Federal Involvement in Flood Response and
Flood Infrastructure Repair:
Storm Sandy Recovery
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
October 31, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42803
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Summary
Storm Sandy was a reminder that the United States is vulnerable to significant weather hazards,
and that infrequent but intense flood events can cause significant damage and disruption. In
addition to wind damages and electricity disruptions, the storm’s surge damaged property and
infrastructure in coastal and inlet areas, while the storm’s rains and snowmelt swelled rivers and
creeks. These impacts contributed to public safety concerns and private and public property loss.
Although the storm was not notable for its wind intensity, Sandy’s significant size, its unusually
low atmospheric pressure, and the astronomic high tide combined with other weather systems to
amplify flooding consequences and economic and transportation disruptions. With events like
Storm Sandy, common questions for Congress include: Which federal programs can assist with
flood-fighting? Which federal programs can assist with repairing damaged dunes, levees, and
other flood protection? What are the policy and funding issues that may arise during recovery?
While state and local entities have significant flood-related responsibilities, federal resources are
called in as these entities are overwhelmed and as presidential disasters are declared. Several
agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, have authorities to respond to flood emergencies and to assist with recovery
efforts. FEMA has primary responsibilities for federal flood insurance, disaster assistance, and
hazard mitigation programs. In addition to its floodfighting authorities, the Corps has a program
to repair damaged levees, dams, berms, and other flood control works. Post-Sandy demand for
such repairs is likely to be extensive.
For work performed under some of the Corps authorities, a near-term issue may be that Congress
typically funds these actions using emergency supplementals. While current funding levels are
not likely to interfere with emergency response activities, federal funds may become an issue in
proceeding with post-disaster repair and recovery investments. After the emergency has passed
and recovery has been initiated, local and federal decision makers will be faced with questions of
how to rebuild and what types of flood protection investments to make. Federal policy makers
will be faced with the recurring questions of whether current flood policies and projects are
effective at reducing flood risk and are financially sustainable.
Storm Sandy in 2012, Midwest flooding in 2011 and 2008, Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in 2005 renewed congressional interest in the suite of tools available to improve
flood resiliency. A challenge is how to structure federal actions and programs so they provide
incentives to reduce flood risk without unduly infringing on private property rights or usurping
local decision making. Tackling this challenge would require adjustments to flood insurance,
disaster aid policies and practices, and programs for structural and nonstructural flood risk
reduction measures and actions. In July 2012, the 112th Congress enacted, as part of MAP-21
(P.L. 112-141), an extension and some revisions of FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program
through September 30, 2017. Otherwise, legislative action in recent years has done little to alter
the broad federal approach to the nation’s flood risk management.
Congressional Research Service
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Contents
Federal Flood Policy: A Primer ....................................................................................................... 1
Shared Flood Responsibilities ................................................................................................... 1
Federal Role and Agencies ........................................................................................................ 2
Status of Federal Flood Policy ................................................................................................... 2
Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................. 3
Flood Control Projects: Federal Emergency and Post-Disaster Roles and Activities ...................... 4
Responsibilities Shared Between Federal Agencies .................................................................. 4
FEMA: Emergency Flood Fighting ........................................................................................... 4
Corps: Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Authorities ..................................................... 5
Emergency Response .......................................................................................................... 5
Repair of Flood Control Projects ........................................................................................ 5
Beyond Sandy: Flood Policy Challenge .......................................................................................... 8
Tables
Table 1. FEMA and Corps Authorities for Locally Operated Flood Damage Reduction
Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 9
Congressional Research Service
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
n late October 2012, Storm Sandy developed into a large weather system affecting both
coastal and interior portions of the East Coast, including major population centers like New
IYork City and smaller centers like Atlantic City, NJ. In addition to the wind damage and
electricity disruptions to 8 million customers in the Northeast,1 the storm’s surge damaged public
and private property and infrastructure in coastal and inlet areas, while the storm’s rains and
snowfall swelled rivers and creeks. Although the storm was not notable for its wind intensity, the
storm’s significant size, its unusually low atmospheric pressure, and the astronomic high tide
combined with other weather systems to amplify coastal, river, stream, and local flooding. This
flooding disrupted transportation, business, and government operations and created public safety
concerns that necessitated voluntary and emergency evacuations.
