WSP09166 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0311'77 interstate, local and nongovern- mental plans for the development of water and related land resources in its area, river basin, or group of river basins. (P.L. 89-90, section 201) Six basin commissions have been es- tablished under this act: New England, Ohio, Great Lakes, Missouri, Upper Mis- sissippi, and Pacific Northwest (See fig. 3). These commissions are not compacts and lack their authority. Instead, their function is to perform planning studies and to recommend consistent policies and practicec to the various public au- thorities within their basin. Each com- mission has performed diverse studies with funding and policy guidance from the U.S. Water Resources Council. The foremost of these studies to address floodplain management issues is "The River's Reach," prepared for the Con- necticut River Basin by the New England River Basins Commission in 1975. For smaller watersheds in metropoli- tan areas, an analogous role may be served by regional planning agencies or councils of government. In many cases, such advisory agencies have addressed the need for consistent management of urbanizing watersheds. The role of these agencies is strengthened when they serve as an "A-95 regional clearinghouse" for federal assistance applications within their region, for in this capacity they may disapprove federal investment in any project that conflicts with a regional }loodplain management policy. Although a regional adVISOry board of a different sort, the Tennessee Valley Authority perhaps best illustrates how regional advice and resources can help local governments with their floodplain management. While TV A has been criti- cized for high-handedness in its struc- tural flood control efforts, for 20 years it has sought to promote nonstructural measures through technical assistance and encouragement of states and local communities. (See Case Study of Mary- ville and Alcoa, Tennessee, in Part II.) 3. Statewide Regulations According to the 1979 Annual Re- port of the U.S. Council on Environ- mental Quality, 24 states had adopted some form of state permit requirements covering riverine floodplains. Twelve of these, notably including the strong state programs in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, and New Jersey require local gov- ernments to adopt floodplain regulations at least as strong as state criteria, or the state will adopt them directly. In some cases, states may adopt floodplain reg- ulations for a particular stream or water- shed (See Salt Creek case study in Part II). State authority may thus be applied selectively to overcome special problems of intercommunity conflict. . 4. Counties and Special Districts Substate regional coordination is criti- cal to a resolution of many local con- flicts about floodplain use. Both county governments and regional special dis- tricts may be useful in filling the gap be- tween states and local governments. Each is broader in its geographic jurisdic- tion than individual municipalities, yet they are closer to the local scene than state or federal authorities. Unfortu- nately, as mentioned above, counties and special districts often belong more to the problem than to the solution of multi- governmental fragmentation. The case studies in Part II on Lilydale, Minnesota, and the Salt Creek watershed in illinois indicate that counties and existing dis- tricts may play important new roles in floodplain management. In some cases this will require new legislation; else- where, existing powers may be expanded through reinterpretation of existing au- thority. And in other cases, a brand new special district will be needed to remedy an impasse at the local level. The use of counties or special districts to resolve interlocal floodplain conflicts must be applied cautiously. Municipali- ties are loathe to give up authority over land within their boundaries. Unincor- porated land, of course, is directly under county authority, but such areas may in- volve . only a dwindling fraction of an urbanizing watershed.. To promote re- gional harmony, counties and special districts should, where possible, comple- ment rather than countermand the role of local governments. As the Lilydale and Salt Creek case histories suggest, the most appropriate role of the extramu- nicipal entity may be land acquisition rather than regulation. 23