My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09166
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09166
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:51:40 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:30:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
5960
Description
Flood Protection Section - Miscellaneous Publications
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
9/1/1981
Author
FEMA
Title
Multi-Government Management of Floodplains in Small Watersheds - Federal Emergency Management Agency
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />OQl1'76 <br /> <br />of a stream both obstruct their flood. <br />plains through levees or other means, the <br />resulting constriction inflicts "back- <br />watering" upon areas immediately up- <br />stream. This effect is pronounced on <br />major rivers such as the Mississippi up- <br />stream from St. Louis. <br /> <br />The effects of multi-governmental <br />fragmentation in floodplains are cumula- <br />tive. Most watercourses of any signifi- <br />cance involve both cross-stream and <br />upstream-downstream conflicts. Further- <br />more, alteration of flooding patterns in <br />tributary watersheds likely will make <br />flooding on mainstream rivers worse. <br />The cumulative effects of specific ac- <br />tions, however, is not always obvious <br />because a flood may not occur for years. <br />Unlike questions of water quality and <br />supply, the multi-governmental implica- <br />tions of flooding are too often seen only <br />in the aftermath of a flood. Certainly <br />not all flood damage can be blamed <br />upon the actions of neighboring areas. <br />But just as certainly, even the most re- <br />sponsible floodplain management unit is <br />ta some extent at the mercy of its neigh- <br />bors. Ultimately, there is a need for <br />multi-governmental arrangements to pro- <br />mote mutually responsible and enforce- <br />able floodplain management policies. <br /> <br />E. Techniques for Multi-Government <br />Coordination in F100dplains <br /> <br />Floodplain management is just one of <br />many public concerns that transcend <br />political boundaries. Much has been <br />written on techniques for "intergovern- <br />mental coordination." (See particularly <br />various reports by the Advisory Com- <br />mission on Intergovernmental Rela- <br />tions.) Much of this literature, however, <br />deals with "vertical" relationships among <br />federal, state, and local entities. While <br />that dimension is important to flood- <br />plain management, the emphasis here <br />is upon "horizontal" cooperation be- <br />tween adjoining units of government- <br />thus we use the term "multi-govern- <br />mental coordination." Techniques to be <br />summarized below include: <br />1. Interstate compacts <br />2. Comprehensive river basin planning <br />3. Statewide regulations <br />4. Counties <br />5. Special districts <br />6. Intergovernmental agreements <br /> <br />7 . Extraterritorial powers <br />8. Litigation <br /> <br />1. Interstate Compacts <br /> <br />Article 1, section 10 of the U.S. Con- <br />stitution states: "No state shall without <br />consent of Congress,. . .enter into any <br />agreement or compact with another <br />state." Interstate compacts with the con- <br />sent of Congress have long been an im- <br />portant vehicle for establishing formal <br />agreements and arrangements among <br />states. Compacts deal with a wide range <br />of concerns: transportation, pollution, <br />navigation, and port development, fish- <br />eries and wildlife, power, water supply, <br />and flood control. Most water-related <br />compacts have been achieved in western <br />river basins, where allocation of scarce <br />water resources is of primary concern. <br />In the East, the principal water-related <br />compacts are those established for the <br />Delaware and Susquehanna River basins. <br />These in fact are the only compact com- <br />missions with comprehensive planning <br />authority within their respective water- <br />sheds, including the power to review <br />and approve local floodplain zoning <br />regulations. (This power has been used <br />sparingly in the Delaware and not used <br />at all in the Susquehanna basin.) <br /> <br />Interstate compacts are formal legal <br />instruments that establish the rights and <br />duties of each state party and that are <br />enforceable through the courts. Poten- <br />tially, compacts offer a way to promote <br />consistent floodplain management pol- <br />icies and practices along interstate rivers. <br />Compacts, however, are difficult to <br />achieve due to reluctance of states to <br />delegate their powers. On the average, it <br />takes eight years for a compact to be <br />ratified; none have been established since <br />1975. <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />! <br /> <br />I ' <br /> <br />2. Comprehensive River Basin Planning <br /> <br />Comprehensive river basin planning <br />(whether or not leading to an interstate <br />compact) has been a goal of planners in <br />the United States since at least the <br />1930's. The Water Resources Planning <br />Act of 1965 authorized the establish- <br />ment of federal.state river basin commis- <br />sions to: <br /> <br />Serve as the principal agency for <br />the coordination of federal, state, <br /> <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.