Macbeth, and King Richard the Third

• Differences in state approaches to hazards management and climate change adaptation

• Become familiar with mitigation planning in the context of emergency management operations

• Identify some of the issues involved with insuring against catastrophic losses

States use a variety of techniques to address hazards and reduce risk within communities under their jurisdiction. This chapter begins with an overview of the divergent approaches to hazards management, and suggests some of the reasons for this diversity throughout the country. The chapter then discusses the authority, functions, and responsibilities of state emergency management offices and explores the significance of hazard mitigation planning at the state level, as well as the degree to which states are addressing climate change through adaptation planning. Next, the chapter considers how state mandates for local land use planning influence communities’ approaches to hazards management. The chapter then examines some of the ways states directly intervene in land use decision making, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas such as the coastal zone and wetlands. The chapter also takes a look at state building codes and insurance laws. The chapter concludes with a discussion of opportunities for states to increase the resiliency of their communities and the state as a whole.

By virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, all state governments have inherent power—called the police power—to enact reasonable legislation to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. With no mandatory public policy regarding how to prepare for and mitigate against natural and human-made hazards, states have developed their own diverse methods of protecting public health and safety from the impacts of hazards. Some states take a direct approach, while other states are more hands-off and delegate much of the responsibility to local governments or allow market forces to control land uses in hazard areas. Still others mandate specific action on the part of the local governments, but allow implementation decisions to be made at the community level.

At least some of the divergence among states in their approach to hazards management and regulation of the built environment can be explained by differences in political climate and the degree of first-hand experience with natural hazards. Many policy makers in states like Florida, where hurricanes occur frequently and cause widespread and very visible damage, have accepted that natural hazards are inevitable. In these areas, state legislators have historically been willing to expend state resources and political capital to mitigate hurricane impacts. Other states have been lulled into complacency and have not intervened in the private development market. This is perhaps an appropriate response where natural hazards are few and far between and public expenditures for hazards management is less critical. However, some of these states may also be home to very strong building and development lobbies, which sometimes can exert enough political pressure to counter state efforts to regulate development in hazard areas.

There is even more variation among the states in the way they are approaching climate change. A few front runner states, such as Maryland and California have been aggressively tackling the issue for several years. Other states have been reticent to confront what is perceived as political quicksand and have not developed strong policies to adapt to climate change impacts.

A HAWAIIAN POLICY TOOL KIT

An example of the wide range of possible actions available to states can be found in a policy tool kit that has been recommended to the State of Hawaii to address rising sea levels. The tool kit identifies and explains key land use policy tools for state and local government agencies and officials, such as incorporating scientifically-based projections for sea level rise in land use decision making, locating coastal development where it is protected from hazards, and ensuring structures are resilient to flooding and other coastal hazards. Because sea level rise and climate change exacerbate existing coastal hazards, adopting forward-thinking policies ultimately will lessen future economic, social and environmental impacts of rising sea levels along Hawaii’s fragile coastlines.¹

In the rest of this chapter, we will discuss in more detail some of the various state approaches to hazards management, beginning with a brief exploration of the numerous state-level agencies that may play a role in reducing (or increasing) hazard risk. Table 7.1 lists a few examples of agencies that are common to many states, along with their role in hazard mitigation and/or climate change adaptation. Many of these agencies do not include hazards management or climate change as a primary departmental mission, but nevertheless they implement policies, carry out programs and enforce regulations that can have an effect on hazard resilience. This is particularly effective when agencies work together collaboratively to bring about reductions in vulnerability.

Following Table 7.1 we will look more closely at a few of these state agencies, starting with the role of the state office of emergency management, before turning our focus to land use issues and the various ways states control the built environment in hazard areas. We include in this discussion state departments of insurance, which are responsible for administering the state building code and for regulating hazard insurance, and also state departments of transportation, which, through the provision of infrastructure, can affect where development takes place.

WASHINGTON STATE’S INTEGRATED CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGY

While Washingtonians have experience with natural weather variability, changing climate conditions are increasing exposure to extreme weather events, destructive wildfires, severe droughts and declining water supplies due to reduced snowpack. In recognition of Washington’s vulnerability to climate change risks, the Washington Legislature and Gov. Chris Gregoire in 2012 directed state agencies to develop an integrated climate change response strategy to enable state, tribal and local governments, and public and private organizations to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of changing climate conditions.

The report, “Preparing for a Changing Climate: Washington State’s Integrated Climate Change Response Strategy,” was prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology in collaboration with the state departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Fish and Wildlife, Health, Natural Resources, and Transportation. The state agencies drew on the policy, management and scientific expertise of a broad range of stakeholders to develop the recommendations that are the basis of the report. The report outlines strategies for protecting human health, safeguarding infrastructure and transportation systems, improving water management, reducing losses to agriculture and forestry, protecting sensitive and vulnerable species, and supporting communities by involving the public. It lays out a framework that decision makers can use to help protect Washington’s communities, natural resources and economy from the impacts of climate change.^*

SELF-CHECK

• Identify the Constitutional power that allows states to pass hazard mitigation regulations.

• Discuss the different approaches states take to managing hazard areas.

• List five state agencies and the role they play in hazards management.

State laws describe the responsibilities of the state government for emergencies and disasters, authorizing the Governor and state agencies to carry out plans and implement policies to respond to, recover from, prepare for, and mitigate disasters. In this pivotal position, the state serves as a key link between federal agencies and resources and local communities. One of the primary federal agencies that the states deal with is the FEMA. Direct state interaction with FEMA is usually conducted through FEMA’s 10 regional offices, with FEMA’s national office providing overall policy guidance and oversight.

Each of the 50 states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia maintains an office of emergency management. However, the organizational structure of state emergency management offices varies significantly from one state to the next. In some states, such as California, the Emergency Management Agency is housed in the Office of the Governor. In Tennessee, the Emergency Management Agency reports to the Adjutant General, while in Florida, the emergency management function is carried out in the Office of Community Affairs. In North Carolina, emergency management is in the Department of Public Safety. National Guard Adjutant Generals manage state emergency management offices in more than half of the states and territories. The remaining state emergency management offices are led by civilian employees.

State emergency management offices carry out a full range of emergency management functions. Some of the responsibilities that typically fall to state EMs include public awareness campaigns, emergency alert systems, family and business preparedness initiatives, hazardous materials management, chemical safety and reporting, nuclear power plant safety drills, severe weather preparedness, evacuation planning and coordination, and conducting extensive training and exercises for local EM coordinators. In addition, emergency management offices are largely in charge of the state’s hazard mitigation policies, as coordinated by the State Hazard Mitigation Officer.

