@article{d710eb67f696404d8c18e520d37e2d45,
title = "The Political Complexity of Coastal Flood Risk Reduction: Lessons for Climate Adaptation Public Works in the U.S.",
abstract = "Coastal climate adaptation public works, such as storm surge barriers and levees, are central elements of several current proposals to limit damages from coastal storms and sea-level rise in the United States. Academic analysis of these public works projects is dominated by technocratic and engineering-driven frameworks. However, social conflict, laws, political incentives, governance structures, and other political factors have played pivotal roles in determining the fate of government-led coastal flood risk reduction efforts. Here, we review the ways in which politics has enabled or hindered the conception, design, and implementation of coastal risk reduction projects in the U.S. We draw from the literature in natural hazards, infrastructure, political science, and climate adaptation and give supporting examples. Overall, we find that (1) multiple floods are often needed to elicit earnest planning; (2) strong and continuous leadership from elected officials is necessary to advance projects; (3) stakeholder participation during the design stage has improved outcomes; (4) legal challenges to procedural and substantive shortcomings under environmental protection statutes present an enduring obstacle to implementing megastructure proposals.",
keywords = "adaptation, coastal flooding, infrastructure, natural hazards, public policy, sea-level rise",
author = "Rasmussen, {D. J.} and Kopp, {Robert E.} and Rachael Shwom and Michael Oppenheimer",
note = "Funding Information: The authors acknowledge the helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers and discussions with Robert J. Lempert (RAND), Daniel J. Van Abs (Rutgers), Jeff Gebert (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and Megan Mullin (Duke). D. J. Rasmussen was supported by the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program at Princeton University. R. E. Kopp was supported by NSF grant ICER-1663807. M. Oppenheimer received support from NSF award number 1520683. Funding Information: In the U.S., the federal government does not have the authority to coerce states and local communities to meet coastal flood safety standards (US National Research Council, 2014 ); this is in contrast to other environmental domains with federal standards, such as water and ambient air quality (Downing & Kimball, 1982 ). However, Congress has created various federal programs to incentivize local preparedness by (1) making grants available to states and local communities to finance projects they would otherwise not be able to afford through local tax revenues and debt issuances alone and (2) reducing premiums for government‐sponsored insurance programs if communities undertake risk‐reduction measures (for example, through the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Ratings System; Carter et al., 2019 ). Federal grants are available either following a natural disaster (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency's [FEMA] Hazard Mitigation Program and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's [HUD] Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Program) or ex ante (e.g., FEMA's Mitigation Assistance Program and its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities [BRIC] Program—formerly the Pre‐Disaster Mitigation Program). In both cases, recipients are required to have a standing FEMA‐approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible. While meager annual budgets (appropriations < $250 million/yr) restrict FEMA support for infrastructure‐based coastal risk reduction (Carter et al., 2019 ), some grants through HUD are larger. For example, HUD awarded New York City over $300 million through the Rebuild by Design competition to assist with funding the $1.45 billion East Side Coastal Resiliency Project (City of New York, 2020 ). But overall, federal funding is (1) often tied to specific disasters, making it inaccessible to communities not impacted and (2) is contingent on annual congressional appropriations, leading to fluctuations in the levels of support. Additionally, annual USACE appropriations are much smaller than the levels needed to fund coastal risk reduction megastructures. For these projects, substantial federal assistance is needed from either Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or emergency supplemental appropriation following disasters (Carter, 2018 ; Knopman et al., 2017 ; Kousky & Shabman, 2017 ; Scodari, 2014 ; Sustainable Solutions Lab, 2018b ; US National Research Council, 2014 ). Funding Information: The authors acknowledge the helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers and discussions with Robert J. Lempert (RAND), Daniel J. Van Abs (Rutgers), Jeff Gebert (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and Megan Mullin (Duke). D. J. Rasmussen was supported by the Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) Program at Princeton University. R. E. Kopp was supported by NSF grant ICER‐1663807. M. Oppenheimer received support from NSF award number 1520683. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020. The Authors.",
year = "2021",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1029/2020EF001575",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Earth's Future",
issn = "2328-4277",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",
}