Proactive Planning for Resilience: Protocols for Community-Led Climate Adaptation in Virginia

Strategy Development - Approach III

When Mitigation and Adaptation Measures Are Not Enough: Planned Relocation Away from the Risk

Although case studies often discuss “managed retreat” from flooding areas, in reality, entire communities rarely sell out and “retreat” all at once. FEMA provides disaster relief funds after a catastrophic event such as a hurricane, tornado or fire, but only some homes end up being sold or demolished. Others are repaired and residents remain in place; and as flooding increases, they can face secondary impacts such as prolonged emergency response times and missed appointments due to impassable roads. Over time, they can face increasingly significant impacts such as dwindling public services (EMT, Fire, Police, school buses, road maintenance, etc.) due to both safety concerns and dwindling tax revenue to fund them. Additionally, buyout programs usually do not have adequate funding to purchase all homes in a community at the same time, leaving the remaining residents to live with fewer neighbors, less social support, and the negative visual impact on their neighborhood.

The market has yet to catch up to the risk. Insurance companies and home purchasers are beginning to recognize the high costs and risks of residences in highly flood prone areas, but right now people are still moving to the coast to live, and the bundling and reselling of mortgages can reduce the incentive for banks to deny mortgages in such risky areas. When the market fully realizes the risk in increasingly flooded areas, homes could quickly become unsellable and abandoned, leaving local governments to take steps to protect public safety. Flood-threatened communities need to proactively develop a planned path for relocating vulnerable residents to safe areas when necessary, thereby achieving an economic glide path that avoids an economic crash as residents leave and the tax base shrinks drastically.

Some Important Considerations When Planning for Relocation

  • Who is managing the retreat? Who makes decisions such as defining when leaving is “necessary”, and using what criteria? How does a community know when it’s reached the “tipping point” and relocation is necessary? These questions need to be answered through an equitable, community-centered decision making process.
  • The National Academy of Science, Engineering & Medicine’s report, Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond | The National Academies Press discusses empowering community knowledge through implementation of ongoing decision sharing with community members and the adoption of participatory democracy methods. The report recommends a few key strategies when initiating conversations with communities about relocation:
      • Building Trust: Initiating conversations begins with establishing trust between community members and relocation planners. This involves being transparent, showing respect for local knowledge, and demonstrating genuine concern for the community’s well-being.
      • Engagement and Outreach: Effective engagement starts with reaching out to community leaders and key stakeholders to understand their perspectives and concerns. This can include holding meetings, workshops, and public forums to facilitate dialogue and gather input.
      • Inclusive Dialogue: It’s important to ensure that conversations are inclusive and represent the diverse voices within the community. This means involving different demographic groups and addressing potential disparities in the relocation process.
      • Clear Communication: Providing clear and accurate information about the reasons for relocation, the process involved, and potential impacts helps in reducing misinformation and fears. This includes explaining how the relocation process will work and what support will be available.
      • Feedback Mechanisms: Setting up channels for continuous feedback allows community members to express their concerns and suggestions throughout the relocation process. This can be done through surveys, suggestion boxes, or regular check-in meetings.
      • Respecting Culture: Understanding and respecting the cultural and social dynamics of the community is crucial. The approach to initiating conversations should be considerate of local traditions and values.
      • Pilot Programs and Small-Scale Initiatives: Sometimes starting with smaller-scale pilot programs or demonstration projects can help build confidence and illustrate the benefits of relocation before fully committing to larger-scale efforts.

      • For more information, see NASEM Chapter 7 and the NASEM report discussion below. Also see Step 1 for a discussion concerning determining community “tipping points”.

  • When planning for relocation of a community, look for receiving areas within the same locality to avoid loss of tax base and enable relocating residents to retain their cultural and social ties. It also is important to recognize that some residents will remain in place either due to circumstance or by choice, and to plan for the impacts in receiving areas from those who do move, to avoid unanticipated consequences in unprepared communities.1 Relocating communities also can present revitalization opportunities in receiving areas, if local governments plan ahead so sufficient jobs, services and amenities are available there.

.

