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 77
CHAPTER FOUR
Vision and Conceptual
Framework for Resilience-
Focused Engagement
The committee envisions a future in which dam and levee safety professionals (e.g.,
owners, operators, and regulators) and the broader public are active, collaborative, and mu-
tually committed participants in efforts to enhance public safety and community resilience.
This vision includes mitigation and emergency preparedness efforts that are the traditional
focus of dam and levee safety professionals; more importantly, it calls for dam and levee
safety professionals to understand and become more involved in their communities. By
broadly engaging with other community members and stakeholders, these professionals
can identify their individual and common needs and the actions necessary to meet those
needs, and increase resilience to dam and levee infrastructure failure. Such interaction will
require participation in new or existing collaborative processes designed to meet the mutual
needs of and provide benefits to all the community (including themselves) as part of the
working fabric of a community.
Such a vision is achievable when all dam and levee professionals, other community
members, and stakeholders more broadly recognize the mutual benefits and increased social
capital to be gained through participation in processes that enhance community resilience.
The vision is achievable only through an expansion of traditional dam and levee safety
practice coupled with changes on the part of policy makers and the broader public to rec-
ognize the benefits of dam and levee infrastructure. This kind of evolution cannot occur
rapidly; it will require incremental changes and improvements in safety program processes.
Advances in dam safety practices over the last four decades provide an excellent foun-
dation for a community engagement approach to greater resilience. This chapter defines a
vision and framework for dam and levee safety professionals to become engaged participants
in enhancing the resilience of their communities.
77
OCR for page 78
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
DAM AND LEVEE PROFESSIONALS AS PART OF THE LARGER
COMMUNITY
A previous National Research Council report (NRC, 2011a) concluded that a framework
for increasing community resilience will likely be more successful if designed by representa-
tives of the entire community. Table 2.1 lists the elements of the community with a stake in
dam and levee performance, and therefore the elements to be engaged. However, the com-
mittee observes that dam and levee professionals often operate their programs independently
of other community functions and fail to understand the value of social engagement or social
capital for their programs. Until they recognize the benefits of community engagement,
improvements in resilience to dam and levee failure will be minimal. It is essential that dam
and levee professionals engage with the broader community to identify shared goals and re-
sources, and to collaboratively develop strategies and processes to support resilience. Simply
put, a new dam and levee safety norm is needed. This means moving beyond the boundaries
of regulatory compliance. Box 4.1 provides an example of how some in the dam and levee
profession have begun the evolution toward new operational norms. The committee expects
such norms will become community expectations of its dam and levee professionals.
New Societal Expectations
The ability of industry, government, and infrastructure owners to meet evolving societal
expectations can be demonstrated by the response to recent demands for greater sustain-
ability and environmental stewardship. For example, the U.S. General Services Administra-
tion now requires Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
for all new or substantially renovated federal buildings,1 and other groups are voluntarily
seeking LEED certification in new construction. The dam community can be similarly
responsive to societal expectations. Public-utility districts in Washington state, for example,
have engaged with state and federal fisheries agencies, Native American groups, and state
and federal wildlife agencies to develop 50-year hydropower habitat conservation plans
to protect local fish populations through environmental restoration, fish bypass and spill
systems, and offsite hatcheries.2 The goal is to ensure that sustainable hydropower will be
available without compromising fish resources. Not long ago, few dam owners placed great
importance on wildlife protection. Now, wildlife protection is a legal requirement, a normal
part of engineering practice, and often publicly touted by dam owners as evidence of good
community citizenship and environmental stewardship.
As communities become more aware of the benefits of creating, sustaining, and
increasing community resilience, and more aware of the benefits and risks associated with
See www.gsa.gov/portal/content/197325 (accessed November 30, 2011).
1
See www.chelanpud.org/habitat-conservation-plans.html (accessed November 30, 2011).
2
78
OCR for page 79
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
BOX 4.1
Interview with Robert A. Turner, Jr., Regional Director, Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority–East
Shirley Laska, of the University of New Orleans Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technol-
ogy, conducted an interview with Robert A. Turner, Jr., regional director of the Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority–East (SLFPAE)a on November 1, 2011, to learn about his approach to flood risk reduction.
According to its website, the mission of the SLFPAE “is to ensure the physical and operational integrity
of the regional flood risk management system, and to work with local, regional, state, and federal partners to
plan, design, and construct projects that will reduce the probability and risk of flooding for the residents within
our jurisdiction.” The SLFPAE process of levee inspection and information dissemination has been evolving to
make information more accessible to residents. Levee inspections have become more rigorous, and the levee
district plans to migrate from a paper to a digital system, creating a levee information management system.
The district plans eventually to launch a user-friendly website that allows more sophisticated oversight.
According to Turner, part of the authority’s strategic plan is to “actively communicate to the public the
risks that exist with current and proposed flood protection strategies.” Turner described SLFPAE stakeholders
as having “a vested interest in levees . . . people who live and work and own businesses in the areas. . . .
All of the taxpayers have a vested interest in what happens to our levees.”
