The Nation's Responses To Flood Disasters: A Historical Account

The 1970s and 1980s: The Flood Insurance Era 57
ASFPM’s 1989 state activity survey
The second report summarized ASFPM’s first formal survey of state and local
programs completed in 1989. 139 The organization developed the survey and mailed it to
the NFIP coordinator in each state and the District of Columbia. All coordinators
completed and returned the forms. Using this type of standardized reporting form made
it possible to summarize state floodplain management activities at the end of the 1980s.
As in 1985, a state’s activities varied according to the state’s participation in
various FEMA-funded assistance programs, the financial status of state government and
the regional economy, the types of flooding common to the area, the political situation,
and the prevalent attitudes toward regulation and resource preservation. Some
generalizations can be made about the state’s activities.
Coordinated NFIP activities. Almost all states coordinated NFIP activities (distributed
maps, reviewed flood insurance studies, and provided technical assistance to localities);
conducted some kind of information and education program; and monitored the safety of
dams and other control structures. Between the Kusler study in the early 1980s to the
1989 survey, the number of states that undertook activities in support of the NFIP
dramatically increased. Several states regulated, or required localities to regulate,
floodplain areas to standards stricter than those of the NFIP. More than half also
regulated wetlands and had other floodplain resource protection programs. About half
the states did some floodplain mapping on their own, collected data for flood warning
systems or operated such a system, and provided disaster assistance to local governments
and businesses.
Types of activities. According to the published report, the activities funded by FEMA
had the most state participation. Fewer states engaged in the most expensive activities
and activities requiring the most technical expertise. The report noted that the collected
data might not reflect total state activities because of the perspective and position of the
survey respondents. It further noted that, in many cases, a lack of coordination among
the agencies within a state made obtaining comprehensive data on state programs
difficult. 140 This could happen because a number of agencies—emergency preparedness
and response, natural resources, environmental protection, structural flood protection
measures, planning, and economic development—may have been responsible for various
aspects of flood hazard management. In general, state involvement in floodplain
management during the 1980s increased over that of the 1970s.
Minnesota, South Carolina, and Wisconsin were among those that reported
changes in state activities since the 1985 survey. In 1987, the Minnesota legislature
established a Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance Program that provided a 50
percent state/50 percent local, cost-share grant program for flood damage reduction
139 Floodplain Management 1989: State and Local Programs, (Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., 1989).
140 Ibid., p. 43.