FLOOD03237

• County: Statewide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Out of Harm's Way The Missouri Buyout Program
• Date: 1/8/1996
• Prepared For: CWCB
• Prepared By: State Emergency Management Agency
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration

the greatest level of autonomy in
program design.
Develop common procedures for
federal buyouts and mitigation
programs.
The Interagency Review Commit.
tee recommended that the "a federal
task force build on the Midwest
flood response to accomplish the
foIlowing objectives:

. Develop common policies and
procedures among agencies for
buyouts and provide for increased
flexibility in programs to respond to
the unique circumstances of a
disaster;

. Address compliance with NEP A,
applicable executive orders, historic
preservation requirements and other
federal mandates during multi.
agency buyouts;

. Design delivery systems to expe-
dite buyout decisions to be respon.
sive to disaster victims and minimize
duplication of assistance in instances
where properties are to be bought
out;

. Identify statutory and regulatory
barriers to buyouts and other mitiga-
tion actions and propose changes
where appropriate and

. Make recommendations on how
supplemental appropriations would
be channeled through a single
program such as the FEMA Section
404 Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program rather than being provided
through multiple agencies and
programs."

. Encourage the establishment of
state task forces to coordinate
buyouts and other hazard mitigation
activities.

This was a model which worked
weIl for the State of Missouri. It
allowed a vehicle through which
state and federal agencies could

work together. It also offered
communities the chance to develop a
consolidated proposal application
which sped the process of getting
money out to the people who needed
it. At the state level, the task forces
can coordinate future buyout pro.
grams and package FEMA funds
with other available state and federal
funds.
In fact, FEMA's Mitigation
Directorate (First Year Report)
points to several similar items as it
discusses its own accomplishments.

These include:

. development of FEMAlState
Memorandum of Understanding that
will provide mitigation funds for
certain classes of projects on an
expedited basis.

. development of a streamlined early
implementation strategy versus a
protracted and cumbersome
interagency team and reporting
process.

. integration of mitigation operations
across all front of federaVstate
district field office operations.

. use of administrative streamlining
to expedite the award of mitigation
grants.

The time has come to face the fact
that this Nation can no longer afford
the high costs of natural disasters.
We can 1W longer afford the eco-
nomic costs to the American tax-
payer. fWr can we afford the social
costs to our communities and
individuals.

.James L. Witt
Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Testimony before Congress. October
27. 1993

Conclusions

The ultimate success of the Missouri '
Buyout Program is proven time and
time again as a homeowner is
presented a check for his property.
Depending on the point of the view,
the program can be seen in one of
two ways. For the homeowner who
has received a buyout check, the
program is real and successful. For
the homeowner in temporary
housing. waiting for his or her
buyout check, the media hype is
simply verbiage. The State of
Missouri wants to complete both the
buyout and def1Wlition stages of the
Buyout Program by December 31.
1995. When all the homeowners
have received their checks, then and
only then can we absolutely say the
program is a success.
-Buck Katt. Missouri Buyout
Manager

Local communities must be
commended for their innovative
approaches to moving citizens out of
harm's way in the floodplain. In this
document, we saw how six commu-
nities saved over $30 mil1ion in
taxpayer doIlars.
The State of Missouri is proud of
the buyout program it developed and
its immediate success as evidenced
by the 1995 flood. It can serve as a
program model for other states
seeking to developing a large scale
hazard mitigation program.
In addition, the local communities
presented in this report are examples
of the range of local solutions which
have been developed in concert with
the state and federal government.
Tailored individually to the special
problems and resources of each
community, they illustrate the
creativity that local officials exhib.
ited in a time of emergency. These
examples show that local communi-
ties can. indeed, turn a crisis into an
opportunity.