Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 121
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusions
Collaborative efforts among community members and stakeholders more broadly are
necessary to achieve a high level of resilience. Ideas need to be integrated and solutions
implemented that meet community needs and address community-identified resilience
goals. However, even members of the geographic community can have broad and sometimes
competing interests, as well as different technical and nontechnical backgrounds that make
communication difficult. The differences become even more pronounced when considering
stakeholders from outside the geographic area. Even so, it is important to involve com-
munity members and stakeholders as main actors in enhancing resilience to gain trust and
“ buy-in” of resilience-enhancing processes. Hazards and risks need to be communicated
by means that can be understood by all, which implies careful consideration of community
factors to identify those means. The same means may not work for all groups.
The committee experienced communication problems similar to those described above,
albeit on a smaller scale, during its own deliberations. As a diverse group of engineers, social
scientists, community planners, and other experts, the committee had to learn to communi-
cate to identify issues and a vision for incorporating concepts of community resilience into
dam and levee safety programs. The committee quickly learned that individual members
used different vocabularies to express themselves, complicating the sharing of ideas. As
committee discussions progressed, members often recognized that their goals were not
actually divergent. They found instead a common vision and a shared set of conclusions.
Similar challenges will present themselves to dam and levee safety professionals on a
much greater scale as they attempt to engage the broader community in improving com-
munity resilience. Different groups will have different assumptions, perceptions, and vo-
cabularies, which will make communication difficult—at least initially. But the experience
of this committee suggests that progress can be made when individual and mutual needs
and goals are identified and clearly stated.
The Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement (see Chapter 5) was first
121
OCR for page 122
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
proposed in committee discussions as a means with which communities can assess the prog-
ress of safety programs along the continuum of resilience-enhancing efforts. But it became,
quite unexpectedly, an effective tool for gauging committee progress in developing ideas
and building consensus. The committee noted that simply discussing the elements of the
maturity matrix allows those with different backgrounds (e.g., representing different stake-
holder groups) to understand the many complex elements of dam and levee safety programs
and community requirements for enhancing resilience. The committee came to understand
how the Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement can be tailored to various
scales of use and different organizational levels. With that tool to aid communication, the
committee developed the set of conclusions summarized in this chapter.
Many conclusions appear throughout this report. This chapter presents those core
conclusions related to the major cultural shifts the committee believes are necessary to in-
tegrate concepts of resilience into dam and levee safety programs. They appear in much the
same order in which they became understood as vital during committee deliberations. The
conclusions here begin with a definition of community, and continue with the identification
of major inhibitors of resilience, the committee vision for the role of dam and levee safety
programs in enhancing resilience, and finally conclusions related to how that vision can
be realized and how the federal government might facilitate that realization. Conclusions
related to specific tools that could be developed by the federal government to aid dam and
levee safety programs related to identifying and engaging community members and stake-
holders, and in decision making and decision support systems can be found in Chapter 5.
DEFINING COMMUNITY
Conclusion 1. The dam and levee community comprises dam and levee safety
professionals, and other individuals, groups, and institutions that benefit from
the continued and safe functioning of dam and levee infrastructure—whether or
not those benefits are recognized by the individual community members.
Conclusion 2. Community resilience is a community effort, and dam and levee
safety professionals are part of the community.
Community resilience, by its nature, is a community enterprise that requires the par-
ticipation of all members and stakeholders. Dam and levee professionals (e.g., owners and
operators, regulators, consultants, and emergency management officials) are members of the
communities they serve. Other community members are those at direct risk for loss of life,
limb, or property as a result of flooding from dam or levee failure; those who rely directly or
indirectly on the lifeline services that a dam or levee may provide (such as drinking water or
electricity); individuals and organizations at financial risk as a result of links to the regional,
122
OCR for page 123
Conclusions
national, or global economies (such as shareholders, mortgage holders, and insurers); and
individuals and organizations with ties to regional political and social networks through
family, neighborhood, religious, or other networks, and those who benefit from affected
environmental ecosystems. Because each community is unique, community members and
stakeholders may not be easily divided into definitive categories.
