My train this morning usually continues to New York. Today it terminated in Philadelphia, a victim of the deluge delivered by Hurricane Irene. Amtrak explained:

Most Northeast Regional service will operate south of Philadelphia, but no Acela Express, Northeast Regional or other Amtrak trains can operate north of Philadelphia to New York.

As of early this Monday evening, about a half-mile of Amtrak right-of-way remained submerged near Trenton, N.J. As the water levels recede, Amtrak engineering forces will make repairs to the track and signal control infrastructure. Updates will continue to be provided and an estimate for restoration of full service south of New York is not yet available.

Many attribute the recent spate of natural disasters (heat waves, droughts and wildfires in Texas, tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama, Hurricane Irene) to the effects of climate change. We reserve judgment. Climate change is about trends, not individual events.

One trend we are watching closely is the status of flood plains. We dug up the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Trenton train station. The Amtrak right of way mentioned above is in the 100 year flood plain. We weren't able to determine how many times it had flooded recently, but the mayor of nearby Lambertville noted that they have been flooded out 5 times in the last ten years.   The flood at the train station was a record, nearly seven feet above flood stage.  Id. And  a study out of the University of New Hampshire  reports New Hampshire has experienced 4 100-year floods in the last four years.  Some may discern a trend.

Fortunately, we are not the only ones watching. FEMA is in the process of preparing a report on climate change impacts on the National Flood Insurance Program. Preliminary information indicates that some Special Flood Hazard Areas (the 100-year flood plain) will double in size and that by the next century the nation's flood plain will be 40%-45% larger.  Look for The Impact of Climate Change on the National Flood Insurance Program to be out this fall.

FEMA currently does not directly address climate change in the NFIP, because its practice is to make its assessment based on the historical record.  But that does not mean communities and businesses cannot.  For example, a community may request that the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Map address future conditions.  44 CFR 64.3(a)(1).  Where business continuity planning is standard practice (and we hope that is everywhere) vulnerability assessments need to ask not only where is the flood plain, but where is it likely to be.  Many have been off to a slow start on climate change planning.  But, as with trains, late is better than never.

View of Trenton Amtrak right of way (c) Times of Trenton

Yesterday we discussed the proposed legislative response in New Jersey to the problems of flooding and stormwater management.  Some have speculated that increasing frequency and severity of flooding and stormwater is a by-product of climate change, and certainly these events are consistent with climate change.  Other studies have pointed to the decreasing amount of pervious cover in urban areas as increasing stormwater runoff.  Regardless of the causes, the problem is quite real.  Although the legislation is pending in New Jersey the problems are not unique to this State nor to the United States.  This post will examine another of the five companion bills.  This proposed law would have the greatest impact upon the design and development of private projects. 

A3680: Requires any projects subject to municipal land use approvals to incorporate green or blue roofs.
 
In New Jersey this bill would have the most wide-reaching implications for private development.  The bill would require that all new construction projects for which approvals are required under New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law, which would include most new construction projects in the State, particularly in developed urban areas, incorporate Green or Blue roofs, unless the applicant can demonstrate that it would not be feasible to build with such a roof. 

The bill further requires the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) to develop, within one year, rules and regulations concerning incorporation of Green or Blue roofs to limit the release of stormwater runoff.  One interesting, but un-answered question, revolves around the statutory mandate that requires such roofs unless an applicant demonstrates to the DEP that such roofs are not feasible for a particular project.  This may be the result of the legislative sponsors failing to recognize that most municipal land use applications are approved at the local level, and not by DEP even though some projects require DEP approvals in order to receive municipal approvals.  Perhaps the statute should be revised to require an applicant to demonstrate to the body that is reviewing a land use application why it would not be feasible to build such a roof in accordance with the criteria established by DEP.

The bill provides an incentive for those projects that require some form of DEP approval because it requires the DEP give priority consideration to any permit or authorization that it must issue for a project that incorporates Green or Blue roofs.  This bill seeks to achieve compliance with the desired goal by using both the “carrot” and the “stick”. 

