h/t TriplePundit – FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.
According to the FEMA draft guidance;
“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:
…assessing future risk in light of a changing climate and changes in land use and development. This will ensure that the mitigation strategy addresses risks and takes into consideration possible future conditions in order to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to increase statewide resilience;
supporting states in fulfilling mitigation commitments, including FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants management performance, throughout the five-year plan approval period. FEMA seeks opportunities to build and maintain mitigation capabilities and advance hazard mitigation proactively during plan implementation, and not solely at plan update and review;
clarifying that “formally adopted by the state” means plan adoption by the highest elected official to reflect the importance of plan implementation as a means to demonstrate risk reduction as a statewide priority;
and
coordinating and integrating the mitigation planning process with the whole community, including agencies and stakeholders with mitigation capabilities that are responsible for economic development; land use and development; housing; infrastructure; natural and cultural resource management; and health and human services. Engaging agencies and stakeholders with data and authority early in the planning process facilitates both successful plan development and implementation.”
The section on hazard assessment contains the following injunction;
“The risk assessment must provide a summary of the probability of future hazard events that includes projected changes in occurrences for each natural hazard in terms of location, extent, intensity, frequency, and/or duration. Probability must include considerations of changing future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the identified hazards.”
There is a threat of funding sanction against states which fail to fulfil the key requirements, the first of which is an assessment of the risk of “future climate change”;
“If FEMA determines that the State is not maintaining the mitigation plan and, therefore, not meeting mitigation commitments, FEMA may take corrective action, such as revoking or suspending the plan approval status. Corrective action may impact eligibility for certain FEMA assistance until such time as FEMA determines that the plan meets the requirements and restores plan approval status.”
With the threat of a lethal global Ebola pandemic looming, and an elevated risk of a repeat this year of last year’s brutal winter, if Great Lakes temperatures are any guide http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/ , it’s a comfort to know that Federal agencies have prioritised states devoting time and resources, to determining what they will do if the world warms a little.
Thanks to Eric Worrall for this story.
On the face of it, this seems to me to be little more than blackmail.
This sounds like a fantastic opportunity to put some real science to work on the policy level. Individual states can use data to describe their basis for evaluation of the true risks. Make FEMA come back and tell them they must adhere to the IPCC diktat and watch the debate unfold from there.
The states have a chance to take this lemon and make some non-alarmist lemonade.
Brilliant, by using actual empirical data and some true science with fact based projections, FEMA and the present administration could be hoisted by their own petard.
Unless you are in a state like I am here in Maryland, where we are a monolithic Democratic state and they are all in when it comes to Climate Change. As we prepare to build an off shore wind farm 10 Nautical miles off shore in the Atlantic, I ponder the first major hurricane that comes along and wipes it out. The lunacy just hurts.
You know, we could take this further. The template for this sort of thing is pretty basic. I bet we could crowd-source a risk-mitigation plan and post the data. Bureaucrats and PR/journalist types with little to no detailed knowledge of scientific fields love to cut and paste, hence the atrocious state of science reporting. Give them something easy to grab, with lot’s of solid references to actual data and who knows what might happen. Just sayin’…
Michael F, this is a crowd-source site.
It’s comforting to see the US has progressed to the famous Five Year Plan that worked so well for the USSR. Time to queue up:
Blackmail from our own gubbermint….
The jackboot on the neck grows heavier.
Global warming induced severe winters should cover it.
Just more US government tyranny run amok under the guise of some fictitious and delusional disaster preparedness program….
More $billions will be wasted to address a problem that doesn’t exist, implemented by a federal government agency that shouldn’t exist, under usurped power that was never meant to exist, paid for with money printed money that pretends to exist..
What could possibly go wrong?
Triple distilled BS.
We are going to have to stop climate bureaucrats breeding, or the world is doomed to end in a bout of malignant stupidity.
We need to figure out how to position the adoption of Global Warming as synonymous with Racism and hate. Everyone who believes in Global Warming is a misanthrope.
Maybe we can eliminate some government branches? I know, I know, but I can dream can’t I?
Regional climate models have no known skill. Any assessment based on that cannot be better than a purely random choice. If I were to write it I’d fill it with inanities and get the cash.
This will go to the courts.
What doesn’t?
The concern is “climate change”, not “anthropogenic climate change”. Does this indicate that FEMA does not agree with the IPCC mandate? The polling must not favor the “consensus” view.
They were created to assist us in event of natural disaster, now they are telling us how we will act. Fascism.
1979, Pressed by state governors, President Jimmy Carter creates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
On Oct. 18, 2005, President Bush signs a Homeland Security appropriations bill that takes responsibility for preparedness out of FEMA
I found this on a website called A Short history of FEMA.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/storm/etc/femahist.html
I wonder if it’s still true or if FEMA is trying to be relevant, for once.
This is nothing new, only the cause célèbre has changed. When I was a state emergency planner in the late 1970’s and 1980’s the magic issues to be included in plans were Crisis Relocation Planning. CRP was for developing plans to evacuate large metropolitan areas to reduce the military value of nuclear strikes on major cities and protect population and to facilitate planning for large scale evacuations for other hazards like major hurricanes.