Dam and levee professionals will serve their communities more successfully when they
embrace the idea that “community,” in the context of dam and levee safety, extends well
beyond those in the inundation zone. Such a broad definition of community implies that
risks and benefits associated with dam and levee infrastructure need to be evaluated on
multiple scales without diminishing the role of the proximate community. Therefore, it is
necessary to understand the complex social, economic, environmental, and other relevant
networks that may be affected by failure. Global supply chains may be affected, and financial
support networks of shareholders, mortgage providers, and insurance companies may suffer
the direct or indirect consequences of flooding. Their losses may have cascading effects on
the welfare of the local, regional, or global communities.
Conclusion 3. Those subject to the direct or indirect impacts of dam or levee
failure are also those with the opportunity to reduce the consequences of fail-
ure through physical and social changes in the community, community growth
planning, safe housing construction, financial planning (including bonds and
insurance), and development of the capacity to adapt to change.
Members of a community, including dam and levee professionals, know more about
their community than anyone else and therefore are in the best position to improve their
community. Dam and levee safety professionals can provide critical expertise, support life-
cycle hazard and risk assessments, and take part in informed decision-making processes as
they and the broader community work to enhance resilience. At the same time, dam and
levee professionals and the organizations they represent can ultimately derive benefits from
participation in efforts to enhance community resilience, including a potential reduction in
liability through decreased flood risk.
ENABLING INFORMATION ACCESS
Conclusion 4. Current policy and practices restrict access to information critical
to public risk awareness, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and com-
munity capacity for adaptation. Dam and levee safety processes and products
(such as inspections, Emergency Action Plans [EAPs], and inundation maps)
are intended to support decision making and enhanced community resilience,
123
OCR for page 124
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
but are not readily available to all community members and stakeholders who
make those decisions.
Decisions or practices intended to support national security, protect proprietary in-
terests, or minimize liability concerns are often used as justification for not sharing in-
formation critical for informed decision making related to improving resilience. The lack
or intentional withholding of vital information related to risk hampers community risk
assessment, preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, and capacity for adaptation, and
may ultimately do more harm than good. Trust in dam and levee owners and government
agencies may be diminished, and community members and stakeholders may be unaware
of their exposure to flood risks. The ability to prepare for and respond to adverse events
can therefore be compromised.
Dam and levee owners themselves could manage their responsibilities with a greater
understanding of the upstream and downstream factors that influence risk. Communities as
a whole could address risk better if consequences of various dam and levee failure scenarios
were understood. Having the information needed to assess and manage risk associated with
flood-water management, and having that information presented in understandable and
actionable ways, is vital to the ability of the entire community to plan for and mitigate the
direct and indirect consequences of infrastructure failure. Risks associated with national se-
curity hazards, proprietary interests, or liability protection need to be realistically compared
with the risks associated with dam and levee infrastructure failure before making decisions
to withhold risk information. In the absence of accurate inundation maps, for example,
many rely on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps that do not depict
the areal extent or severity of all flood risks, and insurers and financial institutions are forced
to make decisions without knowing the aggregate risks they may be taking.
Dam safety professionals themselves have focused much of their effort on reducing the
likelihood of flooding due to uncontrolled and controlled flow from dams and the develop-
ment of EAPs. Levee safety professionals have been similarly concerned with preventing
uncontrolled flow, although levee safety programs generally are far less mature than dam
safety programs. Focus on EAPs is essential for both dams and levees, but EAP preparation
is not an established practice for levee safety, and EAPs alone are not sufficient to enhance
community resilience. The lack of availability of comprehensively prepared and dissemi-
nated EAPs, of detailed and accurate inundation maps, and of comprehensive public aware-
ness programs compromises effective decision making conducive to enhancing resilience.
The collaboration and two-way communication with local community officials that results
from a robust EAP process generates opportunities to enhance resilience.
124
OCR for page 125
Conclusions
MANAGING RISK COLLABORATIVELY
Conclusion 5. Enhancing resilience will be most successful when dam and levee
safety professionals and other community members and stakeholders identify
and manage risk collaboratively in ways that increase understanding and com-
munication of risks, shared needs, and opportunities.