Table of Contents

The Decision to Move, or Not, and When

People make very individualized decisions, on different timeframes, about whether to relocate. Some choose to remain in risky areas, even in the face of increasing impacts and inconvenience. Lower income communities are disproportionately expected to relocate, while wealthier communities have access to insurance payouts or property-tax based municipal adaptation programs to reinvest in their communities.2

A review of relevant research found that barriers to permanent relocation include three factors: limited job opportunities, amenities and services at government-funded resettlement areas; inadequate government capacity and coordination for technical assistance for relocating residents; and inadequate financial incentives for buyouts that do not fully fund resettlement in less risky areas or cover the cost of securing comparable housing elsewhere in light of depressed property values in hazard-prone areas.3  In addition, a study by Virginia Tech researchers of “push and pull” factors affecting mobility decisions among 190 coastal homeowners living in flood prone locations in Maryland and Virginia found that the top five push factors to relocate are concerns with disastrous hurricane flooding, declining property value, and financial concerns (higher taxes, cost of living, and insurance rates).4 The key pull factors for relocation were low crime rates, proximity to family, friends and healthcare, and a shorter commute or less traffic. A statistical analysis showed that the predictors of willingness to relocate among the survey respondents were exposure to repetitive and significant flooding from a combination of sources; availability of free legal and technical advice about residents’ options; social opportunities available in the relocation area; vehicle damage; difficulty accessing amenities and services; increased anxiety and stress; frequent closures of businesses, schools, and workplace; neighbors, friends, and family moving away; and an increase in abandoned properties.5

Interestingly, the most frequently selected reason for choosing a relocation destination was effective local leadership. The researchers’ takeaways were that financial concerns dominate as push factors, and low crime and proximity to family and friends as pull factors, while the key factors that would help people move relate to buyout assistance and legal and technical support. The socio-demographic and political aspects were largely unimportant in the selection of relocation sites.6

Another survey of residents in urban coastal areas from New York to Florida with substantial flood risk found that over half of respondents who would consider permanently relocating due to flooding would do so if crime became worse, if they could not access services and amenities due to flooding, and if insurance would not cover the flood damage.7 Next, they would relocate if they could not afford to pay taxes on their coastal property, if they were offered comparable housing in a similar community elsewhere, if they were offered a buy-out, and if their school system were to deteriorate. The least important considerations were if neighbors, friends and families moved away, and if they could move together with their neighbors. The majority of respondents said they would prefer to relocate locally, primarily by staying in the same community but moving to a different neighborhood. The research also found that many personal and community-level factors unrelated to flooding impacts play an important role in deciding whether to relocate; and correlation analysis showed that, in general, older respondents were less willing to relocate and African American residents were more willing. Importantly, the researchers concluded that some predictors of willingness to relocate “could be moderated if there is political will and sufficient resources.”8  Keeping all of these factors in mind, and conducting extensive community engagement coupled with community-centered decision making, can enable local governments in Virginia to plan effective relocation efforts that reflect local, specific conditions and challenges.

Case Study

The National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine has published a report focusing on community-driven relocation in the Gulf Coast region of the U.S. It provides helpful information concerning community engagement, participatory decision-making, and co-production of plans, as well as profiling important take-aways from relocation efforts across the country. The report notes the need to provide adequate social and financial support for communities that residents are relocating from; to provide adequate physical and social infrastructure in receiving communities to handle an influx of new residents, including sufficient school capacity and affordable housing; and to develop plans to actively manage the open space left in areas that have been abandoned. See Front Matter | Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond | The National Academies Press, particularly chapters 7 (Communication, Participation, and Knowledge) and 8 (Receiving and Originating Communities).

The report also notes that community well-being and place attachment are important considerations for local policymakers seeking to relocate a community. Losing “place attachment,” or the bond that individuals or communities form with an important place, is a key contributor to poor mental health and well-being for communities displaced by environmental factors. Environmental change can alter material, historic, cultural, or social aspects of a place, generating stronger place attachments and resistance toward relocation within a community. These place attachments can alter when and if people decide to migrate from their originating community and affect their well-being in their receiving community, as well as influence residents’ decisions about relocation destination. People with strong place attachments may seek to move somewhere with similar cultural, physical, or socioeconomic characteristics to their originating community, which can lead to relocation to equally or more environmentally vulnerable regions. Failing to understand differences in place attachments between decision makers and community members can create barriers to relocation and effective community resilience planning. To address this, policy makers should engage with communities to understand differences in meanings assigned to place by stakeholders and use that information to inform resilience planning and decisions. Using tools such as CDC’s Building Resilience Against Climate Effects in adaptive planning and including communities in the decision making process can bolster community efficacy and increase adaptive capacity to change. In addition, allowing people with strong place attachment to have continued access to or ownership of property in their originating communities can increase their willingness to relocate and their well-being. For more information, see National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine’s (NASEM) “Community-Driven Relocation: Recommendations for the U.S. Gulf Coast Region and Beyond” chapter 6.