Each state and U.S. territory has a State Hazard Mitigation Officer (SHMO) who serves as the primary contact between the federal government and the state in ongoing efforts to reduce risk to natural and human-made hazards. SHMOs are responsible for a multitude of tasks, not the least of which is to guide the state hazard mitigation planning process, as required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (more on state hazard mitigation planning below). In addition to serving as a coordinator among different levels of government, SHMOs are also in charge of implementing statewide laws and programs for mitigation and for providing staff and resources to assist local governments in their own planning efforts and in implementing local hazard mitigation activities.

Despite the daunting tasks that face SHMOs, many SHMOs throughout the country lack full staff support or adequate resources to perform their duties. However, a good working relationship between the state and the FEMA regional office often bolsters the SHMOs commitment to hazard mitigation. In addition, many SHMOs are supported in their coordinating efforts through interagency teams and committees at the state level, such as hazard mitigation advisory groups, task forces appointed by the governor, and similar working groups that can provide advice and assistance for mitigation initiatives.

Most states are heavily dependent on federal funding, especially from FEMA, to develop and implement mitigation programs. Significant support comes to the states in the form of grants such as the HMGP, the mitigation portion of the PA program, the FMA program, and the PDM program. Other federal agencies also provide disaster assistance in the form of grants and loans, including Community Development Block Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration, and assistance to farmers from the Department of Agriculture. Many of these federal disaster-related grants are administered by the states who then pass the funds to local communities.

Federal mitigation assistance programs can vastly augment the capacity of state agencies to carry out major mitigation initiatives at the state level and provide assistance to local governments for mitigation activities. States that experience repeated disasters—such as major flooding, damaging hurricanes, severe ice and winter storms, and destructive earthquakes—can receive significant levels of financial assistance from the federal government specifically for mitigation projects. However, much of this federal funding is only available after a disaster has been declared (with the exception of the FMA and PDM programs, which are available on an annual basis through a competitive grant process).

Because many states depend on disaster-based funding for much of their mitigation budget, a significant proportion of state emergency management positions that focus on hazard mitigation are time-limited. In some states, there is only enough money to fund a single position on a full-time basis, usually the SHMO, along with a floodplain management coordinator to administer the NFIP. A few states have no full-time staff devoted to natural hazard mitigation at all. The remaining staff positions that are necessary to carry out mitigation initiatives may fluctuate according to the level of disaster funding available at any given time. Although the occurrence of future hazards is inevitable, dependence on federal disaster assistance is an unstable and unpredictable source of funding for ongoing mitigation activities that support long-term reductions in vulnerability. The good news, however, is that states are becoming increasingly adept at seeking additional ways to improve their mitigation capabilities, and are securing more permanent full-time positions in order to become less disaster-dependent and more proactive before the next hazard event occurs.

The effectiveness of the emergency management office to carry out specific functions varies widely from state to state. In general, policy-oriented offices (e.g., state planning) are suited to sustaining long-range activities such as hazard mitigation and recovery programs, while tactical and operations-oriented offices (e.g., state police) focus on managing preparedness and response. However, while the orientation and prominence of the office may dictate to some degree the ability of emergency managers to promote mitigation policies, a more important factor in the overall effectiveness of hazards management is the relationship with the governor’s office and the willingness of the chief executive officer of the state to promote long-term resilience. This is especially relevant with respect to the level of attention a state pays to climate change adaptation. A strong voice coming from the highest position in the state can help push a climate change agenda forward. A conservative governor and state legislature may set the tone for a more cautious approach to climate change adaptation.

SEA LEVEL RISE IN NORTH CAROLINA: POLICY AND POLITICS

In 2010, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission’s advisory science panel produced a report that warned that the state should prepare for a 39-inch sea level rise by 2100. The science panel was attacked by coastal developers and legislators. The NC General Assembly rejected the report and ordered a moratorium on new regulations and plans related to sea level rise. The legislature ordered a new forecast, the draft of which was released in 2014. The later scientific report indicated that the sea is rising at widely varying rates along the North Carolina shore—ranging by 2045 from a possible low of 4 inches on the southern-most beaches to as much as 12.1 inches on the northern Outer Banks. The halt on authorization to use the projections for planning or regulatory purposes remained in place, preventing local governments from updating their zoning rules, construction elevation requirements, infrastructure plans and other sea level rise adaptation policies.²

SELF-CHECK

• Explain the role of a state office of emergency management.

• Describe the duties of a SHMO.

• List sources of funding for state level hazard mitigation programming.

Hazard mitigation planning is an important aspect of a successful statewide mitigation program. Responsibility for plan development typically falls to the state emergency management office, although other state agencies may be involved as well. States and communities use the hazard mitigation planning process to set short- and long-range mitigation goals and objectives. Hazard mitigation planning is a collaborative process through which hazards affecting the state are identified, vulnerability to the hazards is assessed, and consensus is reached on how to minimize or eliminate the effects of those hazards on local communities and the state as a whole.

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 reinforces the importance of pre-disaster mitigation planning to reduce the nation’s disaster losses, and is aimed primarily at controlling and streamlining the administration of federal disaster relief and mitigation programs. States, Tribal governments and local communities must have an approved mitigation plan in place to be eligible for post-disaster funds from several of the nonemergency assistance programs administered by FEMA.

Section 322 of the DMA specifically addresses mitigation planning at the state and local levels. The federal regulations that implement Section 322 are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 44 CFR Part 201, which lays out specific criteria that must be met and a planning process that must be followed by states seeking plan approval from FEMA. Many of the criteria that apply to state hazard mitigation plans are similar or identical to those required for local governments, including a risk assessment that consists of a hazard identification and profile, vulnerability assessment, and loss estimate; an evaluation of capabilities for mitigation; formulation of goal statements; and development of mitigation strategies and actions with identified sources of funding or potential funding. These specific criteria and the hazard mitigation planning process in general are described in detail in Chapter 12.

States are required to provide guidance and assistance to local communities in the development of local hazard mitigation plans that will meet DMA criteria. Services that some states provide to their local governments include training workshops and information sessions on risk assessment and hazard mitigation planning principles, planning assistance materials such as guidebooks and worksheets, and community outreach activities. Some states also provide data sets for their local governments, including information on demographics, soils, wetlands, hazard histories, updated floodplain maps, and other resources to help local communities prepare hazard mitigation plans.

There are two levels of state hazard mitigation plans under the DMA, Standard and Enhanced. With an approved Standard Plan, states are eligible to receive 7.5% of the total disaster assistance amount granted from FEMA to be used solely for mitigation purposes. For example, if a state is eligible to receive $100 million in disaster assistance from FEMA, $7.5 million may be used for hazard mitigation purposes, such as buying out homes in floodplains or upgrading culverts beneath roads.