Turner sees that he has a role in land-use planning by influencing change, although he admits that he does
not have the authority to make changes. “We can give decision makers the benefit of our knowledge, for
example about risk [and] consequences. Our role is more about trying to inform those decision makers of
the appropriateness of their decisions.”
Turner has been the regional director of SLFPAE since 2007 and was executive director of the Lake Borgne
Basin Levee District from 2001 to 2007. He was asked how his viewpoint about risk reduction has changed
since Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Turner said that before Hurricane Katrina, “I saw myself as leading the
charge to build levees better. My views on that have changed. I now believe in a more integrated approach
to deal with flood safety. . . . Smarter is to try to do the best we can with money available for structures, but
that effort has to be integrated with all of the other things. I never thought that was the case, but now it is so
obvious. Since Katrina, there is no other way to think about it. Levees can’t provide all of the protection. For
example, if we can’t address coastal issues—coastal restoration—then the levee system will degrade. . . .
[The] only way to keep risk from rising is to work on the other things we can affect, i.e., people’s behavior.
I never thought I would have to say: ‘buy flood insurance.’”
See www.slfpae.com (accessed February 27, 2012).
a
dam and levee infrastructure, more social and legal pressures will be placed on dam and
levee owners to participate in and inform efforts to enhance community resilience. When
the owners work with their communities to identify shared community risks, resources, and
appropriate disaster mitigation, preparation, response, and recovery measures, they have the
opportunity to help shape societal expectations and solutions. As the nation moves forward
79
OCR for page 80
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
to develop and implement a national resilience strategy (e.g., NRC, 2012), there is motiva-
tion for dam and levee owners to engage early and comprehensively in community efforts.
Dam and levee owners (and many others) may not be knowledgeable generally of the
social capital basis for community resilience (e.g., the role of community decision making
in resilience). Because metrics for measuring success of resilience-enhancing efforts are not
available, many owners may choose to wait and see what new requirements and metrics will
evolve with respect to resilience, especially as national efforts to develop a resilience strategy
continue. However, societal demands for community resilience-related action will likely pre-
cede the implementation of a national strategy. Dam and levee owners can take advantage
of lessons learned from tackling some dam safety and environmental issues and developing
emergency action plans (EAPs) in collaboration with other community members.
Moving Beyond Regulatory Compliance
The dam safety community has evolved substantially toward stronger regulatory and
owner (public and private) dam safety programs. Generally, however, regulatory compli-
ance as defined in legislative mandates and safety standards remains the driving motivator
for dam safety regulators and private and public dam owners. Regulations are established
to achieve minimum safety levels for built infrastructure, but compliance alone does not
necessarily ensure reliability and safety of dams and levees. Failures occur, sometimes for
reasons not considered in the original design or because of unforeseen circumstances.
Just as regulatory compliance alone does not ensure dam and levee safety, compliance
alone may not be consistent with owner interests (e.g., system efficiency, operational reli-
ability, and profitability), with good stewardship of community resources (e.g., water and the
environment), or with reduction in owner liability. Demonstrating compliance with regula-
tions does not necessarily protect an owner from litigation if infrastructure failure results
in damages or loss of life. And it does not build the social capital discussed in Chapter 2
that can result in desired community or economic outcomes. Even in light of those limita-
tions, it is easy to anticipate the dam safety community’s reluctance to adopt practices that
move beyond regulatory compliance in the interest of increasing community resilience. The
benefits of progressive actions need to be identified and balanced against cost, liability, and
other concerns that become institutional impediments.
Given the lack of federal or state regulatory structure with respect to levee safety, meet-
ing even minimum safety standards is difficult for the levee professional community. In
such a situation, it is even more important for levee professionals, especially levee owners, to
broadly consider costs and benefits to all affected by decisions related to levee infrastructure
design, construction, and maintenance.
80
OCR for page 81
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
Incentives for Dam and Levee Professionals
The committee recognizes that a commitment by dam and levee professionals (and
all stakeholders for that matter) to processes that build community resilience is a ma-
jor undertaking, especially if resilience-related concepts and practices are unfamiliar. The
benefits of and incentives for active participation are, admittedly, not readily apparent or
quantified. Nonetheless, many public and private organizations are familiar with the merit
of participating in pursuits that build goodwill in the community (e.g., community charities
and buying and hiring locally) or that would be in the category of being good “corporate
citizens” (in the case of private organizations). Although it is difficult to quantify, it is easy
to recognize the value to dam and levee safety professionals and the broader community of
having the ability to avoid, or recover as soon as possible from, the effects of a disaster such
as might result from dam or levee failure (e.g., Rexford, Idaho, after the Teton Dam failure
in 1976 or New Orleans after the levee failures that occurred during Hurricane Katrina in
2005). With this in mind, the committee discusses here some benefits of and incentives for
engaging in collaborative processes to build resilient communities.
