HUD Mandated “Science Based Risk Analysis” Absent From Christie Plan and Media Coverage
Christie’s reconstruction plans repeat land use mistakes of the past
Will HUD Enforce New Federal Policy?
There is virtually no public awareness of the fact that President Obama issued an Executive Order and HUD adopted new regulations that impact NJ’s Sandy Recovery effort and funding plan. There has been virtually no media coverage of either.
There is similarly little public awareness that at the same time that the Christie Administration’s $1.4 billion HUD Sandy Recovery Round 2 spending plan is out for public review, the Ocean County Hazard Mitigation Plan is under State review and due to be submitted for FEMA approval in March 2014.
The Ocean County Hazard Mitigation Plan is directly relevant to the Christie HUD Recovery Plan. The two plans have important overlaps.
The overlaps are created by President Obama’s Executive Order and new HUD rules.
What it all boils down to is:
Will HUD allow billions of federal taxpayer dollars to be used to subsidize reconstruction of public infrastructure and homes in hazardous locations – places current science projects will be permanently inundated or subject to storm surge and flooding elevations that are higher than current FEMA and NJ building elevations?
Here’s the story:
Back in August of last year, when President Obama’s Sandy Rebuilding Task Force release their Report, which stressed a policy of “resilience”, I noted basic contradictions between that approach and Gov. Christie’s policy, see:
Shortly thereafter, on November 1, 2013, Obama reinforced that Sandy Task Force Report by issuing an Executive Order: Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.
The Order set out comprehensive new federal policies – including mandates for federal agencies, like HUD and FEMA (set forth in Section 5):
Section 1. Policy. The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs.
To implement the Obama Executive Order and policies of the Sandy Task Force recommendations, HUD issued new rules.
Here is what new HUD rules require:
Each grantee must describe the science-based risk analysis it has or will employ to select, prioritize, implement, and maintain infrastructure projects or activities. At a minimum, the grantee’s analysis must consider a broad range of information and best available data, including forward-looking analyses of risks to infrastructure sectors from climate change and other hazards, such as the Northeast United States Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios from the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the Sea Level Rise Tool for Sandy Recovery, or comparable peer-reviewed information, as well as the regional analysis developed in Phase 2 of the Rebuild by Design competition.
When those rules were announced back in November, I was skeptical:
The conflicts between the new HUD rules and the Christie Administration policy set up a showdown: I doubt Christie will make the substantial changes required to comply with the HUD rules.
For example, how can DEP deregulation of rebuild of public infrastructure possibly comply with HUD’s new science based risk approach, in consideration of climate change?
Gov. Christie repeatedly has said that climate change is an “esoteric” issue that he has no time to consider in Sandy recovery.
Will Christie eat crow on climate and bow to HUD regulators? Doubt it.
Will HUD withold $1.4 billion from NJ when Christie fails to submit a plan that complies?
The Christie HUD Round 2 funding plan will be reviewed by HUD for compliance with the new Obama policies and HUD rules.
The Christie plan itself connects the dots between hazard mitigation planning and HUD CDBG funding in Section 3 – This is the section that NJ relies on to comply with new HUD requirements to conduct a “science-based risk analysis” and forward-looking analyses of risks to infrastructure sectors from climate change and other hazards”
Here is that Christie Plan language, see: “Utilize the Sea Level Rise Tool for Sandy Recovery to Inform Individual Project Selection.”
the State is consistently applying these tools to inform the development of the State of New Jersey’s 2014 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, as part of the State’s comprehensive effort to assess the potential long-term efficacy and fiscal sustainability of specific risk-reduction measures and improvements using CDBG-DR funding, the State intends to utilize the federal government’s available tools to consider the impact of potential sea-level rise and consider whether project designs should be enhanced to address potential sea level rise scenarios, where such enhancements are cost-effective and reasonably practical given the inherent uncertainty in sea-level rise modeling.
This is the only section of the Christie HUD Plan that addresses climate change and sea level rise. Note that the language of the plan specifically allows “cost effectiveness” and “inherent uncertainty” to derail any efforts to actual implement the science.
Note that the language fails to even consider incorporation of the science in State land use, infrastructure, and coastal management programs (i.e. CAFRA et al) or local land use Master Plans, zoning ordinances, or building codes.
Note that the Plan makes no specific and binding commitments about when and how the sea level rise projects will be used or implemented with respect to federally funded projects.
For example, other portions of the Christie HUD plan do make specific and enforcement commitments with respect to sea level rise, i.e.:
- The State established by emergency rule the best available data from FEMA’s new flood maps, plus one foot of freeboard, as the general rebuilding standard to adapt to changing flood hazard risks.
Contrary to this DEP Emergency Rule that mandated the use of FEMA’s new flood maps – which are inadequate because they do not consider climate change and sea level rise – there are no regulatory commitments to or standards to address the sea level rise projections that the Plan promises WILL BE conducted at some undefined future time.
HUD can have absolutely no assurance that NJ will actually implement sea level rise science – and there aren’t even any aspirational promises regarding climate change in the Christie plan.
These deficiencies do not meet new HUD requirements.
Worse, the Christie HUD plan ignores the Ocean County Hazard Mitigation Plan that’s already been prepared.
The Ocean County Hazard Mitigation Plan projects and maps significant land areas in Ocean County that will be permanently (i.e. year round) inundated (i.e. under water) as a result of sea level rise, see:
The OCHM plan shows that much larger areas of the County are projected to be hit by higher storm surge elevations, as sea level rise and climate change combine to increase the extent of highly vulnerable and high hazardous locations.
Those stark findings beg basic questions like:
- Are billions of taxpayer dollars funding infrastructure projects in those high hazard locations?
- Are homes being rebuilt in those high hazard locations?
- Are the DEP’s rebuilding elevations high enough to prevent flooding, based on the Ocean County Plan’s projections?
- Are the DEP’s federal HUD funds “to bolster ongoing efforts to purchase properties in targeted repetitive flood loss areas and convert the land to open space” targeted on high hazard locations?
Before HUD awards another $1.4 billion to the State of NJ, one would think there would be clear answers to those questions.
One would think that there would be enforceable state commitments to assure that federal funds were not misspent on such projects, which are the antithesis of Obama’s “resilience” policy.
One would be wrong.
The Christie Administration’s proposed round 2 HUD spending plan does not answer any of those basic questions.
Instead, the Plan proposes to consider those issues at some point in the future.
The point in the future is not defined – would you sign a contract and pay a roofer $40,000 who promised to replace your roof, but didn’t tell you when he would or make a legal commitment to do so?
The Christie proposed plan does not make enforceable, binding commitments.
Will HUD reject it for failure to comply with new HUD rules? Or cave to political pressure?