The storm also caused extensive damage to locally operated flood control projects. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers has a program to assist with repairs of these projects. While availability
of funding is not likely to interfere with emergency response activities, federal funding may
become an issue in the Corps’ ability to perform repairs. Additionally, as recovery proceeds,
Congress may be faced with questions about the efficacy of current federal approaches and
participation in hurricane protection (and the relationship of these issues to mandatory flood
insurance) and a reevaluation of how federal programs and policies influence coastal
development.
This report first provides a primer on federal flood policy. The remainder of the report describes
the federal role in emergency flood response and post-disaster repair and rehabilitation of flood
protection measures. This report will help answer the following questions: Which federal
programs can assist with floodfighting? Which federal programs can assist with repairing
damaged dunes, levees, and flood control works? What are the flood policy and funding issues
that may arise during recovery from Storm Sandy?
Federal Flood Policy: A Primer2
Shared Flood Responsibilities
In the United States, flood-related responsibilities are shared: local governments are responsible
for land use and zoning decisions that shape floodplain and coastal development, while state and
federal activities influence community and individual decisions on managing flood risk. State and
local governments largely are responsible for making decisions (e.g., zoning decisions) that allow
or prohibit development in flood-prone areas. Local and some state entities construct, operate,
and maintain most flood control measures such as levees, floodwalls, coastal dunes, and seawalls.
1 U.S. Department of Energy, Hurricane Sandy Situation Report #4, October 30 2012 (10:00 AM EDT), Washington,
DC, October 30, 2012, http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/2012_SitRep4_Sandy_10302012_1000AM.pdf. According to
the situation report, 2.4 million customers in New Jersey, 1.9 million in New York, and 1.3 million in Pennsylvania had
lost electricity as well as others in 14 additional states and the District of Columbia.
2 For a list of CRS flood experts, see CRS Report R40882, Flooding Events: CRS Experts, by Amy Abel. For a list of
CRS hurricane experts, see CRS Report R40881, Hurricane Events: CRS Experts, by Nicole T. Carter.
Congressional Research Service
1
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Federal Role and Agencies
While local and state entities maintain primary flood responsibilities, the federal role is
significant. The federal government constructs many levees, floodwalls, and coastal dunes in
partnership with local project sponsors; local entities, however, are fully responsible for operation
and maintenance. The federal government also supports hazard mitigation, offers flood and crop
insurance, and provides emergency response and disaster aid for significant floods. Dams that can
serve flood control purposes have a wider variation in their ownership and operational
responsibilities, with the federal government having a primary role in many of the larger dams.
The principal federal agency involved in federal flood management investments and activities and
flood-fighting is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibilities for federal hazard mitigation,3 the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP),4 and disaster assistance. In addition to the Corps floodfighting
authorities, the Corps has a program to repair damaged levees, dams, berms, and other flood
control works. Post-Sandy demand for such repairs is likely to be extensive. A near-term issue for
actions under the Corps authorities is that their funding is often appropriated through emergency
supplementals.
Other federal agencies also are involved with flood-related activities, such as the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Department of the
Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the International Boundary
and Water Commission. Also, crop insurance and agricultural disaster assistance for flood
damages is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Other agencies, such as the U.S.
Geological Survey and the National Weather Service, provide data used in assessing flood risk.
Status of Federal Flood Policy
Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and compounded by concerns over the federal debt, interest has
increased in reducing the federal flood response’s reliance on emergency supplementals,
reevaluating the roles and divisions of flood responsibilities, addressing gaps in investments and
poorly addressed flood risk, and improving the incentives influencing decisions in flood-prone
areas. In July 2012, the 112th Congress enacted, as part of MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), an extension
and a number of modifications to FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program through September
30, 2017.5 Beyond the NFIP reauthorization, Congress has changed little in the federal flood
policies and programs since 2005.
3 For more on FEMA’s flood hazard mitigation activities, see CRS Report R40471, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program: Overview and Issues, by Natalie Keegan.
4 CRS Report R40650, National Flood Insurance Program: Background, Challenges, and Financial Status, by Rawle
O. King.
5 Notably absent from the reauthorization was mandatory flood purchase requirements for areas of residual risk—those
areas that are protected by flood control measures (e.g., levees, dunes) but face flood risk if these measures are
overwhelmed or fail. The NFIP does not differentiate between 100-year flood protection provided by a flood control
structure and flood protection resulting from natural topography and hydrology. Development behind levees and
downstream of dams providing 100-year flood protection is not designated as being in a “special flood hazard area,”
thus freeing occupants from flood insurance requirements. This approach largely presumes that levees, dams, and other
flood control structures will not fail, when their presence does not entirely eliminate an area’s vulnerability to flooding.
