Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
analysis. Furthermore, the Corps's risk analysis
should not be limited to structural alternatives
such as levees, dikes, and dams. Nonstructural
alternatives such as warning systems and zoning
regulations should also be considered, both
separately and in conjunction with structural
alternatives.
facilities. However, states, because the federal
government leads the program, have taken an
almost hands-off approach to oversight of these
structures. In 2006 only two states had inventories
of levees within the state, and few provided any
inspection or other oversight of the maintenance
programs, leaving this to the federal government.
Smaller flood damage reduction structures are
often funded by state or local agencies, or in some
cases private groups, including businesses and
developers. In most cases, coordination or approv-
al of this activity by the federal or state govern-
ment is not required (other than to obtain permits
when the project might affect water quality or
endangered species). While a permit is normally
required to build a structure such as a home and
office, no such construction permit is typically
required for a levee that does not impact water
quality or endangered species.
Guidance from the Administration and Con-
gress also can affect what flood management
activities take place and the manner in which
they are carried out. In 1983, the Administration
issued Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land
Resources Implementation Studies (P&G), which
established that the '
...
Federal objective of water
and related land resources project planning is to
contribute to national economic development
consistent with protecting the Nation's en-
vironment' (US Water Resources Council 1983).
This action, taken without coordination with the
Congress, effectively removed life-safety and so-
cial effects as reasons for project development and
placed the protection of the environment, which
had been a coequal objective, in a secondary posi-
tion. This led a 2000 National Research Council
study to find that the P&G used for flood damage
reduction studies '
...
emphasize direct economic
damage reductions and the costs of alternatives'
and recommended that:
National Research Council (2000).
In 2007, the Congress passed a Water
Resources Development Act directing the Corps
to prepare revisions to P&G that would include
consideration of public safety as well as environ-
mental sustainability. (While the P&G applied to
several federal agencies, Congress only directed
the Corps to prepare a new version for its use. It is
not clear what role the Administration will play
in evaluating any proposal by the Corps to the
Congress.)
In 1968, the passage of the Flood Insurance Act
indicated national support for this nonstructural
approach to flood management. The intent of the
act was to assist flood-prone citizens to obtain
insurance (so as to reduce the fiscal outlays by the
government) and to require local governments
participating in the flood insurance program to
control development in the floodplain with an
overall goal of reducing national flood losses. By
2008, there were over 20,500 communities partic-
ipating in the program and, as a result, controlling
development in the 100-year floodplain. The Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
which operates theNFIP, estimates that this latter
component of the NFIP reduces flood losses an-
nually by $1 billion (Maurstad 2008). As an incen-
tive to the communities, FEMA developed a
Community Rating System (CRS) that assesses
the effectiveness of the local governments' efforts
to meet FEMA objectives. Communities are given
credit for, among many factors: requiring free-
board above the 100-year minimum structure el-
evation; taking actions to discourage development
in the floodplain; and enhancing or protecting the
natural and beneficial function of the floodplain.
FEMA, in turn, reduces the insurance premiumfor
those in participating communities as their CRS
ratings rise.
To ensure that theCorps's flood damage reduction
projects provide adequate social and environmen-
tal benefits
...
the Corps [should] explicitly address
potential loss of life, other social consequences,
and environmental consequences in its risk