As members of the larger community, dam and levee professionals share opportunities
and responsibilities with other community members to improve resilience associated with
the primary and secondary effects of dam or levee failure. Likewise, involvement of the
broader community brings expertise and resources that can benefit dam and levee profes-
sionals. Collaborative engagement builds the trust among dam and levee professionals and
other community members that is a vital element of community resilience. With trust comes
more effective communication, improvements in social capital, deeper appreciation of dam
and levee infrastructure, and recognition of dam and levee professionals as good commu-
nity citizens. Robust interaction also encourages comfort and familiarity in collaborative
work, qualities that contribute to effective response during emergencies. Strangers working
together for the first time during a crisis may be less effective than people who already have
developed communication channels and trust.
Community resilience and traditional mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts
will be improved if the key representatives of the entire community can be identified and
engaged. Collaborative risk management can take many forms, and many models of resil-
ience-focused collaboration are available for consideration—for example, Tulsa Partners,1
Safeguard Iowa Partnership,2 and Earthquake Country Alliance.3 Collaborative manage-
ment, however, is most effective when it is community based and managed by the com-
munity. Collaboration can begin with efforts to extend existing relationships that dam and
levee professionals have with a community’s appointed and elected officials, and through
participation in existing resilience-focused partnerships in the community. The goal is to
significantly expand and strengthen current interaction and engagement. In addition, there
is a place at the table for federal partners in dam and levee safety at the community level,
but their most effective role (if not the infrastructure owner) is facilitative—providing in-
formation and guidance—rather than prescriptive.
Making hazard information available to a wider audience will ensure that a greater
number of community members and stakeholders understand the potential scenarios and
risk exposure. This can lead to greater demand for engagement among all and ultimately
to the development of physical, societal, and financial solutions for improving resilience.
See tulsapartners.org/tpi/ (accessed February 17, 2012).
1
See www.safeguardiowa.org/ (accessed February 17, 2012).
2
See www.earthquakecountry.info/ (accessed February 17, 2012).
3
125
OCR for page 126
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Conclusion 6. Risk-informed approaches allow dam and levee professionals to
improve their understanding of infrastructure-system operations, performance,
vulnerabilities, and the consequences of potential failures, and allow them and
the broader community to make better decisions related to dam and levee infra-
structure and resilience.
Current dam and levee engineering design and operating procedures are largely stan-
dards-based, and uncertainties associated with hazards and structural or system performance
are largely ignored. Conventional engineering practices obscure a full understanding of risk.
Until recently, even discussing how a system might fail was not a part of dam and levee
engineering culture. Although there has been a trend toward more risk-based approaches to
dam and levee safety evaluation in recent years, the use of these approaches is not universal
and is far from mature in the profession. Expanding dam and levee safety practice to include
collaborative risk management implies the need to communicate the benefits and risks as-
sociated with dam and levee infrastructure to the community. Doing that implies a need
to understand and quantify associated risks and consequences as fully as possible, not only
for the benefit of the dam or levee owner but also for the broader community. The ability
to understand and respond to potential consequences is essential for enhancing resilience.
Deterministic approaches (e.g., probable maximum flood and standard project flood
approaches) focus only on what is assumed to be the worst possible scenario for a given
hazard without consideration of the likelihood of the event and without understanding
the accuracy of the predicted scenario. Risk-based methods, in contrast, allow evaluation
of the likelihood of events in a broad array of scenarios and allow prediction of the types
and magnitudes of consequences associated with those scenarios. Risk-based, or at least
risk-informed approaches contribute to more open, honest communication of community
exposure to adverse events, even given uncertainties in current approaches. Such communi-
cation contributes to collaborative processes significantly and can be an agent of change on
the part of policy makers and the broader public. It allows communities to appreciate the
benefits of dam and levee infrastructure, understand different stakeholders’ risks associated
with their operation and potential failure, and make appropriate decisions to improve dam
and levee safety, reduce flood risk and associated liabilities for different groups at risk, and
increase community resilience.
