From the ASFPM Chair, William S. "Bill" Nechamen - Published in the February 2015 issue of "News & Views"
whirlwind month it has been! No, I’m not talking about the four “storms if the
century” that have hit the East Coast in the past month. I’m talking about
major changes proposed for federal flood policy and budgets. You’ve probably
already heard about the President’s Executive Order 13690, which updates the
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard. Details about the new proposal are covered
in this issue of News & Views, including Executive Director Chad
is also putting proposed federal budget dollars where its mouth is. The
President’s proposed 2016 budget contains good news for flood mapping and
mitigation. This welcome change in budget priorities must be credited at least
in part to the hard work that ASFPM and its members have done over the years.
budgets were drastically cut for new flood mapping, resulting in maps that
remain hopelessly out-of-date, and even new maps that in many places do not
contain updated data. In order to provide a detailed analysis of the need to
continue investing in updating flood maps, ASFPM in 2013 published “Flood Mapping for the Nation: A
Cost Analysis for the Nation’s Flood Map Inventory.” The report concluded that a
minimum of $400 million per year over 10 years is needed to complete updating
the nation’s flood maps, with $116 million to $275 million per year required
after that to maintain the maps. ASFPM provided the report to key federal
officials and congressional staff. Yet, until this year, the administration has
been unwilling to request increased mapping budgets, in spite of the
establishment of a National Flood Mapping Program with an authorization of $400
million a year from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.
authorization is not an allocation. However, it does make it easier to argue
for a full allocation. This year, the administration heard the recommendations
for increased mapping funding, and has requested $400 million in next year’s
budget. This is great news, but it isn’t the full story. Flood insurance fees
raise about $121 million that goes for mapping operating costs, including
review of Letters of Map Change. The $400 million includes those operating
costs, so it is really about a $279 million request for new mapping. Still, it
is a great leap in the right direction, and ASFPM members and staff who
advocated for this deserve much of the credit.
piece of very positive news in the President’s budget is a request for $200
million for Pre-Disaster Mitigation. PDM funds have historically been available
for cost-effective mitigation projects and hazard mitigation planning grants,
without the need for a disaster declaration. This has been essential to states
that, unlike my own, do not receive frequent disaster declarations. In recent
years, the administration has attempted to eliminate the PDM line item. Pressure
from ASFPM members has helped keep the budget line in Congress’s final budgets,
though at a minimum level of funding. Once a program goes away due to zero
funding, it usually does not come back. By keeping even a minimum level of
funding, it remained possible to increase funding for the program.
concept was to fold PDM into a National Preparedness Grant Program that would
have consolidated 16 FEMA grants into one. While it’s often a good thing to
streamline government programs, in this case it would be a disaster for natural
hazards grants. As then Executive Director Larry Larson testified in 2012: “Ultimately
the National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) and National Preparedness Goal
are aimed at readiness, not mitigation. While mitigation is a component of
readiness (as it is a component of response and recovery) readiness is not a
substitute for mitigation.” Essentially, natural hazard mitigation would have
to compete with terrorism preparedness for funding.
administration now understands that natural hazard planning and mitigation must
be recognized and supported on its own. As such, on behalf of the ASFPM Board
of Directors, I welcome the budget proposal, as well as the proposal for $175
million for Flood Mitigation Assistance grants.
believe that these positive developments would have happened without ASFPM
continuing, over several years, to provide reasoned and thoughtful analysis on