Thoughts on the White House Community-Driven Relocation Report: Useful Framing & Areas for Comparative Research

The National Climate Task Force Community-Driven Relocation Subcommittee released a new report two weeks ago. Three highlights: (1) the way the report emphasizes justice by connecting climate change with legacy pollution; (2) an emphasis on what has been done to ground conversations about what needs to be done; (3) identifying interesting areas for comparative research.

1.?????? Connect Climate and Pollution to Highlight Environmental Justice.

The report is unusual in its emphasis on both climate and pollution. As it notes, “This report is the first time that the Federal government has considered the concepts of climate- and pollution-driven relocation together in this manner.”? Connecting these hazards, though, is extremely important, both to improve policy implementation and to advance EJ discussions. On the policy front, the report notes: “Recognizing that relocation can be driven by both climate hazards and severe pollution impacts to local communities reduces the risk that the solutions to these challenges become siloed.” Siloing is a major concern in climate adaptation funding and community relocation in particular, to drawing these two issues into conversation at a federal policy level could have big results.

On the communication front, the connection between pollution and climate also emphasizes the environmental justice concerns that are central to both issues: “the risks and impacts of climate change and legacy contamination disproportionately concentrated in Tribal Nations and other communities with environmental justice concerns”.? The report hints at the discriminatory policies that have caused this uneven exposure, as when it refers to “dangerous health or safety conditions left unchecked by effective regulation and enforcement”, but it falls short of truly naming the cause and effect. This is perhaps a missed opportunity. Even so, by connecting climate change and legacy pollution, the report places climate adaptation in the same conversation around justice, historical underinvestment, and how legacies of discrimination and marginalization have long-lasting intergenerational consequences that require reparations.

2.?????? Emphasize what has been Done.

Unsurprisingly, the report lauds Biden-Harris Administration investments in community-driven relocation, such as the new Department of Interior (DOI) Voluntary Community-Driven Relocation program to assist Tribes affected by climate-exacerbated hazards, and $135 million in funding (from FEMA, DOI, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, Denali Commission) to support Tribes in relocation and adaptation planning. ?

This long list of investments might seem a bit at odds with a recent op-ed in the New York Times that is concerned the US will “abandon” its “towns falling into the ocean”. ?The author is correct that more action needs to be taken, but the starting point for more action needs to be a recognition of what has already been done – if only so we have a good grasp of what hasn’t worked and why. ?The Resettlement Agency of the New Deal was “controversial and expensive, and its results ambiguous” (and often unjust). A desire for more local control and local governance made federal or even state-level relocation distasteful, which is one reason there is no single federal agency with the responsibility to enable relocation today: relocation is seen as a state or local authority, like land use. ?

The US does need a great deal more work to be done on relocation, and the Task Force Report notes several areas for: more federal funding, state and local capacity building (including through development of non-governmental support networks – please build on the work of the Anthropocene Alliance and others rather than reinventing!), and better coordination across federal agencies.

For my own thoughts on what needs to be done, see this write up from an Environmental and Energy Institute (EESI) briefing in May 2022 (recording available at: https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/051822climatechange). ?The document is dated, but at the pace of academia and government, the suggestions are still relevant.

3.?????? Areas for Comparative Research.

By connecting climate and pollution, and taking stock of federal programs that already do or could support relocation, the Task Force identifies several important areas for comparative research.? (Anyone applying to the MR25 Conference this summer, these would be amazing insights!)

For example, the report notes several community relocations due to pollution under CERCLA – highlighting Tar Creek, OK, and Times Beach, MO. What lessons apply in both climate and pollution? What aspects are unique? What lessons transfer and could be shared?

Similarly, climate relocation research in the US often focuses on FEMA-funded relocations, because of its open data, and researchers know that HUD and USACE-funded relocations are gaps in the data. But the report identifies other funding sources that would also be useful to compare – either to understand the extent to which they have been used to fund relocations to date or to see if these programs have different practices or achieved better or worse results than HMGP:

• DOI Tribal Climate Resilience Annual Awards
• USDA Emergency Watershed Program and Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
• EPA Superfund Program
• NOAA Coastal Resilience Fund

This kind of comparative research would truly help advance our understanding of what relocation challenges are inherent to relocation and what depend on the policy and program design – and how we could change policies to improve.

As final notes:

• To see more of my suggestions, check out this write up.
• Great work Logan Gerber-Chavez, PhD – our lessons learned for buyouts report was cited twice in this CDR report! ?It was wonderful to work with you.