The way I read this...it's going up.

___

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STANDARD
AND A PROCESS FOR FURTHER SOLICITING AND CONSIDERING
STAKEHOLDER INPUT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve the Nation's resilience to current and future flood risk, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding. These impacts are anticipated to increase over time due to the effects of climate change and other threats. Losses caused by flooding affect the environment, our economic prosperity, and public health and safety, each of which affects our national security.

The Federal Government must take action, informed by the best-available and actionable science, to improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience against flooding. Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977 (Floodplain Management), requires executive departments and agencies (agencies) to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Federal Government has developed processes for evaluating the impacts of Federal actions in or affecting floodplains to implement Executive Order 11988.

As part of a national policy on resilience and risk reduction consistent with my Climate Action Plan, the National Security Council staff coordinated an interagency effort to create a new flood risk reduction standard for federally funded projects. The views of Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders were solicited and considered as efforts were made to establish a new flood risk reduction standard for federally funded projects. The result of these efforts is the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (Standard), a flexible framework to increase resilience against flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains. Incorporating this Standard will ensure that agencies expand management from the current base flood level to a higher vertical elevation and corresponding horizontal floodplain to address current and future flood risk and ensure that projects funded with taxpayer dollars last as long as intended.

This order establishes the Standard and sets forth a process for further solicitation and consideration of public input, including from Governors, mayors, and other stakeholders, prior to implementation of the Standard.

Sec. 2. Amendments to Executive Order 11988. Executive Order 11988 is amended as follows:

(a) Section 2 is amended by inserting ", to the extent permitted by law" after "as follows".

(b) Section 2(a)(1) is amended by striking "This Determination shall be made according to a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) floodplain map or a more detailed map of an area, if available. If such maps are not available, the agency shall make a determination of the location of the floodplain based on the best-available information. The Water Resources Council shall issue guidance on this information not later than October 1, 1977" and inserting in lieu thereof "To determine whether the action is located in a floodplain, the agency shall use one of the approaches in Section 6(c) of this Order based on the best-available information and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's effective Flood Insurance Rate Map".

(c) Section 2(a)(2) is amended by inserting the following sentence after the first sentence:

"Where possible, an agency shall use natural systems, ecosystem processes, and nature-based approaches when developing alternatives for consideration.".

(d) Section 2(d) is amended by striking "Director" and inserting "Administrator" in lieu thereof.

(e) Section 3(a) is amended by inserting the following sentence after the first sentence:

"The regulations and procedures must also be consistent with the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS).".

(f) Section 3(a) is further amended by inserting "and FFRMS" after "Flood Insurance Program".

(g) Section 3(b) is amended by striking "base flood level" and inserting "elevation of the floodplain as defined in Section 6(c) of this Order" in lieu thereof.

(h) Section 4 is revised to read as follows:

"In addition to any responsibilities under this Order and Sections 102, 202, and 205 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106, and 4128), agencies which guarantee, approve, regulate, or insure any financial transaction which is related to an area located in an area subject to the base flood shall, prior to completing action on such transaction, inform any private parties participating in the transaction of the hazards of locating structures in the area subject to the base flood.".

(i) Section 6(c) is amended by striking ", including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year" and inserting in lieu thereof:

". The floodplain shall be established using one of the following approaches:

"(1) Unless an exception is made under paragraph (2), the floodplain shall be:

"(i) the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using a climate-informed science approach that uses the best-available, actionable hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on climate science. This approach will also include an emphasis on whether the action is a critical action as one of the factors to be considered when conducting the analysis;

"(ii) the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using the freeboard value, reached by adding an additional 2 feet to the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and by adding an additional 3 feet to the base flood elevation for critical actions;

"(iii) the area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood; or

"(iv) the elevation and flood hazard area that result from using any other method identified in an update to the FFRMS.

"(2) The head of an agency may except an agency action from paragraph (1) where it is in the interest of national security, where the agency action is an emergency action, where application to a Federal facility or structure is demonstrably inappropriate, or where the agency action is a mission-critical requirement related to a national security interest or an emergency action. When an agency action is excepted from paragraph (1) because it is in the interest of national security, it is an emergency action, or it is a mission-critical requirement related to a national security interest or an emergency action, the agency head shall rely on the area of land subject to the base flood".

