FLOOD09407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...---"-.--..- -. Federal, State, Tribal and Local Floodplain Management The Review Committee examined the structure of current federal programs, relationships among federal, state, tribal and local governments, the performance of various programs during and after the flood, and the after action reports stemming from these activities. The Review Committee reached the following conclusions: I , i I ,I ,! I, , i , . The division of responsibilities for floodplain management activities among and between federal, state, tribal, and local governments needs to be clearly defined. Within the federal system, water resources activities in general and floodplain management in particular need better coordination. State and local governments must have a fiscal stake in floodplain management; without this stake, few incentives exist for them to be fully involved in floodplain management. State governments must assist local governments in dealing with federal programs. The federal government must set the example in floodplain management activities. . The National Flood Insurance Program (NFlP) needs improvement. Penetration of flood insurance into the target market -- floodplain occupants -- is very low, 20-30 percent. Communities choosing not to patticipate in the NFIP continue to receive substantial disaster assistance. Provision of major federal disaster assistance to those without insurance creates a perception with many floodplain residents that purchase of flood insurance is not a worthwhile investment. The mapping program is underfunded and needs greater accuracy and coverage. Some requirements within the program that vary from disaster to disaster need stabilizalion. . The principal federal water resources planning document, Principles and Guidelines, is outdated and does not reflect a balance among the economic, social, and environmental goals of the nation. This lack of balance is exacerbated by a present inability to quantify, in monetary terms, some environmental and social impacts. As a result. these x I 'I it EXECUTIVE SUMMARY impacts are frequently understated or omitted. Many critics of Principles and Guidelines see it as biased against nonstructural approaches, . Existing federal programs designed to protect and enhance the floodplain and watershed environment are not as effective as they should be. They lack support, flexibility and funding, and are not well coordinated. As a result, progress in habitat improvement is slow. . Federal pre-<lisaster, response, recovery and mitigation programs need streamlining but are making marked progress. The nation clearly recognized the aggressive and caring response of the government to the needs of flood victims, but coordination problems that developed need to be addressed. Buyouts of floodprone homes and damaged lands made considerable inroads in reducing future flood losses. . The nation needs a coordinated strategy for effective management of the water resources of the upper Mississippi River Basin. Responsibility for integrated navigation, flood damage reduction and ecosystem management is divided among several federal programs. + . The current flood damage reduction system in the upper Mississippi River Basin represents $ loose aggregation of federal, local, and individual levees and reservoirs. This aggregation does not ensure the desired reduction in the vulnerability of floodplain activities to damages. Many levees are poorly sited and will fail again in the future. Without change in current federal programs, some of these levees will remain eligible for post-<lisaster support. Levee restoration programs need greater flexibility t" provide for concurrent environmental restoration. . The nation is not using science and technology to full advantage in gathering and disseminating critical water resources management information. Opportunities exist to provide information needed to better plan the use of the floodplain and to operate during crisis conditions.