Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond (2024)

9

Landscape of Policy, Funding, and Planning

INTRODUCTION

The present chapter takes a closer look at the current landscape of laws, government agencies and programs, and state and community resilience and hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) that can or do play a role in facilitating (or hindering) relocation when the status quo is untenable and relocation is deemed necessary (whether as a result of discrete disasters or gradual changes). The chapter reviews this landscape at the federal, state, regional, and local levels of government, as well as nongovernmental institutions that work alongside government entities. Each section examines how agency- or program-specific mechanisms for funding shape what is actually possible in terms of relocation. The chapter describes the complex web of programs, policies, funding opportunities, and plans that communities pursuing relocation must navigate in the absence of a formal federal program focused on community-driven relocation. The ramifications of this complexity will be discussed in Chapter 10, including issues of equity, social vulnerability, and justice.

As this chapter shows, the several government entities that work in this space have different areas of focus. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is largely focused on response, hazard mitigation, and disaster recovery, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)—with some degree of involvement from FEMA and the Natural Resource Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—is focused on floodplain management. Meanwhile, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the other major federal agency discussed below, is focused on housing and community infrastructure. These differences at the federal level can result in competing or contradictory goals and approaches. For example, in Fair Bluff, North Carolina, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration invested in a business center while, in the same area, FEMA-funded buyouts of houses and businesses were undertaken (Flavelle & Belleme, 2021). Another example of multiple sources of funding supporting multiple courses of action is Princeville, North Carolina, where FEMA and HUD are funding buyouts, USACE is planning a new levee (Flavelle & Belleme, 2021), and the town is in the process of moving part of its community to a 52-acre site located outside the floodplain (Smith & Nguyen, 2021). Despite the existence of many laws and programs that could support community relocation, the existing legal framework does not address relocation in a coordinated, comprehensive manner that communities can easily navigate (FEMA, 2023g; Howe et al., 2021; Ristroph, 2019). In some cases, as discussed below, local and state programs can complement federal programs, especially when states and local communities are given greater flexibility in how they administer federal programs and are given the time to plan for this complex activity. (Newtok,

Alaska, is representative of this type of effort [Ristroph, 2021]; see Chapter 3 of this report for more.) However, this is not the norm and at times there are disconnects among federal and other governments, as well as between local government leadership and community members (see Box 9-1).

Legal and funding structures can be disaster-related, a reactive approach, or non-disaster-related, to include a proactive approach that involves acting based on sound planning practices. Government programs, and the agencies that run them, most commonly follow a disaster-recovery model when facilitating relocation and other courses of action around environmental threats such as increasingly destructive hurricanes, subsidence, and sea level rise. In a disaster-recovery model, much of the available funding comes episodically as a reaction to a specific disaster or in the form of annual nationally competitive programs. Furthermore, it may not be aligned with state and community policies and plans, particularly those relating to capital improvements. This stands in contrast to a model of proactive measures, where funding might be available year-round and allocated based on risk and need.

These two models of action are not the only difference in the approaches of various government agencies, programs, and plans; the intended purpose of the funding can also vary. Resilience approaches—which encompass a range of measures that a community can take that aim to prevent, plan for, mitigate against, react to, and recover from disasters—will continue to be important as these communities navigate the evolving threats of climate change. As shown below, that approach is much more common than relocation.

Furthermore, the notion of community relocation itself is highly varied (as discussed in more detail in Chapters 1 and 3). This is due to several factors, including a deep attachment to place, the lack of a coordinated governmental strategy within and across jurisdictions and agencies, and the narrowly defined grant programs available. In most cases, relocation is undertaken by local governments, and involves a partial movement of housing and a community’s physical assets. Communities typically draw from multiple sources of post-disaster recovery funding, including grants tied to the removal of hazard-prone housing alongside funding to repair and rebuild other parts of a community. In one of the largest known examples in the United States, in the 1990s, thousands of homes in multiple Midwest communities were purchased, demolished, and relocated following floods (see Chapter 3). In most cases, less flood-prone parts of the communities remained, often protected by large levee systems.

Finally, disaster aid (financial or otherwise) is a critical factor in recovery and resilience, but the type of aid can be more important than the amount (Greer & Trainor, 2021). For example, one study found that

temporary housing can slow permanent household recovery (Peacock et al., 1987, cited by Greer & Trainor, 2021). In order for aid to be effective, agencies need to align the timing of aid programs with the community’s capacity to accept and manage the program(s), and ensure programs meet household needs and are designed to efficiently and effectively address these needs (Greer & Trainor, 2021). In addition, Zurich (2013) stressed the need to rebuild structures to be more flood resilient and suggested that governments and insurers can play a role in this by creating incentives and providing advice. Other effective drivers of action include economic incentives and regulatory and market drivers (Dawson et al., 2011; Suykens et al., 2019; Valois, Tessier et al., 2020; Zou et al., 2020).

Below, the focus is on federal, state, and regional levels of government. However, it is important to note that in many cases, there is insufficient attention placed on supporting local capacity building, drawing from local bases of knowledge and experience (see Chapter 7), and addressing relocation-specific challenges, such as the programming of the resulting open space, the identification of receiving areas, and the construction of replacement housing and new communities (see Chapter 8). Each of these deficiencies benefit from inclusive, collaborative planning, as the committee also discusses in Chapter 8.

Nested Scales for Regional Planning

As was introduced above, multiple government levels come into play when a community considers or pursues relocation. Understanding the different levels of institutions and how they connect is important to understand which agencies have the ability to invest in or otherwise contribute to solutions. The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) buyout approach, as illustrated in a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (see Figure 9-1) and described in more detail in the next section, offers an example of nested scales of decision making (Weber & Moore, 2019). The HMGP buyout process involves a multifaceted collaboration among federal, state, and local entities and homeowners that spans approximately five years. Initiated by a presidential disaster declaration, FEMA invites affected states and tribes to apply for funding, which is further broken down into local “subapplications.” Local entities, in preparation, identify potential participants, conduct analyses, and collate necessary documentation. However, they often grapple with uncertainties around funding amounts and requirements for matching funds, leading to delays. Once FEMA approves applications and disburses funds, local jurisdictions manage property-related activities like appraisals, offers to homeowners, and demolitions. Although FEMA allows a year-long application window postdisaster, the ensuing procedures displayed in Figure 9-1—from property appraisal to demolition—are intricate (Weber & Moore, 2019). Because of this intricate web of procedures and people across multiple levels, a lack of coordination and leadership at the federal level trickles down, placing additional pressures on state, regional, and local entities to manage the coordination of resources.

Interrelationship of Funding, Policy, and Planning

In addition to the nested scales described above, this chapter discusses three interrelated elements of relocation: funding, policy, and planning. Funding is the money available to fund relocation and planning for relocation. Policies dictate how much funding is available, for whom, and for what activities. Planning defines more specifically what actions will take place with available funding within a state or locale, adhering to policy and funding stipulations. Additionally, federal policies may require that plans (e.g., HMPs) exist at the state or local level in order for a state or locale to receive funding, and funding can, at times, be used to help states and locales develop such plans, revealing the intricate connections between these three elements. As is displayed in Figure 9-1, community relocation is a multilevel process, each level with different roles and responsibilities. As such, the

sections of this report, broken down by level (federal, state, regional, local), cover funding, policy, and planning to different extents.

The federal section primarily discusses funding, as the federal government’s main role in the current landscape is to provide funding for states and communities. Because most of the funding comes from the federal level, the policies that stipulate eligibility are also key at this level, and community actions are dictated by them. Notably, the financial costs of community-driven relocation vary greatly from case to case depending on a multitude of factors (e.g., distance of move, current price of supplies, community expectations such as for housing types). The costs of relocation for several case studies are noted in Chapter 3. At the state level, the discussion centers on state programs, which can help to facilitate relocation, particularly by connecting communities to federal and other funding and to state plans (e.g., Louisiana’s Coastal Master Plan), which mention relocation as an adaptation strategy. The state-level programs discussed in this chapter vary in the amount of planning for relocation they conduct. For example, Blue Acres proactively purchases undeveloped land and works to identify contiguous parcels in order to enhance the benefits of relocation while other state programs do not. The regional coordination section covers planning on topics that affect multiple jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities, states). The landscape of regional planning entities in Gulf states does not currently incorporate community-driven relocation but rather the structures and networks which, if desired by members, could be leveraged to plan for community-driven relocation. At the local level, there are buyout programs that may draw from local funding sources and therefore have more flexible spending guidelines and that in some instances serve a similar role as state buyout programs. At this level there is also a heavier focus on detailed land-use planning.

FEDERAL AGENCIES, AUTHORITIES, AND POLICIES

This section looks at the agencies and programs through which the federal government offers support to individuals and communities dealing with changes to their home areas. It is divided into examples of agencies and programs that follow a disaster-response model and those that follow a more proactive model; the section then briefly discusses nonfinancial technical assistance provided by these federal agencies to state and local governments.

Maze of Potential Assistance

As will be demonstrated by this section’s summaries of federal agencies and programs, and the current set of laws and policies, communities

have to navigate a complex maze centered mainly on funding buyouts of individual households while allowing for enough time and money to obtain replacement housing. Funding distributed through competitive grant applications is too often episodic and unpredictable, does not provide a stable base of resources for planning, is resource intensive for communities, and may unfairly privilege the communities and households with the best grant writers over those most in need (more in Chapter 10). Figure 9-2 depicts the array of federal programs that threatened communities may navigate when pursuing relocation. Each of the agencies displayed in Figure 9-2, and their relevance to community-driven relocation, are explained in more detail in this section. This “unclear federal leadership” was identified as the “key challenge to climate migration as a resilience strategy” in a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2020a). A discussion of specific challenges with this current framework and opportunities to overcome them is in Chapter 10.

Disaster-Related Agencies

Much of the federal-level funding for relocation has been allocated for discrete purposes as components of larger federal post-disaster efforts or efforts otherwise directly linked to the occurrence of a specific disaster (as opposed to ongoing change over time and/or proactive measures taken against the threat of that sort of change).

Federal Emergency Management Agency

With a history of providing disaster relief tracing back to 1803, FEMA’s mission is to “[help] people before, during and after disasters.”¹ FEMA funding is authorized through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (Stafford Act, P.L. 100-707) and its amendments.² As discussed below, FEMA funding is tied to a presidential disaster declaration, meaning that the programs administered by FEMA largely conform to a post-disaster funding model. This can curtail efforts to proactively prepare for anticipated hazards (including relocating away from hazardous areas). Additionally, the slow effects of climate change, including erosion and sea level rise, are not eligible to be presidentially declared disasters. Thus, FEMA funds are often off-limits to individuals or communities seeking to proactively address climate-related threats (GAO, 2009;

___________________

¹ More information about FEMA’s mission, values, and history is available at https://www.fema.gov/about

² These amendments include the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (HR 707, 106th Congress, P.L. 106-390) and the Disaster Recovery Reform Act in 2018 (HR 4460, 115th Congress).

Shen & Ristroph, 2020). Furthermore, this type of funding model (and the annual competition model used by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities [BRIC] program) does not provide the consistent predictable funding that planning for community-driven relocation warrants.

