EM 1110-2-1100 (Part V)
31 Jul 2003
V-3-6. Do-Nothing
a. Introduction.
One final alternative that must always be evaluated is the do-nothing or no-project case. The risk of flooding
and wave damage continues or increases if historic erosion is also present at the site. When this response is
appropriate, what happens to the area, and what government programs are available to help are briefly
discussed in the following paragraphs. Further details of the Federal government's response are found in
Part V-8.
b. Appropriate response.
Whenever all structural and nonstructural alternatives considered are too costly, then no economically viable
solution exists. If the life-cycle costs for protection or relocation exceed the value of the investment, then
do-nothing is the appropriate response. This standard for economic feasibility is adopted automatically in
Federal project studies of the Corps. If the benefit to cost ratio exceeds unity but social and environmental
constraints govern, then the no-action alternative plan can become the Federally recommended plan. When
the natural, coastal sediment transport processes (erosion and accretion) are the most important aspect
(character, attractiveness, aesthetics, etc.) of the system, then do-nothing may also be the appropriate
response. Many examples exist of highly dynamic barrier island systems that are best left alone. An example
is the National Park Service policy. The exception for Cape Hatteras was the historic importance of the
lighthouse as previously discussed. Individuals may also explicitly decide to take no action (flood proofing
or retreat). The homeowner is willing to take the risk when the potential rental income from the property is
high. If the house is eventually damaged or destroyed, it would still be covered by the NFIP, if a policy is
in effect for the residence. The problem is when this no-action policy is taken, no NFIP policy exists,
flooding damage takes place, and the Federal government declares the damaged region eligible for emergency
financial assistance.
c. After the flood.
What happens when the do nothing alternative is selected by economics policy decisions? It is clear that the
flood and wave damage potential remains, and the risk increases where erosion exists. It is almost certain
that the area impacted will decline economically. Social and economic stresses will continue. Examples
include: social stresses from apprehension and helplessness; economic stresses of depressed property values;
personal property losses continue; cost and inconvenience of restoration after repetitive flooding continues;
reduced recreational opportunities for citizens; reduced tourism benefits; reduced employment opportunities
for tourism; property values decrease and related property taxes diminish. The no-action alternative may
perpetuate a more costly Federal commitment than would be realized otherwise, because other Federal
assistance programs exist (see Part V-8 for further details).
d. Government programs available.
When the no action plan remains, the Federal government relies on three methods to mitigate coastal damages
and the possibility of loss of human life. As previously discussed (Part V-3-4), the NFIP provides
compensation for flooding and wave damages, but it does not protect property from flooding. The NFIP also
only encourages adaptation measures; but they are not mandatory, except for new construction where local
authorities have adopted flood zoning ordinances. The Federal government also participates in measures for
emergency, evacuation route planning. As discussed in Part V-8, because many coastal communities lack
sufficient bridge and highway capacities, emergency evacuation is not a dependable means of hazard
mitigation. The third program is Emergency Assistance from FEMA when the President declares the region
eligible for this financial package after a major, coastal storm event.
V-3-92
Shore Protection Projects
Previous Page
