Challenges and Opportunities in Virginia’s Flood Resilience Strategy
Ian T. Blair, Policy Program Director
As the Coastal Resilience Master Plan (CRMP) Phase II Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) nears its sunset at the end of 2024, now seems like the perfect time to reflect on the process of state flood planning in Virginia. Having previously worked as a regional flood planner in Texas, I’ve had the unique opportunity to experience and compare different approaches to state-level resilience planning. While Virginia's efforts in coastal resilience are commendable, I believe that it’s important not only to highlight the strengths of the current framework but also to identify areas where different strategies could lead to more effective outcomes.
Different Approaches Lead to Different Levels of Success
Flood planning varies widely between states, and each model brings its own strengths and challenges. In Texas, for example, flood planning follows a bottom-up approach, where regional groups research and identify local priorities, which are then synthesized at the state level to shape broader state policy. This ensures that local needs and perspectives are represented in state planning, particularly helping the state direct strategies to realize action where it is most needed. Other states, however, adopt a more top-down approach, where technical experts within state agencies set priorities and policies based on regulatory and scientific understanding. While deferring to experts can be helpful, it can also be far removed from local needs and does not result in action on the ground. Virginia’s approach is unique because it uses the TAC, a committee full of diverse voices, from nonprofits to research universities to PDCs, to inform and support the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) as it administers the Coastal Resilience Master Plan Phases I and II.
The TAC was created to bring together a wide range of expertise to help inform the direction and implementation of the CRMP. Over the past year, the four subcommittees, 1) Outreach and Coordination, 2) Research, Data, and Innovation, 3) Funding, and 4) Project Prioritization, have met quarterly to discuss and recommend priorities for coastal resilience planning that aim to reduce flood risk in coastal Virginia. In theory, this is a respectable process, but as we reflect on its execution, it’s worth considering whether it lived up to expectations. Did the TAC succeed in representing the diversity of voices it set out to include? And how effective was it in driving meaningful, actionable recommendations?
The Invite is Half the Battle
The TAC was designed to bring together experts from a wide range of fields, including state agencies, regional commissions, academic institutions, and tribal nations. These voices were meant to create a well-rounded, informed process. However, over the course of the year, participation began to decline, with fewer members attending meetings. This trend raises important questions about engagement—was it due to competing priorities, or was the structure of the TAC itself limiting participation?
It’s possible that the decline in participation can be linked to the somewhat opaque process. The TAC’s goals, as laid out in the Virginia Code, are ambitious and require a high level of coordination and clarity. Guided by the 2020 Framework Guiding Principles, the committee was tasked with ensuring that recommendations are regularly updated and informed by the best available scientific data. The TAC is also responsible for addressing statewide and regional needs, using science-based, long-term resilience strategies.
These are crucial objectives but also demand a straightforward process and consistent, well-structured discussions. While guiding principles are broad strategic guidelines that help an organization or committee operate and make decisions, there must eventually be a shift toward measurable metrics focused on reducing risk to assess whether the plan is effective. Once these metrics are established, a process is needed to prioritize projects and allocate funding to start implementing the plan.
Recommendations: What are they good for?
One of the most confusing aspects of the CRMP process was the development of recommendations. With only four scheduled meetings happening in 2024, there was already very little time. Each of these quarterly meetings took roughly three hours. In Q2, the subcommittees were asked to generate a list of recommendations, of which we generated 20-30+ for each subcommittee I participated in. In Q3, we were tasked with narrowing those 30+ recommendations down to 10, and by Q4, we were told to refine them further to just five. The rationale behind these arbitrary numbers was never fully explained, leaving many of us unclear about the logic driving these limiting recommendations. In my experience in Texas, flood planning groups created 350+ recommendations contextual to their regions. Additionally, some recommendations, such as tasking the project prioritization subcommittee to consider funding sources, were shifted between subcommittees without clear justification. This created confusion about their relevance to the subcommittees’ chartered objectives.
Measuring Success: The Need for Metrics
The Project Prioritization subcommittee, for example, was tasked with developing protocols to evaluate and prioritize projects, but this critical task was never fully addressed. Instead, much of the discussion centered on broad, high-level recommendations like the importance of “best available science” or identifying the locations with gaps in identified studies. While the type of science is vital for any information-gathering stage, it is a principle already outlined in the 2020 Coastal Resilience Master Planning Framework and didn’t add the concrete action steps the committee was supposed to develop. The lack of specificity in these recommendations left important objectives unfinished, such as “develop objective protocols for evaluating and prioritizing identified project needs for the Coastal Region.” One example of our shortcoming is our recommendation to “develop success metrics and set clear short-, mid-, and long-term goals.” While the intent is sound, we stopped short of specifying what those metrics should be or how they would be measured. As a result, the recommendation feels incomplete.
From my experience in Texas, measurable metrics are critical for project prioritization, which in turn determines how state funds should be allocated. Through the State Flood Planning process, Texas identified $54.5 billion worth of flood management evaluations, mitigation projects, and strategies across the entire state. Texas passed Proposition 8 to accelerate mitigation efforts, creating a $793 million Flood Infrastructure Fund. However, this amount falls far short of the $54.5 billion needed, underscoring the importance of carefully prioritizing projects. The challenge lies in deciding which projects will receive this funding.