Moving residents and businesses to higher ground

Relocating residents and businesses takes time, funding and local government staff resources.  Planning ahead and lining up funding is key. Below are two case studies – one covering a resourceful funding approach used by the Town of Grundy, Virginia to relocate its business district, and one on the City of Norfolk’s innovative Resilience Quotient approach that uses the market and zoning ordinances to incentivize movement of development away from low elevation, flood prone areas.

Case Studies

Grundy is a coal-mining town located along the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River in Buchanan County, Virginia. The town faces extreme flooding that leaves several feet of water sitting in its downtown area roughly every twenty years. In April 1977, Grundy received 16” of rain, causing the Levisa to flood the town with six feet of water, killing three residents and causing $15 million in damages.1 Smaller flooding events affected the town four or five times per year. The result was irrecoverable damage to what used to be a thriving economy, with many of the residents struggling to buy or sell businesses due to a lack of access to loans that cover repair costs, while others remained deep in debt, paying off the damages from the 1977 flood.2

In 1981, in response to the extreme flooding in 1977, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to study the issue of flooding in Grundy. Shortly after, local officials began looking for infrastructural solutions to fortify Grundy, such as dams, floodwalls, and river channels. After nearly six years of study, officials determined that no structural alternative would be able to completely protect the town from a flood equal to that in 1977. The USACE crafted two innovative but costly nonstructural plans for Grundy, including relocation and flood-safe redevelopment. However, because of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Grundy needed to secure a non federal cost sharing partner for the project.3

In 1997, U.S. Congressman Rick Boucher helped solidify a $200 million project plan to relocate the business district of Grundy and flood-proof the remaining historic buildings with a levee. To secure a cost-share partner, Boucher looked to the VA Department of Transportation (VDOT), who had been mandated to construct a $150 million road widening project on U.S. 460, and money had already been earmarked for the project by Congress. He innovatively worked with the USACE and VDOT to combine the two projects and drastically reduce costs, from a cumulative $350 million to just $117 million.4 VDOT purchased and demolished much of Grundy’s downtown district, and the USACE allowed that investment to serve as the town’s cost share for the flood control project.

After decades of planning, project development started in 2001. The USACE constructed an 8-foot-levee to protect historic buildings left in the area, and on top of the levee, VDOT completed its mandated widening of U.S. 460. A new business district was relocated onto the side of a nearby mountain, away from the flood risk, allowing Grundy to attract new businesses and flood-proof the town.5 In 2016, several years after the project, several local officials deemed the project a success. The town no longer suffers from extreme flooding and the new mountainside downtown sector has attracted new businesses.6

Key Takeaways:

  • Grundy, VA was able to innovatively stretch federal funding to relocate their business district by combining a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood mitigation project with a VDOT pre-existing project with earmarked funds.
  • Drastic and expensive projects such as this take a long time to plan and execute. Change does not occur quickly.

1 “Grundy, Va. Picks Up And Moves To Higher Ground,” The Appalachian Voice, June 1, 2002, https://appvoices.org/2002/06/01/2911/.
2 Ibid.
3 Sullivan County, “History of Grundy Virginia Flood Control Project,” https://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/grundy3.htm.
4 The Appalachian Voice, 2002. (See 1).
5 Ibid.
6 Charles Boothe, “$200M Relocation Project that Moved a Mountain to Save Grundy Pays Off,” Bluefield Daily Telegraph, March 20, 2016, https://www.bdtonline.com/news/200m-relocation-project-that-moved-a-mountain-to-save-grundy-pays-off/article_8d92ed9c-ee48-11e5-9336-3769bae935de.html.

