Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2021-0683-0036
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2021-12-14T05:00Z

Dear White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC):
My name is Jerimiah Sanders, and I am the Field Environmental Officer for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Region 8. I have served in this position since June of 2016. Prior to my current position in HUD's Region 8 office, I was in HUD's Office of Environment and Energy in HUD Headquarters for nine years and focused on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related compliance as well. I appreciate President Biden, Vice President Harris, Secretary Fudge, and the rest of the Administration taking on these longstanding problems and issues, and I look forward to helping in any way I can. Over the years, my current and former colleagues and I have had concerns in the following areas. I submit these comments in my individual capacity.
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 55.1(c)(1) prohibit approving financial assistance for housing in floodways after May 23, 1994. HUD has approved decades-long extensions for public housing in floodways after the introduction of this regulatory prohibition. HUD defines the "floodway" at 24 CFR 55.2(b)(5) as: 
      [T]hat portion of the floodplain which is effective in carrying flow, where the flood hazard is generally the greatest, and where water depths and velocities are the highest. The term "floodway" as used here is consistent with "regulatory floodways" as identified by FEMA.
HUD considers public housing vouchers and other rental assistance to be "placed" at the time of the original contract for project-based vouchers or rental assistance. A "renewal" is not considered to be a "placement" of the voucher or an "approval" for purposes of the floodway prohibition. This means that projects may have additional contracts approved in a floodway for additional decades despite HUD's regulatory prohibition on assistance for housing in the floodway. This practice results in public housing residents and Federal investments being exposed to repetitive loss events. In addition to the tenants' personal public safety risks, the displacement of financially insecure individuals adds further stress on any disaster recovery. Furthermore, Federal agencies are tasked under EO 11988 and EO 13690 with providing leadership in floodplain management.
One specific example is Arbor Court in Houston, Texas. Arbor Court is in a floodway and received damage during the "2016 Tax Day Floods." Despite the tenants having to be rescued from the water, the previous damage, and HUD's prohibition on housing assistance in floodways, HUD renewed the contract after the flood for about $1.6 million per year. As stated in the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, and linked below, Hurricane Harvey wiped out the first floor leaving many families displaced and others complaining of major problems, including mold, almost immediately after the Tax Day flood repairs were made. It is unclear whether HUD would have continued funding Arbor Court after Hurricane Harvey had the City of Houston not found the property to be structurally unsound. Structural issues are common for structures in floodways.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Some-Greenspoint-area-flood-victims-face-a-8338706.php
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/These-tenants-got-vouchers-to-leave-their-14276653.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/us/houston-flooding.html 
https://www.khou.com/article/news/some-houstonians-still-waiting-for-government-assistance-3-years-after-tax-day-floods/285-5cfea252-8bec-4c3b-8695-980d0d3a7734
This situation should lead HUD to re-evaluate its policies. Should a new environmental review be performed after flood damage renders units unoccupiable or should re-evaluation of decades-old environmental reviews without public involvement be allowed? Should HUD prohibit contract renewals for properties in the regulatory floodway in accordance with HUD's floodway prohibition from 1994? Should HUD prohibit renewals in the floodway after a building receives flood damage? 
As stated in a previous comment, HUD has 24 CFR Part 58. This regulation codifies a provision of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 at Section 104(g) that allows Tribal, state, and local governments to perform NEPA reviews for certain HUD programs. The only program office with any dedicated environmental monitoring is the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), which contains the NEPA office, the Office of Environment and Energy. As a member of this office, I routinely monitor grantees that were last monitored 15 to 18 years ago with significant issues, including floodplains and site contamination. Some programs, such as the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) and all programs within the Office of Public Housing (OPH) including Project-based Vouchers under Section 8, do not have regular environmental monitoring. This means that none of these projects or public housing agencies are monitored at all unless they are a CPD entitlement community or otherwise receiving other CPD assistance from the state. 
This means that thousands of public housing units go unmonitored, including those built prior to HUD's prohibition on housing assistance in floodways. This lack of monitoring and oversight was enshrined in a recent statutory provision. By exempting public housing agency activities from further environmental review, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act effectively "grandfathers" public housing assistance from HUD in floodways in perpetuity. The floodway projects would have been stopped years ago had HUD honored its stated regulatory intention  -  as stated to both the public and CEQ  -  to monitor grantees every three years. The environmental monitoring did not occur, and as a result, the assistance continues. HUD's intention to monitor every three years is stated at 24 CFR 58.77(d)(1). The exemption in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act is linked below. Could this exemption benefit from a provision banning assistance in floodways and Coastal High Hazard Areas (V Zones)?
Small PHA Exemption Regulatory Notice: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-04004.pdf?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+mailing+list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email 
Thank you for your time and expertise. I am very grateful for this opportunity to offer these comments and this outlet to address environmental justice concerns throughout the country. 
Sincerely,
Jerimiah Sanders