Save the Whales...and Salmon...By a Kinder and Gentler National Flood Program
Every now and then, a headline has me wondering “what is this?” I love whales and watching them. I love salmon in a very different way and usually only watch them on my dinner plate. So, when the Insurance Journal listed a headline, Flood Program Must Consider Salmon and Whales, my curiosity was piqued.
Here is the gist of the article:
Federal fisheries experts have told the Federal Emergency Management Agency that -- by underwriting thousands of flood insurance policies in Puget Sound -- it encourages construction in floodplains in ways that harm federally protected species.
In response, FEMA is now drafting new building rules for about 122 communities in Puget Sound to minimize the harm to salmon and endangered whales that feed on them.
"We're going to see less damages caused by flooding and less lives lost due to flooding and good riparian stewardship," said John Graves, a floodplain specialist with the National Flood Insurance Program.
What FEMA is doing in Washington state is being closely watched elsewhere.
Conservation groups across the country have challenged FEMA's flood program for harming endangered sea turtles in Florida, pallid sturgeon in Missouri, jaguars in Arizona, salmon in Oregon, and the Southwestern willow flycatcher in New Mexico.
FEMA has "a national responsibility to comply with the Endangered Species Act and not harm imperiled species by allowing and even subsidizing development in floodplain habitat areas," said Dan Siemann, senior environmental policy specialist for the National Wildlife Federation.
Conservation groups say FEMA's program allows building to occur in areas where it otherwise would not, since most private insurers won't safeguard homes in such flood-prone areas. They say the agency sets minimum building standards, but those don't consider impacts of development on wildlife and their habitat.
I imagine that environmental groups could use the same logic and tactic to force federally funded or guaranteed mortgages to be written with new environmental building rules. And, maybe that is the way it should be. Construction and building codes can potentially harm or have significant impact on the environment and our fellow creatures living on earth.
There are significant federalism and public policy issues in those topics. Certainly, building codes should allow for affordable housing and there should be codes written with the environment in mind…but shouldn’t those be written and decided by the governing authorities charged with the responsibilities associated with those issues? Shouldn't mitigation be the primary concern in the National Flood Program Building Codes?
This issue, and the issue of other environmental impacts of coastal construction, is also being discussed in relation to the proposed federal "backstop" for homeowner insurance. Whether it is Klein's Homeowner Defense Act, or adding wind to flood coverage, the issue arises.
How do we protect the environment while insuring coastal areas? Coastal development is a major economic driver but there are clearly costs. Simply charging more for insurance because of greater risk helps with the insurance problem, but not the environmental problem. States often consider subsidies of coastal development because of the benefit to the rest of the state. That is often to the detriment of the environment and negates any benefit of higher insurance costs.
One answer is consistent environmental protection laws. I assume enviros want more than we currently have, but it would be out of place in an insurance bill. However, the federal insurance plan could be crafted to protect certain areas. There have been attempts to do this with flood insurance, but special interests have been able to get exemptions.
Floridians need to address this issue because it is one of the reasons we can't get federal legislation moving.