Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond (2024)
Chapter: 11 Recommendations for Community-Driven Relocation Efforts in the Gulf Region and Beyond
11
Recommendations for Community-Driven Relocation Efforts in the Gulf Region and Beyond
This chapter is based on the content and conclusions within this report and contains the committee’s recommendations concerning community-driven relocation. Although this study focused on the Gulf Coast of Mexico region, the committee came to a consensus that these recommendations could be applied to communities in other U.S. regions that are or will be compelled to relocate individuals, communities, and infrastructure away from environmentally high-risk places. The committee’s recommendations are grouped under three domains rather than by individual chapters to highlight and build upon the key evidence that appears across the report. These domains are as follows:
- Centering Well-Being (Recommendation 1): This domain addresses the inherent interconnections between community resilience, climate adaptation, and individual and community well-being. Addressing the traumas, stressors, and dearth of resources, and enhancing individual and collective efficacy are all critical prerequisites to providing a foundation for communities to participate in community-driven relocation projects equitably and effectively. Bolstering individual and organizational capacity for well-being in climate-threatened communities is a priority for public health and climate adaptation across the nation.
- Developing and Sustaining Local Collaborations (Recommendations 2–7): Communication, participation, and engagement are critical elements that need fostering and enhancing among communities at risk/originating communities, receiving communities,
- government, and other groups whose participation is necessary to the relocation process. Collaboration in support of community-driven relocation necessitates better integration with ongoing planning efforts at federal, state, regional, and local levels, as well as purposeful capacity building for originating and receiving communities.
- Strengthening Preparations for Community-Driven Relocation (Recommendations 8–13): Strengthening federal agency preparations includes establishing hazard mitigation “navigators” and community resilience/adaptation extension agents, deepening local capacities, improving acquisition payments, reassessing benefit-cost analysis (BCA) processes, and streamlining funding and interagency collaborations.
Each domain and recommendation contain introductory and supportive text. This text cross-references the conclusions that support each recommendation, as well as the chapters that more broadly link the recommendations to the content of the report. Additionally, the supportive text discusses pathways toward implementation and provides examples of relevant programs and efforts to learn from and to consider partnering with going forward.
The following recommendations align with a series of federal reports that consider relocation as an adaptation strategy to build a more climate resilient nation while also fostering and enhancing community well-being, and the inherent relationship between the two. The U.S. Congress was tasked with multilateral engagement in mitigation of, and adaptation to migration as a result of climate change in The White House Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration (2021).1 The Department of the Interior’s Climate Action Plan (2021) recognizes relocation as part of a “whole-of-government approach” (p. 2),2 while the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Climate Resilience Implementation Guide for Community Driven Relocation provides a step-by-step guide for communities that want to relocate.3 Finally, the first ever White House National Climate Resilience Framework (“Framework”) identifies
___________________
1 The White House Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Migration is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Report-on-the-Impact-of-Climate-Change-on-Migration.pdf
2 More information about the Department of the Interior’s Climate Action Plan is available at https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/doi-2021-cap.pdf
3 More information about HUD’s Climate Resilience Implementation Guide for Community Driven Relocation is available at https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Climate-Resilience-Implementation-Guide-Community-Driven-Relocation.pdf
specific opportunities for funding, supporting, expediting, and evaluating community-driven relocation.4
CENTERING WELL-BEING
Healthy communities are a prerequisite to effective and equitable community-driven relocation projects (see Conclusions 2-2, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 9-6). In communities where relocation is being considered, or has already occurred, or where the threat of additional displacement due to environmental hazards exists, understanding local mindsets and analysis of environmental change and risk can help improve understanding of existing collective emotional, cultural, and social perceptions that may affect risk communication and adaptation responses (see Conclusion 7-1). The implementation of this approach entails broad, sustained participation by diverse stakeholders to assess community understandings and potential response to local climate risks (see Conclusion 7-2).
