Objective 2.1:

Collaborate regionally to identify upstream investments in the infrastructure and natural environment that will mitigate downstream flooding.

The Need

In watershed regions across the country, and within Region Seven, local governments are increasingly recognizing a need to collaborate at regional scales to alleviate challenges associated with flooding. Water does not respect jurisdictional boundaries; it will flow to lower-lying areas using the path of least resistance.^{See footnote 1} This reality can create challenges for downstream communities that cannot be easily — or even entirely — resolved by these communities on their own. Collaboration and coordination with upstream communities across regional and watershed scales are important for the resilience and safety of people as well as infrastructure and ecosystems in flood-prone regions. Ultimately, a watershed-based approach can help yield greater flood mitigation outcomes.^{See footnote 2}

^{Credit: Rachelle Sanderson, Region Seven Watershed Coordinator, Capital Region Planning Commission.}

In Louisiana, this need for regional approaches to flood mitigation was especially apparent following the historic 2016 floods, leading to the creation of the Louisiana Watershed Initiative (LWI) and a goal of regional, watershed-based flood risk management.^{See footnote 3} The state has recognized the need to work “within the interdependencies of [its] communities, infrastructure, political jurisdictions, and natural environment to increase Louisiana’s resilience and its ability to adapt and thrive.”^{See footnote 4} LWI is designed to facilitate intra- and inter-watershed collaboration to improve governance and decisionmaking around investments that will improve flood mitigation.

This is no easy task, however. Funding is limited, and local governments are accustomed to thinking about physical infrastructure investments in terms of what they can do within their own jurisdictional bounds to achieve better outcomes for their communities. Regional watershed-scale planning and decisionmaking requires consideration of larger-scale complex relationships in the built and natural environments, and in certain instances, advocating for investments that are outside a given parish or municipal government’s own authority in the interest of greater regional resilience. This objective aims to “greaux” regional resilience by calling for Region Seven parishes and local governments to work together in identifying built or natural infrastructure investments that maximize flood mitigation outcomes for the region — focusing especially on needs of downstream communities.

How to Make Progress on This Objective

Regional coordination and governance are challenging. However, as noted in the Introduction to this Regional Vision, Region Seven parishes and municipalities already have a mechanism in place in the LWI through which to coordinate on setting priorities for investments that will mitigate downstream flooding. Although the regional steering committees established in each of the LWI regions are not legislatively authorized entities as of early 2022, for purposes of region-wide watershed management and decisionmaking, they have served as a starting point for parishes and other authorities within each LWI region to build relationships and a common practice of collaboration and coordination, which is critical to the success of any regional governance effort — regardless of the level of formal decisionmaking authority.

A regional governance analysis completed by the LWI for Region Seven indicated that there are multiple authorities across the region involved in water management roles, none of which have the authority to operate throughout the entire watershed region.^{See footnote 5} Within each individual parish, parish and municipal governments hold the majority of authorities relevant to mitigating flooding impacts, including adopting and enforcing of land-use and zoning ordinances, developing watershed management plans and floodplain management standards, generating revenue through taxation and bonding, and implementing projects.^{See footnote 6}

The Regional Capacity Building Grant Program (RCBG) was developed as one component of the LWI to help the eight regions initially build capacity for coordination, develop regional steering committees, and make recommendations for work plans and long-term watershed coalitions.^{See footnote 7} Each region submitted final recommendations for a long-term watershed coalition in August 2021. Phase 2 of the RCBG Program is intended to support continued flood risk reduction efforts and to implement recommendations for the long-term watershed coalitions.^{See footnote 8}

In the absence of a legislatively authorized regional governing entity for watershed management for Region Seven, or in the interim until such an entity is created, Region Seven parishes and municipalities should continue to work together in assessing flood risks and mitigation needs that would best serve the region. However, there are additional options for Region Seven local governments in the absence of a state-established regional governance structure for watershed-based planning.

Local governments in Louisiana have options for formalizing agreements to jointly develop projects, including for flood control and drainage, or to engage in other joint exercises of local powers,^{See footnote 9} and regional planning commissions are authorized to form associations for the purposes of broader regional planning efforts.^{See footnote 10} Parishes are also authorized to form drainage districts that span more than one parish,^{See footnote 11} which could be a useful tool for addressing cross-boundary drainage and flooding challenges at smaller watershed scales. Regional governance (i.e., decisionmaking) can take a variety of forms, though, and does not necessarily have to be formalized to be effective. Many regional collaboratives across the United States are demonstrating the values of coordinating regionally — yet informally (i.e., without formal regional authority) — to build resilience.^{See footnote 12}

Regardless of formality, regional coordination can be an effective capacity-building tool and a way to pool and leverage limited resources, share knowledge and expertise, and undertake studies that can inform regional to local decisionmaking. In the context of planning for investments that will improve resilience at regional scales, regional collaboration could take the form of: 

• Jointly sponsoring or undertaking regional studies to help identify priority locations for investments (e.g., the four-county Southeast Florida region developed a Unified Sea-Level Rise Projection for use by decisionmakers in the individual counties), 
• Coordinating in the development of watershed master plans (which can earn communities credit under the Community Rating System), 
• Partnering to seek and apply for funding from additional federal or other sources, and 
• Sharing best policy practices and facilitating other peer learning opportunities.^{See footnote 13}
  

Any of these activities, undertaken in partnership, could help Region Seven parishes build flood resilience within communities and at the broader regional scale.