Congressional Research Service
2
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Flood Risk
Storm Sandy was a reminder that, although forecasting and emergency response have improved
over time and investments have been made in flood and hurricane risk reduction measures,
significant flood risk remains. Significant storms can cause flooding in areas that are outside the
100-year floodplain (i.e., the area with a 1% probability of flooding annually) or cause storm
surges that have a low probability of occurring but cause extensive damages. Significant storms
can produce flooding that exceeds the ability of levees, floodwalls, seawalls, and dunes to protect
the lives and investments behind them.
Storm Sandy, like Hurricane Katrina, demonstrated that not only property damage but also
significant risks to life, economic disruption, and other social hardships occur during floodwaters
and storm surge. Flood risk is a composite of three factors:
• threat of an event (e.g., probability of a 10-foot storm surge in New York City);
• vulnerability, which allows a threat to cause consequences (e.g., level of
protection provided by levees and dams, their reliability, and location within a
floodplain or on a coast);
• consequence of an event (e.g., property damage, loss of life, economic loss,
environmental damage, reduced health and safety, and social disruption).
Generally, flood risk grows with more development and population in flood-prone areas.6 A range
of options are available for reducing this risk, but some level of flood risk will always remain.
Ex-post analysis of Storm Sandy will help inform understanding of how the storm’s surge and
flood hazard compared to previous storms and how they compare to models of future conditions,
including under climate change scenarios.7 Significant debate continues about whether hurricane
threats to the United States are changing; treatment of this topic is beyond the scope of this report.
6 The principal causes of floods in eastern states and the Gulf Coast are hurricanes and storms. Coastal counties are
17% of the land area, and home to roughly 50% of the country’s population and jobs. Flooding in the Midwest and
western states is primarily from snowmelt and rainstorms. At least 9 million homes and $390 billion in property are at
risk from a flood with a 1% annual probability of occurring. These estimates are a lower bound from the January 1997
FEMA report, FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (MHIRA), available at http://www.fema.gov/
library/viewRecord.do?id=2214. The magnitude of flood events traditionally has been measured by recurrence
intervals, or the likelihood of a flood of a particular size occurring during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period.
Respectively, these events have a 10%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2% chance of being equaled or exceeded during any year.
7 Some analyses that are likely to inform understanding of the frequency of storm surges like those seen with Storm
Sandy were already underway. Prior to Storm Sandy, FEMA was preparing assessments of the storm surge and wave
threat to New York City as part of a larger effort covering 19 coastal counties in New York and New Jersey and 9
counties in the Hudson River valley. This was part of the agency’s efforts to utilize improved data (e.g., LIDAR data)
and modeling for producing the maps that support the NFIP. New maps for the area were anticipated for May 2013; the
assessment’s approach is described in FEMA Region II, Introduction to Risk Map NYC Coastal Study, October 18,
2012, https://www.rampp-team.com/documents/newyork/Intro_to_NYC_Coastal_Study_10-18-2012.pdf. The
assessment is using past storms to model the present and future storm surge threat (FEMA, Redefinition of the Coastal
Flood Hazard Zones in FEMA Region II: Analysis of the coastal Storm Surge Flood Frequencies: Summary and
Background of Restudy, August 2011, Redefinition of the Coastal Flood Hazard).
Congressional Research Service
3
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Flood Insurance and Low-Probability Flood Events
U.S. federal flood policies and programs are structured around managing the impacts of the more common flood
events, and often are challenged by low-probability (or even medium-probability) but high-consequence events. In the
United States, the 1% annual chance flood, more commonly known as the 100-year flood or storm surge, is a
standard often used as a basis for identifying, mapping, and managing flood hazards. For example, the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) and most state and local governments use location in the 100-year floodplain or similar
coastal zone inundation areas as triggers for various requirements. The adoption of the 100-year flood standard in
many respects guides perceptions of what is an acceptable level of vulnerability. The 100-year flood standard is a
vulnerability standard, and not a risk standard. Thus, the question of whether the 100-year flood standard combined
with current threat and consequence information results in an acceptable level of risk remains largely unaddressed.
This question is especially relevant for low-probability, high-consequence events such as those hitting a major urban
center.