Health care practitioners can collaborate with community stakeholders across sectors to continually refine the relocation process as a community-driven adaptation strategy and bolster capacity for social and emotional well-being, mental health, and related social trust and collective efficacy in climate-threatened communities (see Chapters 6 and 7). Investment in durable, participatory, and co-created strategies and communal capacity is a key part of that commitment, including the reimbursement of mental health clinicians and provider systems to be partners that train, coach, and support community groups through collaborative action that includes evidence-supported task-shared approaches (see Conclusion 6-3). This can be greatly facilitated through multi-level governance, including coastal resilience/adaptation funding and coordination by the federal government (see Conclusion 9-6).
RECOMMENDATION 1: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Climate Change and Health Equity and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use should support and coordinate efforts across HHS and other agencies with the following objectives:
- Accelerate adoption of task-shared approaches to community mental health care, especially in high climate-impacted areas (e.g., through establishment of payment mechanisms, such as assistance from the Health Resources and Services
___________________
4 More information about the White House National Climate Resilience Framework is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/National-Climate-Resilience-Framework-FINAL.pdf
- Administration and scope expansion of Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics). Such approaches should use evidence-supported mental health care, prevention, and promotion methods that community members and community-based organizations can adopt and directly provide.
- Facilitate collaborations among federal agencies, programs, and policies that promote well-being and build community capacity to support mental health, effective empowerment, trust, inclusion, equity, and collective efficacy for adapting to environmental challenges.
- Facilitate regional coordination of the array of public health, health care, and social and mental health services that are required to support the well-being of originating and receiving communities.
- Establish metrics, indicators, and baselines to assess the longitudinal and cross-sectional well-being outcomes of individuals in the context of relocation. These data should be collated with existing data collected by federal agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and evaluated regularly to improve adaptation governance.
DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING LOCAL COLLABORATIONS
Communities in the Gulf region have a long history of migration and adaptation (see Chapter 4), often compelled by force or dire circumstances, as well as through generational change (e.g., moving up the bayou in Louisiana). Many communities in the region struggle with marginalization, vulnerabilities, and inequities that have deep historical roots, including economic injustices (Chapter 4) that have left some groups distinctly disadvantaged and at the greatest risk of harm from an array of already occurring and expected additional environmental and health challenges (see Conclusion 6-1). Consequently, these communities often lack trust in government-sponsored measures, such as relocation programs (see Conclusions 4-1, 4-2, and 8-5).
Careful understanding of the history and current circumstances of climate-affected communities is essential to the development and execution of community-driven relocation that will be equitable, effective, minimally disruptive, and supportive of community members in adapting their lives and livelihoods through all phases of the transition (see Chapters 4 and 7). At the same time, communities sustain strong traditions, attachments to place, and deep understandings of social-ecological systems they inhabit (see Conclusions 2-2, 5-1, and 6-4). Therefore, it is important to understand
how local knowledge and experiences shape perspectives and inform processes of community-driven relocation (see Conclusions 5-1, 7-3, and 7-4).
RECOMMENDATION 2: Planning for community-driven relocation should incorporate local perspectives about the histories, impacts, and perceptions of displacements and forced relocations, as well as generational traditions.
- Federal and state agencies (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state historic preservation and cultural resource agencies) should institute systematic, Gulf-wide community-informed local investigations on how past and current patterns of resilience and adaptation and relevant policies influence attitudes and behaviors toward relocation and resettlement.
- Emergency management and disaster recovery agencies (e.g., FEMA and regional and state counterparts), local public works agencies (e.g., water, power, drainage, flood protection), mental and behavioral health care institutes, and transportation planning entities (e.g., local and regional) should reevaluate their plans, expenditures, and strategies to account for discriminatory policies and practices that have exacerbated vulnerabilities, and should institute plans (e.g., the Justice40 Initiative) to redress inequities that have undermined the resilience of communities most likely to face relocation.
