National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
Q. Partnerships & Incentives
Recommendation
Explanation/rationale
Q-1 Congress should amend the Disaster Relief Act and
WRRDA (USACE authority) to apportion costs,
responsibilities, and roles among federal, state, local and
tribal governments, and the public commensurate with
risk (for example, a sliding cost share could be used as an
incentive for state and local governments; to reward them
for actions that reduce flood risk). The same type of
incentive could be provided in the flood insurance policy
for actions by property owners that reduce flood risk and
claims to their building.
See: R-1–13, S-1–17, T-1–12, O-2, O-4, P-1
[Congress, EMA]
Q-2 Strengthen collaboration, coordination and
partnerships among federal agencies and across federal,
state, local and tribal jurisdictions and economic sectors to
reduce future flood risk and disaster costs.
[MitFLG, FIFM-TF, States, NGOs]
Create financial incentives for communities, such as:
basing all federal flood-related assistance to states
and localities on a sliding cost-share: the more
mitigation, the smaller the non-federal share;
nonstructural
measures
and
those
that
retain/enhance natural systems should always get a
larger federal share. A set formula, based on savings
to the federal taxpayer would be established so state
and local governments can calculate their return on
investment.
So called “silos” among and within federal agencies
must be removed to ensure alignment of policies,
practices, and resources for current and future flood
risk management. Private sector and NGO
involvement must be encouraged as governments
alone cannot solve these problems.
Q-3 Amend existing law so that communities would be The mitigation measures would have to meet existing
allowed to bank mitigation expenditures as non-federal BCA and other requirements, and as such will save
share of next disaster.
taxpayer more funds in the future.
See: H-9
[Congress]
Q-4 Work with States, locals and tribes, as well as other
federal agencies to improve and promote the flood
resilience checklist that is part of the Smart Growth
initiative.
Tools, such as the flood resilience checklist for
communities or tribes can be extremely useful. The
tool can be enhanced through collaboration with all
government levels and the private sector.
[EPA, MitFLG, FEMA, USACE, NOAA, DOT]
Q-5 Support and fund incentives for sustainable uses of These can range from sustainable crops to permanent
flood prone agricultural lands.
floodplain easements.
See: K-1, K-2, H-9
[USDA, EPA]
Q-6 Explore the impacts of modifying how flood losses are
covered in the Multiple Peril Crop insurance to incentivize
appropriate and sustainable ag and land uses within
floodplain lands and to minimize the chance that farmed
floodplain land is not converted to residential/commercial
development. Continue to tie all such taxpayer support to
producer conservation compliance as well as compliance
with all applicable federal and state regulations.
NFPPR policy rec and explanations
There is a delicate balance between avoiding
residential and commercial development in
floodplains and allowing suitable and sustainable
agricultural use of flood prone lands while ensuring
the continued use of flood prone lands to provide
natural functions that reduce flood losses and provide
multiple ecosystem benefits.
Page 1 of 3
Section Q Partnerships & Incentives
draft 1-28-15
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
See: Q-6
[USDA]
Q-7 Make NFIP CAP funding contingent upon the state’s
provision of one fully funded professional full-time
position in floodplain management—who should be a CFM
(Certified Floodplain Manager).
Exceptions could be made only if the state can
demonstrate it is spending an equivalent or greater
amount of funding for state staff on other actions that
FEMA agrees reduce flood risk and NFIP risk.
See: S-7, S-11 F-6
[FEMA, States]
Q-8 Encourage market-driven private-sector incentives for This can be done with building codes recognized by
mitigation.
private insurance carriers or other means. Newly
suggested rules for infrastructure bonds move in the
See: R-15, R-17
right direction.
[MitFLG, FEMA, Congress]
Q-9 Provide incentives (disaster relief and other grants, as Local floodplain managers had limited training and
well as utilizing/expanding CRS credits) for all state and status prior to the Certified Floodplain Manager
local FP managers to be CFMs.
program. Having that trained professional at the local
level helps communities make better flood risk
[FEMA, USACE, NOAA, HUD]
decisions in support of community resilience.
Q-10 Federal agencies should encourage/incentivize Too often local building officials and the permit
integration of certification programs for the International officials who issue floodplain permits are stove piped
Codes and for floodplain management (CFM).
at the state and local level, whereas close
collaboration saves money and time.
[FEMA, HSS]
Q-11 Create incentives in federal programs (CRS, disaster Too many states recreate the federal stove pipes for
relief, grants, etc.) for States that develop and enact programs dealing with water quantity and water
sufficient enabling authority for regions and communities quality, and that is a barrier to effective management
to develop/integrate stormwater utilities or similar of both. The federal government cannot dictate this,
mechanisms that can provide tools, assistance and but can provide incentives or make it a condition of
resources for an array of flood risk management and loss grants, etc.
reduction actions.
See: H-9, C-4
[MitFLG, Administration, FEMA, USACE, EPA]
Q-12 Reform the casualty loss deduction to better target
the deduction as well as incentivize mitigation. For
example, limits could be set as to the number of times a
person could claim the deduction without first mitigating
as well as a means tested system to target claimants who
truly need assistance.
The casualty loss deduction for flooding costs
taxpayers lots of money(add $), with much of it going
to higher income property owners in very high value
buildings in high risk areas such as coastal areas. The
concept here is to remove incentives for people to
build in these high risk areas where they can externalize their cost to the taxpayers.
[Congress]
Q-13 Develop a hazard mitigation tax credit much like The concept is to provide a means where a property
energy efficiency tax credits that are given to property owner can save for or get a tax credit for actions that
owners. Additionally or alternatively, allow for tax mitigate their hazard risk. As flood insurance rates
advantaged disaster savings accounts.
move toward full risk rates, property owners can
See: H-9
easily determine their return on investment for such
[Congress]
actions.
Q-14 Provide specific IRS guidance more broadly If a community or state provides mitigation funding
exempting cost effective mitigation assistance and funding that meets the federal BCA standards to reduce future
NFPPR policy rec and explanations
Page 2 of 3
Section Q Partnerships & Incentives
draft 1-28-15
National Flood Policy—ASFPM 2015 Recommendations
from federal taxes. Currently only FEMA mitigation taxpayer costs that grant funding should be exempt
programs have a specific tax exemption in federal law.
from federal taxes.
See: H-9
[Congress]
NFPPR policy rec and explanations
Page 3 of 3
Section Q Partnerships & Incentives
draft 1-28-15