Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee

Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee
Name	Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee
Formation	1966
Type	Federal advisory committee
Purpose	Floodplain management review and policy coordination
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Leader title	Chair
Parent organization	United States Government

Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee The Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee was a federal advisory body convened to assess floodplain policies across multiple Interior and Agriculture agencies, coordinate with FEMA predecessors, and recommend reforms to interagency practice. It linked operational agencies such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the United States Geological Survey with policy bodies like the Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency to address floodplain impacts on communities, infrastructure, and natural resources.

History and Establishment

The committee emerged amid postwar development debates involving U.S. Congress committees, the National Academy of Sciences, and regional stakeholders including the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Mississippi River Commission. Influences included landmark events and reports such as the Great Flood of 1927, the Hurricane Agnes response, and studies by the President's Water Resources Policy Commission. Establishment drew on statutory frameworks like the Flood Control Act of 1936 and interactions with the Federal Power Commission, while echoing reform efforts after the Flood Control Act of 1965 and recommendations from the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 debate.

Purpose and Objectives

The committee’s objectives were to harmonize practices among agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service (later Natural Resources Conservation Service) and the Bureau of Reclamation, improve coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service for flood forecasting, and integrate natural resource considerations highlighted by the Council on Environmental Quality. It sought to reconcile engineering approaches championed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers with ecological priorities promoted by the Environmental Defense Fund and policy guidance from the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Membership and Organizational Structure

Membership comprised senior officials from agencies including the United States Geological Survey, FEMA predecessors inside the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. It coordinated with legislative liaisons from the House Committee on Public Works and the Senate Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and consulted academic institutions such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California, Berkeley, and Colorado State University. The committee formed working groups with representatives from the National Research Council, regional commissions like the Great Lakes Commission, and nonprofit stakeholders including the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Nature Conservancy.

Key Reports and Findings

Major outputs included interagency reports synthesizing hydrologic science from the United States Geological Survey with engineering analyses of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and socioeconomic assessments from the Census Bureau. Findings emphasized risk-based approaches aligning with research by the National Academy of Sciences and advocated for floodplain mapping improvements in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The committee’s recommendations drew on case studies involving the Mississippi River, the Colorado River, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and urban flood events in cities like New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles.

Policy Influence and Implementation

The committee influenced statutes and programs connected to the National Flood Insurance Program administered by FEMA, contributed to amendments in the Flood Control Act family, and informed agency guidance used by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Implementation pathways included coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency for floodplain mapping, collaboration with state entities such as the California Department of Water Resources and the Texas Water Development Board, and incorporation into planning frameworks used by metropolitan planning organizations like the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Its work intersected with funding mechanisms via the Office of Management and Budget and program evaluation by the Government Accountability Office.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics from environmental organizations such as Sierra Club and policy analysts at the Brookings Institution argued the committee sometimes favored structural fixes promoted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers over nonstructural alternatives advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency and The Nature Conservancy. Congressional oversight debates in the United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and litigation involving the National Wildlife Federation and state governments highlighted tensions over property rights, cost-sharing with municipalities, and allocation of federal funds. Academic critiques from scholars at Harvard University and Yale University questioned the committee’s use of benefit-cost analyses popularized by the Office of Management and Budget and recommended stronger incorporation of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and long-term projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Category:Flood control in the United States