There are several examples of efforts and initiatives to evaluate and create equitable processes and outcomes that agencies could draw from. For example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently opened a public notice for comments on changes to its A-4 and A-94 policies on benefit-cost analysis to increase and advance equity.5 Additionally, the National Sea Grant Office along with the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office for Coastal Management conducted service equity assessments that gave recommendations for supporting Equity Assessment Teams.6 Concerning implementation, the recent initiative of the U.S. Environmental Protection
___________________
5 More information about OMB’s draft for public review about Circular A-4 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/DraftCircularA-4.pdf. More information about OMB’s draft for public review about Circular A-94 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CircularA94.pdf
6 More information about NOAA’s Equity Assessment Teams is available at https://oes.gsa.gov/collaborations/noaa-equity-assessment/
Agency (EPA), Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, could resource programs that collaborate with communities in planning and developing policies for community-driven relocation.7
These actions will likely result in more effective communication and engagement with local populations and aid in resourcing ongoing preservation of place-based, traditional cultural practices throughout the relocation process. Furthermore, this approach recognizes the need to carry out community-driven relocation as a process that may unfold over many years and involve multiple generations, and potentially include heritage rights or return rights to homelands (see Conclusion 8-8).
Collaborative Planning with Communities
Effective community participation is critical to a successful relocation effort, and a shared understanding of risks is a necessary basis for planning (see Conclusions 2-1 and 7-1). Planning involves an assessment of local natural hazard and climate risks, an assessment of the capabilities of stakeholder groups, the creation of clear and equitable engagement processes, and the identification of appropriate measures to be taken to reduce risk and adapt to a changing climate (see Chapters 8 and 9). Such an assessment can be the basis for a dynamic and responsive plan of communication about risk that addresses the concerns and incorporates other feedback expressed by those affected (see Conclusion 7-1). In turn, community participation in, and knowledge of, risk awareness and options to reduce household risks—such as relocation—becomes stronger (see Conclusion 10-1).
There is still much to learn about how to best use community knowledge and feedback in a planned relocation process, and what works well in some communities may not work well in others (Chapter 7). Yet, without community co-production, relocation efforts have high potential for failure. Thus, beyond risk communication, deep, sustained participation by local communities (from both originating and receiving areas; see Conclusion 8-9) and engagement with their knowledge systems and adaptive capacities is essential for success in community relocation (see Chapter 7).
RECOMMENDATION 3: Agencies that assist communities with relocation (e.g., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state resilience and community
___________________
7 More information about EPA’s initiative, Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Technical Assistance Centers, is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental-justice-thriving-communities-technical-assistance-centers
development offices) should foster meaningful partnerships to develop and execute relocation plans in collaboration with communities, including decisions about timing and pace of the relocation process. These agencies should
- develop a consistent co-creation process and work with each community to establish specific communication requirements that include face-to-face interactions; and
- work with locally trusted community-based organizations to build understanding, trust, and enduring relationships with communities to carry out adaptation.
There is no one formula for a successful community-driven relocation; instead, there is only the criterion that community members are moving according to their wishes. Community members may consider slowly adjusting community boundaries (e.g., Huslia, Alaska); taking a staggered relocation approach where some families move first, followed by others (e.g., Newtok, Alaska); planning for temporary post-disaster evacuation (e.g., planning for temporary post-disaster evacuation to inland communities following hurricanes); or not moving together as a community but rather moving as individual households or groups based on kinship or social ties.
As an example of implementing Recommendation 3, community organizations and other entities involved in relocation decisions and efforts could establish a Community Knowledge Forum to facilitate the sharing and retention of knowledge and perspectives from community members, making sure to include people of all demographic backgrounds and representatives from nonprofit and community-based organizations and faith-based institutions (see Conclusions 5-1, 7-3, and 7-4).
Household-level planning may take the form of housing counseling services regarding the type and cost of replacement housing relative to a household’s financial standing, the identification of housing stock available in receiving areas that meet household needs, transition funding and how to access financial support, and individually tailored counseling services based on the unique demographic of each household involved in the process of relocating (see Chapters 8 and 10).
