FLOOD07236 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

432 ROGER A. PIELKE, JR. not be one such area. While it is at the state, local, and individual level that many decisions will be made to reduce v~lnerabilily to floods, an effective long-term so. lution to the U.S. flood problem will necessarily require some form of coordination at the scale of the river basin. This is for the simple reason that no flood-vulnerable community can effectively address its flood problem without having its response affect other communities both up and down stream. As one assesses the interaction of communities. one find's that the largest unit of analysis that can be considered without concern for community interaction is the river basin. e.g., the Mississippi river basin. Consequently, coordination is required between communities within a particular basin or sub-basin: because communities and r.iver basins span lo~al, state, and Federal jurisdictions, some Form of regional or nauonallevel cooperation is unavoidable. While cooperation, in theory, appears unavoidable, in practice it has in many respects been avoided. White (1991, VI-2) notes that 'cooperation among the ad- ministrators of Federal programs, while generally cordial and helpful, has not yet yielded a genuinely unified effort. Lacking exemplary effecti~eness ~t that I.evel, State and local agencies cannot be expected to act in concord In meeting national goals'. A need for federal leadership in flood policy has been long recognized (e.g., CPW. 1959). Yet, although there has been progress with respect to responding to the U.S. flood problem, many observers continue to identify a need for improved coordination and leadership at the federal level (e.g., White, 1991; Myers and White, 1993; Kusler and Larson, 1993; Rasmussen, 1994; Galloway, 1995; Faber and Hunt. 1996: Wright. 1996), Calls for changes in federal flood policy are seemingly paradoxical be~ause th.ey identify a need to be simultaneously more comprehensive and more localized, with a focus on individual and community responsibility (Kusler and Larson, 1993). The seeming paradox vanishes upon closer scrutiny: 'individuals. not the government, must assume responsibility for their locational decisions, and future government policies must stand firm over time to seek such an approach~ (Changnon, 199?, p. 313). In important respects, the federal government ~stabllsh~s. the context In which individual, local, state, and other public and private deCISions related to floods will be made. For instance. recent claims that generous flood relief poli- cies are 'moving the country in the opposite direction from which many feel th~y should go' point to the incentives lOward abdication of individual and com.muOlty responsibility that such policies create (Wright, 1996. p. 271).. Just as policy can create an unhealthy context for flood-related decision making, tt can also create .a healthy context, in which individuals and communities will strive to reduce their own flood vulnerabilities. NINE FALLACIES OF FLOODS 433 3. Conclusion: I~pl.ement~n.g What We Know. How might the U.S. reach a healthy federal flood policy? Knowledge of what might be done is available, yet remains to be put to effective use. Not surprisingly, Gilbert White (1991) provides guidance in this regard worth repeating and difficult to improve upon: First, 'unless a strong statement is made by the Congress on the ways in which the basic policies of the individual Federal agencies are to be related to the un- derlying aims in managing floodplain resources those policies will have little sig- nificance in the field where they influence or are constrained by State and locj!1 practices' (White. 1991, p. VI-]). White further notes there has not been legislation passed by the Congress stating clearly the overarching goals of U.S. flood policy. There is no lack of ideas for what such goals ought to be (recently. e.g.. Myers and White, 1993: Kusler and Larson, 1993; FIFMTF, 1994; IFMRC, 1994; Shabman, 1994: Philippi. 1994/95; Faber and Hunt, 1996: Wright. 1996), A national debate, resulting in federal legislation delineating both the dimensions of the U.S. flood problem and the steps needed to address it, would be valuable both as an outcome and as a process. Such a debate would require leadership at the national level. Second, 'floodplain policy changes must be taken in the context of broad en- vironmental goals applied to local conditions' (White, 1991. p. VIA). The federal role in flood policy is not to specify in great detail how individuals and locales are to respond to particular situations. Instead. it is to provide a common framework within which communities and individuals will be able to exercise choice. The federal government is needed also to coordinate the voluminous meteorological. hydrological. demographic, ecological, economic and ocher societal information needed to understand human occupancy of a river basin .md floodplain. ]n addi- lion, it is the federal government that has the ability to evaluale the interaction effects of communities acting in parallel and in'series'in a particular'floodplain. Finally, it is the federal government that can establish and enforce statements of national interest in Iloodplain management. Policy change will not occur without broad suppor! for a process of formulation, promulgation. and implementation of a overarching vision of federal flood policy. Third, 'as new improvements are made in Federal programs. it would be impor- tant 10 cmft them on an experimental basis with careful provision for evaluation as they are launched' (White, 1991. p. VI-3). The value of such experimental programs is well documented (see, e.g., Brunner (1996) for a discussion). 'Unfor- tunately, little fonnal recognition has been given to "what works" at the state level' (BTFFDR, 1995, p. 37). Thus, more attention needs to be paid to why certain flood policies succeed or fail with respect to addressing the U.S. flood problem. With the improved understanding gained from experience and practical knowledge, policymakers will be in better position to replicate successes and terminate failures. Leadership, vision, and practical knowledge are easy to call for, but much more difficult (0 achieve in practice. However, without such an approach from national