There is some opportunity, however, to use FEMA assistance programs for community-wide relocation, despite funds often being made available only in the immediate aftermath of a presidentially declared disaster. For example, Alatna Village in Alaska was able to relocate using funds from FEMA’s HMGP after flooding disaster declarations in 1994 (GAO, 2009). FEMA administers several assistance programs, most of which include relocation as an eligible action. Those most relevant to this report include the Public Assistance (PA) Program, Individuals and Households Program (IHP),³ and Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs.⁴ HMA programs include the HMGP, BRIC, and Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program (FMA). Eligibility for each program, except FMA, requires a prior disaster declaration. BRIC requires a disaster declaration in the past seven years. Thus, FMA and BRIC are formally classified by FEMA as non-disaster-related programs but are discussed in this section to keep FEMA programs together. Additionally, each of these programs (minus IHP) require applicants and subapplicants to have a FEMA-approved HMP usually at the time of application and when funds are distributed. HMGP also requires an approved plan at the time of the disaster declaration.

The PA Program is aimed at providing immediate relief to disaster-affected communities to restore disaster-damaged facilities. Unlike HMGP, which allows funds to be used for damaged and non-damaged facilities, PA funds can only be used to repair damaged facilities. Relocation is an approved project under this program if the relocation meets certain conditions including that the relocation is cost-effective and the property is subject to repeated damage (e.g., is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area; FEMA, 2020b). IHP funding is meant to help individuals and households to cover expenses related to basic needs (such as housing) and disaster recovery efforts that are not covered by insurance, including moving and expenses.⁵

HMGP funding is intended to “support mitigation activities that reduce or eliminate potential losses” and foster “resilience against the effects of disasters” (FEMA, 2023c, p. 28); however, funds are only made available after

___________________

³ More information about the PA Program is available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public, and more information about the IHP is available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/program

⁴ More information about HMA programs is available at https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/summary-fema-hazard-mitigation-assistance-hma-programs

⁵ More information about IHP is available at https://www.fema.gov/assistance/individual/program

a disaster declaration. HMGP distributes an estimated percentage of federal disaster assistance, typically 15 percent of total federal disaster costs, to the applicant (state, tribal, and territorial governments, and the District of Columbia) on a sliding scale.⁶ States with an approved Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan (a plan that exceeds the basic requirements) receive an additional 5 percent (FEMA, 2022b). Successful applicants then establish their own funding parameters within FEMA’s eligibility constraints and distribute this assistance to communities (subapplicants). In the past 30 years, HMGP has obligated more than 3.6 billion dollars for property acquisition (FEMA, 2023f). In a property acquisition, typically the land is purchased and the structure is either demolished or relocated. Significantly, entities are eligible for this mitigation funding only in the wake of a specific disaster and cannot apply to use the funds for projects that might mitigate the impact of future hazards, unless they have recently experienced a disaster.

In an effort to be more proactive, FEMA established an annual competitive grants program, the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program,⁷ to support planning for and implementing measures to reduce future risk from natural hazards at the state, local, tribal, and territorial government levels. In 2020, the BRIC program⁸ essentially replaced PDM and shifted its focus to nature-based solutions⁹ rather than the large-scale acquisition of hazard-prone housing (FEMA, 2021a). BRIC is funded as a percentage of the total disaster funding allocated by Congress in the previous year, or through one-time appropriations, such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA). This approach perpetuates a system in which a community’s eligibility is determined by past disasters rather than future need as determined by projected vulnerabilities due to climate change. Furthermore, like any competitive grant program, BRIC does not provide the predictability in future funding needed across all states and localities. Competitive processes also often exacerbate and widen gaps between need and access to funding (see Chapter 10).

___________________

⁶ More information about the FEMA-approved HMPG is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation

⁷ More information about the PDM is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/pre-disaster

⁸ More information about the BRIC program is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities

⁹ “Nature-based solutions are actions to protect, sustainably manage, or restore natural ecosystems, that address societal challenges [e.g., climate change, disaster risk reduction …] providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” Nature-based solutions are an alternative to grey or manmade infrastructure solutions. One example is planting coastal trees as a method of reducing storm impact. More information about nature-based solutions is available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/05/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-nature-based-solutions-to-climate-change

FEMA’s FMA¹⁰ is focused on flood hazards and does not require a prior disaster declaration. The program is authorized for reducing or eliminating the risk of repetitive flooding for buildings that are insured by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and thus funds buyouts only for that group of properties. In 2022, FMA launched the Swift Current Initiative¹¹ with money from the IIJA.¹² The intent of this initiative is to expedite money to “disaster survivors with repetitively flooded homes” to help them become more flood resilient.¹³ Only NFIP-insured properties designated as Severe Repetitive Loss, Repetitive Loss, or Substantially Damaged are eligible.¹⁴ The initiative provided 60 million dollars in fiscal year 2022 across Louisiana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi, the four states with the highest losses following Hurricane Ida. Eligible projects include the acquisition and subsequent demolition or relocation of eligible properties. Non-relocation flood mitigation projects (e.g., elevation and dry floodproofing) are also options under this program (FEMA, 2022b).

NFIP also has a history of investing in efforts to lower flood risks, such as through the Community Rating System (CRS), a program designed to reward communities that take actions to better manage flood risks beyond those required under the program. CRS has led to reduced overall losses and lower flood claims in participating communities (Gourevitch & Pinter, 2023; Highfield & Brody, 2017; Kousky & Michel-Kerjan, 2017). Additionally, in 2020, Congress passed the Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Act (P.L. 116-284), which authorizes FEMA to award grants to states, federally recognized tribes, and territories so that these smaller governmental entities can establish and administer revolving loan funds aimed at promoting resilience and available to local communities. This system differs from existing HMA programs in that the state, territory, or federally recognized tribe is responsible for making funding decisions and awarding loans to local governments rather than routing local government subapplications to FEMA for approval. FEMA’s program for administering these grants, the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan

___________________

¹⁰ More information about the FMA is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods

¹¹ More information about the Swift Current Initiative is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods/swift-current

¹² More information about the IIJA is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ More information about Severe Repetitive Loss, Repetitive Loss, and Substantially Damaged is available at https://www.fema.gov/txt/rebuild/repetitive_loss_faqs.txt

Fund Program,¹⁵ received an initial sum of 500 million dollars over five years, authorized by Congress via the IIJA. FEMA has initiated the first notice of funding opportunity for these grants, and eligible entities are passing legislation and applying for monies with which to establish locally focused revolving loan funds. To alleviate one of the largest barriers for states and localities, FEMA does not require the use of benefit-cost analysis to determine project eligibility for this program, and loans may be used to cover nonfederal match costs for other HMA grants. (Benefit-cost analysis and nonfederal matches will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 10.)

Department of Housing and Urban Development

HUD was created in 1965 through the consolidation of five agencies, including the Federal Housing Administration and the Community Facilities Administration, with the intent of creating one federal agency through which to address “urban problems including substandard and deteriorating housing.”¹⁶ Although HUD’s primary purpose is not relocation or climate resilience, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program “supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities,”¹⁷ and funding under this umbrella can be (and has been) used for community relocation (GAO, 2020a). In addition, HUD recently released an implementation guide for community-driven relocation (HUD, 2023a). The guide details relocation mechanisms, HUD and FEMA funding opportunities, and a six-step process for community-driven relocation with examples. The CDBG funding categories most relevant for relocation are CDBG Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) Program funds and CDBG Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program funds, both of which are tied to recent disasters, and neither of which receives regular annual congressional appropriations. Components of HUD’s CDBG Program may receive congressional funding after a disaster, while also having an annual competitive grants program (discussed below). Notably, funds from these two programs “have a statutory focus on benefiting vulnerable lower-income people and communities and targeting the most impacted and distressed areas” (HUD, 2019, p. 45838).

Funds for CDBG-MIT were first appropriated by Congress in 2018 for disasters that occurred in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The program provides

___________________

¹⁵ More information about the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/storm-rlf

¹⁶ More information about the history of HUD is available at https://archives.hud.gov/hud50/hud50.hud.gov/hud_history_timeline/index.html

¹⁷ More information about the CDBG is available at https://www.hudex-change.info/programs/cdbg/

grants to areas recently impacted by qualifying disasters to carry out “activities to mitigate disaster risks and reduce future losses” (HUD, 2019, p. 45838). CDBG-MIT funds¹⁸ can be used for post-disaster buyouts (Smith, 2014). Grantees must develop an action plan for their proposed projects and these plans must reference FEMA-approved HMPs. Funds can be used to update HMPs and for other planning activities, including integrating mitigation plans with other planning initiatives (HUD, 2019). Thus, if a community or state decides to incorporate community-driven relocation into their HMP, the associated planning is an activity that could be covered by CDBG-MIT funds.

CDBG-DR¹⁹ is another such program that relies on competitive grants to disburse funds. It is funded as a supplemental congressional appropriation and can be used to fund the nonfederal cost-share that is required by other federal disaster assistance programs. After Congress appropriates funding to CDBG-DR, HUD formally announces the availability of CDBG-DR awards and associated rules in the Federal Register. CDBG-DR grants are subject to laws that apply to all CDBG programs. Eligible activities that grantees have undertaken with CDBG-DR grants include relocation of displaced residents, acquisition of damaged properties, rehabilitation of damaged homes and public facilities (e.g., neighborhood centers and roads), and certain hazard mitigation activities (HUD, 2023b).

Separate funding is reserved for federally recognized tribes through two programs, the Indian Housing Block Grant and the Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) Program.²⁰ Notably, many U.S. Gulf Coast tribes are not federally recognized, meaning they cannot benefit from these programs. Under ICDBG, Imminent Threat Grants are available on a noncompetitive basis to recognized tribes for a problem “which if unresolved or not addressed will have an immediate negative impact on public health or safety” (Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5301, 2023, § 1003.4). For example, Newtok, Alaska, received funding from ICDBG Imminent Threat Grants to aid in its relocation efforts (Ristroph, 2021; see Chapter 3 for more). Because of the focus on the imminent nature of the threat, this report considers these grants to be disaster-related (i.e., contingent on a specific event rather than ongoing).

There is also some precedent for HUD funds, outside of those described above, being used to support community relocation in the wake of disasters

___________________

¹⁸ More information about HUD’s CDBG-MIT funding is available at https://www.hudex-change.info/programs/cdbg-mit/overview/

¹⁹ More information about CDBG-DR funding is available at https://www.hudex-change.info/programs/cdbg-dr/overview/

²⁰ More information on both grant programs is available at https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/ih/grants

even though they were not labeled as such. An appropriations bill that followed Hurricane Sandy allocated 16 billion dollars²¹ for HUD’s Community Development Fund (the program in which CDBG sits) to be used for “disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization” (P.L. 113-2, 127 Stat 36, January 29, 2013). These funds were limited to jurisdictions with presidentially declared disasters from 2011 to 2013. For example, through HUD’s National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC), Louisiana received 48 million dollars in CDBG funds to relocate the community of Isle de Jean Charles (see Chapter 3).²² Additionally, with NDRC, state funding, and innovative partnerships with philanthropic organizations, such as Foundation for Louisiana, a total of 47.5 million dollars was available for Louisiana’s Strategic Adaptations for Future Environments (LA SAFE)²³ (Spidalieri & Bennett, 2020c).