For more information on regional coordination and governance more broadly, see Objective 5.4.

Crosscutting Practice Considerations and Tips

When identifying and promoting ways to promulgate or expand regional collaboration, decisionmakers may consider the following crosscutting considerations and practice tips that apply to each of the above types of tools and actions:

• Build in time and budget for engaging communities and elected officials 
• Building and maintain trust and relationships
• Identify data and modeling and other needs that can be met through regional collaboration
• Build public-private-nonprofit-community partnerships

These tips are based on priority implementation best practices and considerations most relevant to this specific objective and do not present an exhaustive list for regional and local planners and policymakers. In addition to this objective, decisionmakers should, at a minimum, also refer to Goal Five for crosscutting considerations and practice tips including those related to regional coordination and new capacity-building partnerships.

It is important to acknowledge that every jurisdiction will be starting from a different place and have a unique local context and needs, among other factors. Therefore, these considerations and practice tips could be adopted individually, collectively, or not at all. It will be up to policymakers to work directly with their communities and other key stakeholders and partners to assess and determine potential tools and approaches to implement this goal and objective. 

• Build in time and budget for engaging communities and elected officials: Collaborating regionally is challenging for many reasons, but support from both community and elected official levels can go a long way. Robust outreach efforts to inform and engage communities, especially those most impacted by these challenges, such as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), low-income, and resource-constrained communities, around priorities for flood resilience and how a region-wide approach could help can generate bottom-up momentum for regional-scale initiatives. Additionally, elected officials should be informed at key points to ensure that there is legislative and executive buy-in before any necessary action items arise, especially regarding votes or decisions related to budget and funding, or project prioritization.
  
• Build and maintain trust and relationships: Trust and transparency are critical for the success of regional initiatives that involve multiple local governments. Collaboration provides unique opportunities for parish and municipal staff to engage with peers and counterparts from other jurisdictions, and work towards common goals, which can include regional-, state-, and even federal-level projects. Building these relationships and trust over time helps to generate a collective will to pursue joint projects or funding opportunities, rather than compete for them.^{See footnote 14} Thus, over time, collaboration may help mitigate some of the sensitivities and political challenges associated with advocating for investments within another jurisdiction in pursuit of the greater regional benefit. Trust and relationship-building among staff involved in regional collaboration can also create continuity, which can help maintain momentum even as leadership and elected officials transition over time.^{See footnote 15}
• Identify data and modeling and other needs that can be met through regional collaboration: Collaboration can be an extremely effective way of maximizing outcomes with less individual input — a case where the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts. Scientific and technical studies and assessments can be very costly to undertake for an individual jurisdiction, however, the cost to expand such a study or assessment to a larger geographic scale is often not significantly more. In many instances, it is more cost-effective for neighboring jurisdictions to pool resources (or partner to secure joint funding) to pay for these efforts, compared to singular jurisdictions undertaking their own individual studies or assessments. For example, the four-county Southeast Florida region has developed unified sea-level rise projections and climate indicators for the region and completed a regional greenhouse gas inventory, among other regional-scale projects.^{See footnote 16} Similarly, jurisdictions working together can better leverage the differing expertise from among the pool of participating staff to advance the goals of regional working groups and other collective efforts and programs. 
• Build public-private-nonprofit-community partnerships: While historically decisionmaking has been limited to governmental participants, recent studies show that diversity and inclusion in decisionmaking spaces and prioritizing procedural equity has led to better outcomes.^{See footnote 17} Looking outside parish and municipal governments to partners in nonprofit, academic, community, and other circles can help bring in expertise to fill gaps from the core group of participating government officials. These partners can also help to neutralize challenging conversations and facilitate ways to build consensus across a region.

The summaries below highlight resources and case studies available in Georgetown Climate Center’s Adaptation Clearinghouse that are relevant to this objective. They illustrate how many of the above benefits, practice tips, and planning, legal, and policy tools were or are being evaluated and used in practice in different jurisdictions. To learn more and navigate to the Adaptation Clearinghouse, click on the “View Resource” buttons.