Integrated water resource and flood risk management: comparing the US and the EU

Abstract

Abstract. )ORRGV DUH WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW QDWXUDO KD]DUG LQ WKH (8 DQG 86 FDXVLQJGHDWKV DQG DW OHDVW ¼ billion in insured economic losses in Europe since 1998, and causing nearly $10 billion annual average flood losses in the US. Flood control is commonly viewed as a matter of building dykes, dams, and other structures, but effective flood management within the perspective of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) must address multiple components of the flood risk management cycle (Figure 1). We systematically reviewed governance structures, guidance documents, and mapping products in both the EU and US, drawing particular examples from California and Spain, to determine how the US and the EU approach the flood risk management within different IWRM initiatives, which strategies and agencies are involved in the different phases ±characterization (flood hazard and risk assessment and mapping), mitigation (prevention and protection), emergency (preparation and response), and (short and long term) recovery-, and how these agencies relate to each other. The regions have strong similarities in economy and environmental values, but have evolved very different approaches to cope with floods. The US and EU have similar organizational structures, but very different legislative frameworks. In the US overarching policy and large scale infrastructure funding have traditionally resided at the federal level with state and local agencies exercising strong land use control. EU member states have arguably advanced ahead of the US in some significant ways since adoption of the EU Floods Directive in 2007, a more top-down DSSURDFK $PRQJ WKH 'LUHFWLYH ¶V PDQ\ FRPSRQHQWV RQH important requirement is submission of flood risk management plans (by the end of 2015), which, for first time, take into account all phases of flood management. This umbrella strategy to cope with floods is creating a more consistent and integrated flood risk management approach in Europe. In 2008, the State of California, with over 2500 km of levees, enacted a comprehensive package of flood management legislation and state bond financing that far exceeds fedeUDO DQG RWKHU VWDWH ¶V DFWLRQV This program known as FloodSafe California provided funding for projects within Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, an attempt to implement IWRM at regional scale. Although the efforts of FloodSafe California represent as a major change in direction in US flood risk management, the actions still do not fully implement the integrated flood risk approach promoted by the EU.

Response to reviewer 2

“…Practitioners disagreed on the community desire to incorporate climate adaptation practices into flood mitigation planning, which may reflect the politically contentious nature of climate change in US political discourse and policymaking more generally. Previous research has demonstrated disconnections between public climate-flood risk perceptions and expert opinion (e.g., Hamilton et al, 2016;Ogunbode et al, 2017;Shepard et al, 2018). In this case study, professionals disagreed on both community perceptions (Table 4) and climate education (Table 5).…”

Challenges to implementing bottom-up flood risk decision analysis frameworks: how strong are social networks of flooding professionals?

“…Practitioners disagreed on the community desire to incorporate climate adaptation practices into flood mitigation planning, which may reflect the politically contentious nature of climate change in US political discourse and policymaking more generally. Previous research has demonstrated disconnections between public climate-flood risk perceptions and expert opinion (e.g., Hamilton et al, 2016;Ogunbode et al, 2017;Shepard et al, 2018). In this case study, professionals disagreed on both community perceptions (Table 4) and climate education (Table 5).…”

Challenges to Implementing Bottom-Up Flood Risk Decision Analysis Frameworks: How Strong are Social Networks of Flooding Professionals?

“…This result demonstrates that flood mitigation can benefit strongly if the knowledge of independent institutions is properly leveraged (e.g. Llobet et al 2016). In other cases, this research identifies gaps in the social networks of flooding professionals.…”

“…Work that strives to leverage the knowledge of independently operating institutions and the public to define the problem statement and guide mitigation practices ultimately improves (e.g. Serra-Llobet et al 2016;Edelenbos et al 2017). Public willingness to take risk reduction measures has previously been attributed myriad variables including actual risk and societal norms (Lo 2013), income (Lo 2014), exposure to or protection from past events (Di Baldassare et al 2013), and trust in expert opinion (Wachinger et al 2013).…”