WSP09166 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001175 e. Water Resources Council (WRC) The U.S. Water Resources Council is an interagency forum for study of water resource issues. WRC has con- tributed to the management of flood- plains in several ways. First, WRC funds and monitors river basin studies throughout the country that are done under the auspices of federal-state river basin commissions, interstate compact commissions, and other basinwide entities. Second, WRC has established a standard statistical method for estimating flood dis- charges. Third, WRC has developed "Principles and Standards" to evaluate water resource projects proposed by federal agencies. Lastly, WRC pro- vides a means for agencies to consider together specific policy illllUes, such as coordinating their response to flood disasters. f. Executive Office of the President Various Presidents of the United States have sought to influence fed- eral flood policy through executive orders. President Johnson in 1966 issued E.O. 11296, which directed the heads of federal agencies to "provide leadership in encouraging a broad and unified effort to prevent uneconomic use and development of the nation's floodplains. . . ." This order was superseded in 1977 by E.O. 11988, issued by President Carter to estab- lish a process under which federal agencies must consider the flood im- plications of their actions and avoid direct or indirect contribution to future flood losses. E.O. 11988 also recognized the role of floodplains as natural phenomena providing bene- fits to the riverine system and its sur- rounding region. D. Conflicts Among Floodplain Managers The nation's floodplains are thus a mosaic of private and public managers, differing in geographic scale and legal authority while collectively sharing the benefits and burdens of being located next to water. These managers differ widely in their objectives, policies, and actions relating to floodplains, but each generally attempts to promote its own interests, often without regard for neigh- boring jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the very nature of rivers and streams signi- fies that the action or non-action of one authority may affect its neighboring areas, for better or for worse. We may readily identify two situa- tions in which multi-governmental con- flict may arise. The first situation in- volves the river serving as a political boundary. The second involves rivers and streams flowing across political bound- aries from one jurisdiction into another. Most inland streams of any signifi- cance serve as boundaries between juris- dictions. At the international scale, the United States faces Canada across rivers in Maine, New York, Michigan, and Min- nesota, and it faces Mexico across the Rio Grande. FortY-<lne states are bor- dered in part by inland rivers or lakes. The total length of interstate river bound- aries is estimated at about 10,000 miles (Fig. 12). Rivers that bound states neces- sarily also border smaller units of juris- diction: counties, special districts, municipalities, and private property holdings. This role of inland streams as boundaries can cause conflict between jurisdictions. Where floods are con- cerned, one jurisdiction may permit haphazard filling, diking, or other forms of encroachment, which may increase flooding in jurisdictions across the stream. Such alteration of flood patterns may wreak havoc if one community has developed on or near the floodplain on its side, assuming from past flooding pat- terns that they will not be engulfed (See Jackson, Mississippi case study in Part II). Streams that flow through political jurisdictions also can cause conflicts of an upstream.<Jownstream nature. A major pro blem of this type in small watersheds is upstream development, which raises flood levels downstream. Covering the land with buildings, pave- ment, and lawns increases surface run- off to streams, a phenomenon which is further aggravated if storm sewers are constructed without a stormwllter de- tention mechanism. Under such condi- tions, drastically more severe floods will be experienced in downstream jurisdic- tions (See Haikey Creek case study in Part II). Another form of upstream- downstream conflict is the "bottle- neck": if jurisdictions on opposite sides 21