Although the majority of the HUD programs described above are tied to disasters, it is worth noting the range of resilience actions that HUD has undertaken, including addressing issues of housing, transportation, education, community centers, and implementing flood risk reduction measures to multiple hazards, including tidal flooding, stormwater, and episodic storm events. By doing so, HUD has demonstrated the ability to provide a more comprehensive approach to resilience in comparison with other federal programs whose funding might be used for relocation. This is important considering the numerous elements (e.g., housing, transportation, and education) that must be considered in community-driven relocation.

Agencies Not Primarily Disaster-Related

A number of other federal programs are generally proactive, unlike disaster-related programs, but they do not have sufficient funding for community relocations that are needed now or to prepare for future climate conditions (Howe et al., 2021).²⁴

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Civil Works Program of USACE is the main federal agency in charge of flood risk management (FRM), which stands as one of its three

___________________

²¹ Which was reduced to 15.2 billion dollars as a request of sequestration (GAO, 2014).

²² More information about the Isle de Jean Charles resettlement is available at https://isledejeancharles.la.gov/

²³ More information about LA SAFE is available at https://lasafe.la.gov/

²⁴ As noted above, although BRIC and FMA are designated as pre-disaster grant programs, they are included in the previous section because their funding is tied to past disasters.

core missions.²⁵ Authorized through the 1960 Flood Control Act (P.L. 86-645) and subsequent amendments, USACE statutes require various authorizations through the Water Resources Development Act to work on individual or multiple water projects.²⁶ The Rivers and Harbor Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-483) authorized USACE to assist states and localities with water resource development projects and beach erosion control and to conduct flood control surveys. It is also the authority under which USACE conducts nonstructural projects, which have included community relocation. However, the requirement that USACE seek congressional authorization to address flood risk in a specific locality, with no organic statute governing overall authority of USACE to determine its own agenda, has resulted in piecemeal and inequitable distribution of FRM projects.

USACE’s FRM program does evaluate, recommend, and fund nonstructural measures, including buyouts and relocations, to reduce the risks of flooding from fluvial or coastal sources, and it authorizes “relocation with a view toward formulating the most economically, socially, and environmentally acceptable means of reducing or preventing flood damages” (33 U.S.C., § 701b-11). To this end, USACE’s National Nonstructural Committee advises USACE internally on policies and processes to increase the capacity of USACE to implement nonstructural measures.²⁷

Although used sporadically in the past, USACE’s use of nonstructural measures is growing, as indicated by the designation of 296 million dollars largely for elevating and floodproofing structures through the Southwest Coastal Louisiana Project²⁸ (through IIJA; Renfro, 2022). However, notably, relocation is not identified as one of the nonstructural measures that will be pursued in this project. Furthermore, the Coastal Texas Protection and Restoration Feasibility Study final report (USACE & Texas General Land Office, 2021, p. 35) finds that “managed retreat” was “determined not to be a practicable and standalone solution” to reduce impacts from a wide array of coastal hazards but that “managed retreat” could “work in combination with a structural system to manage residual risk and address changes in future conditions.” These examples show that while there may be increasing attention on nonstructural flood management measures, community relocation is not a predominant option.

___________________

²⁵ USACE’s two other core missions are core missions support commercial navigation and the restoration of aquatic ecosystems. More information about the FRM mission is available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Flood-Risk-Management/

²⁶ More information about the Water Resources Development Act is available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Water-Resources-Development-Act/

²⁷ More information on the role of the National Nonstructural Committee is available at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Project-Planning/nnc/

²⁸ More information on the Southwest Coastal Louisiana Project is available at https://cims.coastal.louisiana.gov/outreach/Projects/SWCoastal

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s NRCS administers several programs related to flooding and erosion control projects and watershed planning. The Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program²⁹ and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program³⁰ both allow for structural measures, buyouts, and relocations to prevent erosion or reduce risk exposure. For a community to receive funds or technical assistance from NRCS watershed programs, a local sponsor (e.g., city, county, federally recognized tribe), working through their local NRCS office, must first demonstrate project feasibility. Once feasibility has been assessed, NRCS may authorize the proposed project, and then resources are made available to sponsors. EWP does require that an NRCS State Conservationist declare a “local watershed emergency,” but it does not require an official federal or state disaster declaration.³¹ Additionally, individual landowners who would like assistance from EWP must apply through a local sponsor. Funding from NRCS was used in the purchase of flood-damaged properties in Pecan Acres, a neighborhood in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, that had flooded almost 20 times in the past three decades (Louisiana Office of the Governor, 2023).

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs of DOI has small funding streams specific to tribes, inducing annual competitive grants awarded by the Tribal Climate Resilience Annual Awards Program.³² Previously, this program only provided limited funds for planning, travel, and capacity building, but the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enacted as the IIJA (P.L. 117-58) in 2021 provided 216 million dollars for climate resilience programs, with 130 million dollars for community relocation (DOI, 2022a; Flavelle, 2022). This funding has enabled Alaska tribes, including Newtok Village and the Village of Chefornak, to plan and carry out relocation efforts in a proactive way (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2022). However, there are only 11 federally

___________________

²⁹ More information on the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations program is available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/watershed-and-flood-prevention-operations-wfpo-program

³⁰ More information on the EWP program is available at https https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/ewp-emergency-watershed-protection

³¹ Ibid.

³² More information on the Tribal Climate Resilience Annual Awards Program is available at https://www.bia.gov/service/tcr-annual-awards-program

recognized tribes in the Gulf states,³³ so many Indigenous communities in need were not eligible to apply for these funds, and no tribe in the Gulf states has yet received funding (DOI, 2022b).

In partnership with FEMA, DOI also leads the new Voluntary Community-Driven Relocation program to assist tribal communities severely affected by climate-related environmental threats. At the November 30, 2022, White House Tribal Nations Summit, the Biden Administration committed the government to providing noncompetitively awarded funding to various federally recognized tribes, including the Chitimacha Tribe in Louisiana (DOI, 2022a).

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

In contrast to several disaster-related programs, the Highway Trust Fund of DOT is distributed to all states annually for state and local priorities.³⁴ Although also inadequately funded in relation to needs, this consistent source of funding has allowed state and local governments to build and maintain the staffing capacity and expertise needed to implement and maintain infrastructure over time. Adopting a funding model wherein funds are distributed annually to be used for state and local priorities provides a consistent source of funding that allows states and local governments to strategically pursue their own policies and plans, particularly those relating to capital improvements, in a way they might not be able to do with disaster-based funding, which is episodic. Which is to say, adopting a funding model that more closely resembles the DOT Highway Trust Fund might be beneficial for disaster and relocation planning.

The IIJA designates several DOT funding sources for transportation improvements, in addition to the governmental funding for the relocation of tribal communities via the Bureau of Indian Affairs described above. Although these DOT programs are not directly related to relocation, they could be relevant to receiving communities for building up more sustainable and resilient transportation systems in anticipation of growing populations. One of these funding sources is the Rebuilding American Infrastructure

___________________

³³ This list includes tribes that do not reside along the Gulf portion of Gulf states (e.g., Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, El Paso, Texas): Poarch Band of Creek Indians (Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians (Florida), Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (Louisiana), Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe (Louisiana), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Texas), and Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas.

³⁴ More information about the Highway Trust Fund is available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/07.cfm

with Sustainability and Equity Discretionary Grant program.³⁵ This is not a new source, but 1.5 billion dollars was allocated in the IIJA.³⁶ The IIJA also created a new Rural Surface Transportation grant program, allocating 300 million dollars³⁷ to “increase connectivity; to improve the safety and reliability of the movement of people and freight; and to generate regional economic growth and improving quality of life” (§11132, IIJA). The IIJA also increases DOT’s funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program that supports “pedestrian and bike infrastructure, recreational trails, safe routes to school and more.”³⁸ Again, this funding could be relevant in preparing receiving communities to offer sustainable transit options to new and current residents.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

In an effort to mitigate a different set of environmental risks than those related to climate change, EPA grants the authority to fund permanent relocations of residents, buildings, and community facilities as a remedial action³⁹ to protect against the effects of pollution through its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; P.L. 96-510), also known as its Superfund Program. A presidential determination is required to the effect that relocation is more cost-effective and environmentally preferable to alternative management strategies to protect public health from exposure to hazardous substances. Similar authorities exist under the EPA National Contingency Plan,⁴⁰ and implementation of EPA’s relocation policy is governed by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), which provides “for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs and to establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for Federal and federally assisted programs.”⁴¹ EPA uses the

___________________

³⁵ More information about the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity program is available at https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants/about

³⁶ More information about IIJA is available at https://www.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/fact-sheet-equity-bipartisan-infrastructure-law

³⁷ Ibid.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ More information about EPA grants to support permanent relocation is available at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-relocation-information

⁴⁰ More information about the National Contingency Plan is available at https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-pollution-contingency-plan-ncp-overview

⁴¹ More information about the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 is available at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/COMPS-1432#

services of USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in conducting relocations.

As of October 2019, permanent relocations of businesses or residences had only been implemented by EPA at “33 of the more than 1,700 final and deleted sites on the Superfund National Priorities List” (EPA, 2019a, p. 1). “Of those 33, only 11 sites” were due to human health concerns; 19 of the remaining 22 relocations “were for engineering solutions” required for a cleanup remedy (EPA, 2019a, p. 1). This is reflective of CERCLA’s preference for cleanup solutions over permanent relocation (Scott, 2014).

Under CERCLA, the decision to conduct a relocation is made following an EPA technical analysis of available remedies. EPA has created several opportunities for community involvement and provides extensive information on its residential relocation policies on its Superfund relocation information website.⁴² EPA stresses that community involvement must occur early and frequently throughout the relocation process. When a permanent relocation is under consideration, EPA offers access to an independent relocation technical expert or advisor to assist residents and businesses.

The consequences of EPA’s relocations have not been well documented. Documentation that does exist shows mixed results, with a need for further attention to the consequences of these relocations. In the case of the Escambia Wood site in Florida, the EPA Office of Inspector General conducted a follow-up survey of a subset of homeowners who were relocated (Office of Inspector General, 2004). Respondents reported a number of concerns, including inadequate compensation for properties and a lack of transparency on how appraisals were carried out. Of note, people who identified their own new homes rather than moving into the homes that the government provided were more satisfied.

It has been suggested that a legal framework analogous to the CERCLA provision could be developed in the context of relocating communities affected by climate change (Scott, 2014). CERCLA can be used to support relocation for communities that face climate hazards and are near a Superfund site or other affected sites, such as areas close to chemical spills during disasters. Scott (2014) suggests that such a law applying to environmentally displaced persons could be funded through a tax or fee on greenhouse gas emissions. This example demonstrates an existing relocation framework from which lessons can be drawn and applied to making community-driven relocation an achievable adaptation strategy.

