|
<br />programs to purchase permanent easements like the Natural Resource Conservation Service's
<br />Wetland Reserve and Watershed Protection programs, In addition, the Administration should ask
<br />Congress to declare Flood Mitigation Assistance funds to be non- federal, because they are non-
<br />tax dollars, They are flood insurance policyholder dollars and, when considered as such, could
<br />be leveraged for more flood mitigation activities,
<br />
<br />. Explicit separate authorities for nonstructural flood protection projects should be developed. The
<br />inherent bias towards flood control in many agencies generally will skew proposed mitigation
<br />measures away from nonstructural alternatives, The 1999 Water Resources Development Act
<br />provided such authority to the Corps of Engineers under the Flood Mitigation and Ecosystem
<br />Restoration initiative, Similar authorities should be established for other agencies such as the
<br />Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S, Department of Housing and Urban
<br />Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation,
<br />
<br />. For nonstructural projects, land and easements should be considered part of the total project cost,
<br />not a local sponsor requirement Economics sometimes dictate that non-federal sponsors choose
<br />the alternative with the lowest non-federal cost Due to the high cost ofland in many areas, the
<br />large amount of land needed for some nonstructural projects, and the variations in how the cost
<br />of a project is shared, the alternative with the lowest non-federal cost is often a structural one,
<br />
<br />. Structural, nonstructural, and disaster assistance programs should all be based on the same, sliding
<br />cost-sharing formula for federal assistance, Under this concept, a minimum cost-share would be
<br />available to all, including communities without [mancial resources to undertake expensive
<br />projects, But the federal share would be increased for communities and states that engage in
<br />disaster-resistant activities beyond minimum criteria and that are implementing strong mitigation
<br />programs, such as mitigation planning, factoring hazards into the design and construction of new
<br />public infrastructure, requiring hazard disclosure in property transfers, creating economic
<br />incentives for retrofitting vulnerable buildings, adopting building codes, and identifYing and
<br />insuring at-risk public buildings, Under the current arrangement, assistance appears to go more
<br />freely to localities that have made little or no effort, because they sustain more damage,
<br />
<br />. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program's review and approval process is greatly improved under
<br />the "managing state" concept and in general. The ASFPM urges the Federal Emergency
<br />Management Agency to continue to improve and streamline this process, delegating as much as
<br />possible to the states, so that federal expertise and funds can be used more efficiently.
<br />
<br />DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND ASSISTANCE
<br />
<br />Historically, disaster programs in the United States have been directed at restoring people back to
<br />"normal" as quickly as possible, Unfortunately, in our rush to return people to normal, we have also
<br />restored them to their previous at-risk condition, It will always be necessary for the federal, state, and
<br />local govemments to have programs to administer assistance after disasters. The ASFPM believes
<br />that disaster aid and the post-disaster recovery period should be used as much as possible to
<br />encourage, facilitate, and reward actions that are lessening the potential damage from future floods,
<br />and building overall local sustainability.
<br />
<br />However, under many current policies, post-disaster rewards are still provided for those who did no
<br />mitigation before the disaster. In other cases, programmatic complexity or [mancial reality makes it
<br />
<br />Association of State Floodplain Managers
<br />
<br />-36-
<br />
<br />National Flood Programs in Review 2000
<br />
|