If a state’s hazard mitigation plan is approved by FEMA as an Enhanced Plan, a state may qualify for a greater percentage of the total amount of disaster assistance to be used for mitigation projects. In addition to satisfying the requirements of the standard plan, the enhanced plan must demonstrate how the state will administer and implement its existing mitigation programs with a systematic and effective approach. The enhanced status acknowledges the extra effort a state has made to reduce losses, protect its resources, and create safer communities. As of June 30, 2014, states with Enhanced Mitigation Plans include California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin.^*

The consequences of not preparing and adopting a FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan can be quite significant. If a state does not have an approved plan in place at the time a disaster strikes, FEMA is limited to providing only “emergency assistance.” For example, under the PA Program, the only categories of assistance that are considered emergency are debris removal and immediate measures to protect human life and safety. The remaining PA project categories are considered permanent restorative work and will not be funded in that state. This means federal assistance will not be available to restore roads and bridges, water control facilities, public buildings, public utilities, and other facilities that are damaged in a hazard event. In addition, without an approved state hazard mitigation plan states are not eligible for funding from the Individual and Family Grant Program (IFG), HMGP, and Fire Suppression Assistance Program, each of which provide significant financial support to both communities and individuals and families impacted by disaster. States have taken this provision of the DMA very seriously; all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories (CNMI, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands) have adopted FEMA-approved State Hazard Mitigation Plans.

SELF-CHECK

• Explain the purpose behind the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000.

• Identify two levels of state mitigation plans.

• Describe the consequences of not having a state hazard mitigation plan in place when a disaster occurs.

Many states have begun planning and implementing actions to reduce risks associated with climate change. One of the first steps that states can take is to develop a climate adaptation plan, which lays out climate-related risks that the state is likely to face and actions that can be taken to become more resilient to climate change. As of 2014, 15 states have completed adaptation plans, while another five states are in the process of developing plans.³

One notable example is the California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Initially developed in 2009 and updated in 2013, the Strategy includes impacts, risks, and adaptation strategies to address the following categories: public health, biodiversity and habitat, ocean and coastal resources, water management, agriculture and forestry, and energy and transportation infrastructure. The state’s climate change website (www.climatechange.ca.gov) includes links to their Strategy and a range of other information and resources to facilitate climate change adaptation.

While state hazard mitigation plans can be very effective for reducing vulnerability through the promotion of various statewide mitigation programs and strategies, mitigation plans prepared under the DMA typically do not focus directly on local land use decision making. Yet advocates of a holistic approach to hazard mitigation promote the value of using a land use-based approach, under the assumption that steering development away from hazard areas and toward more appropriate areas helps decrease our vulnerability to the impacts of future hazards. Land use regulation is most effective when carried out through a process of careful community-wide planning that takes into account the numerous factors involved in managing growth and development. At a large scale, this approach is most applicable for undeveloped land, although the land use planning approach can also be applied to land that is already developed as well.

The responsibility to create land use plans and the regulations necessary to carry them out falls primarily to local governments. Because planning is so essential for fair and comprehensive regulation of private property, some states have passed legislation requiring local governments to prepare comprehensive land use plans. Of these, a few states impose the planning mandate only on local governments in a certain region of the state, while the remaining communities are exempt from an explicit planning mandate. In North Carolina, for example, the 20 counties that make up the coastal zone must prepare local land use plans, while the remaining 80 counties in the state do not.

Some states that mandate local planning have made their policy objectives quite clear and have passed these on to the local governments with guidance as to how to achieve the state goals through the local land use planning process. Typically, states lay out criteria that the local communities must follow and specify the types of issues that the local land use plan must address. The states specify policy goals and objectives, but, to varying degrees, leave the specific details of the content and implementation of plans to local governments. A few states have included natural hazards and problems posed by development in hazardous areas as topics that local governments must consider in their plans. California, Florida, Washington, Oregon, and a few other states have established planning mandates, with varying levels of incentives, to prod local governments into considering natural hazards as part of their comprehensive planning process.⁵

OREGON PLANNING SAVES MILLIONS

In 1996, FEMA estimated that Oregon had avoided about $10 million a year in flood losses because of strong land use planning that considered natural hazards. This was not accomplished by accident but through the foresight of successive Oregon administrations over the course of 25 years that required local plans to include inventories, policies, and ordinances for guiding development in designated hazard-prone areas. Using a comprehensive approach to planning has resulted in reducing losses from flooding, landslides, and earthquakes in communities throughout the state of Oregon.

SELF-CHECK

• Describe the role of local land use planning in hazard mitigation.

• Explain how state governments can influence local land use planning.

As we discussed in the preceding section, most states leave the bulk of land use decision making to their local governments. Municipalities and counties usually have direct control over development and growth within their jurisdictions, with some states providing guidance and direction through statewide planning policies. Other states leave responsibility for land use regulation entirely in local hands. The one exception to this mostly handsoff approach is in environmentally sensitive areas, where many states play a direct role in controlling how these areas are used.

These so-called areas of particular concern are defined by states in a variety of ways. Most require that special areas have some sort of statewide significance. Areas of concern may be defined by their geographic boundaries, natural resource value, or by the function performed by a particular natural feature. Special areas include important riparian corridors, threatened and endangered species habitats, cultural and archeological resources, and unique scenic landscapes that the state assesses as in need of special management attention.

Areas that are especially vulnerable to natural hazards or which provide a natural mitigation function may also be designated as areas requiring state oversight. These include highly erodible coastlines, areas prone to flooding, inlet hazard zones, and other high-hazard areas. States regulate these areas in a variety of ways, such as issuing state-level permits for development, establishing setback requirements for construction, and restricting poststorm reconstruction among others.

NORTH CAROLINA AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

In North Carolina, Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) are the foundation of the Coastal Resources Commission’s permitting program for coastal development, as dictated by the NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). An AEC is an area of natural importance. It may be easily destroyed by erosion or flooding, or it may have environmental, social, economic, or aesthetic qualities that make it valuable to the state. The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission designates areas as AECs to protect them from uncontrolled development, which may cause irreversible damage to property, public health, or the environment. For example, the Ocean Hazard System AEC includes the band of narrow barrier islands that form the State’s eastern border. The Ocean Hazard System is made up of oceanfront lands and the inlets that connect the ocean to the sounds, including ocean erodible areas, high-hazard flood areas, and inlet hazard areas.^* All development in the Ocean Hazard System AEC must be located and designed to protect human lives and property from storms and erosion, to prevent permanent structures from encroaching on public beaches, and to reduce public costs (such as disaster relief aid) that can result from poorly located development.

* North Carolina Administrative Code. Title 15A, Part 7H, Section 0306.

Most coastal states impose some sort of regulatory setback requirements on development that takes place along the shore. Although the specifics vary among the coastal states, in general, setbacks work by prohibiting or limiting the erection of structures within a specified distance from the ocean or Great Lakes. This method of “strategic retreat” can help reduce the risk to life and property from coastal hazards and prolong the life of the building. Setbacks also help protect public beaches, many of which are vital to state and local tourism industries. Because hurricanes and other coastal storms can cause more damage when development is poorly located, setbacks also help reduce the amount of tax money that is spent responding to disasters. Setbacks can also be an important tool for addressing sea level rise, by providing an added buffer between development and rising coastal waters.

