IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY –
FROM FEDERAL PROTECTION TO SHARED RISK REDUCTION
Major General Don Riley
US Army Corps of Engineers
Responsibility
for flood risk management in the United States is a shared responsibility
between multiple Federal, State, and local government agencies with a complex
set of programs and authorities. Nationally, both the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have
programs to assist states and communities in reducing flood damages and
promoting sound flood risk management. The authority to determine how land is
used in floodplains and to enforce flood-wise requirements is entirely the
responsibility of state and local government. Floodplain management choices
made by state and local officials, in turn, impact the effectiveness of federal
programs to mitigate flood risk and the performance of federal flood damage
reduction infrastructure. One key challenge is to ensure that as the public and
government leaders make flood risk management decisions, they integrate
environmental, social, and economic factors and consider all available tools to
improve public safety. Importantly, we must ensure the public is educated both
as to the risks they face and actions they can take to reduce their risks. Because
of this complex arrangement of responsibilities, only a life cycle,
comprehensive and collaborative systems approach will enable communities to
sustain an effective reduction of risks from flooding.
Where we
are now – “The government will protect us.”
Individual
agency processes and procedures typically have provided the venue for planning
and implementation of flood damage reduction measures. The present process to
engage the Corps of Engineers is on a project-by-project basis, even though the
Corps has made advances in incorporating collaborative approaches and assessing
alternatives in a watershed context. Traditionally, the Corps focuses on
reducing flood damages by managing floods that cause damage largely by
decreasing the probability of flooding. The Corps develops alternatives based
on reducing known potential flood damages, with minimal consideration of future
land use or other social effects. Additionally, the Corps infrequently assesses
options to reduce consequences should a failure occur. Whether communities
strive for 1% level of protection or greater, the present process drives
decisions based on reducing the potential for failure or reducing flood damages
and does not incorporate an assessment of localized risks and consequences. Figure
1 is an example of the present paradigm – a system based on an appropriate
“level of protection”, which provides credence to the notion that “the
government is responsible” and “therefore, we are protected.” Complicating the
matter, many prudent costs share sponsors seek to limit their costs, which
drives some to seek to achieve only a level of protection whereby community
members will not be required to purchase flood insurance.
Figure 1 – Selecting Level of
Protection.
Where we
need to be – “We are all responsible for our safety.”
To
significantly improve public safety, we are pursuing a level of public
education at which our fellow citizens are so well informed they are able to
assume responsibility for decisions they make about where and how they want to
live and work. We then can engage in a comprehensive and multi-government and
private citizen collaborative process to managing flood risk to achieve levels
of tolerable risk. The Corps is expanding our traditional approach to focus on
the most effective combination of tools available that citizens may use to
lower or “buy down” their flood risk (as illustrated in Figure 2). We will
consider not only reducing the probability of flooding, but also reducing the
consequences should a flood occur. A multitude of options and tools becomes
more evident through the process of assessing the consequences of a flood.
Furthermore, the decision on which tools to implement involves all
stakeholders. For example, the Corps can help reduce risk by levee
construction. Whereas in a coordinated but independent action, local government
can further reduce flood risk by implementing flood plain management actions
such as evacuation plans, zoning ordinances, and public outreach.
This cannot be
achieved without a new paradigm of joint partnerships in a comprehensive
approach of public education and flood risk management. For instance, the
insurance industry has a similar goal of assessing hazards and therefore, there
exists an opportunity for the federal government and insurance industry to
leverage mutual efforts, such as in the areas of research and development,
implementation of assessment tools, and increase of public and policy-makers
awareness.
Figure 2 – Flood Risk
Management: All Stakeholders Contribute to Reduce Risk.
What we
are doing now
In May 2006,
USACE established the National Flood Risk Management Program (NFRMP) to take
the first step of bringing together other federal agencies, state and local
governments and agencies, and the private sector to develop and implement a
unified national flood risk management strategy that eliminates conflicts
between different flood risk management programs and takes advantage of all
opportunities for collaboration. Additionally, we are seeking partnerships with
those that best understand risk, such as banking and insurance industries to
share data and risk model development. We also wish to collaborate more closely
with business councils and developers so they understand local flood risks and
can assist us in public education campaigns.
An integral
part of the NFRMP is the Interagency Flood Risk Management Committee (IFRMC),
with core leadership from USACE, FEMA, Association of State Flood Plain
Managers (ASFPM), and the National Association of Flood and Stormwater
Management Agencies (NAFSMA). This committee will be expanded to include other
stakeholder groups, such as resource agencies. Through this process,
organizational leadership should use or change, when practicable, existing
policies and programs to transition into a comprehensive and shared process of
lowering or “buying down” flood risks. As the transition occurs, the IFRMC
should identify and recommend necessary administrative, policy, and legislative
changes for complete implementation of the collaborative risk-informed decision
process for managing flood risks.
Original Document