The motivation for this series of companion bills is certainly meritorious.  One of the sponsors of the bills, assemblyman John McKeon, set forth the rationale: “We know that there’s a problem with water discharge and an overburdened sewer system.  So green roofs and blue roofs are a way to systemically discharge water so that it goes out in a regimented manner and doesn’t end in the overflow that ends in all the problems that we have with pollution”.

Tomorrow, more about positive financial incentives for Green or Blue roofs.

Yesterday I had a negative experience that caused me to think about some of the practical consequences of climate change.  Instead of taking my usual route home, I and many others were forced to use an alternate route because a major state highway was closed due to flooding from an adjacent river.  This condition will exist for several days, and its occurrence has been increasing in frequency and severity within the last ten years.  Worse than that inconvenience to me and other drivers is the flooding of homes and business that occurs with greater regularity in my area of New Jersey including the communities of Wayne, Little Falls, and Fairfield.

Is anyone thinking about potential legislative solutions to our storm water problems?  The answer in New Jersey is, “yes Virginia”.  Three primary sponsors in the New Jersey Assembly have introduced five companion bills that are aimed at improving our storm water management and greening our built environment.  We will examine each of these bills in turn over the next few days.  They could provide guidance to other States considering how to respond to this increasing problem. 
 
All of the proposed bills provide various incentives for Green roofs or Blue roofs.  A “Green roof” is one that includes, among other things, a growth medium and a vegetation layer of drought resistant and hardy plant species, designed to improve stormwater management.  A “Blue roof” is constructed with mechanical controls, such as gravel beds, perforated pipes, or rooftop detention systems, that drain stormwater to improve stormwater management.

A3679:  Requires incorporation of Green or Blue roofs on new State buildings

Bill A3679 would require any new building, facility or structure having at least 15,000 square feet in total floor area that is constructed for the sole use of a State governmental entity to include a functioning Green roof or Blue roof.

The bill directs the Division of Property Management and Construction to consult with the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that designs for such roofs comply with this Act.  As currently drafted the law would be effective one year after passage, allowing appropriate lead time for all concerned parties to comply with this fundamental design shift.

A3681: Requires Green or Blue roofs on new buildings using State, EDA, or Schools Development Authority Funds

This bill is nearly identical to A3679 in terms of substantive requirements.  However, it expands the scope of the legislation to include any new construction projects that are funded by the State, or that are funded by the NJ Economic Development Authority, or any schools that are built through the Schools Development Authority.  The number of such structures that are built each year is almost always greater than the number of structures that are built for the exclusive use of State government. 

As the bill states, in most instances projects that use Green or Blue roofs will also achieve operational cost savings from increased energy efficiency.  The question that some might raise in this context, or with respect to other green building mandates, is whether the costs of construction to comply with the heightened standards will increase, thereby decreasing the number of projects can be built.  That is a topic of much debate that is beyond the scope of this series.  Tomorrow, more about the wide reach of this body of legislation.

Last week brought another edition of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. FEMA announced on October 29 that it was releasing new preliminary flood maps for Montgomery County, Maryland. Click here.

 It has been 14 years since the last flood plain map was created and the good citizens have seen substantial changes in that period. Montgomery County's planning arm sets forth in its 2007-2009 report that the population has boomed over the last thirty years with an anticipated increase of 14% this decade, the fastest growing in Maryland. Click here.

The effect of all this growth is telling. "Several factors—including sustained job and population expansion, declining supplies of greenfield space, and land use policies favoring in-fill and transit-oriented development—have reinforced this pattern of concentrated development in recent years. Growth, density and mixed-used development are transforming former commuter suburbs into increasingly more urban-like environments." So with all that change, re-doing the flood plain maps is necessary, and overdue.