Setbacks regulate construction in a zone that is a certain distance landward from the ocean, or other environmental features such as streams or wetlands. Methods of determining the setback line include the first line of stable, natural vegetation; the mean high water line; local erosion rates; or various other marks. In most states, development must take place landward of this line, and follow strict guidelines for construction.

The problem with many of the methods of measurement used by coastal states to establish construction setbacks is that the distances can be relatively arbitrary, generally ranging from about 40 to 100 feet. As understanding of beach and dune processes has increased, and as coastal engineering has become more sophisticated, delineation of setback lines has become highly technical. Setbacks based on seasonal fluctuations, vulnerability to storms and storm surges, and the threat of shoreline erosion are more scientifically valid, but they are also more difficult and costly for state regulators to implement and for landowners to understand.⁶

SETTING BACK IN HAWAII

The State of Hawaii uses a setback that prohibits development in a zone 40 feet inland from the shoreline. The shoreline is defined as the debris or vegetation line that is visible on the shore. This line can fluctuate on a regular basis, which can lead to uncertainty on the part of property owners and state regulators. Recent recommendations for changes to the shoreline construction setback propose implementation of erosion-based setbacks that account for the lifespan of structures for each county in Hawaii, and allow for adjustments based upon best-available sea level rise data.

Many states have regulations in place to guide rebuilding and reconstruction after hurricanes and other hazard events. Usually a permit is required to rebuild structures that are “substantially damaged,” typically defined as a structure for which the cost of restoration equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure prior to the damage.^* Following Hurricane Sandy, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection adopted emergency amendments to flood hazard area rules relating to post-storm reconstruction. Among the changes, the new rules require new or substantially damaged structures to build to the highest elevation level set by FEMA or the state. In addition, Flood Hazard Area Act rules require the lowest floor of each building in flood hazard areas to be constructed at least one foot above this elevation.

Many states provide some degree of regulatory protection for wetlands. Wetlands are well known for their ability to protect water quality, and are even called nature’s kidneys because of their ability to filter impurities from surface water as it makes its way through the hydrologic system. Wetlands also perform an important mitigative function in the coastal zone and in inland riverine floodplains by storing and preventing rapid runoff of water, thus helping to maintain more constant water levels in streams, estuaries, and floodplains. Wetlands also protect against shoreline erosion. Wetland vegetation is often very dense, both above and below ground. The plant cover and root systems can absorb energy from floods and wave action. By dissipating the energy, binding the soil, and encouraging sediment deposition, wetlands stabilize shorelines along coastal streams, lakes, and sounds.

As discussed in Chapter 6, Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act imposes restrictions on activities carried out in wetlands and requires permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any deposition of dredge and fill material into wetlands. A few states have taken on the responsibility for administering the Section 404 program at the state level. In addition to the Section 404 regulations, some states have also imposed state-level restrictions on development in tidal or saltwater wetlands, prohibiting draining, ditching or filling in wetland sites. A few states extend restrictions to nontidal or freshwater wetlands as well.

Some states also require wetland mitigation, which involves the off-site conservation of another wetland located away from the development activity or the creation of a new wetland to take the place of one that is impaired or destroyed. States sometimes impose fairly rigorous mitigation ratios, ranging from 2:1 to 7:1 (i.e., the amount of created, restored, or enhanced wetland acreage required for each acre of natural wetland destroyed or damaged).⁷ However, the science and practice of wetland restoration is still evolving, and preserving an existing wetland is likely to provide more environmental flood control benefits than attempting to reconstruct the ecological complexity of a wetland.

SELF-CHECK

• Define Areas of Environmental Concern, setback, and wetland mitigation.

• Discuss situations in which states play a direct role in land use regulation.

• Describe methods of determining regulatory setbacks.

• Describe what happens when structures on the coast are damaged more than 50% during a hurricane or other coastal storm.

One of the most powerful tools states have to control land use in hazard areas is through the provision of infrastructure. Along with the federal government, and often in partnership with federal agencies, states provide a significant portion of our critical civil infrastructure nationwide. At the state level much of this infrastructure is built and maintained through the state DOT. A great deal of private investment, including investment in private property located in highly hazardous areas such as the coastal zone, is made financially feasible through state and federal dollars that fund or subsidize construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, water and sewer lines, and other facilities that foster development. State and federal funds are also used to repair public facilities after a storm causes severe damage. While this infrastructure is necessary to encourage and maintain economic growth, sometimes relatively little consideration is made for the increased vulnerability that results from development located in hazardous locations.

On the other hand, state policies that incorporate strong flood protection and other hazard risk reduction measures into state-built infrastructure can play a big role in reducing the need for costly rebuilding after a hazard event. States can also enact incentive programs to encourage local communities to design and build infrastructure that can withstand flooding and other hazard impacts.

FLOOD READY VERMONT

In August of 2011, the rains from Hurricane Irene caused massive flood damage along rivers throughout the state of Vermont. Realizing that flooding is a recurring problem in the state, policy makers asked, “How can we avoid blown out culverts, road washouts, and damaged buildings?” Through its Flood Ready Program, the state urges Vermont communities to plan ahead to ensure that they build and expand infrastructure with flood readiness in mind. Ideally, “flood ready” means built in a safe location, away from hazardous floodplain areas. For existing infrastructure already located in floodplains, it means making smart investments to minimize future damage when rivers rise.

The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) has put together town road and bridge standards to improve safety, reduce life cycle costs, and reduce environmental impacts. Communities that adopt standards that meet or exceed the ones laid out by VTrans can receive funding to improve their infrastructure before a flood event and get more state funds to meet recovery costs if disaster does strike.

Thus far in this chapter we have seen some of the ways that states play a role in how land is used in hazard areas. This section will focus on how states are involved in the construction of buildings, primarily through building codes that are enacted by the state legislature.

A building code is a collection of laws, regulations, ordinances, or other statutory requirements adopted by a government that controls the physical structure of buildings. The purpose of a building code is to establish the minimum acceptable standards of construction necessary for preserving the public health, safety, and welfare, and to protect the built environment. These minimum requirements are based on principles of engineering, on properties of materials, and on the inherent hazards of climate, geology, and use of a structure.⁸ Among the natural hazards that are addressed through building codes include earthquake, wildfire, snowstorms, high winds, storm surge, flooding, and wave action. Building codes usually contain maps indicating various wind, flood, and seismic zones, where different levels of design standards apply depending upon the hazard risk. Building codes primarily regulate new or proposed construction. They have less application to existing structures, except when buildings are undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, or alteration, or if the occupancy category of the building is being changed.

