The Federal Emergency Management Agency – FEMA – has proposed a new plan. The proposal threatens Oregonians’ ability to obtain critical federal flood insurance while forcing potential harmful land use regulations on our communities.

It is called the Draft Implementation Plan for NFIP-ESA Integration. Its purpose is to incorporate protection of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with rules governing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Insurance provided by the NFIP is an essential tool to help communities rebuild after a crisis; physically, socially and economically. And many institutions require property owners to have flood insurance before providing mortgages and other loans.

If approved, the implementation plan will affect more than 230 cities in 30 of Oregon’s 36 counties and jeopardize their access to federal flood insurance.

Like all Oregonians, we fully support protecting salmon – an important part of our state’s history, identity and economy.  But we strongly believe this is the wrong way to go about it.

To protect these fish, FEMA says that local governments must apply new, stringent limitations on land uses to make their communities eligible for NFIP. This creates a double bind for cities and counties.

On the one hand, they must interpret and apply broad-ranging and vague limits on virtually every type of land use in a floodplain – from homes to farms to roads, from new construction to maintenance and repairs. On the other hand, failure to do so adequately can shut a community out of the NFIP.

Here are just a few of the ways the draft implementation plan could hurt property owners and communities:

• It would add new limits to activities in floodplains – while expanding the definition of the floodplain. This will reduce developable land despite a community’s state-approved zoning and development plans.
• It would interfere with the state’s priority housing goals – while disproportionately affecting low-income Oregonians.
• It could interfere with basic farming practices, requiring expensive – or even unworkable – mitigation for routine activities.
• It could disrupt recreation and tourism in many ways – from restricting building and maintaining boat launches and marinas to preventing new tourist facilities and road improvements near waterways.
• An unfunded federal mandate, it will shift the burden of regulation from FEMA to local governments, requiring unprecedented amounts of research, additional staffing and consultants – while potentially reducing revenue from property taxes. 

One principal result will be a massive backlog in the permitting process as well as skyrocketing permitting costs that could make development unaffordable. High costs and reduced property taxes will also drain resources for other government operations.

Despite almost universal criticism about the plan from Oregonians during a public comment period, FEMA is determined to proceed – a bleak prospect for our state.

We need to speak with one voice and let FEMA know their proposed plan is wrong for Oregon. Urge your elected officials – from mayors and city council members to our U.S. Senators and Representatives – to tell FEMA to back off. For more information about the proposed plan and to find out how Oregonians are pushing back, email us at floodprotection@gmail.com.