Initial incentives for private and public dam and levee owners to collaborate in resil-
ience-enhancing processes may include increased profitability, decreased liability, increased
trust in and of the broader community, goodwill, and recognition as good community
citizens. For dam and levee safety regulators, whose principal responsibility is public safety,
engaging in community resilience-building processes is an opportunity to support the pub-
lic-safety mandate. As dam and levee owners mature in their roles as participants in com-
munity resilience-building efforts, the opportunity to contribute to and influence specific
community planning and decision making (e.g., with respect to emergency management
and recovery) and broader decision making (e.g., for land-use planning) can be further
incentives. Building the case for participating in community resilience efforts and moving
them into the mainstream of dam and levee safety practice may be difficult, but it presents
an opportunity for federal agencies and professional associations involved in dam and levee
safety. Efforts will be most effective if initiated from within the profession, possibly with
the assistance of federal agencies.
Benefits of Community Engagement
Collaborative networks form because those engaged in collaboration recognize that
individual and collective goals are more likely to be met through collaborative, rather than
individual, efforts (NRC, 2011a). The need for partnering and collaboration is recognized
by the federal government (see, e.g., DHS, 2009) and in the literature of many fields, in-
cluding collaborative management (e.g., McGuire, 2006), emergency management (e.g.,
Waugh and Streib, 2006), public health (e.g., Butterfoss, 2007), and public administration
81
OCR for page 82
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
(e.g., Vigoda, 2002). The idea of collaboration is not new in the world of flood management.
The Netherlands, for example, recommended the development of a European Union flood
protection program with a goal of promoting collaboration among neighboring countries
to examine the risk and appropriate measures against flood surges. Within the Netherlands
itself, a collaborative approach to risk identification and management is being adopted
(MTPWWM, 2008). In the examples above, collaboration is a means of managing com-
plex systems with numerous interdependences that could not adequately be understood by
a single entity or person. Collaboration is a means of making a complex network stronger,
more efficient, and more resilient.
In many respects, resilience is a somewhat intangible goal with few direct metrics avail-
able for measuring success (short of observed responses to actual dam or levee failure). Thus,
dam and levee owners and engineers may find it difficult to embrace the benefits of the
many seemingly intangible steps needed to increase resilience. The intermediate steps—for
example, building trusted collaborative networks—are vital and beneficial milestones toward
identifying mutual needs and taking required actions to meet them. Box 4.2 illustrates some
benefits derived from resilience-building efforts for dam and levee owners. Many of them
are associated with corresponding benefits to the broader community (some listed in the
table). They are all examples that will facilitate risk awareness, risk reduction, and increased
resilience for communities.
Many other benefits may exist, and still others may be community specific. Roles for
the federal government may be to help identify and communicate the general benefits of
resilience-focused collaboration, and to help identify and communicate benefits specific to
individual communities. Ultimately, the federal government could channel relevant infor-
mation, examples, and data from the state and local levels that represent best practices and
results and could serve as examples and incentives.
Engagement and Selection of Processes
Effectively engaging a community on issues related to community resilience involves
more than making presentations to city councils, town boards, or similar community bod-
ies. Those interactions are encouraged, can be made more robust, and be initiated more
frequently to seek other forms of collaboration. Dam and levee professionals may already
interact with numerous public officials, both elected and appointed (e.g., emergency man-
agement directors), but could seek out other community representatives to expand discus-
sions. Some interactions—at least those in which federal water management professionals
participate—may already employ decision-making processes such as those established in
the well-known principles and guidance (P&G), Economic and Environmental Principles
and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (U.S. Water
Resources Council, 1983). As such, these professionals should already be familiar with the
82
OCR for page 83
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
BOX 4.2
Examples of Intangible Benefits of Resilience-Focused Collaboration Between Dam
and Levee Safety Professionals and the Broader Community
• onsensus identification and articulation of mutual and community needs and resources to create
C
and increase safety and resilience
• nderstanding of critical factors related to community well-being (social capital) that need to be
U
protected; greater use of local knowledge in collaborative approaches
• evelopment of community networks useful for increasing resilience and furthering other corporate
D
strategies
• ncreased trust among collaborators that facilitates communication and the building of social capital
I
• nderstanding and embracing responsibilities of good community citizenship; being recognized
U
by the community as good citizens
• etter understanding of community stakeholders; increased awareness of benefits and risks associ-
B
ated with dam and levee infrastructures and consequences of failure for different stakeholders
• ontinual awareness of community infringement on and plans for increased development in flood-
C
plains; awareness of change in floodplain status
• ncreased mitigation of risk and preparedness for potential failure; effective risk-reduction and
I
resilience-building plans and capabilities represented in Emergency Action Plans
• mprovements in standards, regulations, enforcement, and investment
I
• etter understanding of community priorities that may inform decisions influencing infrastructure
B
integrity and liability
A culture of collaborative engagement that achieves mutually beneficial dam and levee
safety and community resilience
importance of specifying problems and opportunities, inventorying and forecasting condi-
tions, formulating alternative plans, evaluating the effects of alternative plans, comparing
plans, and selecting final action plans. This type of outline is scalable to all manner of
decisions.