Collaborative Regional Planning
Due to the lack of proactive adaptation planning at the regional, state, municipal, and neighborhood scales to prepare receiving and originating communities, community members are often left to find their own way (see Conclusions 8-1, 9-3, 9-4, and 9-6). This lack of pre- and post-relocation planning can result in ad hoc movements where people end up resettling in
similarly hazardous areas (see Conclusions 8-2 and 10-8), and low-resource communities are strained by either an influx of new residents (in receiving communities; see Conclusion 8-4) or a loss of tax base (in originating communities; see Conclusion 8-6). Land left vacant in originating communities after relocation has the potential to offer sustained benefits for the community (e.g., floodwater retention areas, habitat for essential species). However, without proper planning, the vacated land is often not effectively managed—be it to include, for example, the creation of commemorative spaces, recreational assets, enhanced ecosystem services, or flood risk reduction measures—and the opportunities for such services may be lost (see Conclusions 8-7 and 10-3).
RECOMMENDATION 4: Regional planning entities alongside local public works, planning, and housing authorities, and departments involved in relocation, resilience, and climate adaption efforts should
- account for community-driven relocation (originating and receiving communities) in their planning efforts (e.g., land-use plans, hazard mitigation plans, and economic plans);
- revise and assess relocation strategies based on current and projected climate data and traditional ecological knowledge; and
- conduct land suitability analysis to identify suitable receiving areas, and in doing so, to work with communities to raise their own capacities to understand land suitability.
These actions could directly involve community members with social and natural scientists, landscape architects, land-use planners, and other design professionals in the development and management planning of vacated spaces that advance community-driven plans, such as ecological restoration, greenways, parks and recreational activity fields, environmental education sites, water retention areas, fish/wildlife habitat enhancement, and commemorative sites (e.g., cemeteries or memorial grounds; see Conclusions 8-7 and 8-8). Working alongside professionals in this way will grow community capacities to envision, adapt, and determine their futures, while informing planners of the diverse cultural-ecological knowledge, values, practices, and community assets with implications for local decision making (see Chapter 7).
Collaborative Federal Planning
Federal involvement is also critical to successful collaborations between regional entities, local government, and local communities. Collaborative planning that is cross-jurisdictional can guide appropriate adaptation
investments in receiving areas and disinvestments in maladaptation in originating areas (see Chapter 8). Additionally, partnering with trusted community organizations can facilitate conversations with originating and receiving communities about the entire relocation process and avoidance of duplication and maladaptation (e.g., simultaneous buyouts and investment in high-hazard areas; see Chapter 9).
RECOMMENDATION 5: Federal agencies should engage with local governments and regional planning entities to support community-driven relocation planning across originating and receiving communities. Federal and local government collaborations with regional planning entities should
- work with originating communities to establish threshold agreements for consolidation and regionalization of local governments and tax bases as residents relocate;
- share data about priority receiving communities and assess the impacts of regional population shifts to aid in planning;
- modify federal grant programs (e.g., Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program, Hazard Mitigation grant program) to include making the programming of open space an eligible Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded activity; and
- modify federal and other relocation funding guidelines to include a requirement that households relocate outside Special Flood Hazard Areas and, in turn, work with communities to broaden understanding of what Special Flood Hazard Areas mean to household-level risks.
Cross-Sector Collaborations and Capacity Building
Cross-sector collaborations have the potential to build adaptive capacities for all entities involved in community-driven relocation through mechanisms such as knowledge sharing (see Chapter 10) and the pooling of resources (Chapter 7).
RECOMMENDATION 6: State agencies, regional planning entities, professional associations, and academic-community partnerships (e.g., land and sea grant universities, minority serving institutions) should provide targeted capacity building and training initiatives to assist state and local governments in planning for community-driven relocation.
