Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum

A fundamental goal of the ASFPM Foundation is to foster research and education to support efforts to reduce flood losses and improve floodplain management in the United States. The Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum thus was initiated by the Foundation in order to periodically convene experts in floodplain management to explore pressing issues in the field and set out ideas for resolving them. From these Forums we hope will grow a broader and deeper understanding of what it is that we still need to know, how we better can apply what we already know, and what paths may still be unexplored in our attempts to improve management of our nation’s floodplains. Only with that understanding can we move forward with needed research, policy modifications, and other actions.

Forum #1 - September, 2004

Order a Copy of the Forum Report Summary - Please be sure to include your contact information so we can mail you a copy of the Summary Report

Download the Final Forum Report (.pdf, 783 KB)

Download Background Issues Papers (.pdf, 2.77 MB)

Download MS Power Point Presentation (.pps, 1 MB)

The first Assembly of the Forum tackled the question of the sufficiency of the 1% annual chance flood standard, which is the basis for most flood loss reduction programs today, both here and abroad. Probability-based flood standards— including the 1% chance frequency—underlie most floodplain management programs at all levels of government today. Thus any improvements to the standard or its use will require the full participation of all stakeholders in flood loss reduction programs in the United States. For its inaugural Assembly of the Gilbert F. White National Flood Policy Forum, it is hard to imagine that the ASFPM Foundation could have selected a topic more complex or more universally applicable than the question of the sufficiency of that fundamental premise of the nation’s floodplain management programs. What role has the 1% standard played in shaping the face of floodplain management as we know it today? How can we improve upon the results that we are seeing? Is there a better way?

It is essential that these difficult questions be tackled, particularly when, as in this case, little expert discussion of the issue has taken place even though decades have passed since the standard was instituted. Further, because use of the 1% standard is so widespread, it will take concentrated effort by all the players—at all levels of government and the private sector—to move successfully toward any shifts in thinking, policy, or legislation that may be needed.

As a way of approaching an analysis of the sufficiency of the 1% standard, in this report we have adopted a science-based policy analysis forwarded by Gilbert White and his two perennial colleagues, Robert W. Kates and Ian Burton, in a recent issue of Environmental Hazards. With regard to the apparent failure of hazards management to reduce losses worldwide, they asked:

Is the knowledge still insufficient, sufficient but not used, used but ineffectively, used but with an unanticipated lag in taking effect, or used with positive results that have simply been overwhelmed by increased vulnerability due to population growth, economic expansion, or other factors? (White et al., 2001)

Their five questions are a thoughtful and useful way of breaking down an analysis of the 1% flood standard—or any standard. In this report, the discussion of the Forum participants on these issues and others is summarized. We hope practitioners, policymakers, researchers, and others involved in floodplain management today find it useful and illuminating.