The attempt to provide at least 100-year flood protection often drives local floodplain management and infrastructure
investments, resulting in a measure of equity within and across communities. That equity in vulnerability, however,
results in uneven levels of risk, because flooding of different communities has different consequences, such as
differences in the potential loss of life, social disruption, structures damaged, and economic impact due to variations in
land use and development patterns.
Flood Control Projects: Federal Emergency and
Post-Disaster Roles and Activities
Responsibilities Shared Between Federal Agencies
The two principle agencies involved in flood control projects, repair of those projects, and flood
fighting are FEMA and the Corps, as shown in Table 1. The Corps performs considerable flood
control construction and damage repair. In contrast, FEMA’s role in flood control projects is more
limited, but its role is significantly broader in coordinating overall federal activities that assist
states, communities and individuals with emergency flood response and recovery.
Table 1. FEMA and Corps Authorities for
Locally Operated Flood Damage Reduction Projects
Federal Study and
Operation &
Emergency
Repair of
Agency Constructiona
Maintenance
Flood Fighting
Damage
Improvements
FEMA
Authority unclear No authority
Stafford Act
Authority uncleara Authority uncleara
(42 U.S.C. 5170a)
Corps Congressionally No authority
Emergency
Rehabilitation and
No authority
authorized actions
response
Inspection Program
authority
(33 U.S.C. 701n)
(33 U.S.C. 701n)
Source: CRS Report R41752, Locally Operated Levees: Issues and Federal Programs, by Natalie Keegan et al..
a. 42 U.S.C. 4104c provides FEMA with the authority to undertake flood mitigation activities. It is unclear to
what extent such authority would extend to locally operated levees within the regulatory constraints of the
prohibition on duplication of federal programs, including Corps and NRCS programs.
Congressional Research Service
4
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
FEMA: Emergency Flood Fighting
The Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b) authorizes FEMA to direct the Department of the Defense
(including the Corps) and other federal agencies to use its resources to provide assistance in the
event of a major disaster or emergency declaration by the President.8 When a disaster occurs and
a state is granted federal disaster assistance under the Stafford Act, funding under the Public
Assistance program may be available to reimburse communities for flood-fighting activities and
emergency repairs made to eligible infrastructure.9 Generally, Public Assistance program funds
are limited to restoring a structure to its pre-disaster condition; projects to construct new flood
control measures or enhance existing measures are not eligible.
Corps: Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Authorities
In P.L. 84-99 (33 U.S.C. § 701n), Congress gave the Corps emergency response authority that
allows the agency to fight floods and other natural disasters. In this same law, Congress also gave
the Corps the authority for a program to repair damaged flood control works. Both of these
activities are discussed below in more detail. Limited appropriations for these Corps activities
generally are included in the annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts as part of
the agency’s civil works budget (e.g., $0 in FY2011 appropriations, $27 million in FY2012
appropriations). However, Congress generally appropriates the majority of funds for this work
through emergency supplemental appropriations, ranging from $1.7 billion following Katrina to
no funds in some years.10
Emergency Response
As previously noted, Congress gave the Corps specific emergency flood authorities in P.L. 84-99.
Congress authorized the Corps to conduct disaster preparedness, advance measures, and
emergency operations (disaster response and post-flood response), emergency dredging, and
flood-related rescue operations. These activities are limited to actions to save lives and protect
improved property (i.e., public facilities and services, and residential or commercial
developments). Congress has also authorized the Corps to provide this emergency response
assistance for up to 10 days following an emergency and before a presidential declaration of an
emergency.
Repair of Flood Control Projects
The Corps is the principal agency that assists with repairs to damaged flood control works, like
dams, levees, and dunes. These repair and rehabilitation activities are undertaken after the peak of
a flood event has occurred and the extent of damage from the flood event can be determined.
8 For more on FEMA disaster assistance broadly, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy.
9 42 U.S.C. § 5172(b). For a description of the eligible types of infrastructure, see CRS Report R41752, Locally
Operated Levees: Issues and Federal Programs, by Natalie Keegan et al.
10 Although the Corps’ account paying for these activities may receive some appropriations in the annual Energy and
Water Development appropriations acts, the initial appropriation is often supplemented with emergency appropriations
specific to the emergency being addressed.
