time, the terrain could be

reclassified to a riskier status.

A 1976 General Accounting Office study emphasized the formidable mapping problems in

order to meet the statutory objective. 5 That study

emphasized the need for accelerating the process of

mapmaking. This option, however, suggests the

possibility of proceeding more slowly with mapping, but building an organizational backup permitting the upgrading of regulations in certain

areas as knowledge becomes fully developed.

The necessity to simplify the mapping requirement has been discussed by Dingman and Platt.6

They suggest a number of possibilities:

●

●

●

●

The flood hazard boundary maps, produced

by NFIP, are already in the hands of local

communities. If amended to eliminate gross

errors, these could be used locally until better

information arrives.

A method long in use at the State level is the

use of fixed setbacks from the stream center

or bank in the case of small streams and

creeks.

Refer to the area inundated by the flood of

record (largest flood to have occurred in an

area) or other significant historical flood as

the regulatory floodplain.

Use the generalized relations between regulatory flood depth and readily measurable

stream and/or drainage basin characteristics.

Such an approach, using drainage area,

stream width, and stream slope (measured

5Rewn t. the congress by the Comptroller General of the United

Scates, Formulaide Admimstration Probkms ChulLmge Ach[etmg ,Vational Fkod insurance Program Objectwes, Apr. 22, 1976, pp. 15-36.

sLawrence S. DingMan and Rutherford H. Platt, “Fkmdplam zoning and Implications of Hydrological and Legal L’ncertamtv, ” Water

Resource Research, vol. 13, No. 3 (1977), p. 522.

91
.

from topographic maps) as independent vari- and detail of even the most sophisticated floodables, was proposed in 1961 in Pennsylvania. plain maps may be illusory. But unquestionably,

Use normalized curves to estimate flood dis- courts are impressed with the sheer cost and

charges and stages that reasonably correlate weightiness of floodplain reports. Will less imwith regulatory flood stages estimated by tra- pressive techniques pass muster when legally chalditional methods. lenged? Recent judicial trends indicate that if a

The mapping of soils has also been shown to community proceeds in good faith and to the best

- . . - . of its ability to try to protect the lives and invest- - -

be a useful tool in identifying flood-prone ments of its citizens, the law will not stand in the

areas in some regions. way.7

Any of these or other “shortcut” techniques inevitably trade elegance for economy and detail for 7

bid.

efficiency. It has been suggested that the elegance

92
Appendix A: Coastal Erosion

Coastal erosion, a relentless geophysical process is irreconcilable with the present expanding use of the

shoreline. The Corps of Engineers considers coastal

erosion to be “critical” along 2,700 miles of coastline, especially on the Atlantic coast and Great Lakes shore

area. Average annual losses are in excess of $300 million. It is estimated that more than 25 percent of the

U.S. coastline is exposed to a variety of wind, wave,

and water phenomena: hurricane surge, tsunami,

seiche, erosion, scour, undermining, wave impact, landsliding, liquefication, and normal annual cycles of rainfall and storms. 1

In the face of social, economic, and demographic

trends pointing toward the continuing desirability of

coastal development, researchers have suggested new

land management policies for the reduction or control

of widespread shoreline loss.

Knowledge about the complex processes that take

place along the shoreline is inadequate. Consequently,

scientists have been unable to suggest appropriate public policy responses to the problem. For example:

It is not clear to what extent coastal erosion is a

product of short-term events, such as storms, hurricanes, etc., or to long-term geophysical change.

The former suggests a possible role for actuarial indemnifications, prudent land management, setback provisions, and public acquisition. It would

not seem practical for public policymakers to expend limited resources, in the latter case, to buy

time in the face of a dynamic, evolutionary, and inevitable shoreline erosion process.

In attempting to evaluate the effects of specific

events on erosion, research scientists find shortcomings in current measurement techniques. It is

very difficult to quantify the loss from a single

meteorological event, unlike those events that

have their greatest damage impact on buildings,

highways, and services.

Since a large proportion of affected shorelines are

privately owned (for example, the 3,000-mile

Michigan shoreline is 82 percent privately owned),

options for policymakers seem to be limited to

mitigation policies that do not challenge traditional rights of ownership. In this regard, coastal

erosion faces problems similar to those in flood

management, since legal precedents have not been

clearly set for public intervention in some aspects

of flood hazards management. Table A- I illustrates

one hazards research team’s suggestions on needed

ID+ ~r[ Jon=, “Housing and Related Coastal Problems- Current

Practices Offer Improved Solutions,” Oct. 17, 1977, convention

paper.

Table A= I.-Research OpportunitiesCoastal Erosion -

Level of support

Duration

Topics Man-years (years)

Shore morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Central data systems . . . . . . . . . . .

Socioeconomic loss . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nourishment/dredging. . . . . . . . . .

Nourishment cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Effects of manmade structures. . .