Although the ultimate goal of engagement may be to establish a formal resilience-
focused collaborative process in which representatives of the local community and stake -
holders more broadly are engaged, it is advisable to consider first how existing relationships
could be improved, and then to expand community involvement incrementally. Tools will
need to be identified, perhaps with the help of the federal government, to identify stake-
holders, choose appropriate organizational vehicles for community engagement, and assist
collaborative identification of desired community outcomes and the processes needed to
achieve them (see Chapter 5 for more discussion).
83
OCR for page 84
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Resilience-focused collaborative engagement in its early phases could focus on, for
example,
• identification of community members, stakeholders, and motivation for engagement;
• open sharing and accessibility of critical hazard and risk information (e.g., inunda-
tion maps, EAPs, and risk estimates);
• identifying community attributes critical for resilience;
• identifying and instituting community risk mitigation and reduction measures;
• communicating the value of risk reduction and resilience;
• identifying common and conflicting community priorities; and
• examining alternatives for reducing risk and increasing resilience with regard to
community values and priorities.
As collaboration matures, focus of activity can also mature. Collaboration can address the
conflicting local community and regional stakeholder interests that often arise, and address
other issues such as adaptation, social learning, and adaptive management3 processes over
the long term.
Federal and state dam safety regulatory agencies and the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency are leaders in improving dam safety and in heightening national awareness
of dam safety issues with owners, legislatures, Congress, and the public. Their focus has
been on mitigating dam failure through dam inspection programs and required remedia-
tion. Regulators require EAPs and often oversee tabletop and field exercises. Where efforts
to enhance community resilience are under way, dam safety regulators will have expanded
responsibilities and unique roles in newly established collaborative networks. Regulatory
officials are in a position to facilitate trusted relationships and collaborative efforts involving
dam owners and communities, particularly in the early stages of collaboration as processes
evolve. The dam safety regulator may
• facilitate discussions between the broader community and a dam owner;
• broker information—assist communities in identifying, obtaining, and interpret-
ing information that supports, for example, emergency planning and preparedness,
identification of risk-reduction alternatives, and adaptive measures against future
hazardous events; and
• serve as a technical resource in community efforts by interpreting aspects of, for
example, dam operations, dam-break scenarios, risk information, and risk reduction
alternatives.
Adaptive management refers to “a formal, systematic, and rigorous program of learning from the outcomes of manage -
3
ment actions, accommodating change, and thereby improving management” (Holling, 1978; NRC, 2003).
84
OCR for page 85
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
In these and other ways, dam safety regulators can play a vital role in the formative stages
of establishing networks and processes that support community resilience-building efforts.
Their unique relationships with dam owners provide opportunities to engage them to be-
come positive, collaborative partners with the broader community.
Efforts at engagement and the selection of appropriate risk reduction efforts will be
assisted through the development and dissemination by the federal government of tools,
information, and examples of successful collaborative processes needed to establish collab-
orative relationships. As stated earlier, the federal government can direct such information
and guidance for use by the dam and levee community.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: EXPANDING THE MEANING AND ROLE
OF DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY
The importance of community resilience is being recognized at the national level, but
the path to making communities resilient has not been defined. Nonetheless, concepts
are being developed and information on enhancing and assessing community resilience is
increasing. Some basic principles are highlighted in Chapter 2. In light of these principles,
the committee develops here a vision of how resilience with respect to dam and levee safety
might be achieved, and the role of dam and levee professionals in realizing that vision.
The committee envisions a future in which the dam and levee safety community and
the greater public recognize their individual and shared needs for effective infrastructure
management and for developing a community capacity to mitigate, prepare for, recover
from, and adapt in response to adverse local, regional, national, and global consequences of
dam and levee failures. That future involves support by all of the community for collabora-
tive processes that increase community capacity to protect itself from (often unexpected or
highly uncertain) adverse events. As the nation increases its understanding and appreciation
of what it takes to enhance community resilience, a paradigm shift is required specifically in
the dam and levee safety community, and more generally in other elements of the broader
community.
A recent NRC report concluded that private–public collaboration is an ideal and funda-
mental component of enhancing community disaster resilience (NRC, 2011a). The present
committee draws heavily on the findings and conclusions in that report, which are based
on an all-hazards approach to community resilience that presumably includes hazards as-
sociated with dams and levees. Those conclusions provide a starting point for a dam- and
levee-specific framework. As recognized in the report, community resilience-enhancing
efforts are community specific, community initiated, and community guided. This certainly
applies to addressing the unique community risks associated with dams and levees (with
recognition of the differences between dams and levees), such as the following:
85
OCR for page 86
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
• Many dams provide lifeline societal services (e.g., water supply, irrigation, and
power), which are often essential for recovery after a disaster.
• Failure of dams may not only eliminate lifeline services but have potentially cata-
strophic consequences for a community or region.
• Flooding due to a levee failure can linger for an extended time (as was the case for
the U.S. Midwest during 2011) and compromise community recovery efforts.