Capacity-building efforts could include training about how to plan for and implement community-driven relocation, including implementing the
plan integration for resilience scorecard concept referenced in Chapter 9, to ensure that community-driven relocation efforts align with other community goals and projects found in other local plans. This effort would also include training and advising on how to reprogram and manage post-relocation land for optimal community and ecological benefit (see Chapter 8).
Investing in Receiving Communities
The ability of a receiving community to meet the immediate needs of resettlers (e.g., housing, employment, health care, education, transportation) is a critical component of community-driven relocation, and the availability of necessary resources is a central criterion for suitability. Even in communities with currently sufficient resources, rapid growth patterns challenge the adequacy of those resources (Chapters 8 and 10).
RECOMMENDATION 7: Federal government agencies, U.S. Gulf Coast state governments, and regional planning entities should increase investments in preparing receiving communities for new residents (e.g., infrastructure, energy system capacity, broadband, schools, water supply).
Such investments could take the form of subsidies for communities that are already receiving people from areas of environmental risk and, additionally, incentives for communities willing to prepare to receive people. For example, HUD could set aside a percentage of its Community Development Block Grant funding for communities that agree to receive relocating communities, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) could do a similar set-aside for its Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities funding, including prioritizing technical planning assistance grants for communities facing relocation (see Chapter 9). Subsidies and incentives could be tied to land-use plans that do not develop environmentally high-hazard areas, and that disinvest from housing stock and businesses in such areas, including areas with episodic and slow onset disasters (e.g., drought, subsidence) due to environmental change. Complementing these subsidies and incentives should be additional investments in nature-based solutions to restore ecological systems and enhance ecosystem services that further reduce flood risks (see Conclusion 8-7). Collaborators such as the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, local land banks, and community-based organizations could complement the work of local governments and regional planning commissions.
STRENGTHENING PREPARATIONS FOR COMMUNITY-DRIVEN RELOCATION
Community-driven relocation relies on federal agency leadership and coordination, which can help to anticipate and prepare for the scale of the threat and its pending transformational changes (see Chapter 9). Recognizing the availability of, and high confidence in, climate risks in the U.S. Gulf Coast region (see Chapter 2), systematic federal screening of regions likely to warrant some degree of relocation is an important next step.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Federal Emergency Management Agency should, outside of a disaster timeframe, pre-approve properties for acquisition (conduct a single National Environmental Policy Act/National Historic Preservation Act clearance on all such contiguous properties in a flood-prone area) and deem relocation as “cost-effective” in pre-identified communities.
This action would facilitate community-wide relocation efforts by increasing efficiency (see Chapter 10) and raise the potential for ecosystem benefits, which come from returning contiguous parcels back to nature (see Chapter 8). This recommendation was also suggested in Government Accountability Office (GAO) report GAO 22-106037 Flood Mitigation.
Technical and Planning Assistance
Technical support provided at the federal level is not sufficient to help households and communities secure funding for and complete community relocation (see Chapter 9).8 A lack of technical support impacts community relocation timeframes and limits who is able to participate in the planning and implementation of the relocation project (Conclusion 10-4).
RECOMMENDATION 9: In the short term, federal agencies (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Housing and Urban Development) should fund application and implementation assistance through the establishment of hazard mitigation “navigators.” The funding and implementation of navigators should be a part of long-term recovery plans and hazard mitigation plans. These navigators would
___________________
8 As described in Chapter 9 and in the Key Terms (Appendix D), “technical support” (or assistance) is “programs, activities, and services provided by federal agencies to strengthen the capacity of grant recipients and to improve their performance of grant functions” (GAO, 2020b, p. 3).
- provide the technical assistance needed to help communities apply for and implement a relocation strategy (e.g., through collective buyout programs); and
- provide household- and neighborhood-level planning assistance throughout the relocation process.