You know like the evacuation plans that the State of Louisiana and New Orleans totally ignored during Katrina. The plans existed, but the politicians simply were unfamiliar with the plans, ignored them, or were too afraid to actually implement them in a timely manner when they could do some good.
Another major push of that period was hazardous materials planning after some major incidents involving derailed trains, leaking chlorine tanks etc. and in Colorado concern about movement of old chemical weapons stocks to destruction sites and movement of radiological waste from the Rocky Flats plant to long term storage.
The way it works is the State has to include the proper buzz words in their state plan and some pages/paragraphs on the issue that satisfy their local FEMA regional office to get their buy off.
If the local FEMA office staff is zealous on that specific topic you have to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s to get the plan approved. If the local FEMA staff is pragmatic on that particular issue, you sort of wave a few buzz words around and move on.
What usually happens is that the State and FEMA folks work out a compromise where the plan has the proper buzz words and reference to the cause célèbre but the wording is structured so that it includes the issues both are really worried about under those headings as secondary usage. For example buying real time digital mapping resources under the guise of response planning for sea level rise, but really intending to use it for other emegencies. That way everyone is happy. The FEMA folks have their buzz words to make the head office happy and the State gets the funding with broad enough guide lines that they can tweak the use of the funding. They make it into dual use applications that fulfill the technical need to service the cause célèbre but really is intended to fulfill other needs. For example lots of communications upgrades and on site command center vehicles were purchased under the guise of supporting hazmat response but were also useful for flood response (highest real risk for most jurisdictions) and other emergencies. The Comm Vans were also nice pieces of eye candy to impress the local politicians and provide good photo op backgrounds for media interviews during emergencies and to show off during community events.
Properly done pragmatic planners and State Officials will do what they really need/want to do, but will just dress it in climate change clothing. In those cases where the FEMA folks for that state are zealots on climate change a lot of money and effort will be wasted on useless flood inundation maps for 20 meter sea level rise planning and similar boondoggles.
Smart state staffs will use the cause célèbre of climate change as justification for essential equipment and facility/staffing upgrades and just take the money and run.
The edit does not seem to specify a warming climate risk assessment. The states could assess a no change or cooling climate for the next 5 years. If FEMA objects then it would an interesting court battle.
My thoughts also. A mitigation plan for cooling, warming, neutral. All bases covered.
Would be great if some (or all) states put together plans for dealing with global (or even just local) COOLING.
That would probably give the FEeble-MindedA$—les a major hissy fit…
Indiana faces a dire shortage of grain silos for storage of the massive record corn an soybean harvests due to CO2 pollution.
We need federal aid to build more storage capacity and conversion of power plants and individual home heating units to burn corn.
The current and potential future disaster of over food production requires we act now before we are literally buried by grain level rise. It’s the precautionary principle.
The same funding-based edict can be used on all types of organizations, not just states–think Boy Scouts, schools, churches, local govt., student loans, and any individual seeking an income tax refund from the IRS as in the case of ACA enforcement at the individual level. Better get your form letters and AGW statements ready.
Everyone is obsessed with having a Plan.
Our local idiots were requested by te EU to have ‘regional [lns’ and ‘consulation’
spo they sent me a questionarrire.
First off, they asked me a load of questions about race, religion and ethnicity and sexual orientation. I told em it was none of their damned business.
Then they wanted to know whot development my area would benefit from.
“None at all”, I replied.”Its nice the way it is actually”.
Planning is figuring out what is not going to happen.
Easy, US citizens and institutions should simply quote the Constitution as their guide.
Nevertheless, “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.”
David Archibald, in Twilight of Abundance [Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, 2014], cf.
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/tyger-growl-knowing-of-burt-rutansince.html
FEMA already has a policy on sea level rise, which is the big issue for coastal land use decisions:
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/climate/floods/climate-NFIP-1991.pdf
Sea level rise by 2001, predicted in 1991 (and predictions haven’t changed materially since then), was between 1 foot (30 cm) and 3 feet (91 cm). FEMA evaluated the lower and higher scenarios with respect to flood risk and damage claims in its mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas. These are areas with elevations at or below the 1% annual chance (“100-year flood”) Base Flood Elevations.
[begin excerpt]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the findings and conclusions concerning how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) would be impacted by a rise in relative sea level. Based on information recently released by the United Nations on the range in the magnitude of potential rise in sea level, two primary sea level rise scenarios were examined, a 1-foot and 3-foot increase by the year 2100. Under both scenarios, the elevation of the 100-year flood would be expected to increase by the amount of the change in sea level.
[…]
Based on these findings, the aspects of flood insurance rate-making that already account for the possibility of increasing risk, and the tendency of new construction to be built more than one foot above the base flood elevation, the NFIP would not be significantly impacted under a 1-foot rise in sea level by the year 2100. For the high projection of a 3-foot rise, the incremental increase of the first foot would not be expected until the year 2050.