A conceptual framework for incorporating concepts of collaborative community resil-
ience into dam and levee safety programs is presented later in this chapter. The framework
recognizes that in any given community there are numerous means of enhancing resilience
that will benefit both dam and levee owners and the broader community. The benefits
include the reduced impact of a failure if it occurs, effective and efficient community re-
covery and adaptation, and protection of the dam or levee owner’s “brand,” “bottom line,”
and liability. It is also expected that technical decisions made by dam and levee safety pro-
fessionals will be influenced by community priorities, potentially resulting in the reduced
likelihood of failure. The earlier NRC report’s framework for private–public collaboration to
enhance community resilience, illustrated in Figure 4.1 (NRC, 2011a), is a generic frame-
work intended to be modified for particular community circumstances. The framework for
incorporating concepts of community resilience in dam and levee safety programs requires
a perspective more compatible with the responsibilities of the dam and levee safety com-
munity and its management of risk. The intermediate and end outcomes, although similar
to those shown in Figure 4.1, will be more targeted.
Major Elements of a Framework for Resilience-Focused Collaboration
Figure 4.1 depicts collaborative engagement as necessarily influenced by community
factors, and necessarily responsive to changes in the community over time. Participants
in collaboration develop a collaborative management structure, decide and carry out its
various activities that lead to community synergy and increased community resilience. A
framework for the dam and levee safety community must also be responsive to the fact that
communities evolve in response to a host of factors outside the realm of dam and levee
safety. Political leadership will change; legislation with respect to dam and levee manage-
ment may be revised; economic vitality or major sources of community income may change;
populations may move in or out, causing shifts in cultural attitudes and expectations; and
environmental issues may evolve, depending on land use, quality and quantity of drinking
water, or environmental preservation. For these and many more reasons, modes of collabo-
ration and processes to enhance resilience must be evaluated regularly to remain relevant
and to maximize efficiency.
86
OCR for page 87
Evolution of Resilience-Focused Collaboration
Community and Partnership Assessment/Evaluation
Organize Maintain Institutionalize
Build Capacity and Social Capital
Synergy and
Operations and other
Processes Intermediate
Outcomes
•Collaborative
management structure •Trusted relationships;
greater communication Community
•Horizontal networking
with vertical links to fill
Participants Change
•Identification of
gaps in resources or
representing the full community needs and Outcomes
capacity
fabric of the resources
•Benefits to broader
community (private
•Neutral facilitating •Increased ability to community functions
and public sector,
body oversees leverage resources
FBOs, NGOs, etc.) •Increased community
processes
•Improved emergency disaster resilience
Community Factors
Community Factors
•Focused on management planning;
community all-hazards approach;
(e.g., political, economic, cultural, and
(e.g., political, economic, cultural, and
physical environments; public policies)
physical environments; public policies)
consideration of full
•Based on existing
disaster cycle
networks when
possible •Improved risk
assessment
Implementation Principles and Strategies
•Identify and create incentives
•Assume disaster resilience is part of broader
•Strategically direct interventions at multiple community resilience
levels
•Institutionalize collaboration for sustainability
•Target capacity building, changes in
community policy, practice, and environment
87
FIGURE 4.1 Conceptual model for private–public collaboration for building community resilience. SOURCE: NRC, 2011a.
OCR for page 88
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
The next sections describe how the different components of Figure 4.1 are applied and
modified for a framework for the dam and levee community.
Operations-Focused Engagement
Chapter 2 describes different community members and stakeholders to be engaged
in resilience-focused efforts (Table 2.1): dam and levee owners, persons and properties at
risk, the wider economy, and the broader social–ecological system. Response to a threat
will be inadequate if collaboration does not include all elements of the community (NRC,
2010b). Just as community resilience depends on full representation, collaboration will be
most successful if collaborators include those who have experience in the issues of concern
but also diverse perspectives, experience, knowledge, and constituencies (Butterfoss, 2007).
In developing a collaborative engagement approach, it is important to recognize and take
advantage of existing formal and informal networks in a community, whether they are
interpersonal at the neighborhood level or professional or social in and between private
and public organizations. Potential participants in resilience-focused engagement can be
chosen from among people who are well connected in those networks. Engagement for
enhancing resilience with respect to dam and levee safety necessarily involves representa-
tion of stakeholders outside the immediate geographic area (e.g., those affected by indirect
consequences of dam or levee failure) and state and federal regulatory entities that can have
important supporting roles in resilience-enhancing processes.
Incentives to collaborate will differ among community members and stakeholders.
Correctly identifying the elements of the dam or levee safety community as generalized in
Table 2.1, assessing their various interests, identifying motivators for collaboration, effec -
tively engaging them through efforts at various scales (e.g., one-on-one communication of
resources or community-wide tabletop exercises), and effectively disseminating information
to enhance risk awareness are dependent on an appropriate level of community member
and stakeholder analysis and management of expectations.
Operations and Processes, Including Information Distribution
Participants in a prior NRC workshop on enhancing disaster resilience through private–
public collaboration stressed the importance of some sort of collaborative management or
facilitating structure that represents the community as a whole rather than a particular
stakeholder interest or political leaning (NRC, 2010b). It is vital that the collaborative body
be considered a neutral “honest broker” to gain the trust of the community. The activities of
such a body will necessarily depend on the characteristics of the community that it will serve
(NRC, 2011a), but an important role will be to remove the barriers that, for example, prevent
the dam and levee safety community, emergency managers, and the private and public sectors
88
OCR for page 89
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
more generally from operating independently of one another. As shown in Figure 4.1, opera-
tions and processes, including those established for information distribution, will be based on
horizontal networking (within the community) and on vertical links to higher levels (state
and federal) as necessary for resources that are not available in the community. The focus of
activities will be based on collaboratively identified common goals and missions.