Remedial structures. . . . . . . . . . . .

Private adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . .

EUM programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Delineation of risk zones. . . . . . . .

Public participation . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dynamic models of shore change.

Comprehensive hazard insurance.

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

40

5

20

5

20

40

10

26

40

10

15

5

10

2

10

2

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

5

238

SOURCE: Gilbert F. White and Eugene J. Haas, Assessmer?l of Research on

Natural Hazards (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1975), pp.

360-372.

coastal erosion research. An important feature of

these opportunities is the emphasis on long-term

commitment to continuing research on fundamental physical and social problems. Although policy

measures for coastal erosion have been slow in being affected, the manifestations of human intervention in the runoff-sedimentation process are quite

evident. A major dislocation of the sediment balance can be traced to inland structures, such as

dams and levees, that have produced the unanticipated impact of upstream soil and sand entrapment. This blockage threatens the useful lifespan

of a dam, and forces many coastal communities to

maintain beachfronts by dredging and structural

protection to augment the decreased amount of

natural sedimentation available.

The most striking effects on shoreline sediment and

soil processes have resulted from direct development in

coastal areas and the unintended impacts of modification of natural sedimentation patterns. Development

along the shoreline is increasing, and has contributed

to spiraling erosion losses by deforestation, construction, and mining of beach sand, and by the interdiction

of natural sediment processes by jetties, breakwaters,

groynes, and piers. These structures accumulate sand

and sediment, interfere with the transport of sand

down the coast, and often initiate the construction of

additional protective structures, which results in a permanent modification of shore zone processes.2

z~uglas L. Inman and Birchard M. Brush, “The Coastal Challenge,” Scmce, July 6, 1973. pp. 20-32.

93
The prospects for constructive responses to the erosion hazard would be improved if answers could be provided by research to questions such as the following:

● To what extent is coastal erosion a hazard in itself,

rather than a symptom, or effect of other coastal

phenomena?

● How are short-term erosion fluctuations and longterm geophysical trends differentiated? Which policy options match short-term erosion fluctuations,

and which options are feasible in the face of longterm trends?

● What kinds of innovations in measurement can be

expected soon? Can verification and measurement

be reliable and unambiguous so that public expenditures can be justified and effectively

allocated?

● What rights of intervention are available to public

jurisdictions seeking to use setbacks and public ac- .

quisition of vulnerable coastal property?

94
Appendix B: Executive Order 11988

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America,

and as President of the United States of America, in

futherance of the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42

U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), and the Flood Disaster Protection

Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234, 87 Stat. 975), in order

to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and

modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development whereever there

is a practicable alternative, it is hereby ordered as

follows:

Sec. 1. Each agency shall provide leadership and

shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health,

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural

and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying

out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and

disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing

federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction

and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not

limited to water and related land resources planning,

regulating, and licensing activities.

Sec. 2. In carrying out the activities described in section 1 of this Order, each agency has a responsibility to

evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may take

in a floodplain; to ensure that its planning programs

and budget requests reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management; to prescribe procedures to implement the policies and requirements of

this Order, as follows:

(a)(2) Before taking an action, each agency shall determine whether the proposed action will occur in a

floodplain-for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the

evaluation required below will be included in any statement prepared under section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act. This determination shall be

made according to a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) floodplain map or a more detailed map of an area, if available. If such maps are not

available, the agency shall make a determination of the

location of the floodplain based on the best available information. The Water Resources Council shall issue

guidance on this information not later than October 1,

1977.

(2) If an agency has determined to, or proposes to,

conduct, support, or allow an action to be located in a

floodplain, the agency shall consider alternatives to

avoid adverse effects and incompatible development in -

-

the floodplains. If the head of the agency finds that the

only practicable alternative consistent with the law and

with the policy set forth in this Order requires siting in

a floodplain, the agency shall, prior to taking action, (i)

design or modify its action in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, consistent with

regulations issued in accord with section 2(d) of this

Order, and (ii) prepare and circulate a notice containing

an explanation of why the action is proposed to be

located in the floodplain.

(3) For programs subject to the Office of Management

and Budget Circular A-95, the agency shall send the

notice, not to exceed three pages in length including a

location map, to the State and areawide A-95 clearinghouse for the geographic areas affected. The notice shall

include: (i) the reasons why the action is proposed to be

located in a floodplain; (ii) a statement indicating

whether the action conforms to applicable State or local floodplain protection standards; and (iii) a list of the

alternatives considered. Agencies shall endeavor to allow a brief comment period prior to taking any action.

(4) Each agency shall also provide opportunity for

early public review of any plans or proposals for actions

in floodplains, in accordance with section 2(b) of Executive Order No. 11514, as amended, including the

development of procedures to accomplish this objective

for Federal actions whose impact is not significant

enough to require the preparation of an enviromnental

impact statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

(b) Any requests for new authorizations or appropriations transmitted to the Office of Management and

Budget shall indicate, if an action to be proposed will be

located in a floodplain, whether the proposed action is

in accord with this Order.