___________________

⁴² More information about Superfund community involvement tools and resources is available at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-community-involvement-tools-and-resources

Justice40 Initiative

The Justice40 Initiative is an unprecedented commitment by the federal government, established through Executive Order 14008 in 2021, to make “40 percent of overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.”⁴³ As the committee heard during the study’s workshops across the U.S. Gulf Coast, perhaps most starkly in Port Arthur, many of the communities facing environmental threats, such as increasingly destructive hurricanes, subsidence, and sea level rise, are also overburdened by industrial pollution (see Chapter 5). Thus, the White House’s push to increase the flow of federal funding to disadvantaged communities through Justice40 could also help to increase funding available to help these communities relocate if they choose to do so. Hilton Kelley, founder and director of Community In-power and Development Association Inc., spoke on this issue at the committee’s first workshop:

Every federal agency has been tasked with “identifying which of their programs are covered under the Justice40 Initiative, and to begin” reforming these programs so that they deliver benefits to marginalized communities and those overburdened by pollution.⁴⁴ Under FEMA, these programs include BRIC and FMA (including the Swift Current Initiative); under HUD, they are CDBG-DR and ICDBG. Additionally, FEMA has been tasked with the oversight of the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act, which seeks to identify and designate underserved communities and provide targeted assistance to help them reduce their risk to natural hazards and disasters.⁴⁵ Although this is not a part of the Justice40 Initiative, it is recommended that when designating these zones, FEMA align with the initiative.⁴⁶ At

___________________

⁴³ More information about the Justice40 Initiative is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ More information about the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act is available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-risk-index/community-disaster-resilience-zones

⁴⁶ More information about public input into the implementation of Community Disaster Resilience Zones is available at https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/summary-request-information-implementation-community-disaster-resilience-zones

the time of this report’s publication, FEMA was developing a method to identify these areas and determine the types of assistance it might provide.

Federal Nonfinancial Technical Assistance for Flood Events

In addition to funding, federal agencies provide important resources to state and localities before, during, and after flood events (Smith, 2011; Snel et al., 2020, 2021). These resources include the provision of technical assistance or “programs, activities, and services provided by federal agencies to strengthen the capacity of grant recipients and to improve their performance of grant functions” (GAO, 2020c, p. 3). Technical information is provided through training and education related to, for example, how to reduce disaster damage and develop and assess mitigation plans,⁴⁷ and the delivery of useful localized information, such as flood maps. However, there are problems with some of the information. For instance, many of FEMA’s flood maps are outdated and inaccurate, and they do not account for future flood risk (Kuta, 2022; Lehmann, 2020; Marsooli et al., 2019). The work to identify future climate predictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is not integrated into other agencies’ decision-making processes and funding allocations.

In some instances, a lack of data and information-sharing requirements from governmental agencies has opened the door for other stakeholders to step in and provide information about the scale or nature of potential environmental threats. For example, the United States does not have a federal requirement for home sellers to disclose information to prospective buyers about a property’s flood risk, flooding history, or previous flood damage (Scata, 2019). In the absence of a federal requirement, flood risk disclosure has become available on real estate market and other websites, which may incentivize people to move away from or not purchase properties in flood-prone areas.⁴⁸ This information on flood risk does little to help those located in these areas who seek to move, however, and in fact, may further hamper their ability to do so. For example, if one’s home is identified as being in a high-risk area via the Zillow app and such data lack connection to planned capital projects to reduce local flood risks, one’s home is still devalued. Additionally, risk information coming from multiple entities without clearly defined roles and uses, and with varying levels of robustness, can cause confusion for users. While raising risks is a valuable

___________________

⁴⁷ More information about examples of technical assistance provided by FEMA is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities/direct-technical-assistance/communities

⁴⁸ One such organization is Risk Factor; more information is available at https://riskfactor.com/

contribution, risks without context and optionality present more challenges for the very communities already facing those risks. Without more federal support to contextualize risk data, organizations seeing market demand for this information will continue to provide resources without federal or state coordination on the implications of those data.

In another case, the Gulf Coast Community Design Studio (GCCDS) realized that many coastal residents devastated by Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge were unsure of the cost of reconstruction. GCCDS sought to reduce this uncertainty for residents in Biloxi, Mississippi, by creating a map of affected areas at the parcel scale that visually depicted the projected heights to which houses would need to be rebuilt to comply with FEMA’s advisory base flood elevation maps; see Figure 9-3. Such advisory base flood elevation maps are often created following a major disaster as an update to pre-existing flood insurance rate maps, so that community officials and residents have the most recent information available to inform post-disaster reconstruction standards. The image in Figure 9-3 was created by overlaying planimetric data at the parcel level and projected elevation estimates to provide more useful information to residents as they sought to determine how high they would be required to elevate their homes, something an advisory base flood elevation map does not provide. Communities, however, cannot depend on regional institutions to provide pro bono services to understand risks and associated costs of risk reduction. More substantive investments in risk awareness, preparedness, and community-driven decision making are necessary.

In addition to gaps in the provision of locally contextualized data to improve decision making, significant problems exist relative to the creation of federal disaster assistance policies that are flexible enough to better reflect unique localized conditions. Several studies have suggested methods of improving federal flood mitigation policies, including strengthening partnerships between relevant actors; considering bottom-up and participatory processes for policy making and resilience planning and implementation; and recognizing key social factors (i.e., factors that influence where households decide to locate) to foster community acceptance, avoid administrative burdens on individuals, and prevent unfavorable socioeconomic outcomes (Greer & Trainor, 2021; Hemmati et al., 2021; Suykens et al., 2019). Evident within these studies is the need for more, and more specific, federal assistance to establish collaborative structures and to substantiate the coordination required for the degree of risks and likely needs for mitigation measures.

STATEWIDE RELOCATION AND PLANNING EFFORTS

This section first looks across the United States at what several states have done to address the need for relocation in the face of climate change. It then discusses in detail a range of efforts in Texas.

National Overview

Several coastal states and local governments outside the Gulf region have developed long-term buyout programs or offices such as Blue Acres in New Jersey and ReBuild NC in North Carolina to administer federal buyout funding and conduct related long-term planning (e.g., identifying high flood risk areas). In 1995, New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection created the Blue Acres program, a revolving grant program that is designed to relocate families whose homes are at risk of flooding and to convert these lands to parks, natural flood storage, and open space.⁴⁹ The program has two primary aims: to provide post-disaster funding to assist flood-damaged homes, and to proactively acquire land that has been damaged in the past or to acquire land that is prone to future damages and can serve as a means to protect adjacent communities (see Chapter 3). Much of the program’s funding comes from FEMA’s HMGP and HUD’s CDBG-DR (see Chapter 3 for more information about Blue Acres funding).

The North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency, or ReBuild NC, was created following Hurricane Florence to lead the state’s recovery efforts. The office manages almost a billion dollars in HUD CDBG-DR and CDBG-MIT funding through several long-term disaster recovery programs that assist homeowners affected by disasters.⁵⁰ Through grants and loans, it supports rebuilding, replacing, relocating, or elevating damaged homes, while collaborating with local governments and organizations to enhance resilience, including infrastructure, ecosystems, and the well-being of residents. One of ReBuild’s NC’s programs is the Strategic Buyout Program, allowing eligible homeowners in flood-prone areas to sell their homes and relocate to safer areas, with purchased properties transformed into green spaces maintained by the local government. The primary funding for this program comes from CDBG-MIT, but CDBG-DR funds may also be used for “housing counseling activities and future program costs” (North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency, 2023, p. 9).

State programs like Blue Acres and ReBuild NC’s Strategic Buyout Program are unique because they are able to address shortfalls in federal programs. These ongoing programs facilitate buyouts across the state by pulling together funding from, at times, multiple federal (and state, in

___________________

⁴⁹ More information about Blue Acres is available at https://dep.nj.gov/blueacres/

⁵⁰ More information about ReBuild NC is available at https://www.rebuild.nc.gov/about-us

the case of Blue Acres) agencies and partnering with local organizations to address the numerous elements of relocation. For example, Blue Acres partnered with local nonprofits to help individuals cover moving expenses and legal fees (FEMA, 2021a). This continuous funding allows for more long-term planning surrounding relocation than is often possible in the traditional federal buyout process, which also tends to take much longer to implement. For states without such programs, community organizations have emerged to fill gaps. For example, Buy-In Community Planning (a nonprofit founded in 2020) helps households with “planning for and relocating to safer areas.”⁵¹ (See Private and Public-Private Funding and Programs section below for more information.)

Some states have also developed programs to address more specific shortfalls of federal funding, including limitations tied to the provision of pre-disaster fair market value for prospective applicant housing—a limitation that hampers the ability of low-income homeowners to identify housing options of comparable size and good condition in areas of lesser hazard risk. To address this issue, North Carolina created the State Acquisition and Relocation Fund (SARF), which provides up to $50,000 in state money on top of a federal buyout offer through HMGP (North Carolina Department of Public Safety, 2019; Smith, 2014). Funding for SARF also comes from HMGP funds distributed following Hurricanes Matthew and Florence and is administered by the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management (Pender County, 2019). As such, in addition to being “located in a Special Flood Hazard Area” and being an “owner-occupied primary residence at the time of the event,” for a property to be eligible, it must have been approved for acquisition by FEMA HMGP during one of these two hurricanes (North Carolina Department of Public Safety & North Carolina Emergency Management, 2023). If SARF funds are used, the recipient is required to purchase a home in the county in which they resided but outside the floodplain (Smith, 2014). The stipulation tied to moving within the county sought to lessen the economic effects to the community and region tied to the loss of local tax base. In Rocky Mount and Kinston, North Carolina, this stipulation resulted in an estimated 90 and 97 percent of participants, respectively, staying within their municipality (Salvesen et al., 2018). The program’s ability to track the movement of residents and the ability of residents to maintain their new homes given their limited financial resources proved challenging in many circumstances (Salvesen et al., 2018). This state program, as well as several others, was codified by the North Carolina legislature to include the development of triggering mechanisms that will result in their application based on the severity of the disaster (Smith, 2014).

___________________

⁵¹ More information about Buy-In Community Planning is available at https://buy-in.org/aboutus

Most states have not historically planned for relocation, although this is slowly changing. Existing state plans tend to acknowledge the risks posed by climate change but offer limited funding and programmatic solutions to address the challenges. For example, the 2023 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan refers to the need for residents to move due to increasing flood risks and dedicates 11.2 billion dollars out of the 50-billion-dollar 50-year plan to implementing “nonstructural” measures (elevations, floodproofing, and voluntary relocation; Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority [CPRA], 2023b). However, since the original dedication of the funding in the 2012 Coastal Master Plan, the state implementation agency, CPRA, had not dedicated actual funding or staff capacity to develop this program. In the Fiscal Year 2024 Annual Plan, CPRA is funding nonstructural measures, with 3 million dollars a year for the next three years to develop the nonstructural program, in addition to funding 2.6 million dollars in Jefferson Parish and 13.7 million dollars over two years in Southwest Louisiana for home elevation projects (CPRA, 2023a). Although CPRA is now funding projects, the implementation of these measures will largely depend on other agencies, such as Jefferson Parish government or USACE, while CPRA works to develop its own implementation program in coordination with other state agencies. Furthermore, the 2024 Annual Plan does not include relocation or buyouts in any project descriptions (CPRA, 2023a).