Strategies and processes are more likely to be effective if they are “based on resources
and capacities available to the community” and efficient if they are “designed so that they
are scalable and transferable to other collaborative and community efforts, regardless of
the initial specific purpose” (NRC, 2011a, p. 52). For that to occur, the planning of strate-
gies needs to be well informed with respect to what is achievable in a community. There is
no reason to invent a new wheel for each new effort; efficiency is created when processes
designed to work under particular circumstances can be modified as necessary to work un-
der other circumstances. It should be understood that different community members and
stakeholders will respond to efforts differently, and that different modes of engagement may
be necessary for effective communication with different elements of society.
Engagement will likely be more successful if developed in a bottom-up manner at the
community level; the mere initiation from the bottom is a foundation for building trust and
acceptance of processes being established. To be clear: dam and levee safety professionals are
not necessarily responsible for creating a new collaborative network in a community, but it
is incumbent on them to seek ways to engage existing resilience-focused collaboration or
to instigate the relationships that will be the impetus for such collaboration.
Outcomes of Collaboration
Two types of outcomes are shown in the conceptual model for collaboration in Figure
4.1: intermediate outcomes and community-change outcomes. It is easier to describe the
difference between the two by describing the latter first. Community-change outcomes are
changes in the community that increase the community’s ability to prepare for, respond to,
recover from, and adapt as a result of dam or levee failure. They include “changes in com-
munity policies, practice, and environment that result from enhanced community capacity
and participation” (NRC, 2011a; p. 53). Intermediate outcomes are the benefits gained from
the collaborative process itself. They are the enhanced relationships between and among
organizations and individuals that result from
increased communication and trust, identification of community needs and re-
sources, increased ability to leverage community resources for the good of the
community, improved ability to assess community risks, and improved emergency
and community management and planning (NRC, 2011a, p. 53).
89
OCR for page 90
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Intermediate outcomes of collaboration can also include “an increased ability to resolve
conflict within the community . . . and a shared sense of local community ownership and
responsibility among community members” (NRC, 2011a, p. 53).
A Dam and Levee Safety-Specific Framework
Planning and constructing new and major infrastructure systems are more public today
than in the past—public hearings are held, for example, to discuss design, permit approvals,
community and environmental impacts, and financing. These public processes can have a
major role in deciding the fate (e.g., to build or not to build) of major projects. However,
maintaining and enhancing safety throughout the life cycle of civil infrastructure systems
are, as the terms suggest, ongoing processes. Current safety practice typically does not ex-
tend to such issues as what constitutes acceptable risk in a community and how to maintain
commitment to consideration of issues over the lifetime of a structure. Interaction needs to
extend to post-construction and operational periods to support community resilience. Fur-
thermore, public hearings and other activities tend to be conducted through “us and them”
processes—infrastructure planners and designers provide information from one side of the
dais, and members of the broader community react on the other side. Decisions are usually
made elsewhere. Such interactions are not the equivalent of collaboration. Mechanisms
for collaboration that expand beyond established safety practice are needed. Building and
enhancing community resilience need to be continuous processes that are institutionalized
as part of a community’s normal functioning. Processes that allow engagement with repre-
sentatives of all community members and stakeholders are needed.
Figure 4.2 is a conceptual framework for building community resilience with respect to
dam and levee safety. It has many of the same components as the more general framework
for resilience-focused collaboration shown in Figure 4.1 but is intended to communicate
those components in a way specifically applicable to dam and levee safety programs. Central
to the framework are collaborative processes for resource and floodplain management—
the very reason for dam and levee infrastructure—that focus on aspects of dam and levee
safety and community resilience. They include operational and risk communication, risk
assessment, and preparedness and mitigation. An overarching element of the framework in
Figure 4.2 is the availability to the community of dam and levee information that allows the
community to stay informed about dam and levee infrastructure benefits and risks, opera-
tions, and procedures in place to respond to, recover from, and adapt in response to failure.
Dam and levee owners and operators provide services to a community and, in the case
of dams, may also be lifeline resource providers. Both forms of infrastructure pose
h azards. Collaboration serves as a forum for community members, stakeholders and dam
and levee owners alike to address community resilience issues. The next sections provide a
breakdown of each of the components in Figure 4.2.