Funding for navigators could be part of administrative costs disbursed to local governments (i.e., states, parishes, counties, municipalities) or as part of grants or awards to community-based organizations, and accompanied by sustained support (e.g., financial, human resources). Navigators would help expedite the application and reimbursement process for households and other intended entities, and would be similar to health care navigators who assist with healthcare.gov enrollment but help communities displaced by climate change to know what funding they can apply for and help them apply. To streamline implementation, navigators could be embedded in existing system-level infrastructure and draw from existing models such as land and sea grant university extension programs, NOAA Climate Adaptation Partnerships/Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments, and FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Direct Technical Assistance. Moreover, navigators could be community members who contribute to workforce growth while serving local needs. If FEMA does not establish a program for hazard mitigation navigators, funding for this position should be classified as technical support and reimbursable.
Beyond the “navigators” who work with individual households in New Jersey and Austin (described in Chapter 10), navigators should be available to help a whole neighborhood or community that wants to move together. This requires providing this type of assistance over the long timescales typically associated with buyouts and more complex community-wide relocation programs. Navigators could be the first step in developing a national cadre of resilience/adaptation extension agents trained in relocation planning and implementation who can share lessons learned and help connect originating and receiving communities. The FEMA-funded national cadre of individuals to assist underresourced communities, mentioned in Chapter 10, is an example of faculty and engagement experts at institutions who provide a consistent touchpoint for communities and households involved in community-driven relocation.
Taking Advantage of Innovative Strategies to Reduce Complexities and Rethink Priorities
Governance, policy, and funding mechanisms that have the potential to assist in community-driven relocations are hampered by their episodic nature (e.g., post-disaster, annual competitions) and minimal cross-agency,
cross-jurisdictional, and cross-sector coordination, resulting in a complex maze that many communities struggle to navigate (Conclusions 8-3, 9-1, 9-2, 9-7, 10-6, and 10-7). However, there are innovative ways to reduce these complexities under existing structures (see Chapters 9 and 10 for examples). The following recommendations align with FEMA’s efforts to offer more aid to underresourced communities through the Direct Technical Assistance program9 and the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, the latter of which mandates the identification of communities that are most vulnerable to disasters and enables communities to partner with government and the private sector for funding and technical assistance.10
RECOMMENDATION 10: Federal agencies that provide relocation funding (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development) should assess the benefits of annual funding to pre-disaster mitigation programs. Actions to improve adaptive capacity should include
- analyzing regulatory and programmatic barriers for converting pre-disaster mitigation programs to include annualized funding for developing adaptive capacities, including relocation; and
- evaluating potential requirements to transition from a primarily competitive grant-making process to a process that provides ongoing assistance to underresourced communities to develop and implement risk reduction strategies using a distribution formula that prioritizes the highest climate risk areas.
These actions reflect initial steps for funding agencies to provide a means for state and local governments and communities to build the necessary capacity and expertise to facilitate relocation efforts (see Conclusion 9-7). Interagency coordination and streamlining of the funding application process is also urgently needed (see Chapter 9) and is discussed in the next recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Agencies that offer funding for relocation planning, including infrastructure needs (such as Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Housing and Urban Development), should streamline the
___________________
9 More information about FEMA’s Direct Technical Assistance program is available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/building-resilient-infrastructure-communities/direct-technical-assistance/communities
10 More information about the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act is available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-risk-index/community-disaster-resilience-zones
process of obtaining relocation funding, including reimbursements, through the following actions.
In the short term:
- Agencies should coordinate eligibility criteria and timing of requests for proposals.
- Agencies should align the timing of grant delivery and the duration of grants across federal agencies so that applicants have the maximum amount of time to fulfill the grant requirements.
- FEMA should allow people with National Flood Insurance Program coverage, whose homes have received a certain level of damage, to apply directly for a buyout rather than going through the state and then FEMA’s hazard mitigation program.
- Agencies should allow funds from partnering agencies to be used as matching funds to the main federal source (i.e., the disbursing agency). States should also provide funding matches to communities for grants that require a nonfederal partner.
- The Council on Environmental Quality should convene agencies to develop a memorandum of understanding to coordinate construction, utility provision, and the environmental review process under the National Environmental Protection Act for relocations at the scale of a neighborhood or larger.