In Texas, prioritizing projects was completed by assessing the proposed project’s existing flood risk severity and potential reduction in flood risk. While other states might ask for a project narrative where the locality explains why a project would benefit an area, Texas assessed and ranked projects using GIS analysis, with metrics such as the count of buildings, acres, or people protected by proposed interventions helping to rank the projects. Senate Bill 8, passed during the 86th Texas Legislature, defined flood risk severity and risk reduction of life and property as the top priorities. In response, the state agency created an Excel workbook with weighted categories to generate a ranked list of eligible projects submitted by every regional flood planning group. This means that a project reducing the 100-year flood risk for three blocks of multi-family housing would rank higher than one protecting only two single-family homes. Texas also prioritized projects based on cost-benefit analyses and placed greater emphasis on nature-based solutions. I listed the complete ranking criteria in the table at the end of this post.
If similar metrics had been established early on in Virginia’s process, it might have led to more structured and meaningful outcomes. In hindsight, being asked to develop such metrics from the beginning would have helped steer the discussions in a more focused direction.
Measuring What Matters: Holistic Indicators for Flood Planning
As a brainstorming exercise, I started to consider various creative metrics that Virginia could use to measure the success of the Coastal Resilience Master Plan (CRMP). My goal was to think broadly and explore metrics from multiple perspectives to capture the diverse impacts of flood resilience efforts. I believe this presents an opportunity for Virginia to build upon traditional approaches, such as counting population and buildings, by exploring a more comprehensive set of success indicators that capture the multifaceted nature of coastal resilience.
For instance, Virginia could adopt Virginia-centric proxy metrics, such as the number of communities with DCR-approved resiliency plans, to emphasize localized resilience strategies. Tracking the percentage increase in flood insurance uptake or participation in flood preparedness workshops could highlight public engagement and awareness. Metrics like the number of acres restored or protected floodplains and reductions in impervious surfaces in vulnerable coastal zones would demonstrate a commitment to nature-based solutions and sustainable development. Recognizing Virginia prides itself on fiscal responsibility, measuring the decrease in property damage costs might provide insights into the financial benefits of pre-disaster mitigation investments. By comparing the cost savings from avoided damage (through mitigation efforts) against the upfront investment in flood projects, Virginia could measure the return on investment (ROI) for its resilience strategies.
Considering the complete planning ecosystem of flood resilience, social equity and public health could also play a vital role in Virginia's metrics. For example, the percentage of at-risk, underrepresented communities benefiting from flood preparedness projects could ensure equitable distribution of resources. Improvements in public health outcomes in flood-prone areas would reflect the long-term benefits of mitigation efforts. Infrastructure-focused metrics, such as the percentage of critical infrastructure removed from or protected against the 100-year floodplain and reductions in service interruptions during flood events, would gauge the effectiveness of measures to safeguard essential services.
These potential metrics cover a wide range of impacts, from economic and environmental outcomes to public health and social equity. They reflect the diverse challenges posed by flooding and encourage a holistic approach to resilience planning. I’m not suggesting that this is the definitive approach Virginia should take to metric development. However, we would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with other stakeholders to explore and develop additional types of metrics. I believe this highlights the importance of broadening our perspective when considering how to measure success.
Resilience is most effectively measured by considering not only populations or buildings at risk but also the broader, interconnected impacts of flood planning on communities, ecosystems, infrastructure, and overall quality of life. By adopting a more diverse and holistic set of metrics, Virginia can enhance its ability to track progress and ensure that its coastal resilience efforts address the varied needs of all its residents.
TAC to FRAC: What is the Future?
As the TAC sunsets at the end of the year, the flood work for the Commonwealth will transition to representatives of state agencies in the Flood Resilience Advisory Committee (FRAC). However, rather than inspiring confidence, this transition raises new concerns about both participation and process. The FRAC's membership is notably more restricted than the TAC's—key stakeholders from the TAC, like nonprofits, tribal nations, and academic institutions, do not have formal representation and will instead be “engaged” by the FRAC in a yet-to-be-determined way. As DCR moves forward with the Virginia Flood Protection Master Plan (VFPMP), it remains unclear whether the unresolved challenges from the Coastal Resilience Master Plan will be addressed in this new phase of flood planning.
While the transition from the TAC to the FRAC raises important questions, reflecting on my time with the TAC has been both insightful and thought-provoking. The experience has offered me a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in coastal resilience planning, and I’ve gained valuable perspectives on how Virginia approaches flood risk management. Although there were clear challenges, particularly around process direction and clarity, I remain optimistic about the future of coastal resilience planning in Virginia. The state’s commitment to addressing flood risks is evident, but to move beyond planning and into tangible implementation, there needs to be strong support from state leadership.
An administration that empowers DCR to transition from the planning phase to implementation and decision-making will be critical in overcoming the challenges encountered during Phase II planning and driving the Coastal Resilience Master Plan toward meaningful action. While many Virginia communities and regions may resist a top-down approach, the path forward lies in fostering collaboration and building consensus around shared goals. By finding common ground and taking decisive steps forward, Virginia can pave the way for meaningful progress, unlocking opportunities for partnership and ultimately building a stronger, more resilient future for all.