90
OCR for page 91
Community Members
d distribution Dam and Leve
Dam and Levee Professionals
ility an e info
ailab rma
Persons and Property Owners at Risk
av tion
tion Economic Agents ava
ma ilab
Social-Ecological System
for ilit
in y
e
ve
an
d
Le
dis
and
Community participation, feedback, and evaluation
trib
utio
Dam
n
Collaborative Processes
Resource and Floodplain
Management
Operational and Risk Preparedness and Risk Assessment
Communication Mitigation
Community Community
• Community dam and • Dam and levee hazard • Stakeholder
participation, participation,
levee safety education mitigation assessment
feedback, feedback,
and awareness • Funding infrastructure repair and • Life cycle hazard and
and and
• Information dissemination maintenance risk assessment
Community Factors
communication networks)
evaluation evaluation
(e.g., maps) • Financial response and recovery
planning and preparedness
(e.g., political, economic, cultural and
Resilience-Related Outcomes
physical environments; public policies)
social capital, informed decisions, trusted
• Risk-informed land-use planning
(e.g., available risk information, increased
• Emergency response and
recovery planning and
preparedness
tion
Dam
u
trib
and
L
dis
ev
nd
ee
Community participation, feedback, and evaluation
ya
i nf
ilit
orm
ilab
atio
ava
n
na
a ti o
vail
or m
abili
in f
Community Resilience
ty an
D a m a n d L e ve e
d distrib
ution
91
FIGURE 4.2 Conceptual framework for resilience-focused collaboration related to dam and levee safety.
Figure 4-2 and S-1
OCR for page 92
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
Community Members
Members of a community are defined in Chapter 2 and include dam and levee profes-
sionals, persons and property owners at direct risk, members of the wider economy, and the
social–ecological system. In the context of this report, stakeholders—those may experience
the indirect impacts of dam or levee failure, are included in the community.
Community Factors
There are numerous factors external to any collaborative effort that influence decision
making and community resilience, including the political, economic, cultural, and physical
environments. Policies that limit the ability to obtain inundation maps, for example, are
external factors that affect communication, and therefore decision making. Some increases
in exposure to flood hazards and increased occurrence of damage are rooted in government
policies that support development in hazardous areas and in the desire of communities to
increase population and the local tax base (Burby, 2006). Some policies that may contrib-
ute to increased exposure to flood hazards are established at the federal level (such as the
National Flood Insurance Program)4 and are exacerbated by lack of attention on the part
of local governments to local risks and natural hazards (Burby, 2006). Building codes may
not be enforced, and community leaders may not consider how flood-prone areas should
be managed in comprehensive community planning. However, effective collaboration may
ultimately influence some community factors as understanding and attitudes with respect
to safety and resilience change community-wide. Dam and levee owners individually may
not be able to influence national or even local policy directly. They can inform and influence
decision making through collaborative social action.
Collaborative Processes for Resource and Floodplain Management
Dams and levees are designed to assist the use, development, production, protection,
or management of resources, whether related to water, energy, land, or other types of re-
sources. Collaborative processes can assist the management of resources by dam and levee
professionals, community members, and stakeholders more broadly. The committee divides
the many types of processes into three main categories: operational and risk communica-
tion, risk assessment, and preparedness and mitigation. Many specific issues will fall under
multiple categories, and the list provided is not all-inclusive.
See www.fema.gov/business/nfip/ (accessed January 29, 2012).
4
92
OCR for page 93
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
Operational and Risk Communication
Fundamental to dam, levee, and community resilience are the availability of information
and an understanding of individual and shared interests and needs. Processes that inform
all community members and stakeholders of the benefits, risks, and operational features
associated with dam and levee infrastructure are needed. These processes may involve public
education and outreach (e.g., efforts similar to the California FloodSAFE program; see
Box 3.7), education in operational risks associated with dams and levees (e.g., controlled
flow of water that can lead to flooding and levee vulnerability during flood conditions), and
developing a forum to raise and discuss issues associated with evolving community needs
and expectations, dam and levee owner interests and issues (e.g., reservoir and recreation
issues, coming dam safety modifications, and dam removal), and the community actions
needed to answer or resolve the aforementioned. Making communities aware of who is at
risk of inundation and other consequences of dam and levee failure informs risk reduction
decisions and activities.
Risk Assessment
Through collaborative engagement, dam and levee owners and the broader commu-
nity can assess hazards and risks associated with dam and levee infrastructure over the life
cycles of dam and levee infrastructure and developed land. Infrastructure owners and the
community can explore creative solutions for land-use problems to reduce the risk and
consequences of flooding and to provide environmental and quality-of-life benefits for
all. However, understanding who is at risk, and what kinds of preparedness, mitigation,
and training efforts are best suited for different groups requires community member and
stakeholder analyses. Such analyses also serve to inform collaborative efforts regarding the
various types of economic, infrastructural, and human capacity resources available to address
risk and resilience. Emerging owner, regulator, and broader community risks and issues,
including the significant impacts of climate variability on dam and levee infrastructure, are
also risks that will need to be considered.
