powers that local governments can use are zoning 
ordinances (specifying types of land use, density, 
and other factors), subdivision regulations, Planned 
Unit Development regulations (combining high- 
density/intensity uses with open space), setback 
lines, building and housing codes, taxation, location 
of key facilities (water and sewer lines, schools, and 
hospitals) drainage and sanitary codes, public acqui- 
sition and development, scenic easement, permits 
for special use, and similar devices. The use of these 
powers to develop a rational land-use policy in 
hazard-prone areas can be encouraged by both State 
and Federal Government. 
Many of the same powers exist, although in a 
more generalized form, at the State level. For in- 
stance, 41 States have authorized local governments 
to implement flood plain zoning. The State of 
Wisconsin “explicitly requires local flood plain 
zoning, and provides for state-imposed zoning should 
local entities fail to enact their own.” ‘7 Some other 
States, such as Hawaii and Maine, have State- 
wide zoning. Wetlands often are protected by State 
laws, as are dunes, beaches, and other natural pro- 
tective barriers. And, of course, any State can 
require a specific level of detail in local efforts at 
Jand-use management. 
The Federal Government has become involved in 
land-use management in its own lands and is attempt- 
ing to have an increasing, although indirect, influence 
on land-use management through several laws and 
programs dealing with the coastal zone, hazard insur- 
ance, and resource management. The Coastal Zone 
Management Act as amended (P.L. 94-370) requires 
coordination of Federal activities in the coastal zone 
and makes funds available to aid States in coastal 
planning. The Office of Coastal Zone Management 
has made an initial step in hazard planning through 
an agreement with the Texas General Land Office, 
which is developing the coastal zone program, to 
spell out considerations of hazard management to be 
included in the State program. 
The various acts on flood insurance and disaster 
relief that have been passed during the last decade all 
require, as a prerequisite of Federal benefits or aid, 
that land-use controls be established that consider 
the particular hazards being insured against (Na- 
tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 [P.L. 92-213], 
the Flood Disaster Act of 1974 [P.L. 93-288]). De- 
velopers of land sold in interstate commerce are now 
required to disclose hazards to which that land is 
subject by the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure 
Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448). The requirement for an 
environmental impact statement to be filed with each 
major Federal action compels Federal agencies to 
examine the impact of their activities on the land use 
147 Earl J. Baker and Joe Gordon McPhee, op. cit. note 146, 
p. 82. 
patterns of the communities being aided or affected. 
Section 73 of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1974 (P.L. 93-251) authorizes Federal agencies 
to consider the use of nonstructural measures (such 
as purchase of flood plains, relocation or flood proof- 
ing of structures, and flood plain regulation) to con- 
trol damage due to floods. The section also limits 
non-Federal participation in recommended measures 
to 20 percent of project costs. Full implementation 
of this provision has been deferred pending review of 
Federal policy on cost sharing for water resource 
development and clarification of the appropriate 
Federal role for implementing nonstructural measures. 
While land-use management is a potentially use- 
ful tool in natural hazard management, there are 
practical limitations that keep it from achieving its 
full potential. Private landowners and developers 
consider any limitations upon their ability to use land 
as a limitation of their property rights and their right 
to a profit. Since developers are one of the major 
interest groups influencing local government deci- 
sions, land-use planners have limited ability to make 
totally objective decisions about the use of hazard- 
ous lands. A less threatening, but still controversial, 
aspect of planning is the promulgation of proper 
building codes so that structures will withstand hur- 
ricane winds, erosion, and storm surge if in a hurri- 
cane hazard area, or that a building is “flood proof” 
when in a flood plain. For example, Joe Moseley and 
Sally Davenport report that a building code which 
uses a 140-mph wind design standard (table 4-11) 
adds no more than 2 to 3 percent to the finished cost 
Table 4—11.—Estimated cost increases and damage 
reductions when building in compliance with hurri- 
cane resistant building codes 1 
Cost increases and 
damage reduction 
Storms of specified intensity 
Minimum SSBC Tx. Model 
vai (60 mph) (105 mph) (140 mph) 
percent percent percent 
Cost increase by type 
of structure: 
1,500 sq. ft., brick — 0-1 2 
1,500 sq. ft., frame — 0-3 1..=3 
3,000 sq. ft., brick — 0-2 0.5-3 
3-floor condo — 0-2 0 3 
10-floor condo — 0-2 0 DES) 
Damage reduction: 
Loss per $100 evaluation 4.89 2.74 2.14 
Loss reduction 44 56 
1 Source: Charles Hix. Estimated Increased Building Cost 
Resulting From Use of Hurricane Resistant Building Code. 
College Station, Tex., Texas A&M University, 1975. And: 
William G. Lesso. Potential Wind Damage Reduction Through 
Use of Wind-Resistant Building Standards. Austin, Tex., Texas 
Coastal and Marine Council, 1976. Combined by Joe C. Moseley, 
II, and Sally S. Davenport in “Hurricane Damage Reduction and 
Coastal Management,” (text footnote !i") p. 15. 
IV-65 