[end excerpt]
Years later, sophisticated Monte Carlo and climate models were applied to the problem, relying on the Rahmstorf method for foretelling future sea levels, summarized in this PowerPoint,:
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/frmp/Flood_Risk_Char/Crowell_-_FEMA_-_climate_change_v2.pdf
The modern techniques foretell more damage than the 1991 study, thereby justifying the actions that are being proposed.
The sophisticated analysis isn’t that good. I reviewed this work as shown on the slide pack in the .mil site, it has several mistakes.
Correct. The biggest oversight is the inconsistency with FEMA’s stated policy on future sea level rise. See FEMA’s FAQ page at:
http://www.r9map.org/Documents/OPC%20FAQ_8.2012.pdf
[begin quote]
Q: How will FEMA account for sea level rise on FIRMs as part of the OPC study?
A: FEMA maps existing flood risk, therefore, sea level rise will not be included in the OPC study. The BFEs, which are the elevations of the 1% annual chance coastal flood above current sea level will be depicted on the revised FIRM panels.
FEMA does not map predicted long-term changes onto FIRMs but rather depicts the existing conditions and current risk of flooding from coastal hazards at the time of publication. Substantial changes to areas along the California coast following the OPC study may trigger a re-study and the issuance of FIRM revisions when the effective maps no longer reflect the actual risks. Future re-studies may be local or regional, rather than state-wide. To mitigate against the effects of long term climate effects as well as extreme flood events that could occur at any time, FEMA encourages communities to regulate development in SFHAs to higher than the minimum standards required for compliance with the NFIP regulations. Requiring the first floor elevations of new and substantially damaged or improved structures built one or more feet above the BFEs depicted on the FIRMs is an example of a higher standard to mitigate flood risk.
[end quote]
More detail on FEMA sea level analysis is at
http://www.r9map.org/Pages/EbulletinStory.aspx?storyID=48
“…Estimates of the following return period SWELs were made at each of the 15 long-term tide stations in the study area: 50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance. These estimates of extreme SWELs will then be applied spatially along the coast to specific shoreline reaches for mapping onto Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)…”
Note that sea level will be estimated from actual tide gauge measurements, likely less than a millimeter per year rise. At another location on this web site (it might have been changed), I downloaded an excerpt where FEMA states:
“Sea-Level Rise – FEMA does not map predictive long-term changes onto FIRMs, but rather depicts the existing conditions and current coastal flood hazards at the time of publication. The current sea level rise that is measurable from 50-year hindcast data will be applied in the analysis for the CCAMP studies; however, future looking estimates and impacts of sea-level rise will not be part of the CCAMP studies.”
Every junkie knows how this system works. The prize is always in sight but always out of reach. Except we’re not talking about prizes.
The urgency of this effort should be limited, due to present pressing problems such as illegal immigration, and possible health issue outbreaks (especially Ebola preparation) as examples. However, I think the overall goal is quite reasonable and desired, as long as the purpose is not centered on AGW or CAGW, which are not likely problem areas. The possibility of more cold periods is a more dangerous and also more likely coming problem than warming, so this scenario should be examined and prepared for. The lack of clear plans for land use, possible limitations in water resources, local flood, storm or fire events are potentially real problems, as these type events do happen. States have had a tendency to depend on Federal help every time a large emergency has happened, and should be more prepared to do more themselves.
“the lack of clear plans for land use…” Leonard, lefty gov has big plans for land use and that includes your land. Why would the government provide better plans for land use than the private sector. They will be telling you what trees you can cut, what holes you can dig, how big house you can build…. Before long, they will be helping you to death. They will be running the economy. They will be making your choices for you, or at least giving you a list of approved choices for you to choose from.
My five year plan Mr. Federal Emergency; My Arse ! is to take out a one million US dollar insurance policy against having any future need for Federal assistance, for mitigation of any future happenstance, ruled by a competent court of law, to have been solely due to, and caused by, some specific aspect of climate change.
I have quotes of $1.66 for the next ten years, or $1.95 for life. I’ll take the lifetime plan, as I intend to stick around, to see these idiots tarred and feathered in the town square.
This is how it is done! Republicans will inherit a liberal infrastructure that they will probably not be able to do a lot with and will be forced to move more to left. Bush didn’t budge it. It happened in Europe a long time ago. The “Conservatives” of Europe are left of the Democrats in US (but not for long) and that is how they got that way.
You would need a type of leader that they don’t make anymore coupled with an asteroid strike or something almost as big to straighten it all out. There will be a tight web of dependence on a central government of states, municipalities and individuals that will be unchangeable. The civil service will end up employing half the country and Agenda 21 will be a checklist that you have to consult before breakfast. I used to think this was impossible to happen in the USA, but a strategy of selected immigration, facilitation of illegal aliens who vote left, education that teaches left and decries individualism, sacrosanct multiculturalism and an atmosphere of fear infused into the population that makes them behave and obey. They’ve banned Mark Twain and Shakespeare from schools. Walt Whitman isn’t far from being banned as well for his:
“Resist much, obey little.”
― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Eventually we will have book lists put together by the UN for use in schools and Universities…. Is there anybody out there concerned about what is happening?