
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: September 29, 2017

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comAs part of an initiative to streamline the process for approving infrastructure projects, President Donald Trump rolled back certain construction requirements applicable to federally-funded projects located in flood-prone areas. While the policy reversal was just one line of the Executive Order, it generated headlines because it came just days before Hurricane Harvey left most of Houston underwater.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order requiring that construction in floodplains be built to withstand 100-year flooding. In the decades that have followed, flooding has become more common. From August 2015 to August 2016, there were eight 500-year flood events recorded by the National Weather Service. There were six 1,000-year floods in the United States between 2010 and 2014.
Following the destruction caused by Superstorm Sandy, President Barak Obama sought to raise the bar for federally-funded projects in flood-prone areas. Established in 2015, the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) was intended to address increased flood risks due to sea level rise and increased rainfall caused by climate change.
The FFRMS allowed federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, to select one of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction. They could:
On August 15, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order, entitled, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure.” The Executive Order expressly revoked the FFRMS established by President Obama in 2015.
Promising to speed up permitting of federal infrastructure projects, the Executive Order also establishes the “One Federal Decision” mandate. It provides that each major infrastructure project must have a lead Federal agency, which will be responsible for navigating the project through the Federal environmental review and authorization process, including the identification of a primary Federal point of contact at each Federal agency. The Order also requires that all decisions on federal permits be made within 90 days. Federal agencies must also work toward a two-year goal to process environmental reviews for major projects.
Supporters of the executive order argue that costly regulations pose a bigger threat than rising sea levels. According to the White House, Obama’s standards “were developed without sufficient analysis as to the economic impacts associated with its ultimate implementation.”
Meanwhile, critics, which include environmentalists, planners, and flood-plain managers, contend that lowering the standards for building in flood-prone areas will be costlier in the long run. “This executive order is not fiscally conservative,” Rep. Carlos Curbelo (FL-R), said in a statement. “It’s irresponsible, and it will lead to taxpayer dollars being wasted on projects that may not be built to endure the flooding we are already seeing and know is only going to get worse.”
Notably, the new Executive Order does not prohibit state and local agencies from using more stringent standards if they choose to do so. Given the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy, it would not be surprising if state lawmakers move to enact regulations that incorporate sea level rise and other impacts of climate change into flood zone planning and permitting.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!