Recent benefit/cost studies indicate that stronger minimum code provisions for natural hazard vulnerability reduction have positive benefit/cost ratios ranging from 3 to 16. In other words, for every $1 increase in construction costs, there is a long-term savings of $3–$16. This concept is similar to environmental and energy benefits when consumers invest in higher efficiency heating and cooling systems that are initially slightly more expensive, but pay for themselves over the lifetime of the building or earlier.⁹ Investing in construction techniques that minimize damage to buildings from earthquake, flood, or high winds can sometimes pay off in a single-hazard event.

Many state building codes require structures to be built a certain number of feet above the 100-year floodplain to further reduce the likelihood of damage due to flooding. FEMA defines the term “freeboard” as a factor of safety, usually expressed in feet above a base flood level for purposes of floodplain management. In Rhode Island, for example, the statewide building code requires that new or substantially improved structures incorporate 1 foot of freeboard, meaning structures must be built at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood level.

Freeboard can also help mitigate the impact of flooding due to sea level rise. For example, due to the combined forces of regional land subsidence and global climate change, parts of the coast in Maryland may experience 3–4 feet of sea level rise over the next century. Freeboard could help keep structures above floodwaters as storm surge elevations increase. For this reason, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change recommends two or more feet of freeboard for structures located in tidally influenced floodplains.

During the 1970s and earlier, relatively few states had statewide building codes. Where they did exist, codes were enacted and enforced by local governments. As a result, building standards varied widely from state to state, and even within a state there were different codes and levels of regulation in place. Since then, many states have retracted this complete delegation of power to the local government and have enacted a building code that applies across the state, with primary enforcement remaining at the local level. In many states, the building code is administered through the state department of insurance.

Many statewide codes are based on nationally-recognized model codes, including the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Residential Code (IRC) developed by the International Code Council (ICC). States vary widely in the version of the model codes that have been officially adopted, and many states have made changes to the model codes. Some states allow local governments to deviate from the state code, while a few other states continue to have no statewide coverage. In some rural or semi-rural areas, there are no building codes in place, or codes that do not apply to single-family or two-family residential structures.

FOLLOWING HURRICANE KATRINA, MISSISSIPPI REMAINS VULNERABLE

As of 2013, Mississippi has virtually no statewide regulatory process in place for building codes. Seven counties in Mississippi are required to enforce the wind and flood requirements of the 2003 IRC. Earlier in 2013, legislation was introduced to require the county boards of supervisors and municipal governing authorities to adopt a statewide uniform construction code, but it did not advance. It is clear that Mississippi is highly vulnerable to hurricanes and severe wind, but adoption and enforcement of modern statewide building codes have consistently encountered significant opposition and have not made it through the legislature.¹⁰

Regular updates are essential to ensure that building codes reflect changing conditions in terms of population, development, and hazard frequency and intensity. Building codes are also updated to incorporate the latest information on building techniques. However, in some states, updates to building codes may result in a weakening of minimum construction standards, citing, for example, “unfavorable economic conditions and lack of resources.” These changes may favor the building and development lobbies.

The Insurance Institute for Building and Home Safety (IBHS)¹⁰ issues a state-by-state report on building code developments nationwide, demonstrating the wide variation in state approaches to code enactment and update cycles. The online report follows statewide trends and legislative action, and rates each state’s building code status. The following excerpts from the 2013 IBHS report reveal a snapshot of a few sample states. Readers should be cautioned to refer to the IBHS website for the most recent information on statewide building code updates.

Positive Action: Georgia is still enforcing the 2006 editions of the ICC codes, having bypassed adoption of the 2009 editions of the ICC codes by claiming unfavorable economic conditions and lack of resources. However, Georgia is in the process of adopting the 2012 editions of the ICC.

No Action: New Jersey is currently enforcing the 2009 editions of the ICC codes, with no timetable for adoption of the 2012 editions of the ICC codes. This means that many homes destroyed by Hurricane Sandy will not incorporate the most recently available model code safety standards. Fortunately, Governor Chris Christie’s January 2013 emergency regulations adopting FEMA’s updated Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps as the rebuilding standard for the state mean that homes rebuilt in flood-prone areas generally will benefit from higher elevations (although many building safety experts, including IBHS, recommend homeowners add at least three feet to the ABFE for their area for an additional margin of safety). In addition, by establishing a statewide protocol, the updated elevation regulations will result in more efficient procedures for residents and businesses to construct, reconstruct, relocate, and elevate buildings in flood hazard areas.

Negative Action: Since publication of the Rating the States Report, North Carolina has amended and adopted the 2009 editions of the ICC codes and named it the 2012 North Carolina State Building Code. However, future adoption of model codes on a timely basis is very much in doubt, insofar as the state enacted legislation in 2013 that changes the adoption cycle for ICC codes from every three years to every six years. The same legislation also sets a limit on the categories of inspections conducted by local jurisdictions. The result is a substantially weakened system of code adoption and enforcement in the state.

According to the IBCC report, North Carolina also weakened the technical standards in the state building code through adoption of building techniques that are inadequate for bracing structures in winds above 110 mph, and by proposing elimination of anchors of wood panels to protect against windborne debris. These building code revisions would cover the entire coastal region of the state, where high winds are frequently experienced during the hurricane season.

Even in places where a statewide code is in effect, the administration and enforcement of the building code generally rests with the local government. The local government is responsible for creating the organizational structure for the code enforcement process, designating those responsible for enforcement, and for providing the necessary resources for code administration.⁸

Enforcement of the building code typically occurs at several stages of the construction process. First, municipal or county employees must review all plans and proposals submitted by landowners, builders, and developers who propose to build any type of structure in the local jurisdiction. The plans must be consistent with the current building code in order to receive a building permit. If the plans do not meet code as proposed, the local plan review office may require that modifications, additions, or corrections be made, or the office may reject the proposal. If the plans meet code standards, a permit is issued and the building process can begin. During construction, the local government has a second opportunity to enforce the building code by carrying out on-site inspections of the building as it is being constructed. Any deviation from the plans or other activity that is not consistent with either the permit as issued or the code itself is grounds for a halt-work order from the local building inspector. Corrections must be made before construction is allowed to resume. At the end of the building process, the local building inspector must review the finished product, and only if all conditions have been met will a certificate of occupancy be issued.

It is clear from this discussion of building code enforcement that a heavy burden is placed on the local government to ensure that the code is being followed and that all construction taking place in the jurisdiction will meet code standards at every stage in the process. Plan review and site inspections are time-consuming and complex. Knowledgeable, well-trained building officials and inspectors are critical, and adequate resources are essential in order for local enforcement agents to carry out their duties. In addition, inspectors must not be overburdened with so many daily inspections that they are not able to give each structure a thorough review. This is especially critical in the aftermath of a disaster, when local building inspection offices are inundated with permit requests from homeowners and businesses who wish to restore damaged structures quickly.