- Agencies should create an interagency mechanism, such as a single relocation grant application platform (e.g., the Universal Application for Disaster Survivors), that is accessible by states, tribes, municipalities, and households, and establishes a process to triage the applications and direct them to the most appropriate agency. The process should include step-by-step communication with the applicant for transparency and tracking.
In the longer term:
- Agencies should develop and maintain, across jurisdictions, an information clearinghouse connecting users to existing and new resources necessary to conduct a relocation program. This repository should be controlled by an operations center that includes the services of skilled consultants, planners, mediators, and stakeholders who have experience dealing with diverse interests and navigating issues that arise during cross-stakeholder discussions about relocation.
Together these actions can help to ease the burden on communities seeking funding for relocation. Examples and further descriptions of these actions can be found throughout the report. States helping communities meet nonfederal match requirements include Alaska’s Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management and North Carolina’s State Acquisition and Relocation Fund (SARF), the latter of which is described in Chapter 9. The use of a memorandum of understanding to streamline efforts is described in Chapter 8, while a universal grant application platform is elaborated on in Chapter 10. The recommendation to allow people with National Flood Insurance Program coverage to apply directly for a buyout is also suggested in GAO-22-106037 Flood Mitigation.
Ensuring Equity
FEMA’s current BCA process (the method federal agencies use to calculate buyout amounts) privileges wealthier households and can limit who is able to participate in relocation programs (see Conclusions 10-3 and 10-5). To create or support federal grant programs that can make community-driven relocation more equitable and accessible to underresourced communities, including renters, the following actions should be pursued by relevant federal agencies (e.g., FEMA, HUD).
RECOMMENDATION 12: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the leadership and engagement of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, should revise its benefit-cost analysis process. This should include
- developing a rubric that accounts for a community’s qualitative values, characteristics, and root causes of vulnerability, such as social cohesion, social capital, political disenfranchisement, linguistic isolation, and collective efficacy, among others; and
- extending FEMA’s recent temporary revisions to the benefit-cost analysis for the fiscal 2022 application cycle of Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and the Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program.
Revising BCA processes can help to reduce the inequitable distribution of funds available for relocation efforts and to elevate the consideration of social and ecological elements (see Chapter 10).
RECOMMENDATION 13: Federal programs involved with community-driven relocation (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Housing and Urban Development) should
- increase acquisition payments to property owners so they can afford a comparable home in a safe location;
- provide relocation assistance to renters, and mobile or manufactured homes; and
- use management costs to support buyout grant offers to property owners above typical pre-disaster fair market values.
Agencies could base the buyout price not on the home’s market value before the most recent disaster leading to the buyout but on the market value of a similar house in the closest safe area, as suggested in GAO 22-106037 Flood Mitigation (see Chapter 10). Another method of increasing acquisition payments to property owners is for FEMA to provide vouchers that can be payable to the owners of property that the relocating individuals and families acquire. These would help to close the gap between acquisition payments and the cost of replacement housing for lower-income households (Conclusion 10-5). Such vouchers should also go to lessees to avoid exacerbating historic income disparities. At minimum, renters and those without a title should be able to get “navigation” assistance and/or counseling during the process of relocation (Conclusion 10-4). To the extent that FEMA does not act, states could provide funding for the purchasing of new housing outside Special Flood Hazard Areas, including the floodplain and flood-prone areas (as North Carolina did through SARF; see Chapter 9).
In addition to eliminating cost-effective requirements and ensuring that residents have sufficient funds to purchase or rent housing elsewhere, agencies involved in buyouts, for example, could voluntarily adhere to the Uniform Relocation Act, even if it traditionally has not applied to FEMA property acquisitions other than rental units with tenants. This has been successfully done with Austin’s Watershed Protection Department buyout program (see Chapter 10). While states can choose to include rental housing as an eligible type under hazard mitigation assistance grants, they often decide not to pursue this strategy and focus on the buyout of owner-occupied housing instead.
