WSP09166 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001179 to common purposes. Such informal agreements, however, are not legally enforceable. Intergovernmental agreements are presently used for various public pur- poses such as coordination of police and fire protection, water and sewage fa. cilities, solid waste disposal, and so forth. Depending upon state law, agree. ments may also involve different level! of government, such as federal-local, state-special district-local, etc. Intergovernmental contracts fre- quently are used in the development of structural flood control projects. Chan- nelization and flood control measures along the Upper Salt Creek in Cook County, illinois, for instance, involves an agreement between the federal govern- ment, the state, and several municipali- ties and special districts. Such contracts or agreements are more unusual in the nonstructural floodplain management context. Several are discussed in the case studies in Part II (see particularly the Charles River and Maryvi\\e cases). An important unanswered question is whether intergovernmental contracts or agreements may create mutually en- forceable policies regarding floodplain management regulations. Certainly com- munities may agree through a memo- randum of understanding to adopt com- parable sets of regulations. It is not clear, however, whether this gives either com. munity rights against the other in th, event that such regulations are nol adopted or enforced. In many Corps 01 Engineers projects, nonfederal entitiel agreed to implement land use regula. tions. Presumably, failure to perform would be actionable in a court of law. By analogy, there would seem to be no reason why communities could not bind themselves to adopt and enforce regula- tions. This would be a powerful tool for multi.govemmental management of floodplains. 8. Extraterritorial Powers A final technique to be considered is the possible use of extraterritorial powers by a county or local government. The rules on extraterritorial power vary greatly from one state to another. Some states allow local governments to adopt zoning for areas within a specified dis- tance outside their boundaries. Land acquisition outside the corporate limits may be authorized, although usually not through the use of eminent domain. Nor- mally, the consent of the jurisdiction in which the land is located must be ob- tained. This may in turn require an inter- governmental agreement, as in the Lily- dale case study in Part II. Conclusion Part I has reviewed the nature of flood hazards and forms of response by which flood damages may be avoided or miti- gated. We have noted that the manage- ment of floodp1ains is shared by count- less units of government: national, state, county, and local-as well as millions of property owners. Any strategy to reduce flood losses therefore depends upon co- ordinated action by multiple units of government-none can do the job alone. We have summarized a variety of tech- niques available for achieving multi- governmental action in floodplains. Now we may turn to some real life examples of how public authorities can work with-or against-each other in coping with their mutual flood problems. 25