MAKING A CULTURAL SHIFT
Conclusion 7. Improving dam and levee safety programs to emphasize processes
that enhance community resilience requires a culture shift among dam and levee
professionals. This new emphasis requires embracing the responsibilities—and
126
OCR for page 127
Conclusions
the benefits—associated with developing and implementing collaborative risk-
management processes that facilitate enhanced community resilience.
Dam and levee safety programs have improved substantially in recent decades, but
they remain focused on regulatory compliance, on preventing failures, and on elements of
emergency preparedness. Regulatory compliance is a necessary first step, but it alone will not
build community resilience. The vision for future dam and levee safety programs is one in
which dam and levee safety professionals and the larger community are active participants
in risk-informed processes that support improved community resilience. Future dam and
levee safety programs will continue their mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts,
but a clearer understanding and communication of risks will be required, as will broader
engagement with community members and stakeholders in which two-way communication
of individual and common needs is the norm. It is such communication and engagement
that allow resilience-enhancing processes to be identified and implemented. Such a future
is achievable, but only in the context of changes in the traditional culture of dam and levee
communities and in the public’s view of these systems.
This vision is applicable to both public- and private-sector dam and levee safety pro-
grams, and both will need to overcome obstacles. Public-sector dam safety programs, for
example, often do not have the funds to meet mandated responsibilities. Jurisdiction over
levees is often unclear, so it may be difficult to determine who has the responsibility and
legal authority to affect change. The lack of data that are readily available to community
members and stakeholders outside dam and levee professional networks hampers com-
munity understanding of risk, or even the recognition of being at risk, and constitutes a
barrier to change. Cultural change at the dam and levee program level will be more likely if
there are commensurate changes in state legislatures, in Congress, in dam and levee owner
management or board rooms, and among dam and levee engineers themselves. Support
is needed to expand the scope of dam and levee safety programs so they can contribute to
enhancing and sustaining community resilience.
Activities to enhance community resilience with respect to dam and levee safety need
not and should not be separate from broader community resilience efforts. It is the responsi-
bility of dam and levee professionals at all levels (local through federal) to bring their unique
expertise to bear and to assist their programs in putting into place the processes needed to
assess and address community resilience related to dam- and levee-associated risk.
A REPOSITORY OF RESILIENCE-ENHANCING TOOLS
Conclusion 8. The federal government can aid resilience-enhancing efforts by
identifying, cataloging, further developing, communicating, and facilitating the
use of tools and guidance that already exist in the published literature and in
127
OCR for page 128
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
federal and state guidelines. Many existing tools may need little or no modifi-
cation to be useful for enhancing community resilience for specific situations.
Cataloging existing tools is a first step in identifying and setting priorities for
developing necessary new tools.
The availability of dam and levee information supports a community’s ability to remain
informed about dam and levee infrastructure benefits and risks, operations, potential for
failure, and procedures in place to prepare, mitigate, respond and recover from and adapt in
response to potential failure. Such information is vital to the decision making that makes
communities more resilient. However, dam and levee safety programs and communities may
not know how best to determine the reliability and usefulness of information and data, or
how to communicate them in efficient, timely, and actionable ways. Enhancing resilience
requires an understanding of what resilience is. Resilience can be defined and understood
only in the context of the individual community because each community faces different
risks and has unique requirements for continued successful functioning. Successful practices
of similar communities (e.g., best practices) can be shared through federal communication
mechanism (such as FEMA’s long-term recovery support arm, Emergency Support Func-
tion 14).4
The federal government contributes to community-level resilience best when it con-
tributes in a supportive role—in this case through the provision of information, guidance,
and tools for dam and levee professionals and other relevant community members and
stakeholders. The tools provided cannot be one-size-fits-all, given the uniqueness of com-
munities. Those made available must be flexible to assist decision making and must provide
the right level of analysis for state and local application. It would be worthwhile for federal
agencies that have roles in dam and levee safety, in collaboration with states and representa-
tive owners, to review their own processes for enhancing community safety and resilience.
They could determine what tools and resources exist and are still needed to be most helpful
in facilitating local resilience-building efforts. The next step would be to determine the best
way to make those tools available to local dam and levee safety programs and the com-
munities they serve. Exploring effective incentives for their use would also be appropriate.
