Nội dung

3 Federal Mitigation Programs Collateral Stimulus to Reducing the Impacts of Climate Change in our Communities Introduction To date, the federal government has taken an inconsistent approach to dealing with the issues and impacts of climate change. Although it has provided considerable support to investigating and analyzing the issues surrounding climate change, it has been less aggressive in promoting policies and programs that specifically address the impacts of climate change. Instead, certain federal programs designed to support risk reduction, or mitigation of natural hazards, when implemented have demonstrated collateral and unintended benefits in addressing the impacts of climate change on our communities. These programs clearly illustrate that implementing certain mitigation actions in a community will reduce the impacts of future disasters aggravated by climate change. Federal policy makers have not promoted the connection of these ­mitigation programs as a potential remedy to climate change. This oversight needs to be corrected. The fact that climate change adds to the severity and frequency of natural disasters provides additional impetus for taking mitigation actions before the next disaster. And an equally ­compelling case can be made that the mitigation actions taken now will impede the impact of climate change in the future. Making this two-for-one case to 51 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management community leaders makes economic sense and provides coverage for community leaders that they are addressing the more immediate and politically salient issue of climate change. The intent of this chapter is to discuss several current and past community-based federal mitigation programs administered by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), now a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and their collateral influences on reducing the impact of climate change. The programs that will be examined include the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Property Acquisitions program, and Project Impact: Building a Disaster Resistant Community. In the case of the NFIP, we will explore the controversy surrounding the costs and benefits to communities of participating in the NFIP. The NFIP has been described, on the one hand, as mitigating the future risks from climate change through good floodplain management, and on the other hand, as offering low-cost insurance, which fosters development in coastal areas that exacerbates the impact of climate change. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Help or Hindrance Jane Bullock Jane A. Bullock is a partner in Bullock & Haddow, LLC, disaster management consulting firm and is an adjunct professor at the Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management at The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Ms. Bullock has over 25 years of private and public-sector experience culminating in responsibility as chief of staff for the daily management and operations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency responsible for disaster­ prevention, response, and recovery. Since leaving FEMA, Ms. Bullock has worked with a variety of organizations to design and implement disaster management and homeland security programs including the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the New York Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Science Transportation Research Board, DRII International, and county and municipal governments throughout the United States. The NFIP is considered to be one of the most successful mitigation programs ever created. The NFIP was created by Congress in response to the 52 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Federal Mitigation Programs Figure 3.1 Sulphur, LA, January 26, 2006. Ellie Newby talks with FEMA mitigation specialists Braden Allen and John Ormsby and NFIP specialist Tom McDermott about wind-proofing hardware repairs at this mitigation display at Lowe’s Building supplies. FEMA puts these mitigation displays in public places to give people who need to build or rebuild choices in making a better building that will resist damage better. MARVIN NAUMAN/FEMA photo. damages from multiple, severe hurricanes and inland ­flooding and the rising costs of disaster assistance after these floods. At that time, flood insurance was not readily available or affordable through the private insurance market. Because many of the people being affected by this flooding were low-income residents, Congress agreed to subsidize the cost of the insurance so the premiums would be affordable. The idea was to reduce the costs to the government of disaster assistance through insurance. The designers of this program, with great insight, thought the government should get something for their subsidy. So in exchange for the low-cost insurance, they required that communities pass an ordinance directing future development away from the floodplain. The NFIP was designed as a voluntary program and, as such, did not prosper during its early years, even though flooding disasters continued. Then in 1973, after Hurricane Agnes, the legislation was modified significantly. The purchase of federal flood insurance became mandatory on all federally backed loans. In other words, anyone buying a property with a Veterans Administration (VA) or Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan had to purchase the insurance if the property was in a flood 53 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management Figure 3.2 Pensacola, FL, December 8, 2004. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) representative Carl Watts (right) speaks on-air with WUWF News Director Sandra Everhart about the NFIP program for residents of the Pensacola area, many of whom were affected by Hurricane Ivan. FEMA Photo/Mark Wolfe. prone area. Citizen pressure to buy the insurance caused communities to pass ordinances and join the NFIP. The NFIP helped the communities by providing them with a variety of flood-hazard maps to define their flood boundaries and set insurance rates. The 1993 Midwest floods triggered another major reform of the NFIP. This act strengthened the compliance procedures. It told communities that if they didn’t join the program, they would be eligible for disaster assistance only one time. Any further request would be denied. As a positive incentive, the act established a Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) fund for flood planning, flood-mitigation grants, and additional policy coverage for meeting the tougher compliance requirements such as building elevation. Over the years, the NFIP has created other incentive programs, such as the Community Rating System. This program rewards those communities that go beyond the minimum floodplain-ordinance requirements with reduced insurance premiums. It is easy to see the value and collateral benefit that the goals of the NFIP, that is, preserving and restoring floodplains, limiting development in flood-prone areas, and implementing better building standards, would have on reducing the impact of global climate change. While all this is true, some critics wonder if the NFIP is actually exacerbating the impact 54 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Federal Mitigation Programs of ­climate change, because it promotes people living in ­flood-prone areas, which means that more and more people are projected to be flooded because of sea-level rise by the 2080s. Wetlands, salt marshes, and ­mangroves are already being impacted by sea-level rise, and development has accelerated this process. Increased precipitation resulting from climate change will increase flooding in most areas. The argument can be made that if the NFIP were fulfilling its goals, the 25,000 or so communities that participate in the program would already be mitigating their flood risks and reducing the impact of global climate change by preserving wetlands, restoring the natural functions of the floodplains, and minimizing development in fragile coastal areas and other low-lying areas. In fact, there are clear illustrations of where the NFIP is accomplishing just that in communities across the United States. However, there are also examples of where communities have not enforced their NFIP ordinances, where coastal development occurred without NFIP insurance being made available, and where outdated flood maps allowed for unwise and unsafe development into floodplains. Some of these issues have been recently examined as part of ongoing efforts at evaluating the NFIP. In a study conducted for FEMA by the American Institutes for Research entitled “The Evaluation of the National Flood Insurance Program Final Report,” published in October 2006, evidence was cited as to the beneficial impacts that the NFIP has had in mitigation the flood risk, including: • An estimated 9,000 square miles of the nation’s most flood-prone land are protected from future development because they are delineated as floodways to allow for the unhindered conveyance of flood waters. • At least 6,000 acres of previously developed floodplain land have been returned to open space through purchasing and removing damage prone buildings. • Over $1 billion in flood damages are being prevented each year. However, important to dealing with the rising impacts of climate change, the study found that: • Most flood-prone areas are still subject to being developed in part because the NFIP has no strong provisions to guide development away from floodplains, even those with extreme flood hazards (coastal areas) or valuable natural resources. 55 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management Figure 3.3 Bown Brook, NJ, September 18, 1999. Darrell Potter Jr. returns home following the flooding in Bown Brook, NJ. Mr. Potter has flood insurance, home contents insurance, and vehicle insurance. Photo by Andrea Booher/FEMA News Photo. Photo Restrictions: Mandatory Photo Credit No fee for Photo. • Most natural and beneficial floodplain management functions in the United States are still subject to degradation by devel­opment, in part because the NFIP has not emphasized the protection of those functions and has few tools to help restore them once impaired. Another study prepared by Walter A. Rosenbaum and Gary W. Boulare entitled “The Developmental and Environmental Impact of the National Flood Insurance Program: A Summary Research Report” examined the availability of NFIP insurance and its implications for development that would be impacted by climate change. Among the findings in this study was that a “significant FEMA concern in understanding floodplain development is to characterize the importance of flood insurance, its availability, and its salience compared to other significant considerations in decisions to build or buy property in areas.” Their findings looked at 18 NFIP communities and the survey responses suggested the following: • A majority of community developers, floodplain ­administrators, and home owners considered property characteristics and floodinsurance availability to be among the most important factors in decisions about floodplain property ownership. 