P reparedness and Mitigation
Collaboration related to preparedness and mitigation can include activities such as dam
and levee hazard mitigation, funding for infrastructure repair and maintenance, broader
financial preparedness for response and recovery (e.g., ensuring that community members
understand and are prepared for the financial fallout of dam or levee failure), and emer-
gency response and recovery planning and preparedness. Community preparedness for the
consequences of flooding, whether caused by operational circumstances, overtopping, or
93
OCR for page 94
DAM AND LEVEE SAFETY AND COMMMUNITY RESILIENCE
breach, includes, for example interacting with emergency management and other com -
munity leaders and planning and participating in tabletop and field exercises. Dam and
levee failures are generally lower probability but higher consequence events (although the
probability of levee failure is higher than typically associated with dam failure), and dam
and levee safety professionals are uniquely informed in the community regarding the risks
associated with dam and levee infrastructure, the sequence of events that occur before fail-
ure, and of flooding as a result of failure. It is their responsibility to take part in planning
associated with transportation (e.g., as it is related to the provision of emergency services if
roads or bridges are damaged or inaccessible), power generation and supply, water supply,
public health issues, and so on. Establishing networks of trusted relationships and having
processes in place before a failure occurs will make it more likely that response in the wake
of a failure will be efficient and successful.
Risk-informed land-use planning can also be an aspect of hazard mitigation and certainly
informs resource and floodplain management. Collaboration between dam and levee profes-
sionals and the broader community will allow more successful communication of information
vital for land-use planning, and will provide an opportunity to influence policies and practices
that can reduce exposure to flood disasters resulting from dam and levee failures.
F lood-risk management requires a long-term commitment of financial resources, par-
ticularly by dam and levee owners and operators, and potentially by any member of the
community who is exposed to any type of flooding hazard. Dam and levee safety profession-
als understand the need for funding that is sufficient to cover maintenance, rehabilitation,
upgrades, and eventual retirement of water management infrastructure. Depending on
ownership and other factors, funds can come from fees, loans, taxes, grants, or intergov-
ernmental transfers. The adequacy of the funding streams is particularly relevant to safety
when maintenance and upgrades are deferred for lack of funds. One role for the dam and
levee safety professional is to justify adequate funding, whatever its source.
To enhance community resilience, however, financial planning must go beyond con-
sideration of infrastructure maintenance. As described in Chapter 2, the wider economy
experiences flood impacts as a consequence of participation in the economy of an area, either
as economic producers or as consumers. Because of these connections, the true “footprint”
of dam and levee failure can extend far beyond the inundation zone and can sometimes be
global. Resilience on the part of those economic agents includes the ability to handle the
financial impacts of an economic dislocation. Community members and broader stakehold-
ers may have different vulnerabilities, but in all cases it is necessary to be prepared for the
financial consequences of a flood. Preparation may include the purchase of flood insurance,
preemptive investments in flood-proofing, and relocation of vulnerable facilities. All such
measures have costs, and so identifying funding sources is essential.
Through collaborative engagement, community members must be made fully aware of the
physical risks and consequences of dam and levee failure. The complex webs of interactions
94
OCR for page 95
Vision and Conceptual Framework for Resilience-Focused Engagement
among all agents need to be transparent so that all understand the potential for cascading
consequences in case one part of the economic web suffers as a result of flooding. Dam and
levee safety professionals, as participants in resilience-focused collaboration, can help all to
understand what the direct physical consequences of failure could be in different scenarios and
in turn can come to understand what the economic consequences might be for the broader
community in addition to the dam and levee infrastructure. Dam and levee professionals who
have that understanding may be able to make informed operational choices that reduce risk
for the community while minimizing operational costs. Collaborative decision making can
reduce community economic risk, reduce owner liability, and possibly reduce insurance costs.
Emergency response and recovery planning is a large component of community pre-
paredness and resilience. Collaborative engagement that includes processes and mechanisms
to prioritize preparation and mitigation activities should be informed by the participation of
dam and levee professionals. Emergency management—and resilience building more gener-
ally—is necessarily a multidisciplinary, cross-jurisdictional, cross-sector endeavor. Without
regular and trusted communications between those involved in emergency management,
dam and levee safety experts, and other community members and stakeholders, emergency
response and recovery will be less effective and efficient, and may lead to increased post-
disaster hazards and a slower recovery.
Resilience-Related Outcomes and Resilience
Figure 4.2 refers to the benefits of resilience-focused engagement as “resilience-related
outcomes.” These can include increased access to risk information and social capital (e.g.,
more networking and increased trust among collaborators that can lead to more efficient
communication and decision making). These intermediate outcomes are not equivalent to
resilience, but are key factors in successful collaboration (thus, the two-way arrow between
“resilience-related outcomes” and “collaborative processes”).
In one sense, resilience can be thought of as the ultimate goal of resilience-focused en-
gagement; however, a community is never “done” building resilience. Community members
and stakeholders always change, community factors evolve, and infrastructure ages. Even
meteorological conditions are variable and what might have offered satisfactory protection
in the past may not be sufficient in the future. For this reason, levels of resilience can only be
sustained and enhanced if collaborative engagement and action are responsive to changing
hazards, risks, community capacities, and resources. Regular assessment and evaluation of
community members and factors, desired outcomes, and collaborative processes is necessary
to keep activities relevant. Institutionalizing resilience-focused collaborative engagement
as part of dam and levee professional culture is the only means of ensuring that resilience-
related efforts become part of the institutional memory, even when individual actors in
collaboration retire or otherwise move on.
95
OCR for page 96