States also set the priorities for federal HMGP funding (Smith et al., 2013)⁵² and have substantial flexibility in doing so (FEMA, 2016), assuming the states meet FEMA-codified requirements. Problematically, the entities and criteria used in setting these priorities are not always easily accessible or easily understood. For example, in Alaska, the State Hazard Mitigation Advisory Council sets priorities, but nothing is available on the state’s website about this entity or what it does for households. In Louisiana, the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness offers examples of eligible HMGP activities and lists regional liaisons, including State Applicant Liaisons to help subrecipients develop grant applications.⁵³ In Texas, the Division of Emergency Management identifies priorities such as most impacted jurisdictions, vulnerabilities addressed, cost-effectiveness, and population served.⁵⁴ In Florida, the Division of Emergency Management’s website notes that selection is delegated to

___________________

⁵² More information about the acquisition of property by a state using FEMA allocated HMGP funding after a flood event is available at https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230502/fact-sheet-acquisition-property-after-flood-event

⁵³ More information about HMGP in Louisiana is available at https://gohsep.la.gov/divisions/hazard-mitigation-assistance

⁵⁴ More information about HMGP in Texas is available at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.418.htm

each county’s Local Mitigation Strategy Working Group.⁵⁵ However, there remains little transparency into how priorities are set and by whom, and the same types of information are not readily available in Alabama⁵⁶ or Mississippi (although a direct contact with the Mitigation Officer is provided for both). Moreover, one important contextual consideration is that the rules associated with congressional and supplemental appropriations change in each federally declared disaster, making the process more challenging as states and local governments cannot always rely on past precedent.

State-level efforts to identify areas that could receive people who move are nascent. One example is the Bayou Culture Collaborative⁵⁷ of Louisiana; this working group considers the transition of coastal residents and their culture to other communities and how communities can be better prepared to receive them. Although CPRA seeks to engage with these types of groups, these efforts have not yet been incorporated into state-level planning.

In contrast, the Blue Acres program in New Jersey is entwined with other state-level planning and is involved with both planning and implementing relocation in the state. Blue Acres emphasizes the use of housing counselors and the purchase of contiguous parcels to foster the preservation of community. Blue Acres buyouts are part of both the state’s disaster recovery and climate resilience strategies. To advance climate resilience, the program purchases undeveloped land as a proactive measure, using the land purchase to buffer adjacent communities from current or projected flooding, including flooding tied to sea level rise. Tenant relocation assistance was added to the program in 2017 to provide relocation assistance for renters being displaced by an acquisition of their rental property (Senate Bill 3401, 220th Legislature).

Another example can be found in North Carolina, where the governor’s office, the State Director of Emergency Management, and the state legislature provided one-time funding to support a team of faculty and students at the University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University to assist six underresourced communities in attending to a range of issues not addressed by federal and state programs. These issues include conducting

___________________

⁵⁵ More information about HMGP in Florida is available at https://www.floridadisaster.org/dem/mitigation/hazard-mitigation-grant-program/

⁵⁶ More information about HMGP in Alabama is available at https://ema.alabama.gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program/

⁵⁷ The Bayou Culture Collaborative is an informal group involving the Louisiana Folklore Society, the Center for Bayou Studies at Nicholls State University, the South Louisiana Wetlands Discovery Center, the Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, the Louisiana Division of the Arts Folklife Program, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Center for Louisiana Studies, and other nonprofits. More information about the working group, Preparing Receiving Communities, is available at https://www.louisianafolklore.org/?p=1351

land suitability analysis to identify areas more appropriate for resettlement (see Chapter 8; Smith & Nguyen, 2021).

A Case Study of State Agencies and Buyouts: Texas

In Texas, the state provides funding support to local communities based on federal government allocations. Two significant state agencies in Texas that oversee buyout-related assistance to local communities are the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). These agencies are involved in buyout funding separately through both FEMA and HUD, and they both channel funds to local Texas communities. Harris County, which includes Houston, is the largest beneficiary of buyout funding from these agencies due to the scale of flood risk in the county. In Harris County, both TWDB and GLO work with various local agencies to implement buyout funding, obtaining support from different funding streams. In this way, TWDB and GLO help to reduce the burden on local entities to navigate the complex web of federal relocation funding.

GLO is responsible for administering and managing buyouts on behalf of HUD. Its main role is to act as a custodian of disaster recovery funding from HUD’s CDBG-DR Program and distribute these funds to local communities in need to execute buyout programs. Currently, GLO is disbursing funds through its Local Buyout and Acquisition Program⁵⁸ specifically for the recovery efforts after Hurricane Harvey.

While GLO serves as the funding agency overseeing the buyout programs, the actual implementation of these programs is carried out by local agencies. In Harris County, this responsibility falls to the Harris County Community Services Department (HCCSD), which is accountable for various areas, including housing assistance, community development, and disaster recovery within the county. Within this department, the HCCSD Project Recovery program is responsible for implementing GLO’s buyout program in Harris County.⁵⁹ The Project Recovery program is specifically designed to assist residents in recovering and rebuilding their homes following major disasters. It provides funding assistance that covers buyouts and relocation to support affected residents in their recovery efforts.

TWDB is a state agency that focuses on water resources planning and management. It plays a key role in addressing water-related challenges, including flood management, by providing financial assistance, technical support, and expertise to communities and agencies across the state. One

___________________

⁵⁸ More information about the Local Buyout and Acquisition Program is available at https://recovery.texas.gov/grant-administration/grant-implementation/buyouts-and-acquisitions/index.html

⁵⁹ More information about Project Recovery is available at https://harrisrecovery.org/

program administered by TWDB is the Flood Infrastructure Fund, which offers funding for various flood management initiatives, including property acquisition.⁶⁰

To implement buyouts in Harris County, TWDB collaborates directly with the Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), a local agency responsible for managing flood control infrastructure and drainage systems in the county. Its primary objective is to mitigate flooding risks and safeguard lives and property from the impacts of severe storms. Under the Home Buyout Program of HCFCD, the agency submits applications to FEMA through TWDB and receives buyout funding from FMA (HCFCD, 2023). Through HCFCD, Harris County has the largest number of buyout properties in the most recent study (Mach et al., 2019).

The distinction between the roles and funding sources of HCCSD and HCFCD in Harris County highlights the fact that the fragmentation of relocation efforts at the federal and state levels trickles down to local communities. For example, the Project Recovery program by HCCSD specifically notes on its website that “[t]he Flood Control District also has a buyout program, but it is not the same as the Project Recovery program, and not everyone who qualifies for the HCFCD program will be eligible for the Project Recovery program.”⁶¹ Understandably, the two agencies focus on different issues (i.e., housing assistance and flood mitigation), but their separateness is not ideal. The decentralized approach and varying eligibility criteria among different agencies and programs underscore the confusion and administrative burdens of the lack of coordination and highlight the need for improved coordination and a more cohesive strategy for community-driven relocation at all levels of government.

REGIONAL COORDINATION IN THE GULF REGION

The Need for and Lack of Regional Coordination

For U.S. Gulf Coast states—Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida—there is no interstate or intrastate jurisdictional authority for planning. Such an authority could offer collective support between the existing Gulf Regional Planning Commission⁶² (Mississippi); the Emerald

___________________

⁶⁰ More information about the Flood Infrastructure Fund is available at https://www.twdb.texas.gov/financial/programs/FIF/index.asp

⁶¹ More information about the Project Recovery program by HCCSD is available at https://www.harrisrecovery.org/

⁶² More information about the Gulf Regional Planning Commission is available at https://grpc.com/about-grpc/

Coast Regional Council⁶³ (Northwest Florida); and similar entities in Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. The Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA), a nonprofit, emphasizes the need for such collaboration with representation from all five Gulf states and an Integrated Planning Cross-Team Initiative that “supports the implementation of adaptation, conservation, and resilience activities at the local community and regional scale” and includes team leads from Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.⁶⁴ By contrast, in the Northeast, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut coordinate interstate and intrastate planning efforts through the Regional Plan Association (RPA).⁶⁵ Although the geographic scale of the RPA’s scope is much smaller than that of the Gulf states, both these regions have shared systems, whether economic, environmental, social, or otherwise. RPA informs policy makers and decision makers about economic development and public works through “independent research, planning, advocacy and vigorous public engagement effort”; it also convenes experts to develop long-range plans that shape “land use, transportation, the environment, and economic development.”⁶⁶ In the Gulf region, similar regional strategies could identify opportunities for receiving communities and address the challenges of originating communities, readying the states and municipalities for more detailed efforts. While regional authorities can play an essential boundary-spanning role, there are myriad challenges associated with community-driven relocation that would require a multi-scalar planning approach spanning regional (i.e., watershed), county, municipal, neighborhood, and site scales in both areas from which people are moving and the ones to which they are moving.

As an example, the Texas Medical Center (TMC) is located near Buffalo Bayou in Houston. The bayou and the watershed that feeds it begin well upstream of TMC, yet TMC has to address bayou flooding in order to continue to provide health services during extreme rain events. Recognizing that watershed planning begins with the San Joaquin River and cascades through Texas, reaching Houston and eventually the bayou, TMC has to monitor upstream improvements and encourage promising flood management practices while also recognizing localized flooding risks that remain. Understanding those risks and the scale of the challenge, TMC invested in a pedestrian bridge system, a coping strategy, to manage floodwaters while upstream efforts to improve watershed management are underway (Fang et al., 2014).

___________________

⁶³ More information about the Emerald Coast Regional Council is available at https://www.ecrc.org/

⁶⁴ More information about GOMA is available at https://gulfofmexicoalliance.org/priority-issues/integrated-planning/

⁶⁵ More information about the RPA is available at https://rpa.org/our-region

⁶⁶ More information is available at https://rpa.org/about/about-rpa

Several important lessons were learned following Tropical Storm Allison, which struck in 2001. TMC sought to retrofit several buildings and infrastructure that were hard hit by the flooding rains, which caused over 2 billion dollars in damages to the medical campus (Minemyer, 2017). The retrofitting included the addition of berms, flood walls, and submarine doors protecting at-risk medical equipment and lab research (George, 2018). Health officials also took steps to mitigate risk. They purchased high-water vehicles; improved emergency response plans; and elevated emergency generators, switch stations, and laboratory research facilities that were formerly located in basements that were flooded during Tropical Storm Allison. As a result, when Hurricane Harvey hit, TMC was better prepared (George, 2018). While this work was going on, the Texas Watershed Planning Commission,⁶⁷ the HCFCD,⁶⁸ the city of Houston,⁶⁹ and the Buffalo Bayou Partnership⁷⁰ were all simultaneously working on watershed management and overall resilience approaches.

Gulf-Wide and State Planning Agencies and Organizations

State law can enable regional planning entities. For example, the 2013 Mississippi Code (MS.C. 17-1-33) identifies, as a responsibility of regional planning commissions (e.g., the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission), the advising of counties, municipalities, and local areas in the state regarding planning matters to include zoning, planning, and subdivision regulations. Water resources management, highways and interstate transportation planning, public schools, recreational areas, urban development, and other areas concerning the acquisition and planning of land, building structures, and facilities are included under the purview of regional planning commissions working with local communities.

Regional planning commissions could collaborate to address changes to infrastructure and resource efficiency (including social services) in anticipation of or response to population shifts and growth in receiving communities. They could also leverage existing watershed planning initiatives to reprogram resulting coastal and riverine open spaces, advancing watershed performance alongside passive recreational strategies and restorative ecologies in the areas communities choose to leave. These efforts in high-risk areas could contribute to reducing the impacts of climatic and

___________________

⁶⁷ More information is available at https://www.tsswcb.texas.gov/index.php/programs/texas-nonpoint-source-management-program/watershed-protection-plan-program

⁶⁸ More information is available at https://www.hcfcd.org/About/Harris-Countys-Flooding-History/Hurricane-Harvey

⁶⁹ More information is available at https://www.rebuildhouston.org/drainage-utility-charge-faqs

⁷⁰ More information is available at https://buffalobayou.org/our-work/

environmental hazards (more details in Chapter 8). The following examples of the existing regional planning commissions within each state illustrate these possibilities.