Congressional Research Service
5
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Funding for Repairs
Through its Rehabilitation and Inspection Program (RIP), the Corps provides for rehabilitation of
damage to flood control projects and federally constructed hurricane or shore protection projects
and related inspections. The program’s repair of damaged facilities following large flood events
has historically been funded largely through emergency supplementals. For smaller RIP repairs,
the Corps often attempts to fund repairs within its existing funding. For example, in December
2011, the program received $388 million for repairs mainly associated with 2011 Midwest
flooding as part of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-77), and in 2008, the
program received $740 million largely for repairs in response to Midwest flooding through the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). At times, some eligible repairs have been
delayed due to limitations on the availability of funds.
Eligibility and Cost-Share for Repairs
To be eligible for rehabilitation assistance, the flood control project must be in active status with
the RIP program at the time of the damage by wind, wave, or water action that is beyond
ordinary.11 The following types of works are eligible for inclusion in RIP:
• non-federally or federally constructed, locally maintained levees and floodwalls;
and
• federally authorized and constructed hurricane and shore protective measures
(e.g., dunes, berms, and sacrificial beaches).
For locally constructed projects, the cost to repair the damage is paid 80% by the Corps and 20%
by the nonfederal entity. For federally constructed projects, the repair cost is entirely a federal
responsibility (except for the costs of obtaining the sand or other material used in the repair).
Many of the hurricane protection projects damage by Storm Sandy were federally constructed.
For RIP assistance, the repair must have a favorable benefit-cost ratio; this calculation does not
include recreation benefits, which may be significant for some coastal projects. Rehabilitation
assistance is limited to repair or restoration of the project to its pre-disaster level of protection; no
betterments or levee setbacks are allowed. Nonfederal entities are required to assume any
rehabilitation cost of damage to an active project that is attributable to deficient maintenance. For
hurricane storm damage reduction projects, actions eligible for RIP must address an issue critical
to the functioning of the project. Depending on the condition of the measure and the timing,
nourishment may be planned for immediately as part of a RIP effort or it may occur later as part
of the regular nourishment of the project.
11 33 U.S.C. 701n. For more information on RIP, see USACE, Engineer Regulation 500-1-1, Emergency Employment
of Army and Other Resources Civil Emergency Management Program, available at http://140.194.76.129/publications/
eng-regs/. Eligibility is also limited to locally constructed and maintained levees and floodwalls that provide either a
minimum of a 10-year level of flood protection, or a minimum of a five-year level of protection to an agricultural area.
Local levee owners request that the Corps consider their levee to be included in the RIP. To keep an active RIP status,
the nonfederal entity is required to maintain the project properly, such as controlling encroachments into the
foundation, and managing vegetation and erosion. The sufficiency of the maintenance is determined during an annual
or semi-annual inspection by the Corps, with the nonfederal entity taking actions to address any identified deficiencies.
Congressional Research Service
6
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Improvements Beyond Repairs
A common issue that arises under RIP (as well as for FEMA mitigation programs discussed later)
is interest in not only repairing levees but also improving them. Congress expressly restricted RIP
funds to repair. The program is not designed to evaluate the federal interest in investments to
further reduce the flood risk at a location.
If federal participation is sought to increase protection, the typical route would be to pursue a
study by the Corps to initiate a separate flood damage reduction project. Historically, Congress
often has authorized Corps studies and at times construction projects for flood-damaged
communities soon after significant storms; at times, these authorizations have been included in
appropriations bills. Standard procedure, however, is for Congress to authorize Corps studies in a
resolution of the authorizing committee or a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). Since
2010, congressional action on committee resolutions for Corps studies, WRDA bills, and Corps
appropriations have been complicated by earmark moratoriums.12
Coastal Protection and Development Debate
Many coastal communities affected by Storm Sandy in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York received
assistance in reducing their vulnerability to coastal storms through federal investments in Corps hurricane protection
projects. Many of these projects were designed to use sand dunes, berms, and beaches to reduce storm surge
damage, and for the Corps to regularly replenish the sand in order to maintain the protective works.
These types of projects have received some critical attention in recent years, which may complicate the congressional
debate around repair of the existing projects and authorization of similar projects. Some taxpayer advocates oppose
further federal funding for these projects; they argue that the protection benefits are temporary and poorly
documented, and that the primary beneficiaries often are private property owners and recreational interests. Annual
federal funding for these activities have totaled to roughly $900 million for the last decade. This has made federal
beach nourishment subject to proposed cuts. Other stakeholders are concerned that these projects increase the risk
to lives and property and decrease participation in flood insurance programs; that is, because of protection against
more frequent storms, communities behind these projects intensify development and underestimate their risk.