Norfolk, Virginia is a commonly-cited example of a local government that is innovatively using the market to drive relocation from flood-prone areas. Norfolk rewrote its zoning ordinance in 2018 to incorporate flood resilience measures for new development and redevelopment, including requiring a site plan review process that includes resilience measures in seven categories such as flood risk reduction, stormwater management, water conservation and energy resilience.1 In lieu of that site plan review process, developers can choose to comply with Resilience Quotient Standards that require them to earn points by implementing specific measures for flood risk reduction, stormwater management and energy resilience, with the point threshold determined by the number of units to be built.2

Beyond the Resilience Quotient, the Norfolk zoning ordinance also includes two new overlay districts, the Coastal Resilience Overlay (CRO) and the Upland Resilience Overlay (URO). The CRO requires higher building elevation in floodplains and other adaptation measures because it encompasses lower-lying and flood-prone areas. In contrast, the URO encompasses areas outside the 1% annual chance flood zone.3 The URO aims to encourage development in higher-elevation areas by decreasing the resilience requirements if developers give up their development rights on low-lying property in the CRO.4 This tool thus incentivizes development away from flood-prone areas.

Considerations:

Virginia localities should note that the market can impede implementation of a resilience quotient-type program or a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Without developers (and the market) being willing to move projects into less flood-prone areas, and out of vulnerable areas, these types of programs would not be successful.

1 City of Norfolk, Building a Better Norfolk Zoning Ordinance, January 23, 2018, https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/35581/Adopted-Zoning-Ordinance?bidId=.
2 “Building a Better Norfolk: A Zoning Ordinance of the 21st Century – Norfolk, Virginia,” Georgetown Climate Center, January 23, 2018, https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/building-a-better-norfolk-a-zoning-ordinance-of-the-21st-century-norfolk-virginia.html. See also “Norfolk’s Revised Zoning Ordinance Aims to Improve Flood Resilience,” Pew Charitable Trust, November 19, 2019, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/11/norfolks-revised-zoning-ordinance-aims-to-improve-flood-resilience.
3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Zoning Ordinance Overhauled to Increase Community Resilience to Flooding,” last modified July 30, 2024, https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/norfolk-zoning-ordinance.html.
4 Pew Charitable Trust, 2019. (See 2).

Ensuring affordable, safe housing in receiving communities

When encouraging residents to move to higher ground, localities need to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of affordable, safe housing there for them. Two major considerations for communities to keep in mind when developing new housing are climate-driven gentrification and housing type.

Climate-driven gentrification is when investments are made in a community to protect the built and natural environments from the negative impacts of climate change, but those investments have the unintended consequence of pricing low income families out of affordable housing. Several methods to address gentrification are to create affordable housing for all incomes, approve policies to ensure continued affordability of housing units and the ability of residents to remain in their homes, ensure that new community investments prioritizes the needs of current residents, and to involve the community.9

When climate gentrification is not considered in a resilience plan, there can be serious negative effects, as demonstrated in Miami after Hurricane Irma. While much of the Miami area was devastated by the storm, the elevated and inland lower-income neighborhoods like Little Haiti and Liberty City were largely spared.10 Now, there have been investments in new projects which threaten to price out low income families who do not own their homes.11 In fact, the cost of housing in these neighborhoods has appreciated at a higher rate than anywhere else in the nation.12

Additionally, increasing wildfires due to climate change can exacerbate affordable housing shortages. As of 2023, wildfires destroy over 60 homes and structures and burn 9,500 acres of land annually in Virginia.13 These figures may change over time, as climate change can result in extended and worsened wildfire seasons due to drier, warmer conditions.14 Access to affordable housing may be limited by several wildfire-related factors, including the fact that the number of available homes decreases as wildfires destroy housing in a region; government aid to rebuild homes often does not cover the full cost, and leaves homeowners displaced and in economically vulnerable positions; and measures taken to fireproof homes may make homes more expensive.15 

Localities also need to consider various housing types when developing plans for safe, stable, affordable housing. For example, mobile home residents pay a mortgage as well as rent for the lot; they are in a tenuous position because the mobile home park could be bought at any time and the land redeveloped or rezoned. Furthermore, many socially vulnerable people live in motels. All of these residents and housing options need to be taken into account in community resilience plans.

There are two policies Virginia local governments can consider to help ensure the availability of safe, affordable housing for relocating residents: permitting more density for residential housing in higher ground areas, and permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that can provide additional housing on a parcel in addition to the primary home.16 As Americans struggle to find affordable housing, cities are realizing their own rules and zoning restrictions such as height limits, single-family-only zoning, and parking minimums, have made it too hard and expensive to build the affordable housing they need.17 Now, some cities are trying to change their zoning codes to promote affordable housing. One leading example is Minneapolis, Minnesota. By allowing more housing density, getting rid of parking minimums, permitting construction of ADUs, and ending single-family zoning, Minneapolis was able to grow its housing supply by 12% in just five years (2017-2022). The reform also helped keep rent costs down during the same period, as Minneapolis saw only a 1% increase in rent rates, while they rose by 14% in the rest of the state.18 For more information and tools on community-led zoning reform, visit the American Planning Association website.

