Pima County Regional Flood Control District Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 -- Greg Saxe, community rating system coordinator at the Pima County Regional Flood Control District, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information: National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System". The comment was written on Sept. 21, 2021, and posted on Sept. 22, 2021:

* * *

The Pima County Regional Flood Control District (District) appreciates the opportunity to provide the comments and information below.

1. Program Strengths

The credited activities listed in the manual are the essential strengths of floodplain management and provide a strong framework for communities to focus on and promote efforts, including funding, which can minimize flood risk. We support continuation of an activity based point system to incentivize community adoption.

2. Program Impediments

a) Administrative Capacity: The District is aware of communities that do not participate in CRS because the potential benefits of participating is perceived as not being worth the cost and burden of participating. The documentation required to receive credit is extensive. Our District has a dedicated staff person in addition to assistance from program management groups to obtain and publish all of the necessary documentation. It is definitely a challenge to provide resources to provide documentation.

b) Complexity: The scoring for credits is difficult to understand and appear to introduce review subjectivity or rigidity. The coordinator's manual is over 600 pages long and needs to be streamlined. Clear metrics for points need to be established for listed activities, while also ensuring flexibility for equally creditable local method review in a timely fashion. More spreadsheets and direct communication of metrics could be helpful instead of pages of text, along with a specific process for courtesy review of local methods.

c) Local Studies Disincentive: The current program appears to penalize communities for identifying previously undetermined flood hazard areas. When SFHA grows the numbers of buildings in the floodplain go up and this can negatively affect impacts adjustments. The risk did not change just the map. The community should receive credit, not penalty, for identifying previously unmapped flood hazards and educating property owners on best ways to protect their properties. A better way to calculate a community's performance in CRS calculations would be to make a distinction between structures within SFHA that were built prior to being mapped in the SFHA (Grandfathered) vs. structures permitted in the SFHA post mapping. Adding existing structures into the SFHA by better mapping should be incentivized as it then leads to greater use of flood insurance and other flood risk mitigation opportunities.

d) Program Understanding: Remote training offered is very helpful especially for the many small and underfunded communities whose limited staff are multi-tasking. More detailed online training and activity templates should be provided.

3. Equity

There is a correlation between community size and success with CRS. As partly demonstrated by the graphs below, smaller communities lack capacity and incentive.

In particular, as many NFIP communities rely on property tax funding for administrative and project funding, equitable implementation of the NFIP is reliant on community size and income. This is demonstrated on the chart of coverage in force; which is a reflection of property value.

FEMA should study the correlation between CRS participation and community size and economy further to determine where the administrative burden exceeds the benefits at each class. Furthermore, activity 330 PPI should be structured to reward inter-jurisdictional and targeted outreach to disadvantaged communities via an optional activity and impact adjustment.

4. Future conditions

a) FEMA mapping Branch is not accepting future fire conditions n-value changes because they are saying that there will be recovery, which is flawed in the arid southwest and with increasing frequency of fire. This should be awarded not prohibited as it represents a higher standard.

b) Future flood risk data and the Risk Rating 2 methodology should be provided to all communities.

5. Repetitive Loss Properties

a) Participation in CRS should open up funding to mitigate RLPs, or allow RLP property owners in CRS communities with flood insurance policies access the Increased Cost of Compliance money of their insurance policy without experiencing a flood loss.

b) Require communities to establish cumulative substantial improvement/substantial damage regulations for the life of a structure as a pre-requisite for attaining a class 5.

c) Providing claims data to communities in a timely manner is needed for substantial improvement tracking and damage assessment. If a flood claim is made but the individual does the work without getting a permit, communities currently don't know that the claim was paid and may not even be aware that the structure was damaged and that the damage needs to be considered for future substantial improvement/substantial damage calculations.