Supporters of these projects counter that the projects have undergone the same benefit-cost analyses as other Corps
projects to justify the federal investment, that these projects protect existing communities and infrastructure, and that
recent projects have performed technical y wel when assessed after storms in 2004. Other countries, such as the
Netherlands, also use coastal dunes and sand placement to provide protection; however, these measures are
general y employed for less populated areas and are exposed to less intense storms than many U.S. coastal reaches.
A systematic and independent analysis of actual life-cycle expenditures and benefits of these coastal projects has not
been performed. Consequently, decision makers have little authoritative information based on historic performance
with which to analyze the fiscal payoff of future federal investments in similar coastal measures. Storm Sandy may
provide a particularly useful opportunity to evaluate how wel these hurricane protection projects performed,
because different parts of the coast may have seen storm surges below what the measures were designed to
withstand, while others experienced surges that exceeded the measures’ designs. It also may represent an
opportunity to assess how wel policies (e.g., Corps requirements for land use plans for nonfederal project sponsors)
and investments in different locations are managing coastal flood risks.
Sources: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Co-Chairs' Proposal: 200 Billion in Illustrative
Savings, Washington, DC, November 12, 2010; Office of Senator Tom Coburn, Washed Out to Sea: How Congress
Prioritizes Beach Pork Over National Needs, Congressional Oversight & Investigation Report, Washington, DC, May
2009; Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sliding Past Sequestration: Two Trillion in Common Sense Cuts to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff,
Washington, DC, October 2012; American Shore & Beach Preservation Association, How Beach Nourishment Projects
Work, Washington, DC, 2007.
12 CRS Report R41243, Army Corps of Engineers Water Resource Projects: Authorization and Appropriations, by
Nicole T. Carter and Charles V. Stern.
Congressional Research Service
7
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Beyond Sandy: Flood Policy Challenge
Developing and investing in flood-prone areas represents a tradeoff between the location’s
economic and other benefits and the exposure to a flood hazard. Storm Sandy in 2012, Midwest
flooding in 2011 and 2008, Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita renewed
interest in the suite of tools available to improve flood resiliency. In addition to oversight and
funding of emergency response activities, at issue for Congress is deciding on whether and how
to enact and implement feasible and affordable flood policies and programs to reduce flood risk.
The challenge is how to structure federal actions and programs so they provide incentives to
reduce flood risk without unduly infringing on private property rights or usurping local decision
making. Tackling this challenge would require adjustments in the flood insurance program,
disaster aid policies and practices, and programs for structural and nonstructural flood risk
reduction measures and actions.
Sandy-Damaged Private Properties: What’s Next?
During recovery from Storm Sandy, there are likely to be three primary types of damaged private properties:
•
Flooded properties with flood insurance. Generally, properties with government-backed mortgages
located within the area expected to be inundated during a 1% probability flood (often referred to as the100-year
floodplain) are required to purchase a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy.
•
Flooded properties without insurance that are mapped as being protected from the 1% probability
flood due to flood control structures. This second set of properties was the subject of congressional debate
earlier in 2012. These residual-risk properties would have been subject to mandatory flood insurance purchase
requirements if a provision of the NFIP reauthorization bill as reported in the Senate (§107 of S. 1940) had been
included in the NFIP reauthorization bill enacted as part of MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141) in July 2012. The provision,
however, was unlikely to have been in force at the time of Storm Sandy because implementation was contingent
on completion of a national residual-risk mapping effort.
•
Flooded properties without insurance because mapped as outside the 1% probability flood due to
geography and hydrology (i.e., without the help of flood control structures).
The availability of limited federal assistance or loans to repair flood damage to uninsured properties depends on the
specifics of the presidential disaster declaration for the area. Storm Sandy may change some stakeholders’ views of
the benefits of flood insurance and the policy debate about addressing residual risk if a significant number of damaged
properties receive no or little federal assistance. These positions also may be shaped by perceptions of the probability
of future storms producing similar flooding.
For more information on residual risk and the NFIP, see CRS Report R41056, Mandatory Flood Insurance Purchase in
Remapped Residual Risk Areas Behind Levees, by Rawle O. King. For more information on disaster declaration and
assistance, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
8
Federal Involvement in Flood Response and Flood Infrastructure Repair
Author Contact Information
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
Congressional Research Service
9