56 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Federal Mitigation Programs Figure 3.4 Baton Rouge, LA, March 4, 2006. (Left to right) Karl Smith, Joe Sloan, National Flood Insurance Program Specialists, and Leroy Ingram, Hazard Mitigation Advisor, compose a FEMA team reaching out to the public in a mitigation workshop located at Lowe’s Home Improvement Center. These workshops are designed to provide information on how to protect homes against future disasters. Robert Kaufmann/FEMA. Figure 3.5 Guerneville, CA. Having successfully raised their home after they lost nearly everything in the January 1997 floods, Robert and Karen Feldt now also carry NFIP insurance. Photo by Dave Gatley/FEMA. 57 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management • Property characteristics and the availability of flood insurance were more important than other factors in decisions about purchasing floodplain property. • While a majority of individuals living in or near a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) recognized their exposure to flood risk, most of these individuals perceived a much lower risk to their own property. • A large majority of flood-insurance policyholders in and near an SFHA thought it was relatively important to have flood insurance, but a majority would still purchase, build, or stay in an SFHA without flood insurance. These responses suggest that the availability of NFIP insurance at current premium rates may be an important consideration for some home owners in their decision to purchase floodplain property. However, the survey responses also imply that an absence of flood insurance does not appear a major deterrent to such property purchases, perhaps because many home owners perceive a relatively low probability of flood damage to their property. In looking at the impact of the NFIP and the prohibition of sale of NFIP insurance within the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS), which was created by Congress in 1982 to address problems caused by development in coastal barriers such as islands, spits, or mangrove trees that shield the mainland from the full force of wind, wave, and tidal energies, their findings were mixed: • Estimates of NFIP policies issued on CBRS units have been infrequent and major challenges currently exist in creating such estimates. The most recent available data estimates from 2002 show that no more than 4 percent of all CBRS structures — and ­probably considerably less — were NFIP insured. • Fragmentary, sometimes anecdotal evidence suggests that the prohibition of NFIP coverage on CBRS property might inhibit development or reduce the developmental rate when compared to comparable non-CBRS properties. CBRS development is more likely to be constrained when state and local governments collaborate in the process. Available evidence also suggests that many CBRS units have developed, often quite extensively, despite the absence of NFIP insurance. Market forces appear to be an increasingly potent source of developmental pressure on CBRS units as 58 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Federal Mitigation Programs Figure 3.6 Bay St. Louis, MI, December 11, 2007. Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps are displayed at a flood map open house in Hancock County. The event kicks off community adoption of flood maps to meet requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Jennifer Smits/FEMA. undeveloped coastal barrier land becomes increasingly scarce. Finally, inferences about the NFIP’s possible impact on development based upon experience with development on the CBRS lands appear to be tenuous. There is no doubt that the NFIP does play a role in reducing the impact of climate change but it is also clear that it could do so much more. Both of the reports cited above present recommendations for improving the floodplain management and restoration sections of the program, for strengthening the enforcement of ordinances that inhibit building in hazardous coastal and low-lying areas, all of which are being impacted directly by climate change. It also calls for improved hazard mapping that reflects the changing impacts of climate. There is no indication that the administrators of the NFIP are moving quickly to adopt these recommendations. However, communities that are currently participating in the NFIP don’t need to wait for FEMA/NFIP to adopt these recommendations. They can use existing NFIP requirements for building ordinances and the insurance policy cost-savings incentives of the NFIP Community Rating System, which support restoration of the floodplains to adopt and enforce stronger flood mitigation measures that will help them to adapt now to the impacts of climate change and reduce their future losses from natural disasters. 59 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Global Warming, Natural Hazards, and Emergency Management Figure 3.7 Biloxi, MI, August 11, 2006. David Clukie and Peggy Johnson from the National Flood Insurance Program talk to visitors at the Governor’s Recovery Expo and tell them of the advantages of having flood insurance. Michelle MillerFreeck/FEMA. Property Acquisitions — The permanent form of hazard mitigation Fran McCarthy Fran McCarthy is currently an analyst in the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a part of the Library of Congress. He principally works on emergency-management policy issues, particularly those related to disaster recovery. He advises Congressional staff and members and works with his colleagues in the development and writing of analytical reports in response to Congressional requests. Prior to his work at CRS, he spent the majority of his career as a civil servant (1979 to 2006) at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). At FEMA he worked in a variety of positions, including manager of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (Title III of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act); liaison to the Senate Appropriations Committee; Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs; Chief of the Declarations Unit; and Policy Advisor to the Director of the Recovery Directorate. In 2003 he received a master’s degree from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (ICAF). He is a 1974 graduate of Kent State University. 60 © 2009 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC