Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the federal government should be solely responsible for the success of a program to make wise use <br />of floodplains, <br /> <br />Yet, due to the policy of the last 50 years, the federal government has been cast in that role. What <br />is lacking is the state and local ability to plan for, mitigate, and in general take responsibility for flood <br />hazards in their jurisdictions, That is why the ASFPM believes that incentives should be provided to <br />reward those who are taking initiative to break the cycle of development, damage, and redevelopment <br />at federal expense and instead build their capability to manage flood hazards and floodplain resources. <br /> <br />The optimal federal role would be (1) leadership, including appropriate laws and executive orders; <br />(2) maintaining solid data, including maps, stream gages, forecasts, flood damage data, and watershed <br />studies; (3) providing flood insurance and associated mechanisms; and (4) wielding appropriate <br />incentives and consequences to encourage individuals, communities, states, and the private sector to <br />take appropriate actions and decisions to reduce flood losses. Federal agencies must see their role not <br />as "doing" the planning and implementation of projects, but as facilitating the development of state <br />and local capability and programs, <br /> <br />· Public Assistance should be withheld from the damaged floodplain areas of communities not <br />enrolled in (or not in compliance with) the National Flood Insurance Program, Today there are <br />few, if any, economic sanctions for local govemments that fail to participate in the National Flood <br />Insurance Program, even though their failure makes their citizens ineligible for Individual <br />Assistance, federal home loans, and other services. In effect, the individual citizens are penalized, <br />while the municipality continues to get bailed out <br /> <br />· National standards should be developed for the design and placement of infrastructure to avoid <br />damage from flooding and other hazards, Communities that adopt these minimum standards <br />should receive increased Public Assistance. <br /> <br />· Federal financial assistance for flood losses should be based upon the individual's demonstrated <br />willingness to mitigate the risk The ASFPM believes that flood insurance is the best means of <br />accomplishing this, For example, those living in identified flood hazard areas should not receive <br />disaster assistance if a flood insurance policy was not in place at the time of the flood, Additional <br />mitigation grants should be made available to holders of flood insurance policies on primary <br />residences and commercial structures who take steps to mitigate their flood risk The premiums <br />on structures with repetitive losses and on those that are not primary residences should reflect the <br />actual risk <br /> <br />· Similarly, the non-federal share of disaster assistance costs should be reduced in communities <br />where state and local efforts are mitigating the flood hazard, Proposals before Congress have <br />suggested penalizing communities that do not achieve a minimum standard, but an incentive <br />program makes more sense both politically and from a public policy standpoint <br /> <br />· Federal incentives and programs for fanners like the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands <br />Reserve Program, and permanent easements, are vital fmancial assistance in the development of <br />sustainable uses for floodprone lands, These types of incentives should be continued and <br />generously supported, HigWy subsidized crop insurance and flood disaster payments on <br />floodprone agricultural lands are neither sustainable nor sensible. Agricultural properties subject <br /> <br />Association of State Floodplain Managers <br /> <br />-28- <br /> <br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000 <br />