6. Program Modification Recommendations

a) Post disaster permitting: In addition to crediting those communities that expedite permits, also downgrade or remove points from communities that waive floodplain requirements for post-disaster reconstruction, up to and including elimination from the program and the inability of residents to obtain flood insurance through the NFIP.

b) Fill Prohibition: The 100-point cap in 432a for communities that allow LOMR-F punishes communities with shallow sheet flood flow regimes, often large Zone A or Zone AO areas. The prohibition on LOMR-F should apply only to riverine flow regimes, that are often Zone AE and Coastal V Zones. The purpose of prohibiting LOMR-Fs is that LOMR-F avoid the evaluation of the loss of overbank storage and the impact to BFEs. This is relevant in riverine flow regimes, but is unnecessary in broad sheet flow areas where encroachment performance criteria can still be met. Further, in broad sheet flow areas remapping large areas is difficult due it issues linking the new floodplains into the existing FIRM.

c) Elevation Certificates: Since their use in determining flood insurance premiums is reduced in Risk Rating 2.0, the form should be allowed to be simplified to better serve the compliance goals of the form and ease the QC burden on the community. Furthermore, Elevation Certificates should be evaluated for compliance rather than completeness.

d) Regionalized activities: It appears at first glance that more points are available to coastal communities than non-coastal communities. While coastal guidance is clear in new activities added in the Addendum, few options for arid lands are given. In arid areas, flash floods, channel migration and erosion, and debris flows are regional hazards of concern and additional points could be provided in this activity class in order to provide similar point availability to all regions.

e) Public facility insurance: It is currently common best financial management practices for entities including Counties to self-insure. The requirement for federally funded projects to have federally backed insurance should be reconsidered given the stability of these self-insurance vehicles.

7. Better Incentive Recommendations

Due to community administrative inequity the District recommends that capacity funding opportunities be provided at lower classes, escalating as program burden and services increase corresponding to credited activities and those identified in an FMP. Consider CRS entrance grants, technical assistance and decreasing the administrative burden for Class 10-7. This would lower the administrative and financial burden to participation while retaining the opportunity for higher standards and local methods. This could include funding for relocation and retrofits provided under Activity 450 Flood Protection as DMA funds associated with Activity 600 take years after flooding to implement.

Another possible way to make it easier for communities with low resources to participate is to have two tracks for rating. One is the current track with points and calculations, while the other is a much more simplified prerequisite process without requiring as much documentation. This second, pre-requisite track might be set up so there is a maximum CRS level that can be attained (such as Class 5), but it would remove the resource barriers that small communities face while retaining the opportunity for higher standards and local methods.

Examples are provided below (see question 10) of tribal and state capacity building programs that have worked well in Arizona and Massachusetts. The District proposes that each CRS class have associated with it capacity building programs, including assistance and funding opportunities.

In sum, the administrative capacity to participate in CRS and the ability of individuals to purchase flood insurance varies greatly and therefore inequitably. Currently highly rated communities with HMPs are eligible for DMA, PF-HGMP and other grant funds. Why not provide capacity building funds to lower rated communities or regional entities to provide CRS coordination for the underserved?

In addition to providing capacity building opportunities, multipliers should be applied to regional coordination as is done with the PPI and through the use of geographic impact adjustments in other activities such as FMP and WMP. In this manner regional coordination would be rewarded but acting independently where coordination or enforcement is not possible would not be discounted.

Lastly and as a way to associate funding with activities, emphasize the value of a comprehensive Floodplain Management Plan by linking funding opportunities to activities identified therein. Many communities create a "plan" because it is credited but then "put it on the shelf". The FMP should be the cornerstone of floodplain management, not an exercise. The NFIP needs to provide templates and assistance to communities for developing a functional, effective plan for managing flood risks. Funding opportunities should be made available to develop the activities including pre-disaster mitigation.

8. Existing Data Source Leverage Recommendations

a) Coverage and claims data: Claims data minus personal information should be provided on an ongoing basis to communities to inform buyers. Claims data can be used to conduct targeted outreach and technical assistance to properties that have had flood claims as well as track unpermitted and substantial improvements. From the standpoint of the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program, flood losses are directly tied to the value of structures. Many structures are overvalued because buyers are not provided information about flood claims on the property they are about to buy. Disclosure of flood losses (number and value) should be mandatory. This will eventually lead to properties being valued appropriately due to the risk. This will reduce the exposure of the NFIP and would also encourage property owners to mitigate the risk. As a public program that requires tax payer dollars, flood claims and dollar amounts of claims are not personal data and should not be protected under privacy rules. The name and identifying information of the policy holder is private, the execution of the NFIP in terms of claims paid and values should not be.