Unfortunately, these maps are outdated even as they are issued. This is not simply because additional development affects them. It is because they do not consider climate change. This bears repeating. The FEMA flood maps do not consider climate change. And it is not just some blogger saying it. The Delaware River Basin Commission wrote in 2009: "Future development and the impacts of climate change are not taken into account during the development of FEMA flood hazard area mapping." Click here.

Why is this significant? One of the fundamental predictions of climate scientists is that climate change is going to deliver more extreme weather. In the Northeast, for example, there will be more frequent storms and more severe storms. It should be obvious that these will increase the frequency of flooding and the 100-year flood will now become the 50-year flood or the 25-year flood. As most know, the FEMA flood map shows the 100-year flood plain. Inside the flood plain, certain construction requirements are imposed, and flood insurance is required of all who would be involved in federal programs (such as loan guarantees from Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac). Outside the 100-year floodplain, neither condition applies. Accordingly, if the 100-year floodplain is inaccurately set forth, numerous properties just outside the erroneous line are more likely to be subjected to a flood than the occupant or owner anticipates, and are more likely not to have flood insurance.

If this sounds like a recipe for disaster, it is. The spring floods in Nashville caused over $1 billion in damage. FEMA reported only 100 National Flood Insurance policies in the the entirety of Davidson County (where Nashville is located).¹ 

¹ Jeff Casale, Significant losses expected after floods soak Nashville, Business Insurance (May 10, 2010).

There was scary news out of Florida at the end of last month. Insurers were lobbying the cabinet for an increase in catastrophe fund insurance policyholder fees. This is the surcharge Florida regulators place on every automobile and property policy to pay for the Florida Catastrophe Fund, which needs up to $710 million to pay for 2005 (sic) claims that are still coming in. The Fund managers sought to increase the current surcharge from 1% to 1.3% of premiums.

The increase was rejected by the Florida cabinet, ostensibly because of concerns over fraud. Seems public adjusters in Florida are too effective and have precipitated an unbudgeted increase in payouts from the Fund. The explanation for the increase in claims and payouts is that fraud is being carried on. Cynical observers cite a different reason. Governor Crist is running for the Senate and is not going to be tagged with increasing the cost of insurance.

Whatever the reason, what should really be cause for concern is that the Fund may need an additional $710 million.

I have blogged repeatedly and skeptically on the beach pools and wind pools. Turns out I am not alone. Zurich Insurance Company published a White Paper last summer that makes the point far more eloquently than I did.

In The Climate Risk Challenge: the role of insurance in pricing climate-related risks, http://www.zurich.com/main/insight/introduction.htm, Zurich posits that in addressing climate change, there is a great need to engage the insurance industry's skill in managing risk. The trick is how to engage an industry whose business is protecting private assets, so that that protection furthers the public good.

Zurich points out that this has been done before. Fire protection codes and vehicle safety requirements are two areas of note. Following along in that vein, climate-friendly requirements that are built into zoning and building codes, such as hurricane-proofing structures, mandating energy efficiency, and restricting construction in flood -prone areas, can be supported by insurance products, which will bring market forces into play.

However, as Zurich notes, "The ability of the insurance industry to assist public policy-makers in the effective and efficient implementation of climate change policy is to a large extent dependent on [policymakers'] willingness to resist the temptation to distort markets in a manner that interferes with the role of and ability of insurers to send price signals about risk." Distortion seems rampant in Florida. In the fifth year after Hurricane Wilma, the Florida Catastrophe Fund still lacks sufficient funds to pay for those claims. Perhaps more significantly, the procedure in place to pay for those losses cannot do so.

Zurich's tag-line is "Because change happenZ." I would amend that. "Because climate change is happening." Policymakers need to tap into the experts who manage the balance between risk exposure and financial sustainability. Until the Florida insurance market reflects true price signals for risk, those experts are very likely to remain sitting on the sidelines and Florida's hurricane risk effectively uninsured.