LOUISIANA ADOPTS THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE TO BUILD BACK BETTER AND STRONGER AFTER HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed a bill in December 2005 calling for the state to adopt the IBC, the IRC, and other model codes developed by the ICC. The bill applied to structures that had to be rebuilt in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to all buildings constructed statewide starting in 2007. Under the legislation, the 11 parishes hit hardest by the hurricanes were required to put the new code into effect in 30 days, if those parishes already had inspectors, or 90 days if they had to hire inspectors. The bill also established a 19-member council to oversee enforcement of the codes by local governments.

Because the quality of enforcement depends so heavily on the caliber of the local building code officials, some states require testing and licensing of all building officials. Many of these states also provide training and qualification certification for local building inspectors. Of these, however, only a few states require that licensed inspectors receive continuing education to keep their expertise up-to-date with building code changes. Some states also require that general contractors for projects over a certain dollar value be licensed by a state board or commission. Other state licenses that may be required include electrical, mechanical, and plumbing contracting.

South Florida has long had a reputation of having a strong coastal building code. But when Hurricane Andrew blew into the state in 1992, the storm and its aftermath highlighted some serious flaws in then-current assumptions about building codes and construction standards.¹¹ Problems that were discovered in the South Florida building code following Hurricane Andrew included unlicensed contractors, understaffed inspection offices, ineffective building inspection processes, poorly trained building inspectors, inadequate design wind standards, inadequate standards for manufacturing and mobile homes, and egregious failure of building professionals to assume responsibility for safe construction. Ironically, many older structures fared better than newer buildings in the winds of Andrew.

SELF-CHECK

• Define building code and freeboard.

• List the natural hazards that can be addressed through building codes.

• Name two model building codes used in the United States.

• Cite which level of government is responsible for enforcing building codes.

In addition to managing land uses in environmentally sensitive areas and adopting building codes to set construction standards, states also play a critical role in regulating the availability and pricing of insurance products. Insurance is often categorized as a hazard mitigation tool because it can reduce the economic impact of a disaster by distributing the cost of the loss over multiple rate payers. Insurance companies can also promote hazard mitigation by enticing property owners to implement structural hazard mitigation measures in return for a reduction in premiums. The reduction reflects the additional protection provided to the property, for example, when the owner elevates the building above the expected flood height or installs hurricane shutters to protect windows from high winds. These added features can lessen the damage and therefore reduce the payout of insurance claims after a disaster—a win–win for both the property owner and the insurance company.

Although most forms of insurance are structured as voluntary, contractual private agreements, many states intervene and regulate the insurance industry.¹² In the vast majority of states nationwide, state insurance laws require that premiums are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. States monitor private insurance rates to ensure that they are adequately high to keep the company solvent, but not so excessive that the company earns exorbitant profits at the expense of customers. State regulation also ensures that coverage is not discriminatory among costumers—rates should ideally reflect differences in expected claims and expenses.

Insurance is generally available for some but not all natural disasters, varying from state to state and among carriers. Insurance coverage is nearly universally available for wildfires, winter storms, volcanoes, tornadoes, lightning, and hail. These perils are covered under most standard property insurance contracts. Generally speaking, these events are sufficiently random and widespread to permit the private insurance mechanism to operate effectively.

However, the insurance industry encounters serious problems in providing insurance for properties located in areas subject to catastrophic losses, including hurricanes and earthquakes, when hundreds or even thousands of buildings can be damaged or destroyed in a single-hazard event. The problems fundamentally arise from the fact that many insurers do not have the resources to pay for a so-called worst-case event in those high-risk areas.⁸ This risk may also be compounded by climate change, since it is unclear to what extent future losses will mimic past events. For this reason, flood damage from hurricanes is typically not included in most property insurance policies and must be purchased separately by homeowners under the NFIP in communities that participate in the program.⁸

The challenge of insuring property exposed to catastrophic natural disasters was exemplified by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The massive amount of property damage resulting from the hurricane precipitated a major insurance crisis in South Florida, when more than $15 billion in insurance claims were paid. After Andrew, numerous small insurance companies went out of business, and many others stopped writing policies for South Florida. About 16,000 residents were left without homeowner’s insurance following Andrew. Prior to Hurricane Andrew, estimates of the maximum insured loss from a hurricane in southern Florida were $10 billion, far below the actual cost of Andrew. Following the storm, these estimates increased to $50 billion, demonstrating the difficulty in predicting the scale of losses that insurance companies may be liable for when a large hurricane strikes an urban area.¹²

Insurers confronted by catastrophic loss situations have tried to deal with them in numerous ways, such as diversifying their portfolio of insured property to avoid over-concentration in a given state or region, purchasing reinsurance to spread out the risk more broadly, and charging higher premiums in high-risk areas to cover catastrophic losses. Some companies have concluded that the resulting risk of insolvency is unacceptable and have attempted to withdraw entirely from those states. Others have stopped writing any new business there until their excessive risk exposure can be reduced.⁸

As state insurance regulators attempt to prevent premiums from being excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, they are faced with the challenge of assuring an adequate supply of affordable insurance coverage at a time when many insurers are seeking to decrease their disaster exposure and increase their prices for the catastrophic component of that risk.

In theory, the job of state regulators is to protect the public from fraud and imprudent practices that threaten insurance companies’ solvency and to ensure fair market practices. However, public policy is not forged in a political vacuum, and regulation increasingly has been influenced by voters’ perceptions and preferences on how the cost of risk should be shared among different groups. In the process, insurers have largely lost the freedom to charge premiums based strictly on a structure’s loss potential.¹¹

States have created a variety of political mechanisms to regulate insurance. The primary mechanism is a state-mandated insurance pool, which offers subsidized coverage to high-risk properties, relying on additional fees imposed on all insurance contracts in the state to cover the losses of a major disaster.¹² Since 1968, various forms of wind, beach and/or coastal insurance pools have been established in every Atlantic Coast state south of Virginia and in every Gulf Coast state. California also maintains an insurance pool for earthquakes. Since the insurance pools typically do not charge a premium high enough to cover the catastrophic loss potential of the properties involved, they subsidize people living in high-hazard areas and impose the excess cost on people residing elsewhere. Moreover, these state pools do not eliminate the problem of catastrophic losses. Private insurers in those states remain liable, on a market share basis, for the net losses generated by the state pools. Thus, any increase in voluntary business carries with it an increase in the insurer’s share of the adverse results of the pool. This creates a disincentive for existing insurers to remain in those states or for new companies to establish operations there.⁸

Another regulatory tool that states employ is a guaranty fund. Rather than subsidizing individual high-risk properties, a guaranty fund is designed to pay claims on the policies of insolvent insurance companies. Through this mechanism, states raise revenue that can be used to help private insurance companies with benefit payments in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Guaranty funds have been criticized because of the possibility that they may reduce the incentive for consumers to choose insurance companies that are financially sound.¹²

There are several arguments used to justify state programs that subsidize insurance coverage to high-risk areas. One argument centers on equity: some low-income homeowners reside in high-hazard areas, and the government has an obligation to support these homeowners afford insurance. Another argument is economic in nature: certain development in high-risk areas such as coastal beaches provides economic benefits that may outweigh and justify insurance subsidies.¹³

Despite these arguments in favor of state subsidies or supports for the insurance market, there are also significant risks that these programs may ultimately lead to greater disaster losses. The design of state insurance programs requires that we ask who should pay for catastrophe risks, and how these programs are likely to alter the costs of developments and, ultimately, the exposure to natural hazards.