b) As long as the NFIP and CRS rely primarily on financial incentives to reduce flood risk, the goals of reducing exposure and increasing resilience will only happen when buyers are given full detail about the long term cost and danger of owning a floodprone home. This includes not only the flood claim data mentioned above, but also information about the true risk and hazard for the property, meaning how often it will flood and how severely it will flood. It is too common a perception that all properties within a 100-year floodplain share the same 1% chance risk, which is obviously not true. Making maps available for other return periods (5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 500-year, for example) is of paramount importance to improving public perception of actual flood risk/hazard. Making maps for multiple return periods should be incentivized by CRS and the RR2 model should be readily available for assessment and providing assistance.

c) Credit use of best information available including more accurate topography and repeat aerial photography.

d) Communities should have access to the best available data including 3-DEP, Risk Rating 2.0, Future Flood Risk and repetitive loss insurance data.

9. Optional risk reduction activities

Lists of optional activities, specific guidance and assistance should be provided for each to provide technical assistance to those communities that lack capacity and expertise to identify successful next steps. This should include regional geographic, economic and rating appropriate options.

10. Successful approaches

We are aware of two precedents, that suggest that CRS should incentivize the use of regional CRS support systems, where larger jurisdictions, such as counties, councils of governments, or other regional agencies can assist smaller jurisdictions who may not have the means to implement CRS.

* The first precedent comes from the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (NAHASDA), Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act and Public Law 638. Each provide funding for tribes to build self-sustaining capacity. The Tohono O'odham have used these funds to hire planning interns who later became legislators; undertake a road inventory and street naming project tied to road and bridge construction funding projects; create a locally run lead paint contamination clean-up fund; establish solid waste collection services; emergency response capability and health services.

* The second, is the recent recognition of the Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service for creating a statewide CRS Coordinator position to support the efforts of home rule communities that are too small to participate on their own.

The District proposes creating a tiered level of capacity building and assistance programs at each rating based upon successes in tribal and state programs that would facilitate regional entities assisting smaller jurisdictions to adopt program activities and document them.

11. Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities and Regional Collaboration.

In addition to new capacity building funds and regional coordination roles; we recommend that all activities have with them associated mitigation funding sources and/or funding eligibility performance thresholds as is the case with the 600 series currently. Appropriate technical assistance is also needed. Furthermore, activity 330 PPI should be structured to reward inter-jurisdictional outreach and impact adjustment provided as well as multipliers for targeted outreach to disadvantaged communities.

12. Opportunities for Better Integration

As with Cooperative Extension Service in Massachusetts, and tribal capacity building models in Arizona; the Natural Resources Conservation District in the arid southwest has access to funds for studies and mitigation. The District is currently engaged in two such efforts; the Lower Santa Cruz River Basin Study; focused on climate change adaptations and the Avra Valley project focused on agricultural lands restoration. Each are large scale watershed planning efforts that identify specific mitigation measures for NRCS and other existing funding sources. We recommend that federal funding sources be provided at each rating.

Another potentially expanded role for States is the enabling legislation in each tied to Comprehensive and General Land Use Plans. These plans guide zoning and land use rules and have required elements. Flood control, is not one of them! State mandated standards should be revisited. Inability to "limit floodplain development" (RFI pg. 4719) is directly tied to these plans and the land use decision they entail. While inclusion of a required element does not ensure floodplain development will be limited it ensures the risk is recognized.

In conclusion:

In order to increase participation, the revision should look to reduce the administrative burden. In addition, the CRS program should create ties between a community's rating and potential funding opportunities. Further, the program should consider revision to those activities that create unintended disincentives such as new mapping disincentives, documentation burdens and grant processes. Recognizing that restructuring the grant process of the overlapping programs is not within the scope of this RFI; although it is within the scope of NFIP transformation, our final overarching recommendation is that:

A parallel entity to ISO or FEMA program should be established that assists communities to understand the activities and ensure they are getting the points earned, as well as advise on how to improve. As this advocacy role may be a conflict of interest or outside ISO expertise, capacity building incentives including direct funding should be available to FEMA Regions and or other regional entities, States, Counties, improvements Districts and/or Inter-Tribal councils to provide local technical assistance and promotion appropriate to each class and community type.

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0021-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com