(c) Each agency shall take floodplain management

into account when formulating or evaluating any water

and land use plans and shall require land and water resources use appropriate to the degree of hazard involved. Agencies shall include adequate provision for

the evaluation and consideration of flood hazards in

the regulations and operating procedures for the

licenses, permits, loan or grants-in-aid programs that

they administer. Agencies shall also encourage and provide appropriate guidance to applicants to evaluate the

effects of their proposals in floodplains prior to submitting applications for Federal licenses, permits, loans or

grants.

(d) As allowed by law, each agency shall issue or

amend existing regulations and procedures within one

year to comply with this Order. These procedures shall

95
incorporate the unified national program for floodplain

management of the Water Resources Council, and shall

explain the means that the agency will employ to pursue the nonhazardous use of riverine, coastal and other

floodplains in connection with the activities under its

authority. To the extent possible, existing processes,

such as those of the Council on Environmental Quality

and the Water Resources Council, shall be utilized to

fulfill the requirements of this Order. Agencies shall

prepare their procedures in consultation with the Water

Resources Council, the Federal Insurance Administration, and the Council on Environmental Quality, and

shall update such procedures as necessary.

Sec. 3. In addition to the requirements of section 2,

agencies with responsibilities for Federal real property

and facilities shall take the following measures:

(a) The regulations and procedures established under

section 2(d) of this Order shall, at a minimum, require

the construction of Federal structures and facilities to

be in accordance with the standards and criteria and to

be consistent with the intent of those promulgated

under the National Flood Insurance Program. They

shall deviate only to the extent that the standards of

the Flood Insurance Program are demonstrably inappropriate for a given type of structure or facility.

(b) If, after compliance with the requirements of this

Order, new construction of structures or facilities are to

be located in a floodplain, accepted floodproofing and

other flood protection measures shall be applied to new

construction or rehabilitation. To achieve flood protection, agencies shall, wherever practicable, elevate structures above the base flood level rather than filling in

land.

(c) If property used by the general public has suffered

flood damage or is located in an identified flood hazard

area, the responsible agency shall provide on structures,

and other places where appropriate, conspicuous delineation of past and probable flood height in order to

enhance public awareness of and knowledge about

flood hazards.

(d) When property in floodplains is proposed for

lease, easement, right-of-way, or disposal to non-Federal public or private parties, the Federal agency shall (1)

reference in the conveyance those uses that are restricted under identified Federal, State or local floodplain regulations; and (2) attach other appropriate restrictions to the uses of properties by the grantee or purchaser and any successors, except where prohibited by

law; or (3) withhold such properties from conveyance.

Sec. 4. In addition to any responsibilities under this

Order and sections 202 and 205 of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4106

and 4128), agencies which guarantee, approve, regulate,

or insure any financial transaction which is related to

an area located in a floodplain shall, prior to completing action on such transaction, inform any private

parties participating in the transaction of the hazards of

locating structures in the floodplain.

SeC. 5. The head of each agency shall submit a report to the Council on Environmental Quality and to

the Water Resources Council on June 30, 1978, regarding the status of their procedures and the impact of this .-

Order on the agency’s operations. Therafter, the Water

Resources Council shall periodically evaluate agency

procedures and their effectiveness.

SeC. 6. As used in this Order:

(a) The term “agency” shall have the same meaning

as the term “executive agency” in section 105 of tide 5

of the United States Code and shall include the military

departments; the directives contained in this Order,

however, are meant to apply only to those agencies

which perform the activities described in section 1

which are located in or affecting floodplains.

(b) The term “base flood” shall mean that flood

which has a 1 percent or greater chance of occurrence

in any given year.

(c) The term’’floodplain” shall mean the lowland and

relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters

including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or

greater chance of flooding in any given year.

Sec. 7. Executive Order No. 11296 of August 10,

1966, is hereby revoked. All actions, procedures, and issuances taken under that Order and stilI in effect shall

remain in effect until modified by appropriate authority

under the terms of this Order.

Sec. 8. Nothing in this Order shall apply to

assistance provided for emergency work essential to

save lives and protect property and public health and

safety, performed pursuant to sections 305 and 306 of

the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 148, 42 U.S.C.

5145 and 5146).

Sec. 9. To the extent the provisions of section 2(a) of

this Order are applicable to projects covered by section

104(h) of the Housing and Community Development

Act of 1974, as amended (88 Stat. 640, 42 U.S.C.

5304(h)), the responsibilities under those provisions

may be assumed by the appropriate applicant, if the applicant has also assumed, with respect to such projects,

all of the responsibilities for environmental review, decisionmaking, and action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

JIMMY CARTER

THE WHITE HOUSE

May 24, 1977.

96