Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

8 Shared Responsibility in Moving to Flood Risk Management
Pages 145-154

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 145...
... The National Flood Insurance Act also establishes the requirement for the development of a Unified National Program (UNP) for floodplain management.
From page 146...
... As noted in Chapter 2, the 2012 Biggert-Waters Act requires coordination between FEMA and USACE in the assessment of levees that exist in both programs: "information and data collected by or for the USACE under the Inspection of Completed Works Program is sufficient to satisfy the flood protection structure accreditation requirements." Since it appears that approximately 65 percent of NFIPaccredited and PAL levees are also in one of the USACE programs and subject to USACE risk-based inspections, it would not be efficient to establish two separate evaluation methodologies for ensuring the integrity of those levees. If FEMA chooses to continue its present approach for the analysis of other NFIP-accredited levees not in the USACE programs, levee owners and their engineers will be faced with two or more different approaches to analysis of levee integrity and risk.
From page 147...
... Furthermore, it would be useful for other federal agencies with interest in risk-based assessment of levees and floodwalls to be invited to participate in the process. Other Coordination Challenges Between FEMA and USACE When accredited levees are found deficient by either FEMA and/or USACE, levee owners in affected communities attempt to take action to remediate the deficiency.
From page 148...
... The utility of a joint FEMA-USACE procedure allowing quick attention to levee-related situations where regulatory authority creates intractable situations for the affected community is clear. Levee Construction and Repair The 1994 Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee (IFMRC)
From page 149...
... One federal message using consistent terminology, transparent data, and open discussion and decisions about the determination of flood risk is critical to inform the affected communities who, in turn, communicate and manage risk at the local level. FEMA should assume a leadership role in providing direction for research, development, and release of flood risk communication products and maps.
From page 150...
... It identified, as did the 1994 Sharing the Challenge report on the 1993 Mississippi River floods (IFMRC, 1994) , the need for action by the federal government to bring together all parties involved in development and implementation of national floodplain management programs to better define the responsibilities of each group and to develop a roadmap dealing with these challenges in the future.
From page 151...
... • Recommendation 4: To the extent possible to better achieve fiscal soundness, the proper ties that have been grandfathered into the NFIP or that receive discounts due to statutory con siderations should have their pricing moved to the actuarially based prices using the detailed probability-of-inundation estimates and detailed economic damage models. • Conclusion 3: The current policy of mandatory flood insurance purchase appears to be inef fective in achieving widespread purchase of NFIP flood insurance policies.
From page 152...
... • Recommendation 11: FEMA should communicate flood risk through a collaborative ap proach that works with and provides strong support to local communities. • Conclusion 10: The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force (FIFMTF)
From page 153...
... Report of the Interagency Floodplain Administration Floodplain Management Task Force. Washington, DC: U.S.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.