Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
approach obviously ignored the residual risks
faced by those behind levees when the levees were
overtopped or failed prior to overtopping.
Such actions by local communities occur be-
cause the incentive structure for communities is
far different than that for the federal or state
governments. Advantages accrue to the commu-
nities with increased development because, in
most cases, they reap the benefits of a higher tax
base with more development but do not bear the
costs of public assistance and recovery when
areas they have permitted are flooded. California
recently passed legislation that requires cities and
counties to contribute their 'fair and reasonable
share' of the costs of property damage when they
increased the state's liability by 'unreasonably
approving new development in a previously unde-
veloped area' (Flood Liability Act 2007).
Few new federal, state or local flood manage-
ment projects are developed within the context
of either watershed planning or integrated water
resources management (IWRM). During the dec-
ades immediately following the 1936 Act, most
authorized projects were part of a larger number of
projects that supported watershed approaches to
solving the flood problems of the region. Over the
last five decades, most projects have had little
association with a watershed plan. Two notable
exceptions are projects of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, which continues to guide work along
the Tennessee River and its tributaries, and the
Mississippi River Commission, which was given
responsibility by Congress for developing flood
protection for the lower Mississippi River Valley
in a comprehensive, integrated manner. While
watershed planning is a clear goal of most federal
and state water agencies, and the concept of
IWRM has been generally accepted by water re-
sources professionals, the stovepipe organization-
al structure at both the federal and state level
tends to force agencies to operate independently
of each other. This separation is exacerbated by
structures in the Congress and state legislatures
that maintain these same stovepipe structures.
In addition, the Congress has long focused on
authorization and approval of projects without
any consideration of their watershed context or
It has been well recognized that wetlands are
critical components of the riverine and coastal
floodplains and provide substantial goods and ser-
vices to the public at large through flood storage,
aquifer recharge, storm buffering, attenuation
of water pollution, and provision of habitat for
ecosystems. The Federal Water Pollution Act
Amendments (1972) legislated that those propos-
ing actions that might disturb wetlands would be
required to obtain a permit from the federal gov-
ernment. This legislation was translated by the
Administration into guidance indicating that,
should the proposed action 'have an unacceptable
adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shell-
fish beds and fishery areas (including spawning
and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas'
a permit could be refused. Under some conditions,
minor wetland losses could be mitigated by con-
struction of other wetlands or replacing affected
wetlands with wetlands from 'wetland banks'.
While the federal government was developing
its approach to activity in the floodplain, many
communities in the floodplain determined that
the way to growth (and increased tax revenue) was
through development of floodplain lands. If the
communities were in the NFIP and thus were
required to limit development below the 100-year
flood elevation, they either sought federal support
for construction of protective levees or built levees
using developer or local funds. In many cases,
existing agricultural levees with low levels of
protection were improved to provide protection
against the 100-year flood. In other cases, commu-
nities that were not in the NFIP supported large-
scale urban development in the floodplain and
then sought federal support for construction of
levees at the 100-year level. Communities were
able to economically justify such levees because
soon after the NFIP was initiated, FEMA, under
pressure from developers, ruled that if an area
was behind a levee that provided protection to the
100-year level, those living behind the leveewould
no longer be required to obtain flood insurance.
Under the P&G, in developing a benefit-cost anal-
ysis to justify a project, the Corps could consider
the elimination of the requirement for insurance
as an economic benefit to the community. Such an
Search WWH ::




Custom Search