Gulf-Wide Entities

GOMA was formed in 2004 by the governors of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to work collaboratively on priority issues, such as water resources, habitat restoration, wildlife and fisheries, and coastal community resilience. This partnership network includes “state and federal agencies, tribal governments, communities, academic organizations, businesses, and nongovernmental organizations” (GOMA, 2021). The coastal community resilience team’s goals are to (a) “Increase communication, awareness, and knowledge of tools and resources to assist coastal stakeholders in becoming more resilient and sustainable”; (b) “promote the assessment of coastal risks and the availability of resilience and restoration products for those who live, work, visit, and do business in the Gulf of Mexico”; and (c) “promote adaptation, mitigation, and restoration as strategies to preserve heritage, conserve natural resources, and support the economic viability of the coast” (GOMA, 2021, p. 12). GOMA’s mission is determined based on the Gulf states’ interests, and partnerships such as these exist to accomplish shared goals and visions. Thus, if there is interest and need indicated by the states, GOMA’s mission could be expanded to cover matters related to community-driven relocation within and across the Gulf states. Conversely, if community-driven relocation is not a priority of multiple Gulf states, it would not become a part of GOMA’s mission.

The Gulf Caucus of the National Association of Counties (NACo) is another entity that has the potential to influence the coordination of community-driven relocation within U.S. Gulf Coast states. It is open to all elected officials in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana. It was established after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill to promote a clearer understanding of problems that Gulf counties face.⁷¹ Members have voting privileges in their respective city, county, or parish governments and therefore could have greater local impact on issues related to community-driven relocation than regional planning commissions. However, like GOMA, the NACo Gulf Caucus focuses on issues that all members agree are a priority. In the past, these have included federal assistance for flood control and coastal erosion mitigation, hurricane preparedness, tourist opportunities, and healthy coastal ecosystems and economy.

___________________

⁷¹ More information is available at https://www.naco.org/articles/building-coastal-resilience-gulf-mexico

Florida

An example of a regional planning entity that could expand its focus to address community-driven relocation within Florida is the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), one of 10 regional councils in Florida, which covers six counties and multiple municipal governments. “The region’s six counties, Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and Pinellas are required by law to exercise regional cooperation through membership on the Council.”⁷² TBRPC⁷³ has the potential to address community-driven relocation more actively as it has planning and oversight responsibilities, which specifically include

Although its recently released Regional Resiliency Action Plan⁷⁵ currently lacks mechanisms to address community-driven relocation, the structural capacity of the organization, connected as it is with many collaborative partners, is in place to do so. Moreover, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection now requires “a coordinated approach [...] to improve the state’s resilience to flooding and sea level rise”⁷⁶ so the pathway to orchestrate managed retreat discussions is in place.

Alabama

The South Alabama Regional Planning Commission (SARPC) “helps facilitate the deliberation and resolution of common problems and issues of member government representatives, elected and nonprofit officials and private-sector leaders throughout the South Alabama region.”⁷⁷ The

___________________

⁷² More information is available at https://www.tampa.gov/city-planning/citywide-vision/partners

⁷³ More information is available at https://tbrpc.org/

⁷⁴ See footnote 72.

⁷⁵ More information about the 2022 Regional Resiliency Action Plan is available at https://tbrpc.org/resiliency-planning/rrap/

⁷⁶ More information is available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0380/Sections/0380.093.html

⁷⁷ More information about the SARPC is available at https://sarpc.org/

SARPC 2022 comprehensive economic development strategy includes this recognition:

While SARPC primarily focuses on economic resilience, its role as a coordinating body could be adapted to address the issues of community-driven relocation. More holistically, as in the other U.S. Gulf Coast states, coastal planning commissions like SARPC could partner with other regional commissions, such as the Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission or the East Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission, to link assessments of coastal risk, population displacement, and receiving community readiness.

Mississippi

Mississippi’s Gulf Regional Planning Commission (GRPC) provides general planning support to 15 member governments, 12 cities, and the three coastal counties.⁷⁸ Although GRPC is focused primarily on transportation, as a standing convener of a board of commissioners from across the coast and as liaisons to local public agencies and community members, the commission represents the type of collaborative network that could address issues related to community-driven relocation.

Louisiana

The New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (NORPC), composed of the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and the Transportation Policy Committee (TPC), addresses regional issues on transportation, environment, and economic development.⁷⁹ While RPC represents the New Orleans metropolitan area, it is the governing board of one of Louisiana’s eight

___________________

⁷⁸ More information about the GRPC is available at https://grpc.com/about-grpc/grpc-overview/

⁷⁹ More information about the New Orleans Regional Planning Commission is available at https://www.norpc.org/about/

multi-parish planning and development districts and functions as a part of the New Orleans region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). NORPC’s TPC is the MPO for New Orleans, Hammond-Ponchatoula, Mandeville-Covington, and Slidell. All members of RPC are members of TPC, including mayors and other elected officials representing local areas and municipalities. Other members of TPC include representatives from freight, maritime, public transportation, and aviation industries.

RPC is “acting as the fiscal agent for Region 8 during the duration of the LWI Regional Capacity Building Grant. As fiscal agent, the RPC will facilitate the establishment of the Region 8 watershed coalition. Currently the Region 8 watershed coalition is in the planning phase under the Regional Steering Committee” (New Orleans Regional Planning Commission, n.d.). The state Louisiana Watershed Initiative was formed in May 2018 by Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards’ executive order (JBE 2018-16), which “called for several state agencies to form the Council on Watershed Management (Council) and develop a program that would support a regional approach to floodplain management.”⁸⁰ The Initiative provides funding to programs to focus attention on watershed planning needs. They include a Watershed Projects Grant Program for local and regional projects; a State Projects Grant Program to facilitate the statewide flood mitigation strategy; a Regional Capacity Building Grant Program to grow staff capacity; and a statewide modeling effort to assess flood risk and risk reduction, to build on the state’s data and modeling of coastal flooding, and to support education and outreach to build resilience. Such an initiative offers a replicable model for one that focuses on community-driven relocation, recognizing originating and receiving communities as part of a system or network, much like watersheds, and establishing funds to support a range of efforts to understand risks more fully, to grow risk awareness, and to engage communities in managed retreat discussions.

Texas

The Houston-Galveston Area Council already supports regional planning in numerous regional and sub-regional initiatives. For example, its recently released Our Great Region 2040 emphasizes the importance of addressing resilience, specifically in the face of sea level rise (Houston-Galveston Area Council, n.d.).⁸¹ While the plan does not identify relocation

___________________

⁸⁰ More information is available at https://www.adaptation-clearinghouse.org/resources/louisiana-watershed-initiative.html

⁸¹ More information about Our Great Region 2040 is available at https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/louisiana-watershed-initiative.html

per se, it does require “innovative adaptation strategies that help communities prepare for potential environmental changes, such as severe weather events and sea level rise” (Houston-Galveston Area Council, n.d., p. 16). The Houston-Galveston Area Council and the regional planning entities in other U.S. Gulf Coast states hold similar roles and thus similar potential to address managed retreat at a regional scale.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES

Local-Level Buyout Programs and Planning

In addition to state programs, local buyout programs have been developed in some areas to address recognized shortfalls in federal initiatives (Smith et al., 2023). These programs are less common in the Gulf region, but they do exist. As described above, one is Harris County, which combines different funding sources to provide for both voluntary and mandatory buyouts (HCFCD, 2023). Participants in the committee’s June 2022 Houston workshop who had been part of a mandatory buyout criticized the program on grounds that they did not receive adequate, clear, and timely information; such lags in the program led to low offers as housing values declined (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022c). Locally funded buyout efforts outside the Gulf region include Charlotte, North Carolina,⁸² and Tulsa, Oklahoma.⁸³

Local programs are not constrained by narrowly defined federal rules. Stormwater management fees are often used to support these programs (Smith et al., 2023). Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has used a locally funded buyout program (drawing from CDBG-MIT funds and stormwater fees) to address multiple community goals identified in their parks and recreation, hazard mitigation, economic development, and environmental plans. More specifically, goals and objectives include reducing flood hazard vulnerability, improving recreational opportunities through greenway expansion, enhancing water quality in creeks and streams, and enhancing economic development in areas adjacent to the resulting greenways (Smith et al., 2023). Achieving these goals has benefitted from the targeting of geographically identified parcels, including homes, apartments, and vacant lots that may connect existing greenways, provide unique water

___________________

⁸² More information about Charlotte, North Carolina’s Floodplain Buyout Program is available at https://stormwaterservices.mecknc.gov/floodplain-buyout-program

⁸³ More information about flood mitigation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is available at https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/Tulsa-Report-R5.pdf, and more information about its buyout program is available in Smith et al. (2023).

retention areas, and serve as environmental education venues for adjacent schools (Smith et al., 2023). Houston Wilderness, a nonprofit organization based in Houston, Texas (described in more detail in the section below on private and public-private funding), also works to strategically identify priority buyout properties that will provide the most protection against catastrophic storms and heavy rainfall events. Furthermore, the creation of an ongoing source of funding provides county and municipal officials the time required to engage with prospective buyout participants over long time periods rather than the short time periods typically found when assessing the type of community engagement used to determine eligibility and initiate federally funded post-disaster buyout programs.

Tulsa, Oklahoma, began a locally funded buyout program prior to the codification of buyouts under the Stafford Act in 1988. It was supplemented with FEMA funding following a series of federal disaster declarations, including three in one year (Smith et al., 2023). Drawing from a local stormwater management fee, local sales tax, and bond revenues, the city has embarked on an ambitious program to acquire flood-hazard properties and convert the land into greenways, water retention areas, and ballfields. In addition, the city linked the buyout program to the adoption of higher codes and standards, joining the CRS, and zoning practices that address flood risk reduction (Smith et al., 2023). Gaining the public’s support was crucial, and an extensive outreach effort has resulted in widespread public support. Following the acquisition of 900 properties, the city has not faced a federal flood disaster, and its CRS score of 1 (the highest possible) has resulted in a 45 percent reduction in flood insurance rates for all policyholders in the city (Smith et al., 2023).

A local government’s planning department can also play a vital role in community-driven relocation efforts through the application and management of both land-use planning tools and processes, typically overseen by a town’s land-use planner. One important example is the creation and administration of a comprehensive land-use plan itself, which is adopted by a local government and used to regulate and manage land use in a community. Typically, embedded in this kind of plan are several techniques directly relevant to the relocation process, including but not limited to land acquisition authorities, zoning, cluster development, tax increment financing, and open space management. Smaller jurisdictions may not have a land-use plan and may therefore benefit from assistance provided by regional planning entities described earlier in this chapter.

In many states, municipal governments are granted land use and zoning authority by state legislatures (known as home rule states); this authority has the potential to shape relocation strategies within a municipality, limit development in hazard areas, and ensure adequate resources outside of hazard areas for resettlers. Municipal governments in these states are given

greater autonomy, and the states have limited power to interfere in local affairs. In other states, the legal principle known as “Dillon’s Rule” limits the powers of local governments to what is expressly granted, implied, or essential by state legislatures or constitutions (Richardson et al., 2003). The differences in a state’s regulatory control of land use exemplify the importance of recognizing state-local relationships, including how they can shape varied local managed retreat strategies.

