Use smart growth and watershed planning as key features in flood prevention and management programs
Action
Although flooding is often referred to as a natural disaster, states, local officials, and water resource organizations are increasingly recognizing that some flooding is the result of man-made actions arising from poor land use planning and resource management decisions.
The relationship between poor land development patterns and flooding is largely the result of increased amounts of impervious surface coverage and the loss of water storage areas. As forests and fields are converted to development or other uses, rainwater that previously soaked into soils instead runs with increased velocity over hardened surfaces. Models show that the more extensive and connected the new development, the higher the risk of flooding. While most flood codes are directed at regulating individual building sites, prevention can be enhanced by steering redevelopment to less flood-prone areas, strengthening low-lying cities, and minimizing loss of forest cover, wetlands, and open space.
There are several ways states can improve flood prevention and mitigation policies. First, the American Association of Floodplain Managers advocates the adoption of a "No Adverse Impact" floodplain management framework. "No Adverse Impact" floodplain management rests on the concept that the actions of a property owner should not be allowed to adversely affect the rights of other property owners. While applied routinely at the individual site level, this concept is increasingly being considered for a larger community scale to address downstream impacts caused by decisions made elsewhere in the watershed. "No Adverse Impact" is not a "no development" stance, but rather a sharper focus on the ramifications of various development scenarios and assignment of mitigation. Floodplain managers speak of this as "protecting property rights on both sides of the fence." Projected impacts are matched with mitigation early in the planning stage. This larger planning framework also allows planners to anticipate changes likely to come as a result of climate change.
States also have a role in bridging the Federal Flood Insurance program and the Community Rating System, which establishes lower flood insurance rates for communities based on implementation of flood mitigation measures, such as revised zoning and building codes. FEMA also supplies planning funds through the Flood Mitigation Fund, which are targeted at lowering risks through comprehensive planning.
Process
A comprehensive State Flood Management program consists of measures addressing both prevention and mitigation. States will likely retain traditional emergency response and natural resource management responsibilities, but as issues related to build-out, liability, and climate change increase, states are in a unique role to broker solutions. These solutions will require sophisticated modeling and quantification, and as such, are best executed in conjunction with a green infrastructure or other mapping/modeling effort. Other avenues include the state’s stormwater management programs, where low- or no-impact policies for new development are key.
Second, states can integrate ongoing smart growth efforts into the Community Rating System. FEMA assigns points for various activities related to smart growth, such as comprehensive planning. Where older cities with existing infrastructure also lie in flood and hazard zones, states will increasingly be called upon to work with communities on risk reduction, which will include acquisition of open space and infrastructure upgrades.
Examples
- California’s Flood Management ProgramNo other state illustrates the changing landscape in flood-related accountability and liability better than California. In 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of five interrelated bills targeting flood management in the state’s Central Valley. The original legislation addressed aging levees, but legislators realized that levee repair was only one of many comprehensive reforms needed to prevent harm and protect property. The package, which included a new Flood Management administrative framework, focused on land use and flood protection by:
- requiring an enhanced flood protection plan for the entire valley, on the basis of which cities then prepare and/or update general plans and land development regulations;
- requiring shared contribution to flood damage costs between the state and local governments when local governments approve new developments in previously undeveloped areas; and
- instituting building restrictions in areas that do not have 200-year flood protection (i.e., the flooding associated with a storm that with a 0.5 percent chance of occurring in any year) unless adequate progress is being made to achieve that level of protection. All areas of new development must have 200-year protection by 2025.
- Texas’ Mitigation Program
The State of Texas estimates that 91 percent of disaster funding is directed to flood-related damage throughout the state. As such, Texas has launched an aggressive program that includes acquisition of repetitive-loss structures, strict building codes, and planning. The State launched an outreach program to assist localities through technical assistance and identification of funding opportunities. In 2007, the State added "No Adverse Impact" to its list of management activities.
The smart growth link lies within the Texas Mitigation Handbook, issued in 2002. The Handbook’s "Mitigation Goals and Strategies" section links local comprehensive and capital improvement plans to state mitigation goals by seeking to limit new development in hazard-prone areas and by encouraging disaster-resistant practices.
The Handbook provides examples of how to achieve these goals, including:- Use economic development funds to improve low-hazard areas and attract businesses to those areas and away from hazardous sites.
- Solicit donations of hazard prone land for recreational or open space use.
- Swap publicly owned low-hazard areas for privately owned high-hazard land.
- Develop public/private partnerships that include business, engineering, and government organizations and universities that work to develop and promote mitigation.
- Establish tax increment financing districts, as in El Paso, Houston, and Dallas, to assist the private sector to abate environmental hazards and revitalize older buildings.
- Initiate local redevelopment initiatives, as in Dallas, Galveston, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, to attract new residents and businesses into downtown areas and so reduce urban sprawl.
— Texas Mitigation Handbook