(j) Section 6 is further amended by adding the following new subsection (d) at the end:

"(d) The term 'critical action' shall mean any activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great.".

(k) Section 8 is revised to read as follows:

"Nothing in this Order shall apply to assistance provided for emergency work essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety, performed pursuant to Sections 403 and 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 5170b and 5192).".

Sec. 3. Agency Action. (a) Prior to any action to implement the Standard, additional input from stakeholders shall be solicited and considered. To carry out this process:

(i) the Federal Emergency Management Agency, on behalf of the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group, shall publish for public comment draft amended Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988 (Guidelines) to provide guidance to agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with the Standard;

(ii) during the comment period, the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group shall host public meetings with stakeholders to solicit input; and

(iii) after the comment period closes, and based on the comments received on the draft Guidelines during the comment period, in accordance with subsections (a)(i) and (ii) of this section, the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group shall provide recommendations to the Water Resources Council.

(b) After additional input from stakeholders has been solicited and considered as set forth in subsections (a)(i) and (ii) of this section and after consideration of the recommendations made by the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group pursuant to subsection (a)(iii) of this section, the Water Resources Council shall issue amended Guidelines to provide guidance to agencies on the implementation of Executive Order 11988, as amended, consistent with the Standard.

(c) To the extent permitted by law, each agency shall, in consultation with the Water Resources Council, Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Council on Environmental Quality, issue or amend existing regulations and procedures to comply with this order, and update those regulations and procedures as warranted. Within 30 days of the closing of the public comment period for the draft amendments to the Guidelines as described in subsection (a) of this section, each agency shall submit an implementation plan to the National Security Council staff that contains milestones and a timeline for implementation of this order and the Standard, by the agency as it applies to the agency's processes and mission. Agencies shall not issue or amend existing regulations and procedures pursuant to this subsection until after the Water Resources Council has issued amended Guidelines pursuant to subsection (b) of this order.

Sec. 4. Reassessment. (a) The Water Resources Council shall issue any further amendments to the Guidelines as warranted.

(b) The Mitigation Framework Leadership Group in consultation with the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force shall reassess the Standard annually, after seeking stakeholder input, and provide recommendations to the Water Resources Council to update the Standard if warranted based on accurate and actionable science that takes into account changes to climate and other changes in flood risk. The Water Resources Council shall issue an update to the Standard at least every 5 years.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The Water Resources Council shall carry out its responsibilities under this order in consultation with the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2015.

probably find some way to tax homeowners, unless they live in Manhattan or San Francisco...

That EO is pretty opaque, but the what I'm seeing is that the areas considered "flood prone" are dramatically increasing, which will, in turn, increase the areas considered "high risk", all to be adjusted by Climate Change scientists at will.

I have an idea....

As we have seen in several instances, government shouldn't be in the "Insurance Business"....

I want them to stay the fug out of my business period.

How novel. Let's hope Congress does too.

Can't argue with that, but they are, and the only game in town.

A BIG land grab. They don't have to own it, thus taking it off the tax rolls, to CONTROL it.

They just took over Houston without firing a shot.

That's my take, and increased every existing premium at the same time.

All this expansion of flood zones helps out my business.

I just wish it didn't.

Tell Øbama to GTFO.

The last issue of Nat. Geographic has an article about how FL will flood if the oceans rise 5' which they predict will happen by 2050. NG is very much into global warming. Their maps are probably very accurate as to what would flood if the ocean did indeed rise 5', but they have no credible evidence that it will rise.

They can't even predict a snow storm the day before.

Actually they did a good job of predicting the snow last week but they were off a bit on it's exact path. It shifted east and much of it fell in the ocean.

The best flood insurance is living on the hill. If you can't figure that out, why should I subsidize your flood insurance?

The only reason the government is the only game in town for flood insurance is that no commercial insurance company is willing to consistently lose money in that segment.

You got to pay, to play....

Amen! I'm also tired of rates going up because people live in earth quake areas, flood areas, wild fire areas, tornado areas, theft areas etc etc.

