About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 [1] (May 13, 2015)

handle is hein.crs/crsuntaafpx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Con ressional Research Service Inforn g th i~gi IaIiv~ debate ~n~e 191 S May 13, 2015 Coastal Flood Resilience: Policy, Roles, and Funds Congress and other policymakers are faced with how to cost-effectively reduce coastal flood risk. Issues include how to coordinate action and assign responsibilities for preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery; who bears the cost of impacts and long-term adjustments; and how to finance actions to improve coastal flood resilience. States largely determine whether the approach to coastal flooding is to protect (e.g., constructed dunes, gates), accommodate (e.g., elevate structures and infrastructure), or avoid and retreat (e.g., rolling easements that allow the shore to migrate inland). A state's approach can have implications for disaster resilience (including for public infrastructure), demand for federal assistance, and patterns and rates of recovery. Federal programs and policies can provide incentives or disincentives for nonfederal investment in coastal planning and risk reduction. The past decade has been marked by increased federal emergency funding for areas hit by coastal storms and increasing federal aid as a share of hurricane damages: 6% in 1955, 50% in 2005, 69% in 2008, and more than 75% in 2012 (see National Research Council, Reducing Coastal Risk, 2014). To what extent various federal programs and funds promote resilience (i.e., ability to recover from disruptions and adapt to changing conditions) is the subject of debate. Coastal Flood Development and Risk U.S. coastal development historically was dominated by urban areas with ports and defense installations, such as Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida; New York City/Newark, New York and New Jersey; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Virginia Beach, Virginia. More recently, smaller settlements have transformed into higher-density resorts and urban complexes. The resulting trend is for coastal flooding to threaten greater proportions of the nation's population, infrastructure, and investments. The flood hazard is shaped by a locale's meteorologic, hydrologic, and geologic conditions and by broader trends in sea levels and conditions. Flooding occurs with not only storms but also regular high tides that produce nuisance flooding. In 2014, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) identified nonlinear increases in coastal nuisance flooding. Flood vulnerability and consequences are shaped by land use and building code practices and investments in nonstructural protection (e.g., natural dunes, wetlands) and structural measures (e.g., barriers/gates, engineered dunes). Considerable variation exists across states and among local jurisdictions in the adoption, use, and enforcement of these measures. Variation also exists in the effort to maintain functional and intact wetlands and coastal forests as defenses from erosion and flooding. One 2014 study estimated the potential future economic impacts of storm surge and sea-level rise on U.S. coasts cumulatively during this century at $1 trillion (nominal 2005 dollars, undiscounted), assuming use of economically efficient protective responses (J. Neumann et al., Joint effects of storm surge and sea-level rise on U.S. Coasts: New economic estimates of impacts, adaptation, and benefits of mitigation policy, Climate Change, 2014). Awareness of flood risk and its long-term fiscal impact historically has proven insufficient to motivate pre-disaster land use changes and investments in mitigation and protection. Federal Assistance Most coastal flood-related federal spending since 2005 has consisted of emergency funds concentrated on storm- damaged areas, rather than competitively distributed. Support through the annual federal appropriations process typically has been for planning and technical assistance, with some cost-shared investment in mitigation and protection. For most years, annual spending for these activities has totaled less than $200 million nationally for agencies with related missions: NOAA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), as described below. State and local spending data on coastal flood activities is not available. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA's primary role in coastal resilience has been to support planning and provide technical assistance, traditionally through Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) activities and more recently through the Digital Coast initiative. The CZMA concentrates on protecting, restoring, and developing coastal communities and resources. Under CZMA's voluntary program, coastal states and territories develop management plans. Once these plans are federally approved, states become eligible for grants, and federal actions in the coastal zone are required to be consistent with state plans. Managing development in high-hazard areas is a key element of most state plans. Coastal resilience has become one of NOAA's funding priorities, and CZMA grant program funding is used to support state efforts to reduce damages caused by coastal hazards ($17 million in FY2014). In 2015, NOAA established the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants program to build community, ecosystem, and economic resilience, and it requested $50 million for the program in FY2016. NOAA uses Digital Coast and its partnerships to provide state and local coastal managers with data, mapping services, training, and case studies. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA's most prominent roles in coastal resilience are through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (which is funded based on a formula derived from individual declared www.crs.gov 17-57D(