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).
Showing 2,829 results
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.) […]
Matt Shudtz | July 28, 2009
Last Thursday, EPA announced (pdf) that they would reconsider a rule on monitoring lead in the air that was published in the waning days of the Bush Administration. I wrote about the original announcement, criticizing EPA for turning its back on children in neighborhoods like mine, where certain sources of airborne lead wouldn’t be monitored […]
Rena Steinzor | July 27, 2009
Michael Livermore is right to suggest that environmentalists should be focused on Cass Sunstein’s first official day as regulatory czar for the Obama Administration. After months of delay over the Harvard professor’s eclectic and provocative writings, he will eventually take office if he can placate cattle ranchers concerned about his views on animal rights. Whatever […]
Yee Huang | July 24, 2009
This is the fourth and final post on the application of the public trust doctrine to water resources, based on a forthcoming CPR publication, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, which will be released this summer. If you are interested in attending a free web-based seminar on […]
Matt Shudtz | July 24, 2009
The Bush Administration’s anti-regulatory henchmen in the Office of Management and Budget are at it again – fighting to keep EPA and state environmental agencies in the dark about how much pollution is being emitted into the air. On October 16, EPA announced that it was slashing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for […]
Rena Steinzor | July 23, 2009
This post is co-written by CPR President Rena Steinzor and Policy Analyst Matt Shudtz. Just as the traditional media finished a breathless cycle of reporting on how prospective Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had renounced her claim that a “wise Latina” would make different decisions than a white man, an article in USA Today reminded […]
Holly Doremus | July 22, 2009
This item cross-posted by permission from Legal Planet. Hardrock mining (as opposed to oil and gas drilling) on federal land is a topic that rarely hits the national news. And there are plenty of other high-profile items on the agenda in DC at the moment, like health care reform and climate legislation. So I was […]
Robert Verchick | July 21, 2009
A new report from the National Research Council on Friday slams a long-delayed Army Corps of Engineers hurricane protection study, saying it fails to recommend a unified, comprehensive long-term plan for protecting New Orleans and the Louisiana coast. You know the story: as Hurricane Katrina swept across New Orleans, the city’s levee system broke apart […]
Yee Huang | July 20, 2009
This is the third of four posts on the application of the public trust doctrine to water resources, based on a forthcoming CPR publication, Restoring the Trust: Water Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine, A Manual for Advocates, which will be released this summer. If you are interested in attending a free web-based seminar on […]