SELF-CHECK

• Name some natural hazards for which insurance is generally available.

• Discuss why hurricane and earthquake risks are more difficult to insure.

• Explain one benefit and one drawback of state insurance pools.

Many states are steadfastly increasing their capability for hazard mitigation, and have progressed far beyond the days when the concept of mitigation was foreign to many state agencies, and hazard mitigation plans were few and far between. These states continue to implement programs, carry out policies, and formulate new strategies to increase resiliency throughout the state as awareness of hazards and the damage they can cause spreads. Outreach and education programs carried out at the state level have further educated the public about the threats of flooding, wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, coastal erosion, and other hazards, although residents often remain unaware of the specific risks their community or neighborhood faces.

Despite multiple instances of successful collaboration to mitigate hazards, many states need to broaden their base of support for hazard mitigation planning and policy implementation. States should be sure that all relevant stakeholders are represented and contribute to the state’s mitigation planning process. Although most state mitigation plans are developed by the state emergency management agency or its equivalent, many other state departments should have a place at the table during the planning process. For example, state departments of instruction (to ensure safe school construction and placement), the department of tourism (to address policies that protect visitors), departments of insurance (where building code policy is often established), state infrastructure and transportation departments (to deal with issues of development in hazardous locations), and many other state departments and agencies can and should contribute to the overall resilience of the state.

The need to broaden participation in state mitigation policy formation spills over into the private sector and nonprofit communities as well. Several states are improving their efforts to engage in mutually beneficial partnerships with a wider range of stakeholders. Major employers, universities, corporations, and businesses all have a stake in enhancing resilience, and can bring a new approach to hazard mitigation and climate change adaptation. Nonprofit conservation organizations such as state-level nature conservancies, land trusts and the Sierra Club may readily support mitigation efforts that coincide with their goals of natural resource protection. Habitat for Humanity and other housing advocacy groups can contribute to state efforts to provide housing that is both affordable and located out of dangerous areas such as floodplains. Charitable groups such as faith-based organizations, the Salvation Army, as well as the American Red Cross and its statelevel chapters can also play a larger role in implementing hazard mitigation policy, especially during the critical post-disaster period when they are directly engaged in disaster management.

Some states take a single-hazard approach to their mitigation planning and tend to focus on the hazard with the greatest public attention, while other states are placing greater emphasis on an all-hazards approach. Hazard identification and risk assessments in many states are now incorporating some of the less visible or pronounced hazards that may exist in their state, such as infectious disease, radon, arsenic contamination of groundwater, hoof and mouth disease, insect infestation, and bioterrorism, to name a few.

The disaster assistance that has been provided to the states from the federal government has contributed significantly to their ability to respond to, prepare for, and recover from multiple disasters. But more importantly, many states are learning from their experiences, and are putting that knowledge to good use. Each disaster brings a state more knowledge about how to restore power quickly to utility customers, remove people and structures from hazardous areas, revive impacted businesses, gather perishable data quickly and efficiently, coordinate interagency efforts, engage the private and nonprofit sectors, and, more importantly, how to help people put their lives back together after a natural hazard. Despite these lessons learned, many states must capitalize more fully on that fleeting window of opportunity that occurs following a disaster. During the next hazard event, the states need to mobilize their mitigation forces faster and wider than ever before, implementing the many strategies and actions that have been put in place to further reduce vulnerability to future hazard events.

SELF-CHECK

• Discuss the role of interagency coordination.

• Explain the responsibilities of the private sector and nonprofit communities in increasing participation in mitigation efforts.

How states approach disaster prevention varies greatly, depending on past hazard experience, resources that are available, and political commitment to reducing vulnerability. This chapter explored the authority and responsibility of state emergency management agencies and the role of mitigation planning at the state level. We also looked at the influence of state mandates on local government land use planning for addressing hazard issues at the community level. The chapter also discussed how some states directly intervene in land use decision making, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. The chapter examined state building codes and state insurance laws, with an eye to understanding how different states approach regulation of construction in hazard areas and insuring against hazard losses. The chapter concluded by outlining some opportunities for states to augment their capability to mitigate the impacts of hazards and increase the resilience of their communities.

1. States follow federal regulations for land use planning and mitigation. True or False?

2. Local governments are not authorized to regulate land use and development. True or False?

5. Funding for state emergency management offices is the sole responsibility of the states. True or False?

6. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program is one of the federally funded programs available to states to develop and implement mitigation efforts. True or False?

a. State, local, and tribal governments submit a mitigation plan for natural hazards

9. A building code sets minimum acceptable standards of construction. True or False?

10. Which of the following is responsible for the enforcement of building codes?

11. The federal government provides support to local code enforcement by requiring licenses for all building officials. True or False?

12. Homeowners insurance does not typically cover which of the following natural hazards?

13. State regulation of hazard insurance controls both price and product. True or False?

14. A state-mandated insurance pool eliminates the problem of catastrophic losses from natural hazards. True or False?

16. A setback is used to harden the coastline to prevent erosion. True or False?

17. Which of the following are not used to establish setback distances for coastal construction?

18. Owners of storm-damaged properties are not guaranteed the right to rebuild. True or False?

1. Though states are responsible for some degree of regulation, local governments have the highest degree of control over land uses. Explain how.

3. Give examples of states that have taken the initiative to establish responsible planning mandates that address the issue of development in hazard areas.

4. State governments serve as a key link between federal agencies and local communities. Describe the flow of interaction between the three levels.

5. Describe the role of a State Hazard Mitigation Officer and list some SHMO responsibilities.

6. Much of the funding for state emergency management offices comes from FEMA; list the types of grant programs that provide support to states.

7. Describe the role of hazard mitigation planning, an important aspect of a successful mitigation program.

8. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 is an important element of state planning. Explain the goal of the DMA.

9. State hazard mitigation plans are serious business for the federal government. Describe the consequences of not preparing a plan.

10. A building code is used by a government to control the physical nature of buildings. List four components of a building code.