I think EVERYONE should live in North Dakota, that will solve the problems.

Ah yes, good ole Agenda 21 being implemented before our very eyes.

Control where people can afford to live and you control where they live and how they live.

Exactly. They WANT us all in several areas and no where else.

Bull crap, how do you manage to turn cutting off the government teat into controlling where people can live?

There's a lot of folks that are anti-government until it's their subsidy being shut off.....

More Flood zones = less development area

Doesn't help me any, but I guess I could pick up a few more flood certs in lieu of a subdivision.

Laffin

just develop in the flood zone, use fill to bring it above the BFE, than file a LOMR-F.

I guess all the people that work oil refineries, ports, CG, NAVY etc etc should live in South Dakota and commute to their jobs daily in Texas/Florida/LA etc etc.

A house boat comes to mind......

Feel free to keep trying to convince me to subsidize oil refineries......

Oh, but not here, most all jurisdictions here have a NO FILL in the flood plain policy for development. Don't ask why, it is embarrassing.

We really need a revamping that discourages building on flood plains. Yes, harbors, docks, etc are required, but second homes, cities, and such are not. Why anyone goes to the expense of rebuilding on the same lot when they've had 4 ft of water in a living room is beyond me.

Last spring a news person was interviewing a retired couple. When they purchased their home they were told there had been no water there for 13 yrs, so they thought they were safe. HELLO?
Wake up people.

There should be some substantial effort to accurately define flood plains, but it should be buyer beware for those that want to buy and build. If they can afford private sector insurance that's fine, but Gov should not run agencies to bail everyone out and put them back into the same lot.

We repeatedly see folks in our closed basin move in, buy and build in the flood plain against everyone's advice, and then put everyone else at fault when the water shows up the third year. I'm sorry, but you were warned. The price for beach/lake front property can be very extreme in the long run.

They could always build their refineries in South Dakota. How hard could it be to develope transportation means to the rest of the world, build a work force from the reservations and make the climate more temperate?

That sounds pretty easy doesn't it? Let them eat cake.

Agreed, and the exact same logic should be applied to fire zones in the PRK as well.

well, they've gotten away with hijacking health care (so far) they might as well hijack where people can live.

In other words, it's another power grab.

Wrong. No one called for .gov to be in it. In fact, the call was for .gov to get OUT of it. Let private insurers dictate the market for property insurance. Right now, .gov subsidizes people to live in places where they get flooded or burned out, time and again, and the taxpayers foot the bill.

That's wrong, and it needs to stop.

No. It's a version of let them eat bread. Cake only if they can afford it.

Throw in hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes (insert natural disaster)...

I think the 7th Fleet should relocate to N. Dakota. The CG could move all operations to S. Dakota and I guess shipyards would be right at home in Wyoming.

Old high water marks are not hard to spot.

Then there are all those fertile river bottom lands that produce LOTS of crops. Farmers can grow corn on Pike's Peak.

I'm required to have flood insurance where I live. The house I'm in is 90 years old, has never flooded. In fact flood waters have never reached the levels that my house is on in recorded history, but a portion of my property (down the hill) is in the flood plain, so I'm required.

While we are at it, we might as well stop subsidizing farming and let everyone pay for what it really cost to grow a head of lettuce or an ear of corn, on Pike's Peak no less.

there is a process to get rid of that requirment if you are interested, but with your home being outside the floodplain your insurance is likely cheap and worth having anyways.

Yes, the insurance cost is only $250 a year and I'd have it anyways.

Absolutely.

The government would continue to subsidize them and their crops there as well.

If given a choice between subsidizing people that work and provide for society and those that only take, I go with the working providers.

.gov certainly wouldn't be trying to cut subsidies from middle class home owners and give the savings to the non producing would they?

Oh, bull crap. The BANK is required to have flood insurance on your property if they want to sell the loan. So the bank makes you buy the insurance for them.

The government then subsidizes your mortgage (through your mortgage interest deduction) and your flood insurance.

What a deal, eh? That giant sucking sound? That's you hanging on the government teat.

How about you don't collect your government subsidies and pay cash for the house? No flood insurance!