One example of state law designating land use to municipalities is Texas’ zoning enabling statute (Title 7, Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code) that provides for municipalities to adopt zoning regulations in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Another approach is to provide incentives for metropolitan planning efforts to conduct vulnerability assessments, which Florida does.⁸⁴ Such incentives can help communities develop land-use plans to facilitate and assist both receiving communities and people who need or want to relocate. For example, Florida’s Hillsborough County has identified sending and receiving areas, to include waterfront and inland communities, in its Post-Disaster Redevelopment Plan (PDRP)⁸⁵ (see Chapter 8).

Another example comes from Charleston, South Carolina, which uses land elevation to map development guidance and where future development should be avoided.⁸⁶ Similarly, Carey (2020) notes that Kaua’i, Hawaii, requires setbacks based on expected shorelines at the end of the century, and Rhode Island uses “triggers” requiring structural removal at certain thresholds of sea level rise. Carey (2020) also shows how national policies that withdraw support for development in risky areas, which would likely be politically challenging in the United States, are now underway in Gatineau, Canada, where property recovery is capped at 50 percent damage, beyond which relocation is required (Carey, 2020). An example of a land-use plan that provides for resettlers is that of the Yellow Springs, Ohio, Comprehensive Land Use Plan.⁸⁷ Another example comes from Zebulon, North Carolina, which specifically provides for welcoming “newcomers.”⁸⁸

___________________

⁸⁴ More information about incentives is available at https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/VA%20Scope%20FINAL%202_0.pdf

⁸⁵ More information about the PDRP for Hillsborough County is available at https://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/en/residents/public-safety/emergency-management/post-disaster-redevelopment-plan

⁸⁶ More information about Charleston, South Carolina, is available at https://www.charleston-sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/31227/Final-City-Plan-Adopted-October-12-2021

⁸⁷ More information about the Village of Yellow Springs, Ohio’s Village Comprehensive Land Use Plan is available at https://www.yso.com/egov/documents/1426784623_42902.pdf

⁸⁸ More information about the town Zebulon’s newcomer policy is available at https://www.townofzebulon.org/sites/default/files/uploads/planning/Documents/zebulon_comprehensive_land_use_plan.pdf

Land-use planning may also be required to qualify for—or at a minimum increase a locality’s competitiveness for—federal funding. Whenever possible, FEMA advocates a consistent approach for hazard mitigation in a community, and it favors projects that are included in or closely align with, among others, the community’s local HMP, comprehensive plan, transportation plan, stormwater management plan, and land-use plans, as applicable (FEMA, 2023e). While land-use planning is encouraged by FEMA as part of a community’s set of strategies found in its HMP, the degree to which local governments adhere to this voluntary element of the planning process is limited (Lyles et al., 2014b). Furthermore, research has also found that few communities were coordinating HMPs with the emerging development of climate change adaptation plans (Lyles et al., 2014a). Incorporating climate adaptation strategies, such as community-driven relocation, across a jurisdiction’s suite of plans could increase opportunities for relocation grants. Additionally, one study, which compared and evaluated cities’ resilience and adaptation plans, concluded that resilience plans could be improved “by strengthening the fact base, addressing uncertainty, and including additional implementation guidance” (Woodruff et al., 2018, p. 65). As described below in the Norfolk case study, it is also critical that relocation plans clearly consider all the aspects needed to address the needs of resettlers and receiving communities. The inclusion of receiving communities in planning for and funding community-driven relocation is also emphasized in the National Climate Resilience Framework (White House, 2023; see Chapter 8 for more on receiving communities).

In practice, research has shown that the network of plans developed by communities can contain contradictory policies and investment strategies that may hinder community-driven relocation. For example, HMPs may guide development away from hazardous areas while comprehensive land-use plans, economic development plans, and capital improvement plans simultaneously encourage more development in areas known to be at significant risk to natural hazards, including those influenced or caused by climate change (Berke et al., 2015, 2019, 2021). Berke et al. (2019, p. 901) discuss the utility of a plan integration for resilience scorecard to identify “conflicts between plans” and “whether plans target areas that are most vulnerable.” This information is intended to show communities that these contradictions are present and to take action to remedy the discrepancies, leading to more resilient communities.

Case Study of Applying Land-Use Planning to Address Relocation: Norfolk, Virginia

The city of Norfolk is one of the most vulnerable locations in the United States to the effects of rising sea level (Kramer, 2016). As a result of this threat, the city has incorporated resilience into its zoning ordinance to include several land-use tools to manage the need for some people to relocate by guiding new development to higher ground.⁸⁹ The ordinance includes a coastal resilience overlay zone that establishes explicit regulations for new development and redevelopment, as well as an upland resilience overlay, which incentivizes greater urban density in areas less prone to flooding. In addition, the city has adopted a resilience quotient system, which provides incentives for developers, who can earn points for the adoption of varied resilience-related activities that advance flood risk reduction across development types, including residential, commercial, and mixed uses (City of Norfolk, 2016). The number of points accrued is based on the size of the proposed development. The ordinance also provides points if development rights are extinguished or densities are reduced in the coastal resilience overlay district (see Figure 9-4).

A system that rewards receiving communities through a point system or other incentives to act has the potential to motivate these communities to be more receptive to accept those that need to relocate. In practice, an incentive-based system operationalized through ordinances and local laws has the potential to go beyond “encouraging” specific actions by providing concrete rewards to those participating in the process. However, this example incentivizes developers, not necessarily residents. More research is needed to understand how residents and receiving communities might be incentivized to welcome resettlers. This research would benefit from drawing from the existing literature that unpacks the motivation behind why people agree to relocate or stay in hazardous areas, as well as research that describes the need for more flexible policies that reflect local needs and conditions and the value of collaborative planning and problem solving.

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE FUNDING AND PROGRAMS

Recognizing that local, state, and federal governments cannot address managed retreat on their own, there is a potential for major philanthropic programs and community organizations to play a role. (Note that the role of private insurance companies is discussed in Chapter 10.)

___________________

⁸⁹ More information about land-use tools is available at https://www.norfolk.gov/4542/Land-Use

Following Hurricane Katrina, numerous philanthropies, including the Rockefeller Foundation, assisted the greater New Orleans metro area in its extended recovery effort. The foundation convened practitioners alongside financial resource providers to create a new type of coordinated conversation about recovery.⁹⁰ These efforts evolved into 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), a global program to help cities develop resilience strategies and to be able to consistently compare approaches while continuing to grow together.⁹¹

The Rockefeller Foundation also provided significant anchor funding to complement HUD’s NDRC, which used funds from the appropriations bill that followed Hurricane Sandy toward this one-time competition, and implemented successful funding strategies developed in the Rebuild by Design competition.⁹² Additionally, the Rockefeller Foundation provided technical assistance to applicants, helping them “identify recovery needs and innovative solutions.”⁹³ The state of Louisiana received funding for LA SAFE (see above) and the relocation of the community on Isle de Jean Charles (see Chapter 3; HUD, 2016).

In 2019, the 100RC program came to a close, but the chief resilience officers continued their work by forming the Resilient Cities Network, which continues to this day.⁹⁴ The model that 100RC represented, which is well documented in its archives referenced and in the standing resilience plans developed, is based on a collective network of collaborators who continue to work in this space even as the Rockefeller Foundation reduced its funding and redirected its own programs toward global health. Additionally, although 100RC focused on city-level intervention, a report by the Urban Institute noted “increasing attention on the importance of national policy environments that enable coordination across levels of government” and the recent emphasis on improved national and regional coordination (McTarnaghan et al., 2022). McTarnaghan et al. (2022, p. 6) found that 100RC had mixed results in transforming city-level outcomes (e.g., in constructs such as transparency and accountability and government structure) but was successful in “[catalyzing] a movement around urban resilience.” One

___________________

⁹⁰ More information about the Rockefeller Foundation is available at https://www.rocke-fellerfoundation.org/insights/perspective/what-the-rockefeller-foundation-has-learned-from-new-orleans/

⁹¹ More information about 100RC is available at https://www.rocke-fellerfoundation.org/100-resilient-cities/

⁹² More information about the Rebuild by Design competition is available at https://rebuildbydesign.org/hurricane-sandy-design-competition/

⁹³ More information is available at https://www.rocke-fellerfoundation.org/news/hud-awards-1-billion-through-national-disaster-resilience-competition/

⁹⁴ More information about the Resilient Cities Network is available at https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/

of the challenges the program faced was a timeline that did not allow for the realization of long-term resilience goals (McTarnaghan et al., 2022); however, many cities are still in the process of delivering actions identified in the program.

In Texas, the Kinder Foundation⁹⁵ provides complementary resources to Houston’s resilience program. The Center for Disaster Philanthropy⁹⁶ provides similar support. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Kresge also support related activities, though in each of these cases the funding provided is primarily for planning, not for construction, particularly for convening to do the preliminary planning.⁹⁷ In parallel, and often in collaboration, other large-scale nonprofit organizations offer additional community support. For example, the Nature Conservancy works extensively with the U.S. Gulf Coast states⁹⁸ as does the Trust for Public Land.⁹⁹

The intent is not to recognize each philanthropy active in the Gulf region but to recognize that many are active, have a history of responsiveness to regional crises, and have resources to significantly increase the capacities of local and state governments. However, at this time, there are no major philanthropic efforts to address the basic issue of relocation in the U.S. Gulf Coast, much less any effort to coordinate their collective power.