11. Give examples of natural hazards that can be addressed through building codes.

13. The insurance industry faces great challenges in regard to areas subject to catastrophic losses. How are insurers coping?

15. Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of natural hazards. List three ways which states can regulate the coast.

16. Setbacks are a critical tool for protecting vulnerable coastal areas from development. Describe how setback lines are determined.

17. Many states provide some degree of protection for wetlands. Define wetland mitigation.

1. As a developer looking to build a small housing development of homes in a former agricultural area, you are faced with the prospect of upgrading the infrastructure to accommodate the new homes. All that currently exists on the property is a narrow country road, well water, and public electric lines. Outline the infrastructure projects that would be required to go further with the plan.

2. What types of local land use planning would be required for a previously underdeveloped tract of lakeside property in Wisconsin? What support would be available from the state and federal government?

3. As a public information officer in a small Texas town that experienced a minor wildfire last year, outline the various emergency management systems that support your community. Name the State Hazard Mitigation Officer and determine the location of his/her office.

4. The first step in risk assessment is to identify hazards; the second is to profile hazard events. Using these two steps, compare the risk assessment of New Orleans to San Francisco.

5. As an insurer in tornado-torn Indiana, a recent dramatic increase in insurance claims has forced you to raise premiums. Draft a letter to your clients justifying your reasons.

6. Consider the different types of land areas in your state. Which would be classified as Areas of Particular Concern, and what protection should they be given?

7. If you were a state official in Colorado, how would you apply in all-hazards approach to your mitigation planning?

List the types of natural hazards that might occur in your state. Predict the worst-case scenario. What state-level mitigation efforts would be appropriate to protect communities statewide?

Using the “Billion Dollar Weather/Climate Disasters” website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions) from the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, has your state experienced any disasters in recent history that have exceeded $1 billion in damages? If so, what efforts has the state taken to reduce the impacts of similar events in the future?

Using information from your state’s office of emergency management website, assess the types of hazards, both natural and human-made that your state informs its residents about. Were you aware of all the threats? Using the site, determine your evacuation route in the event of a natural hazard or disaster.

1. Codiga, D. and K. Wager. 2011. Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Land Use in Hawai’i: A Policy Tool Kit for State and Local Governments. Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy, University of Hawai’i Sea Grant College Program. Honolulu, HI. Available at http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/publications.

4. Babcock, M. 2013. State Hazard Mitigation Plans and Climate Change: Rating the States. Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School.

5. Burby, R. J. and L.C. Dalton. 1994. Plans can matter! The role of land use plans and state planning mandates in limiting development of hazardous areas. Public Administration Review 54(3): 229–238.

6. Christie, D. R. and R. G. Hildreth. 1999. Coastal and Ocean Management Law. 2nd ed. St. Paul, NM: West Group.

7. Beatley, T., D. J. Brower, and A. K. Schwab. 2000. An Introduction to Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

8. Mileti, D. S. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

9. Institute for Building and Home Safety. 2013. The Benefits of Statewide Building Codes. http://www.ibhs.org/building_codes/ Accessed March 25, 2013.

11. Godschalk, D. R., T. Beatley, P. Berke, D. J. Brower, and E.J. Kaiser. 1999. Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.

12. Sutter, D. 2007. Ensuring Disaster: State Insurance Regulation, Coastal Development, and Hurricanes. Mercatus Center: George Mason University.

13. Kousky, C. 2010. Managing the Risks of Natural Catastrophes: The Role and Functioning of State Insurance Programs. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. DP: 10–30.

State Agency	Programs and Policies
Office of the Governor	Promotes policies to increase hazard resilience and climate change adaptation; issues requests for federal assistance for large-scale disasters
State Planning Office	Formulates policy and creates a vision for the state for land use and development; capital improvement programs and budgets; plans for environmental protection, transportation, affordable housing, climate change, etc.
Division of Emergency Management	Oversees hazard mitigation planning and programs; administers disaster grants; conducts disaster preparedness training and exercises for local EM coordinators; manages the NFIP and floodplain regulations
Department of Transportation	Constructs and repairs damaged roads and bridges following hazard events; promulgates design standards for infrastructure to reduce risk of flooding; prepares roads for severe winter weather
Department of Insurance	Promulgates statewide building codes; regulates hazard insurance
Department of Natural Resources	Oversees regulation, management and protection of state environmental assets, including water, air, and land
Division of Coastal Management	Issues development permits in the coastal zone; enforces setback/erosion regulations; identifies areas of environmental concern; maps and regulates coastal hazard areas including inlets, beaches, dunes, erosion zones
Dam Safety Office	Issues permits, conducts inspections, inventories dams
State Geologist	Identifies and maps seismic and landslide risk areas
Department of Agriculture	Assists farmers reduce their risk from flooding, hail, severe winter weather, tornados, livestock and plant disease, terrorist attacks on food production
Division of Forestry	Oversees forest fire prevention and suppression; disease and pest control; promotes awareness of wildfire risk and mitigation options
Office of Water Resources	Regulates water supply and water quality; administers stormwater management permits; manages drought mitigation and response programs; monitors stream gauges
Department of Health and Human Services; Division of Aging	Administers programs to protect vulnerable populations during severe weather events
Division of Public Health	Prepares for threat of bioterrorism; oversees preventive measures for disease pandemics; develops plans for climate change impacts on human health (heat waves, drought, disease vectors, etc.)
Utilities Commission	Regulates public utilities; works with providers on contingency planning for power outages and restoration of service in hazard events
State Climate Office	Collects, analyzes, disseminates, archives weather and climatic data; works with local weather offices and National Weather Service to forecast hazard events; provides scientific information on climate change to state and local policy makers

Description	States
No discussion of climate change or inaccurate discussion of climate change	AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, IA, KT, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, ND, OK, TN, SD, WY
Minimal mention of climate change related issues	AZ, AR, IL, KA, LA, OH, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA
Accurate but limited discussion of climate change and/or brief discussion with acknowledgement of need for future inclusion	FL, ME, MI, MN, NJ, NC, OR, RI, WV, WI
Thorough discussion of climate change impacts on hazards and climate adaptation actions	AK, CA, CO, CT, HI, MD, MA, NH, NY, VT, WA

Areas of Environmental Concern	Land designated for added state protection; defined by geographic boundaries, habitats, or natural resources.
Building Code	A collection of laws, regulations, ordinances, or other statutory requirements adopted by a government that controls the physical structure of buildings.
Freeboard	Elevating a building’s lowest floor above predicted flood elevations, generally by an additional height of 1–3 feet above the minimum height requirement set by the National Flood Insurance Program.
Setback	Regulation that prohibits or limits the erection of structures within a specified distance from the ocean or other hazard area.
Wetland mitigation	The off-site preservation of another wetland located away from a development activity, or the creation of a new wetland to take the place of one that is impaired or destroyed.