Your accountant must think you are a hopeless dumbass.

Actually - More flood zones = no closed mortgages without paying for flood insurance. It's another new tax, this one to people very unlikely to ever be flooded.

What I'd call an "agenda driven post". Can't tell if it's aimed at a principle or a person.

Which means it's pretty poorly written.

The bill to raise flood insurance rates was passed last spring (2014). Since lots of folks in La. are required to have the insurance, Mary Landrieu, (then a senator) who voted for the insurance raise, sponsored a bill to delay the rate increase until 2015, which put the increase after the Nov. elections. Mary Landrieu was up for re-election in Nov. and thank goodness she lost. In fact, she got her hinny spanked, 56% to 44%.

Even the POS in DC couldnt help Landrieu by delaying the obamacare fiasco. Earlier someone posted all the hikes in taxes, etc. that take effect this year. All these hikes were delayed until after the elections in order to try and preserve the democrap majority in the senate. This year the small businesses are going to have to comply. All we've seen so far is the individual compliance.

No fill in floodplain or no fill in floodway?

Flood plain

This is it. Just because the property is partially in, the house being out, the rates should be really cheap.

You may have to prove by survey the house is out though. And you may have to deal with freeboard which could change that...

Most of the new subdivisions around here (mine being 3-4 years old) have extensive provisions to control heavy rains - drainage canals and catch basins, plus the foundation of my house is probably 3 feet above street level. And the yard is graded to keep water from pooling around the house. I'm 60 miles off the coast; I can't imagine even a direct hit from a big hurricane actually flooding the place.

Why on a 3.5% loan, when my money earns more elsewhere and if that tanks I can default on the mortgage.

Government involvement in flood protection and prevention is a long standing cash cow.
1) People settle flood prone area.
2) People loss their ass in flood.
3) People demand government solution to stop flooding
4) Corps of Engineers builds flood control infrastructure that provides protection up to the 100 yr event because that is what is technically and economically feasible.
5) People become complacent and cities grow within former flood prone areas.
6) Flood patterns change (read increased frequency and size) due to widespread drainage improvements within watershed.
7) The really big one comes overcoming flood protection infrastructure, massive public and private property damage ensues.
8) The public cries government incompetency and does not assume accountability for personal decisions that carried risk.
9) FEMA shows up to hand out money and fix public resources so long as the fix meets fed standards.
10) The public and private infrastructure is rebuilt with heavy government subsidy.
11) Repeat steps 2 thru 10.

Do not know how to post links, but google John Stossel flood insurance and look at the fox news feed. Stossel built an ocean front house, and had it partially rebuilt twice, and fully rebuilt once on flood insurance. For a couple hundred bucks a year???? I had a chimney fire and a lightning strike ($6K combined) in a 3 year period and my homeowners went up 25%!

Check out my OP. Obama made more changes two days ago. All flood zone lines will go up (actually down) three feet and are subject to climate change speculation at will.

I had a few daily commutes from Kodiak to Attu (roughly 2700 miles round trip total), but the stewardesses (male AMTs) were always ugly. Made it in under 12 hours twice, had to RON at Shemya Island one other time...

Pat, I read the OP, I was just pointing out that the bill was actually passed last year and why the rise in cost is just now going into effect. The original bill had the price increase taking place before the elections and that was going to pizz off a bunch of Mary's voters.

I understand, but the EO, moving the goalpost, is from 4 days ago.

Yep, the POS is at it again!

I figure your required to have the insurance, living where you do, am I right?

We live far enough from the coast that we dont, but we do live by a lake and I figure its just a matter of time before they get us. Heck, this might be our nail in the coffin. We'll just wait and see.

Yes...everybody south of Interstate 10 here is required to have it, and there is only one source.

I can't believe the law was written so shoddy that it allowed that much executive discretion where numbnuts can just "E.I.E.O.-oh" the hell out of it.

Who'e responsible for that crap?

10-4 on the one source, good ole federal government.

Its cheap insurance, but the coverage is questionable. 250K on single family structure and 100k on contents.

Lots of single family homes are worth more than 250K.

Everything is depreciated greatly too, no replacement.