A number of federal agencies are putting forth effort with respect to enhancing com-
munity resilience. These efforts may focus on all-hazards approaches to enhance community
resilience; risks associated with dam and levee failure may be among the hazards (see, e.g.,
the FEMA Risk MAP program).5 Tools, guidance, and best practices for enhancing resil-
ience may have already been described in programs of those or other agencies.
See www.fema.gov/rebuild/ltcr/plan_resource.shtm (accessed February 19, 2012).
4
See www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/rm_main.shtm (accessed February 19, 2012).
5
128
OCR for page 129
Conclusions
INSTITUTIONALIZING RESILIENCE PROCESSES
Conclusion 9. Collaborative efforts that become a normal part of community
functioning will enhance resilience more successfully in the long term. Continu -
ous improvements in community resilience are more likely if such processes as
community and stakeholder engagement assessment are institutionalized by
dam and levee safety programs and the broader community.
Enhancing resilience is a multistage process that encompasses efforts to identify and
reduce risks, prepare for hazardous events, respond to and recover from events, and allow
community adaptation in response to lessons learned from the entire cycle of activities.
Without a continuous effort to sustain an environment conducive to enhancing resilience,
these efforts and their beneficial outcomes will be short-lived. A successful program includes
long-term planning in which life-cycle benefits and costs of dam and levee infrastructure
are widely understood by the community. Successful efforts, therefore, will be ones that are
institutionalized in dam and levee safety programs and the broader community, that build
the trust that allows effective collaboration, and that encourage active engagement. When
safety programs integrate the assessment of engagement into their long-term management,
benchmarking of processes and identification of opportunities to improve community re-
silience will become part of the operational norm. Efforts to do so will build important
relationships among community members and stakeholders, including dam and levee pro-
fessionals. This social capital—manifested as effective working relationships—will be the
underpinning of community resilience.
BENCHMARKING PROGRESS IN SAFETY AND ENGAGEMENT
Conclusion 10. Enhancing resilience requires frequent and collective evaluation
of risk, safety, and collaborative processes. The proposed Maturity Matrix for
Assessing Community Engagement can be used by dam and levee safety pro-
fessionals, community members and stakeholders, and government entities at
all levels to benchmark and manage the progress of industry and community
processes related to safety and engagement. Details of assessment are necessarily
unique for each community. The federal government can assist communities by
providing an initial framework for the assessment tool, and providing informa-
tion and training for its development and continued use at the community level.
Enhancing resilience requires evaluation of the overall posture of a community with
respect to resilience. Tools for measuring resilience directly, however, do not exist. In their
absence, adequate evaluation requires some method for capturing and assessing resilience-
129
OCR for page 130
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
improving processes that a community has in place. A rubric for such assessment is needed.
The Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement (see Chapter 5 for detailed
description) can help dam and levee professionals and the broader community to gauge the
level of practice with respect to community resilience and to understand how individual
processes fit into the larger community resilience picture. The use of the assessment tool al -
lows communities to become familiar with resilience-building processes already in place, to
determine goals and priorities for improvement, to identify processes needed to meet those
goals, and to monitor outcomes of other tools and programs in place in the community.
The Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement, as envisioned by the
committee, depicts different aspects of dam and levee infrastructure operations and com-
munity processes to which dam and levee professionals may be able to contribute (see
Figure 5.2). The maturity matrix is necessarily unique to the community it serves just as
what defines community resilience is individual to the community; a matrix developed for
one community may not be adequate for another. The matrix captures the continuous im-
provements necessary for designated processes to reach safety- and resilience-related goals
at different stages of development. Already, a best practice of dam and levee owners is to
identify potential and actual deficiencies of their facilities through periodic assessments.
The Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement allows dam and levee own-
ers and the broader community to visualize the status of any number of detailed processes
on a continuum and provides a roadmap for planning that allows all to be mindful of the
tension between budgetary constraints and community goals.