Smaller philanthropies, such as the Gulf Coast Community Foundation,¹⁰⁰ frequently pair up with the larger donors who vet the value of proposed programs or run their own localized programs. There are also notable efforts by other small nonprofit organizations, such as Climigration Network,¹⁰¹ Anthropocene Alliance,¹⁰² and Buy-In Community Planning,¹⁰³ which are working directly with communities in the Gulf. The Climigration Network seeks to assist coastal communities confronting the range of challenges associated with sea level rise. It seeks to build relationships between

___________________

⁹⁵ More information about the Kinder Foundation is available at http://kinderfoundation.org/about-us/mission/

⁹⁶ More information about the Center for Disaster Philanthropy is available at https://disasterphilanthropy.org/

⁹⁷ More information about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is available at https://www.rwjf.org/en/insights/our-research/2020/06/the-intersection-of-health--equity--and-climate-change.html and https://kresge.org/initiative/climate-resilience-and-urban-opportunity-cruo/

⁹⁸ More information about the Nature Conservancy is available at https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/

⁹⁹ More information about the Trust for Public Land is available at https://www.tpl.org/resource/trust-public-land-joins-partnership-gulf-coast-land-conservation

¹⁰⁰ More information about the Gulf Coast Community Foundation is available at https://www.gulfcoastcf.org/

¹⁰¹ More information about the Climigration Network is available at https://www.climigration.org/

¹⁰² More information about the Anthropocene Alliance is available at https://anthropocenealliance.org/

¹⁰³ See footnote 51.

practitioners and community organizations to “co-create new community-led, safe and equitable models for assisted relocation.”¹⁰⁴ It organizes community dialogues and provides tools for community groups through its website. In addition, it offers small innovation grants to launch community-led projects to contend with questions surrounding relocation. Buy-In Community Planning seeks to facilitate a “holistic approach to buyout programs” that centers people, housing, and land, asking “Who wants to move?” “Where will they go?” and “What happens to the land that gets left behind?” Acknowledging limited government capacity, Kelly Main, executive director, described Buy-In Community Planning as aiming to become a “one-stop shop” for individuals and local governments who need assistance in applying for and keeping up with federal grant requirements and funding opportunities.¹⁰⁵ Additionally, a new and ongoing effort by the Coastal States Organization and the Association of State Floodplain Managers, in partnership with Annika Tomson, a NOAA Digital Coast Fellow, aims to “develop technical guidance resources to support local communities in planning for and managing residential coastal properties acquired or vacated due to erosion, inundation, and flooding worsened by climate change.”¹⁰⁶

Nonprofit organizations also leverage the use of buyouts for such activities as planting trees or using nature-based solutions in areas where buyouts have occurred. For example, Houston Wilderness has a program called Riverine Targeted Use of Buyouts Program.¹⁰⁷ This program implements a dual-strategy aimed at transforming flood-prone properties. Local and county government officials voluntarily acquire these properties. Once acquired, these properties undergo restorative enhancements using Green Stormwater Infrastructure techniques to enhance sustainability and encourage habitat restoration, such as introducing native plant species and implementing nature-based infrastructure; these are then managed either by the respective counties, municipalities, state agencies, or nongovernmental organizations. The program also supports policy and practice changes to maximize public benefit from the buyout land, including creating contingency plans for potential future flooding that may necessitate further buyouts of surrounding properties and fostering increased involvement of community-based organizations. Incorporating nature-based infrastructure

___________________

¹⁰⁴ More information is available at https://www.climigration.org/our-story

¹⁰⁵ Comments made to the committee on December 13, 2022, during the information-gathering session. More information is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/12-13-2022/managed-retreat-in-the-us-gulf-coast-region-perspectives-and-approaches-to-property-acquisitions-challenges-and-lessons-learned

¹⁰⁶ More information about the NOAA Digital Coast Fellowship 2022–2024 project summaries is available at https://coast.noaa.gov/fellowship/digitalcoast/22_fellows.html

¹⁰⁷ More information about the Riverine Targeted Use of Buyouts Program is available at https://houstonwilderness.org/riverinetubs

onto contiguous buyout properties has proven beneficial in reducing flood risks to surrounding communities (Atoba et al., 2021; see Chapter 8). This implementation demonstrates not only the feasibility of such efforts but also the effectiveness of including additional ecological criteria in the flood buyout selection process. This approach can offer strong economic benefits without any compromise.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE MULTI-LEVEL CHANGE NEEDED

Federal agencies have many of the tools needed to help communities resettle under existing laws but are not proactively putting them into place with regulations, protocols, and cross-agency cooperation and collaboration, and no one agency is currently responsible for overseeing interpretation and coordination. As a result, although some have managed to do so, communities have no clear way to navigate the programs that are available to support relocation. Furthermore, the level of coordination for equitable community-driven relocation is currently insufficient among individual agencies operating within their current regulatory silos. For example, it is not within the capacity of state governments to enforce a seamless mode of collaboration among the various federal agencies and programs that may provide funding. Additionally, because programs are siloed, they can be at odds with each other, with one agency investing in redevelopment or protection (e.g., a levee) and another investing in buyouts of the same area. Notably, compared to federal funding assistance, which is application-based, private systems of small and large developers are the reality of how day-to-day operations function for households and municipalities. They drive whether we are intensifying development on the U.S. Gulf Coast, sustaining costly life there, or relocating, and for the most part the public and the public has no input on this process (Shi & Moser, 2021).

In the longer term, legislative change is needed. In the more immediate term, much can be done by capitalizing on existing programs—such as improving the utilization of local and state HMPs as decision-making tools—including capitalizing on land use as a risk reduction strategy and incorporating resettlement into these plans, while adapting FEMA’s interpretation of cost-effectiveness, particularly when targeting clusters of buyout properties (see Chapter 10).

Much of the funding for relocation is associated with disaster recovery programs rather than programs that plan for community development and well-being whether pre- or post-disaster. Such an approach is insufficient. Programs also have to address the root causes of vulnerability, such as poverty, bad land-use choices and investments, and poor levels of community empowerment (see Chapter 6). While the presence of post-disaster funding may coincide with an individual, community, or local government’s

increased awareness of risk and an enhanced willingness to consider relocation (though the opposite may also be true), the compressed timeframe in which people are required to act often hampers effective community engagement, collective decision making, and the use of planning processes needed to address the myriad complexities tied to community-driven relocation. As discussed in detail above, another consequence of this association between relocation funding and post-disaster recovery is that since disaster-based funding is episodic, it may not be aligned with state and community policies, plans, or capacities to implement. Nor are there sufficient resources provided by federal and state agencies in pre-disaster timeframes over the long timescales needed to address the complexities of community-driven relocation. In addition, funding distribution models that are tied to disasters disadvantage areas where property values or population density are low because fewer total resources are available to address major infrastructure needs.

State planning entities such as the Department of Environmental Protection, which created Blue Acres in New Jersey, could play a greater role in community-driven relocation by driving the development of local capacity, plan preparations, and sustained engagements in originating and receiving communities (see Chapter 8). This is particularly important as states can systematically address shortfalls in federal buyout programs, to include creating their own programs or providing targeted assistance and complimentary state funding to better address the additional challenges of community-driven relocation, such as building the local capacity required to write and implement grants, develop buyout and resettlement strategies, and manage them over time.

State-based planning organizations such as GLO or CPRA (particularly the Coastal Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration, and Conservation) could play a larger role by working across state agencies, and with other states, leveraging existing procedural systems to create room for discussions of community-driven relocation and to assess how coordinated actions can address shortfalls in state and local government programs and capabilities to act. More and more states, including Louisiana and Florida, have established chief resilience offices that coordinate adaptive governance actions to reduce risks to multiple hazards across all state agencies.

Regional planning commissions already plan for regional changes, such as shifts in population and associated resource needs for infrastructure or transportation. These entities could deepen their focus to address community-driven relocation, either within a state or from one state to another. The ability of regional planning commissions to undertake this type of work varies greatly due to existing staffing, expertise, and financial

support needed to assist local governments and communities in addressing the complexities of relocation.

Community-driven relocation will require land-use planning undertaken at multiple scales, from neighborhoods and cities to watersheds, states, and regions, underscoring the value of regional coordination. In the U.S. Gulf Coast, this could be undertaken through the combined efforts of federal, U.S. Gulf Coast states, regional, and metropolitan and municipal planning entities. Such efforts could increase the capacity of local governments and cities by (a) assisting them in assessing natural hazards and climate change-induced risk; (b) conveying the implications of risk and social vulnerability; (c) identifying a network of partners to assist them; (d) developing community goals, objectives, and strategies to address these risks, to include community-driven relocation; (e) facilitating deep and enduring community engagement; (f) making community access to financial support easily accessible, timely, and long-lasting; and (g) assisting communities in developing an implementation strategy tied to a range of governmental and nongovernmental programs, technical assistance measures, and policies that can empower communities to act.

The network of partners would ideally have both institutional and Indigenous knowledge of both external programs and local conditions. It could also serve as a data repository to assist households and communities in relocating and identifying and helping receiving communities. The network could also assist in analyzing the capacity of originating communities to act and the potential of receiving communities to accommodate and accept resettlers (see Chapter 8). By working in both originating and receiving communities, the use of widely recognized land-use planning techniques (e.g., land acquisition, tax increment financing, greenway and park planning, transfer of development rights, capital improvements planning, land suitability analysis, cluster development) and participatory processes (e.g., collaborative planning, alternative dispute resolution, social learning, facilitation) could “serve as an incentive or a pull force, guiding development away from the risk towards areas of lower physical vulnerability” (Bukvic et al., 2022, p. 10).

There is also room for expanded involvement of nonprofit organizations and public-private organizations in planning and implementing relocation programs and policies. An important opportunity exists to deepen the reach of these organizations by bringing the larger philanthropic entities together, with an equivalent program focused on community-driven relocation to coordinate the various initiatives and complement municipal and state efforts. Partnerships with, and funding from, private foundations could facilitate the work of these nonprofit organizations, exemplifying the power of governance.

SUMMARY

This chapter provides an overview of the current framework of policy, funding, and planning as it relates to community-driven relocation. It highlights the limits of the traditional episodic, disaster-based approach to community resilience and the need for an integrated systems-based approach to supporting community relocation, where appropriate. This requires a coordinated, adaptive governance approach that addresses both the root causes of vulnerability and the critical needs of originating and receiving communities in the evolving relocation process. The next chapter describes specific policy challenges to community-driven relocation and ongoing and potential innovative solutions to those challenges, many of which draw directly from the framework laid out in this chapter. Finally, Chapter 11 contains recommendations for how to improve the process of community-driven relocation for those intending to pursue this option.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 9-1: While federal agencies have many of the tools (e.g., funding, capacity) needed to help communities resettle under existing laws, and there are existing programs (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant Program) that have facilitated individual households and neighborhoods to relocate, there is currently no interagency coordination to enable community-driven relocation planning at the scale required to address the level of risks in the U.S. Gulf Coast. As a result, the existing programs are difficult for households and communities to navigate.

Conclusion 9-2: Most federal funding that can be used for relocation is available after a disaster occurs. This post-disaster, episodic funding format limits the capacity to plan for community-driven relocation at all levels of government.

Conclusion 9-3: States have some funding and capacity to assist with community-driven relocation, provided there is financial support from the federal government. States are closer to the communities in need of relocation and are in a position to provide more flexible and creative solutions than the federal government (e.g., relieving communities of the burden of providing matching funds, and making sure that those relocating will have suitable housing). While various state agencies in the Gulf region have supported particular relocations (e.g., Louisiana’s

Office of Community Development’s involvement with Pecan Acres or Isle de Jean Charles), no Gulf state has a comprehensive program to prioritize and serve all of the households and communities that potentially are seeking to relocate.

Conclusion 9-4: Regional entities within states and spanning states could help facilitate relocations within a given region, but no regional entity in the Gulf region has taken on this role.

Conclusion 9-5: While larger municipalities such as Travis County and Harris County in Texas are in a position to facilitate buyouts, most municipalities have limited resources to assist with relocations, and some municipal governments may be reluctant to facilitate relocation that erodes their tax base. Sub-municipal communities, neighborhoods, and individual households wishing to relocate typically must rely on their municipalities to apply for state and federal relocation assistance.

Conclusion 9-6: Targeted relocation planning funding, irrespective of individual disasters, needs to address community development and well-being, and encourage coordination between state and regional planning entities as well as municipalities. Central to this work is the co-creation of approaches alongside originating and receiving communities wherein land-use planning and community preparedness planning are mandatory investments.

Conclusion 9-7: Moving from a disaster-recovery model to an overall community relocation regime could entail evaluating the potential requirements to transition from a primarily competitive grant-making process to a process that places an increased emphasis on providing year-round funding and ongoing assistance to underresourced and at-risk communities to develop and implement risk reduction strategies, including long-term relocation planning.