Proposed Order on Floodplain Development

Daniel Farber

July 29, 2009

This item cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet.

The White House is considering a new executive order to limit floodplain development.  The proposal covers roughly the same federal licensing, project, and funding decisions as NEPA.  The heart of the proposal is section 4, which unlike NEPA imposes a substantive requirement (preventing or mitigating floodplain development.)  The proposed language is after the jump.  This is a very constructive step — we can’t keep putting people and infrastructure in harm’s way, nor can we allow development that increases flood risks elsewhere.

The Association of State Flood Plains Managers has a very helpful website.  Information about flood issues can also be found in Berkeley’s archive on disasters and the law.

Here’s the proposed language of section 4:

(a) Identify floodplains Before taking a covered action, an agency must determine whether that action will occur in or adversely affect a floodplain or is a critical action. The agency shall use Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) floodplain information, including maps and Flood Insurance Studies, to make its determination. If the Agency determines that it needs additional information or if FEMA’s information is not available for the area or is insufficiently detailed, the Agency should look elsewhere for scientifically credible information, or develop the information itself. If the covered action is not in or does not adversely affect a floodplain, the covered action is not subject to the remaining requirements of this Order. (b) Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives. If an agency determines that its covered action is in a floodplain or adversely affects a floodplain, the agency must fully evaluate practicable alternatives that include: (1) Using other sites outside the floodplain that would not adversely affect a floodplain. (2) Taking other actions that serve essentially the same purpose as the proposed covered action but that are not in a floodplain or would not adversely affect a floodplain. (3) Taking no action. If the Agency revises its covered action to avoid any action in or that would adversely affect a floodplain, the covered action is not subject to the remaining requirements of this Order. (c) Identify and mitigate effects If after evaluation of practicable alternatives, the Agency proposes to take covered actions in or that adversely affects a floodplain, the agency shall: (1) Give the public a chance to comment on the proposed covered action in accordance with Section 8(a) (1)-(3).


Read More by Daniel Farber
More on CPR's Work & Scholars.
Jan. 13, 2022

Will the 30 x 30 Initiative Protect 30 Percent of Freshwater Resources by 2030?

Jan. 12, 2022

States Should Act to Protect People and Our Environment from Unregulated Chemical Tanks

Jan. 6, 2022

The Quagmire of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

Dec. 20, 2021

Democracy, Rulemaking, and Outpourings of Comments

Dec. 9, 2021

CPR, Partners Call for Climate Justice Reforms to the Chemical Industry

Dec. 9, 2021

Memphis Commercial Appeal Op-Ed: Supreme Court Turns to Science to Resolve Groundwater Dispute Between Mississippi and Tennessee

Dec. 8, 2021

Aboveground Chemical Storage Tanks Threaten Our Communities. It’s Time for EPA and States to Act.