Active engagement is vital, and the development of a maturity matrix provides a mecha-
nism for promoting two-way communication between dam and levee professionals and the
broader community. Early collaborative efforts, for example, could include discussion of a
single element of the matrix. Deciding on goals, processes, and what constitutes progress
creates a means of building social capital. Dam and levee owners and members of the
broader community will need assistance in customizing the matrix and using the tool to its
fullest potential for assessment of practice over time.
The federal government could develop a basic framework for the Maturity Matrix for
Assessment of Community and Community and Stakeholder Engagement (recognizing
that the matrix must be customized and fully developed at the community level) and for
the training necessary to institutionalize its use in any safety program. Because the assess-
ment tool is scalable and can be readily modified to assess the progress of a large variety
of resilience-related activities, programs, or types of infrastructure at various levels (local,
state, regional, and national), it may also be worthwhile to explore its use more generally
to aid in identifying
• characteristics of resilience in individual communities (or organizations or regions)
and the objectives that need to be reached to make them more resilient;
130
OCR for page 131
Conclusions
• methods and strategies for identifying stakeholders, engaging in resilience-focused
collaboration, and communicating risk in clear, understandable, and actionable
terms;
• vulnerabilities and risks associated with all hazards and potential alternatives for
reducing or mitigating them;
• roles of community factors (such as legislation and land-use planning) in the
severity of the hazards.
Once developed sufficiently as a tool, the federal government could facilitate a pilot program
in a community to demonstrate the tool’s usefulness.
MOVING FORWARD
In keeping with its task, the committee presents a means of improving and expanding
dam and levee safety programs into programs that integrate processes that promote com-
munity resilience into daily safety practice. The committee offers a fundamental frame-
work for a holistic and systematic approach to safety analysis that incorporates elements
of community resilience and risk management. If developed and tailored to applications
in individual community or safety programs, the framework would likely improve com-
munication, allow communities to establish goals and priorities, and identify the means to
reach goals to improve resilience.
Moving forward with the suggestions in this report is a major undertaking that will
require the efforts of more than one entity, more than one piece of legislation, or a single
source of funding. It will require many individuals in a community to evolve their thinking
about resilience and their roles in enhancing resilience. Dam and levee professionals, and
engineers in particular, will need to expand their safety practices and align them to be con-
sistent with concepts of community resilience. This will, in many cases, conflict with long-
held traditions in training and practice. The course of action suggested by the committee
is game-changing and perhaps not welcome by many in this time of limited resources and
budget cuts. However, in the context of long-term land-use and floodplain management,
and considering the life cycles of the critical infrastructure involved, the expenditures will
prove worthwhile.
An incremental approach will be necessary to make the changes suggested, but each
increment should be a step toward community agreed-on outcomes. Once the approach
suggested in this report is accepted by a safety program—whether public or private, and
whether at the local, state, regional, or national level—it will be incumbent on the program,
with the assistance of those at higher levels, to determine how to make the approach fit its
unique circumstances. Given that the maturity matrix is scalable, a matrix established for a
program may be broken down and detailed to address the responsibilities of the geotechni-
131
OCR for page 132
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
cal, geologic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and civil or structural elements of the safety program.
Doing so will ensure that the entire program is making design and operational decisions
consistent with safety and community priorities for resilience.
The committee has focused largely on the concept of community and stakeholder
engagement and the assessment of progress of engagement in advancing community resil-
ience goals. The Maturity Matrix for Assessing Community Engagement can be central
to both. Engagement, however, cannot substitute improved dam and levee infrastructure
integrity and technical decision making, nor can it substitute adequate resource allocation
for said improvements. It can, however enable effective two-way communication coupled
with risk-based safety analysis and enable communities to use its resources more effectively
to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover and learn from dam and levee failure. The
active engagement it encourages may facilitate common understanding of how local events
or choices have impacts beyond the local community, and may help communities identify
common and conflicting priorities among its local, regional, and even global members.
Further, it can inform technical decision making to improve infrastructure integrity as well
as strengthen a community’s ability to influence policy in positive ways. Many of the prin-
ciples developed in this report are applicable not only to resilience associated with dam and
levee infrastructure but to resilience associated with other types of critical infrastructure,
and to disasters in general.
132
