CONNECTING THE DOTS FOR FLOOD MAR AND THE VALUE OF NETWORKS (CONTINUED)

Adapted by Lisa Beutler from the January 2023 DWR sponsored white paper Addressing Complex Problems Together: A Network Story, by Orit Kalman, Mike Antos, Marisa Perez-Reyes, and Jenny Marr

A formal network that regularly convenes requires some organizing principles and structure to facilitate its shared efforts. Options include a network administrator and/or a steering, technical, or leadership team to inform network activities. These roles are not directive, instead they support development of working agendas and support for implementation of the agendas adopted by the network. Some best practices include:

1. Memorialize expectations in a network Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or charter. As the network is a living, learning entity, it should continually revisit its purpose, to affirm activities are meeting the desired objectives. The charter should include principles of engagement, as well as expectations for meeting frequency and format.

2. Identify resources and opportunities for integration with other programs. This step will help ensure the network gains credibility and traction, maintains relevance, and operates efficiently.

3. Design communication mechanisms and messaging based on the role a network plays in sharing its work internally among members and with a wider external audience.

Since it first convened in December 2020, members have met at quarterly workshops to brainstorm and refine the initiatives that were needed to firmly establish the network. In addition to the quarterly workshops, a small planning team comprised of DWR staff and consultants met regularly with network members to advance the ideas that were expressed during these workshops.

Learning Groups encourage the flow of information among network members as well as with outside groups and interested parties. Those monitoring the groups note that while the intent is to focus on information exchange, they may lead to coordinated actions. The Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operation (FIRO) Group was formed by network members with goal of engaging experts in recharge and flood management to fill knowledge gaps and explore integration opportunities.

Initiative or Action Teams have advanced specific actions that support the network’s purpose. One example is the Flood- MAR website development initiative. A team member identified a volunteer web designer that implemented the initiative.

The January 2023 paper on networks found that the interdependencies inherent in the way that people, land and water interact suggest a role for networks. The intentional development of networks uncovers shared purpose, builds rapport and trust, improves understanding of complex issues, and supports more efficient or effective water and land management at different scales and contexts. The authors explain that Flood MAR stands as only one of many strategies that can be used where coordination and integration across a wide variety of administrative and infrastructural systems is needed in pursuit of better outcomes. This creates a significant opportunity to improve the integration of land, surface and groundwater management to create sustainable practices and provide benefits to meet local, regional, and statewide needs.

The FMA Newsletter welcomes the input of its members and now our extended family of readership to contribute to the conversation! Keep the great articles coming! We need to hear from all of you. There’s always room for more to join the ranks of published authors. Showcase your programs, projects, tools, policies, regulations or ideas to hundreds of floodplain management professionals throughout the U.S.! Articles must be submitted in Word format to fmaed@floodplain.org and may contain 2-3 small pictures. Preferred length is less than 850 words.

For more details, call (916) 847-3778.

Michael Nowlan

I hesitate to write this article, but I feel I must, given the feedback and questions I am getting from others. I will say up front that the opinions expressed in this article are mine (Michael Nowlan), alone, and in no way are intended to represent the position of any other person or agency or company, including FMA. Very soon, in the state of California, FEMA will be suspending the processing of all new fill-based map revision applications in many areas of Northern California. For those of us in the game, any new submittals of CLOMR-F and LOMR-F applications are suspended, effective July 1, 2023, in the majority of California counties. The current county projected count is 38 out of the 58 total. Applications received before July 1 will still be processed and completed, barring any unique issues that would normally derail an application.

I predict that this will be a hot topic of discussion at our next FMA conference. You see, the folks in Southern California have been dealing with this issue in 6 counties since 2020. Many, many folks are trying to figure out what this all means, including the folks in FEMA, and I sympathize with all involved. The folks in the rest of California are now feeling the pain that Southern California has been feeling. I am sure we will be sharing notes, or at least commiserating after sessions in the hotel bar.

So, what is the issue? As I understand it, it centers around FEMA’s responsibilities as a federal agency in meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If you have processed a CLOMR in the past decade or so, you should have noticed a little check box on the application forms, relating to ESA compliance. That little check box has greatly complicated the process, not that the process was uncomplicated to start with. For many years, meeting this requirement has been primarily the responsibility of the project proponent/applicant and the local land use authority (community) to work out. There is no doubt that development projects can have environmental impacts, but the local planning and permitting process has been the front lines for these issues. FEMA has simply required that the ESA compliance be handled and documented by others, and provided to FEMA for verification, thanks to Congress’ insistence. FEMA is not a regulatory agency, or so I have been told many times. Approving development has always been controversial, and usually requires numerous environmental studies and clearances before it can happen. These studies are usually paid for by each project proponent, documented, and submitted to others for their concurrence. This may be changing. It is being argued that administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) itself may be considered a federal action. This possibly stems from the belief that insuring risk somehow increases the impacts of that which is being insured, particularly with respect to flood insurance and the Endangered Species Act.

While we wait for FEMA to figure out its next move, the CLOMR-F/LOMR-F process will be suspended in 38 counties. That much we know, unless FEMA changes its mind before then. There is no date yet on when things will “return to normal”, whatever that means nowadays. At this time, it appears that all other application processes for revisions to FEMA’s maps are still available. This could change though, so stay tuned.