Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Erosion insurance is being reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as required by <br />the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. The initial idea was to determine the feasibility <br />of having flood insurance premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program account for erosion <br />risk in addition to flood risk. Presumably there would be a policy surcharge for homes located in the <br />defined erosion hazard areas. The required pilot studies for erosion hazard area identification and <br />mapping have been completed and the economic impact analyses are now underway by the H. John <br />Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment to see how much real estate is located in <br />these defmed erosion hazard areas and what its value is. It will be up to Congress to determine what <br />to do with the information from these studies, <br /> <br />. The National Flood Insurance Program should be modified to provide an insurance policy benefit <br />for coastal erosion and mudslides only where those hazards are clearly mapped and regulated. <br /> <br />· One option the ASFPM favors is an erosion hazard surcharge on National Flood Insurance <br />Program policies if the areas subject to erosion can be accurately identified and mapped, <br /> <br />· Another approach would be the establishment of setback requirements for new construction and <br />substantial improvements to existing construction along eroding shorelines. Residential structures <br />would be allowed only if they are moveable, <br /> <br />COASTAL BARRIERS <br /> <br />In the early 1980s, both the folly of federal expenditures on hazardous coastal barriers and the <br />wisdom of leaving them in an undeveloped state were recognized, leading to adoption of the Coastal <br />Barrier Resources Act of 1982. This act prohibited direct and indirect federal assistance-flood <br />insurance, shoreline protection, water projects, highway and bridge subsidies, and other federal <br />incentives to development-within specified undeveloped coastal barriers. The barriers so designated, <br />along with those added since then, have become the protected Coastal Barrier Resources System. <br />Nevertheless, development continues on coastal areas outside the System, either without flood <br />insurance Or with private insurance, Also, there are continuous political efforts to have certain <br />designated barrier areas removed from the System so that development is not hindered by the lack <br />of federal subsidies, <br /> <br />· The standards set in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act need to be diligently enforced, and <br />protected areas should not be removed from the Coastal Barrier Resources System, <br /> <br />· Additional federal and state funds should be devoted to purchasing Or obtaining easements on <br />coastal barrier lands in order to minimize high-risk development. <br /> <br />ECONOMICS <br /> <br />The use of economic justification for pursuing flood control has had important, and perhaps <br />unintended, impacts on the way flood control is justified, In far too many cases we have allowed <br />economics as measured by the National Economic Development standard or determined according <br />to a benefit/cost ratio to become the bottom-line indicator of the feasibility of any project. While <br />clearly economics must playa role in the decisionmaking process, the policy evolution that has made <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-19- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />