Thousands are homeless in West Virginia this week after torrential flooding that left at least 23 dead. Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Monroe, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Roane, Summers and Webster counties were all damaged in the floods. Bodies were found days after the rains began, having been dragged miles from their homes by the rushing water. But for West Virginia, the reconstruction won’t just be physical, it will be emotional too.

Let’s start with the massive need for rebuilding–FEMA has already approved over $18 million in individual assistance for medical and housing support, but this is just the beginning of the disaster relief process. FEMA began by coordinating disaster centers and donation centers for those who lost their homes to the flooding but it will now need to provide temporary housing and unemployment benefits, assist with home repair, and provide low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses. With over 4,000 flood victims registered to date, FEMA is looking at years worth of construction and economic assistance. If a similar natural disaster strikes other communities this summer, FEMA’s budget will be stretched thin. In the 2016 financial year, FEMA was granted $7.37 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, a sum that seems somewhat less significant once we factor in that the Disaster Relief Fund is used not only for disasters that occur in 2016 but for the costs of past disasters as well, including Hurricane Sandy. West Virginia’s reconstruction has only just begun and there is no way to fix a deadline for when it will end.

But beyond the physical reconstruction, there is also a need for emotional support. In the wake of natural disasters, communities are more vulnerable to a rise in mental health issues. Consider that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a survey of 392 low income parents affected by the storm found that the prevalence of serious probable mental illness doubled and that nearly half the participants studied exhibited probable PTSD. The American Psychological Association operates the Disaster Resource Network, a group of approximately 2,500 licensed psychologists who work with the Red Cross to integrate mental health into disaster preparedness training, but with so many communities at risk, it is difficult to reach every town that is vulnerable.

FEMA’S Crisis Counseling Program (CCP) provides funding for a variety of counseling services, including both individual and group counseling, but there is no guarantee that the counselors provided will be able to work with victims of disaster indefinitely. Building trust and making progress with a counselor can take months or years, and with so few qualified counselors available to work in disaster areas, those who cannot seek counseling on their own dime may never return to counseling once the CCP grant runs out. In West Virginia, an economically disadvantaged state with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation, the likelihood of most flood victims being able to attend counseling without a CCP grant is almost nonexistent.

In a nation where communities are constantly grappling with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, FEMA’s work is never done. The agency has worked to transform itself, in a post-Katrina world, into an effective disaster relief agency that can anticipate every need of a community in its darkest hour. Yet FEMA is not beholden to stay in the community forever–it will rebuild and aid as much as it can, a process that may take years, but that does not undercut the fact that FEMA relief is only temporary.

The deeper effects on the community, particularly the scars left by grief and PTSD, last long after the aid money has run out. Organizations like Counselors without Borders are doing critical work in disaster scenarios but they do not have the resources or staff to reach every victim of every crisis. Individuals will play the greatest role in creating positive mental health in disaster communities. Trained counselors and psychologists can donate their time, volunteers can work on emergency and suicide hotlines, school administrators can strive to create safe spaces for students–this type of holistic, community-based dedication to protecting mental health can truly rebuild a town after it has been destroyed. However, when flood victims are focused on rebuilding their homes and businesses, these efforts can fall by the wayside—why focus on mental health when poor physical health is the greater threat to a flood victim’s immediate well-being? How can a community choose to spend money on group counseling for a family instead of spending that grant on rebuilding that family’s home? This is our next great challenge when dealing with natural disasters: making mental health as important as bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Needed: Mental Healthcare in the Aftermath of a Disaster appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change worsens, melting ice from earth’s glacier sheet combined with the expansion of warming sea water has caused the world’s oceans to rise dramatically. There are a number of organizations dedicated to recording the rise in sea levels, including the Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services–a part of the NOAA that collects data on changing sea levels with numerous tide stations–and NASA, which use satellites to gather the same data from a different perspective. Currently, there are about 150 years of data gathered on changes in the Mean Sea Level (MSL) over time and the current scientific consensus is that sea levels have been rising at a rate of 3.42 mm annually over the last 20 years, which will lead to a total rise of between 1-2 meters by 2100.

Rising sea levels pose a very serious threat to many populous cities throughout the world, particularly those that have developed as coastal trade centers. As sea levels continue to rise, many of these coastal cities will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding, especially in the geographically low-lying areas of the earth. Flooding is a unique consequence of climate change in that it affects people both from the richest and the poorest parts of the world, and while everywhere has their own local approach to flood mitigation, there are generally two major ways to address the issue politically. The first and most popular approach is to develop coastal protection systems to prevent rising tides from impacting coastal zones. The second technique is to commit to renewable energy in order to directly address the problem of global warming and rising sea levels. The larger the country, the greater its personal commitment to fossil fuel divestment matters. Unfortunately, many of the largest countries which have the greatest carbon footprint generally make very low levels commitments to renewables, which makes the commitments of many of the smallest, most flood-vulnerable countries less significant.

Read on to learn more about how the different areas of earth are dealing with rising sea levels.

“Flood” courtesy of ddqhu via Flickr

The United States

The United States is an interesting case of flood politics because it’s one of the world’s wealthiest countries and thus most capable of handling flooding. However, there’s very little political consensus on the scientific validity of climate change in Congress and rising sea levels are rarely if ever mentioned in policy debates at the federal level. The government provides disaster relief funds for the areas that have been most severely affected by rising sea levels, but actual policy changes generally must happen at the individual, state, or even city level. Several areas throughout the United States face a high risk of flood inundation, including New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Boston; Miami; New Orleans; and the entire state of Hawaii.

Hawaii 

Hawaii is relatively low-lying compared to the rest of the U.S. mainland and a sea level rise of 1-2 meters would absolutely devastate the state. Furthermore, each island is so small that there’s very little inland area, meaning that few people would be safe from flooding. It’s no coincidence that Hawaii leads the United States in addressing climate change and is the very first state to commit to getting 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources. This also makes sense from a business perspective because it’s very expensive to ship oil and gas to Hawaii and the state is geographically blessed with ample renewable resources. However, the decision to commit to renewables was made largely out of necessity, as Hawaii’s community, as well as its primary source of revenue, the tourism industry, would suffer immensely from the effects of flooding. Of course, Hawaii’s commitment is a drop in the bucket compared to all U.S. emissions. However, its decision allows the state to lead policy by example and proves that 100 percent renewables are an attainable goal. For a real impact to take place, the other states must follow suit, along with many of the world’s countries.

Cities: New Orleans, New York, and Miami 

None of the other states are as universally vulnerable to flooding as the state of Hawaii, but several have been forced to take measures to protect their largest population centers. Cities like New Orleans and New York City are at particularly high risk not only because they are located on high-risk coasts but also because they’re located in areas that are extremely vulnerable to severe weather events, as seen with hurricanes Sandy and Katrina. New York has made its own commitment to 50 percent renewables by 2030 and has also tried to take more immediate action to prevent Sandy-level flooding from happening again. The current plan is to allocate $100 million of Sandy’s relief funds to the construction of a wall to protect the city as well as apply for an additional $500 million dollars of Federal Housing and Urban Development Funds. The project will be very expensive and require a huge amount of resources, but without flood protection, New York’s electric grid and underground subway system could be completely dismantled, crippling an economic center of the nation and costing billions of dollars in restoration funds.

“Coastal Flooding in Washington DC” courtesy of Bruno Sanchez-Andrade Nuño via Flickr

New Orleans suffered an even greater extent of damage from Hurricane Katrina than New York did from Hurricane Sandy and has also bounced back at a considerably slower rate. Unlike New York, New Orleans is a relatively poor city and was largely at the mercy of how the federal government decided to handle the situation. Congress allocated a massive $14.5 billion relief package to construct an upgraded levy system designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The new and improved system will be much better equipped to protect against flooding, but the upgrade has met some serious criticism. Even the Army Corps of Engineers has warned that there’s a limit to what it can do based on New Orleans’ geography. The area is uniquely low-lying and most of the natural marshes that have historically acted as flood barriers have disappeared over the years, stripping the city of its natural protection.

The political context of different vulnerable areas also heavily influences the way decisions are made. Miami, for instance, is also only 4 to 5 feet above sea level and the entire beach may disappear within the century if sea levels continue to rise. While the state has sunk hundreds of millions into flood prevention, Florida has almost no renewable power at all and has made few steps towards achieving its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 20 percent by 2020. The difference between New Orleans, Miami, and New York’s approaches to their vulnerability represents how wealth, political nature, and geographical position strongly influence what is and what can be done to address the risks of flooding. While commitments to renewable energy address the larger problem of global warming and sea level rise, they do little to directly impact an area’s vulnerability to flooding. This generally means that if renewables aren’t cost effective and receive political opposition, then they will rarely be considered as a valid policy option.

The European Union

The areas of Europe that face the highest risk of flooding are the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Northern Germany because of their flat geography and proximity to the rapidly melting Greenland Ice Sheet. Flood prevention has become a serious issue in the European Union, not only because these areas are at high risk from sea level rise but also because Central and Eastern Europe have experienced rising levels of river flooding from severe weather events. In response to these changes, the European Union made one of the European Regional Development Fund’s duties to establish structural funds for flood mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, every member of the European Union has their own Renewable Energy Target, which varies widely depending on the location.

However, in a parallel that runs somewhat similar to how only a select set of vulnerable U.S. states address flood risk aggressively, only a handful of European states have serious flood policies. While the overarching body of the E.U. provides structural adaptation funds in the same way the U.S. provides federal disaster relief funds, flood control is only a highly salient issue in the northernmost parts of the continent. The most dramatic example of this is the Netherlands, which is an incredibly low-lying nation that also has an extensive canal system that runs a high risk of flooding. The sea surrounding the Netherlands was originally projected to rise about 1.05 meters within the century, but newer models project a 26 percent chance that the sea will actually rise to 1.8 meters, making it the most vulnerable European nation. England is not far behind, with a renewed projection that there’s a 27 percent chance of sea level in the surrounding areas by 1.75 meters. Both countries have extensive coastal protection policies in the form of barriers, dikes and sluice gates, but many scientists fear that this will not be enough to protect them from flash floods in the future.

The World’s Most Vulnerable Areas

As with many serious environmental issues, the developing world faces some of the greatest risks from these problems but has the least resources dedicated to addressing them. While the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is generally (and accurately) characterized as being an incredibly dry and hot region, the coastal areas between the two continents face serious risks from flooding. If sea levels rise between 0.1 and 0.3 meters by 2050 as predicted, the coastal regions of Libya, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Kuwait could be exposed to severe flooding. A temperature rise of 1 to 3 degrees would exacerbate sea level rise to the point where it would critically endanger urban coastal areas, and could expose six to 25 million people in Northern Africa to flooding.

Many of these areas, including Algeria, Morocco, Djibouti, Lebanon, and Yemen have designed Disaster Risk Management Plans to increase resilience in their cities in preparation for oncoming natural disasters. However, many of the MENA countries are actively involved in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) whose economies are heavily dependent on the fossil fuel industry. The leaders of OPEC generally admit that climate change is real but are quick to dismiss efforts to regulate fossil fuels. They view the push against oil in international negotiations as an unfair handicap against their industries and generally fight against any attempt to regulate or shrink the fossil fuel market. Despite the fact that MENA will suffer some of the worst effects of climate change (taking into account desertification as well as flooding), it seems unlikely that the area will diverge from fossil fuels at any point in the foreseeable future.

Many parts of South America, including Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil along with almost every country in Southeast Asia, are also at some of the highest risks of flooding in the world. Unlike the MENA region, few of these countries fight with the same vigor to support the fossil fuel industry, with the exception of Venezuela, the only non-MENA member of OPEC. However, many will still fight for their personal rights to use fossil fuel projects in the name of internal development since the majority of the burden of climate change was caused by the developed world. The issue of flooding is further exacerbated by the fact that several of the countries in these regions have resource extraction economies that rely on deforestation, which steadily shrinks their natural riparian protection from rising sea levels.

Perhaps the worst example of a disenfranchised flood-vulnerable country is the Maldives, both one of the poorest and the lowest lying island nations in the world. As sea levels continue to rise, the Maldives will be one of the first countries to become completely inundated, despite the fact that as a developing country it has contributed a very small percentage of the emissions that have contributed to climate change. The Maldives’ first ever democratically elected leader, Mohamed Nasheed, committed his country to achieving 100 percent renewable energy and made the Maldives the very first country to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. He encouraged a massive reforestation program along the beaches to prevent soil erosion and act as a riparian barrier from flooding. He also initiated litter cleanup programs and special protection for the coastal reefs that protect the nation’s boundaries.

The actions of a small country like the Maldives will help give it better protection but will do little to fight climate change without the commitment of larger nations in North America and the European Union to reduce emissions. While the Maldives’ commitment to clean energy would have had a small impact on global emissions, they stood as an important symbol of forward progress, especially to other vulnerable island states. However, in January, Mohammed Nasheed was overthrown and imprisoned after allegedly ordering the arrest of a judge. The brother of the previous dictator rose to power and has undone all of Nasheed’s efforts, promising to tear up every tree he had planted. The Maldives’ high level of vulnerability combined with its new lack of a flood adaptation policies places it at extreme risk from sea level rise and within 100 years the island is projected to be uninhabitable.

Conclusion

Rising sea levels are a problem that will affect countless areas, both in the developing and the developed world. The exact decisions that governments will make heavily depend upon their political affiliation, what is geographically possible, and how much funding they can reasonably allocate to combating flooding. Much of this means that the poorest areas of the world are disproportionately affected because they neither have the resources nor the political organization needed to address these problems. Furthermore, they may have economies based on resource extraction industries, which further exacerbate their vulnerability.

Globally, considerable resources have been dedicated to flood prevention, but little commitment has been made to abating fossil fuels in the name of halting sea level rise. This is largely because it’s extremely difficult to establish federal and international policy on climate change, so often policy changes happen on a more local level. Because these decisions are made by smaller, more vulnerable entities instead of larger international organizations, these areas will often settle for mitigation policy instead of prevention based, emissions reductions policy. However, as long as climate change continues, then the root of the problem will continue to exist and sea levels will continue to rise. At the current rate, several areas around the world, including the Maldives, will inevitably become uninhabitable and unless large-scale changes in global emissions are made, more and more countries will suffer the same fate.

Resources

The Atlantic: Is Miami Beach Doomed?

BBC: Former President Mohammed Nasheed Allowed Foreign Trip

BBC: Maldives: Paradise Soon to be Lost

Climate Central: New Analysis Shows Global Exposure to Sea Level Rise

Daily News: New York will fund $100M Flood Protection Project to Shield Lower Manhattan from Major Storms

Energy Information Administration: Florida Profile Overview

European Commission: Flood Risk in Europe: Analysis of Exposure in 13 Countries

Floodlist: Thousands Displaced by Flooding Rivers in Uruguay, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina

Florida State University: Florida’s Renewable Energy Future Depends on Incentives for Renewables

Green Biz: New York’s Plan to Reach 50 percent Renewable Energy

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis: European Flood Risk Could Double by 2050

Karen and Clark Company: Most Vulnerable Cities to Storm Surge Flooding

The Lens: New Orleans Flood Protection System: Stronger than Ever, Weaker than it was Supposed to be

Live Science: The 20 Cities Most Vulnerable to Flooding

Nation of Change: Hawaii Enacts Nation’s First 100 Percent Renewable Energy Standard

NASA: Global Climate Change: Sea Level Rise

Nature World News: Climate Change and Sea Level: England, Europe at Risk of Major Sea Level Rise

NCBI: Floods in Southeast Asia: A Health Priority 

The New Yorker: The Siege of Miami

Niels Bohr Institute: Risk of Major Sea Level Rise in Northern Europe

NOLA: Upgraded Metro New Orleans Levees will Greatly Reduce Flooding, Even in 500-Year Storms

NOAA: Tides and Currents

Renewable Energy Action Coalition of Hawaii: Planning Hawaii’s 100 percent Renewable Energy Future

Tech Insider: Hawaii is Harnessing 100 percent Renewable Energy 0 with Active Volcanoes

Time: Why New York City will Be Flooded More Often

USA Today: One Year After Sandy, 9 Devastating Facts

World Bank: Adaptation to Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa Region

World Bank: Water in the Arab World: From Droughts to floods: Building Resilience Against Extremes

Yale Environment 360: A Plague of Deforestation Sweeps Across Southeast Asia

ZME Science: New Study Highlights Vulnerability of Low Lying Hawaiian Islands

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rising Tide of Flood Prevention Politics appeared first on Law Street.

In Oct. of 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on whether the federal government should have to pay for inducing floods into the former’s wildlife area for over seven years. This past week on Dec. 3, the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court, affirmed a figure of over $5.7 million to be paid to the agency, ending a long drawn-out battle.

A river ran through it.

In 1957, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, a state wildlife conservation agency, bought 25,000 acres of land downriver from a government dam, hoping to “preserve bottomland habitat and provide waterfowl hunting”. Each year the tide of the Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area would rise as the dam, built by the Army Corps of Engineers in the ‘40’s, released water downstream in an attempt to lengthen harvest times for local farmers.

For over 40 years, the seasonal washes never really did any real damage. The water flowed in, and then it flowed out, leaving the surrounding wildlife intact. But everything changed late in 1993 when the Corps adopted a more aggressive release standard. This time, the floods from the dam reached dangerous heights of six feet. The oaks and various hardwoods– “choked” of oxygen from the stagnant water– began to die. And notwithstanding the outcries of Commission representatives, they kept dying over the next seven years while the floods continued.

Payday

AGFC filed a suit against the government in Federal Claims Court, arguing that the flood damage incurred by the Management Area called for monetary reimbursement in accordance with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The Takings Clause, as the name would suggest, originally mandated that in cases where the government requisitioned private property, they would have to reimburse the owner with a fair amount. But over the last century, the Takings Clause has been expanded to include cases where any variety of government actions reduce the market value of a property. Given those broad parameters, judges use ad hoc jurisprudence when assessing Takings Claims. This time with the AGFC was no different. The court awarded them $5.7 million for damages, and  $176,428 for restoration. But it was far from over.

Flip. Flop.

In the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the decision was reversed, and the AGFC, who had not long before been staring at a pretty good sized check, were left shouting “TIMBER!!!” as their hopes for compensation fell down around them. The Court found that the Takings Clause in this case didn’t hold any water… well, in a figurative sense. They reasoned that only in instances when permanent change had been done unto the property could the Takings Clause be invoked. In cases of flooding, whereby property reverts to its previous state after the water rushes out, is not permanent.

But like fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton post-Monica Lewinsky, there was hope yet for the AGFC. The Supreme Court granted cert mid-2012 and overturned the appeals court’s decision, once again awarding the Commission the money. Here, Supreme Court justices wax philosophical on the nature of the Takings Clause:

JUSTICE BREYER:  The problem with a flood is you don’t take all the land.  You send some stuff in. And the stuff is there for a while, and then it comes back, and — it’s called water.  And so I don’t know what to make of the cases like Kimball Laundry where you actually appropriate the property.  I suspect that they are not quite the same. Anything else? I got Dickinson. I’ve got Kimball Laundry.

JUSTICE SCALIA: We have cases about flying overland—

JUSTICE BREYER: Yes, Causby.

JUSTICE SCALIA: — cases about shooting — shooting overland. Right?

MR. GOODHART: Yes, Your Honor. The Causby case —

JUSTICE SCALIA:  That’s not water, but it ain’t taking, either, in the — in the narrow sense that Justice Breyer has talked about.

This latest decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was one prompted by the government, who wanted a retrial for the purposes of fact finding. Specifically, they disputed everything from causation of the floods to the appraisal of the damages. The court saw no error in the findings of the original court and affirmed the aforementioned recompense.

But what does it all mean?

The implications of this case aren’t lost on the Pacific Legal Foundation, whose work in property rights has made them a critical voice of government land-use. “If government commits a taking, including flooding or occupying someone’s land,” writes Brian Hodges in a PLF blog article,”there is an obligation to pay, period.”

Though the matter at hand has been decided, these are still interesting questions. Is the government to pay even when the action they take serves the benefit of a large group of people? Couldn’t that possibly open up room for a stampede of new litigants who, because of government actions, have had reductions in their property values? And even more pressing: if a stampede of federal claims were to happen, wouldn’t the government be loath to do or build anything at all? Bridges… dams… highways… infrastructure projects…But of course to some, that probably wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

[U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Linda Tanner via Wikipedia]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the Government Floods Your Property appeared first on Law Street.