Additional established tools which local communities have at their disposal for addressing housing affordability are the Virginia Statewide Community Land Trust (VSCLT) and land banks. Community Land Trusts (CLTs) are non-profit organizations that aim to develop and maintain permanently affordable homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income (LMI) households. CLTs acquire land either through purchase or donation and then develop housing and community spaces on it. The housing is kept affordable indefinitely because the underlying property is never sold; instead, it is held in trust for the community and leased out to LMI households at rates well below market value. In Virginia, the VSCLT operates statewide, including in Fairfax County, Fauquier County, and Loudoun County.19

CLTs modify the homebuying process such that the cost of the land in a home purchase is removed from the cost of the structure on the land. The homeowner would own the home, not the land, but have full rights over the property. Once the homeowner is ready to sell, they agree to sell the home at a price that is affordable to someone in a similar financial situation. Through a shared equity model (where the lessor is able to retain a percentage of the appreciation in value at the point of resale of the home), residents are also able to slowly build equity and not get priced out by gentrification.20 Another benefit of CLTs is that they create homes that do not increase in cost with the market – a one-time subsidy that can serve homeowners for a long time. In the context of neighborhood changes due to resilience-building projects, CLTs can help increase housing stability and access as well as counteract negative gentrification pressures.21 Finally, in regards to climate resilience and adaptation, CLTs can be used to maintain affordability in receiving areas for relocating communities and provide spaces to build green and renewable energy infrastructure.22 One challenge is that CLTs are expensive, requiring a lot of upfront funds for communities to purchase properties. This greatly limits its wider applicability. There needs to be a significant societal and political attitude shift that recognizes the benefits of CLTs in order for them to be used more widely to support resilience. For more information, see The Georgetown Climate Center’s report on how Community Land Trusts can support affordable housing and climate initiatives, which includes some case studies on resilience building uses of CLTs such as green infrastructure, relocation sites, and green community spaces.23 The report also extensively details best practices and other benefits.

In Virginia, local governments are authorized24 to create a land bank, which is “a legal entity—either a government authority or a nonprofit organization—that has a designated special status in a locality, allowing it to receive and hold properties directly from the local government.”25 Such properties can be vacant, abandoned or tax delinquent. When a property falls into tax delinquency, the normal process is for the property to be foreclosed on and then put up for auction. However, with a land bank, the locality can hold onto the property in the land bank until it can decide what to do with it. This is a powerful tool given that localities could use land banks to redevelop land into affordable housing units or green space to relieve increasing heat and flooding.26 This has proven to be a successful approach in Ohio, where almost every county has a land bank, as well as in Michigan, Maine, Massachusetts, and Alabama, which all have statewide land banks.27 In Virginia, Roanoke established a land bank that transformed 13 derelict properties into affordable homes between 2019 and 2023, with several more projects in the works.28

Another tool to help ensure there is a sufficient supply of affordable housing at planned relocation sites is Community Benefit Agreements. These are legally binding contracts between community-based organizations and developers that can help to ensure that publicly-funded large developments reflect and address the community’s needs, including the provision of adequate amounts of affordable housing. For more information, see Community Benefit Agreements | Urban Institute.

Home with "Did Not Flood" Sign (Photo from Elizabeth Andrews, UVA)

Case Study

Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority
In 2002, the Virginia General Assembly created the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority through Virginia Code § 15.2-6600, effectively giving the public a means to have access to the water. Through the program, property owners can donate their flood-prone or vulnerable properties to the Authority, generating a charitable donation tax deduction. The land is subsequently transformed into a public water access site for recreational and commercial purposes.

This Authority is the first of its kind in the United States, and it is a unique tool to incentivize the acquisition of flood-prone land without expending local tax dollars.1 One example of their success is the Captain Sinclair’s Recreational Area in Gloucester, Virginia. In 2013, the Authority was gifted the 96.81 acre waterfront property.2 Now, the flood-prone area provides local residents access to the water, with docks and a boat ramp, and in the future, the area will include trails and observation decks.3 The Authority is currently installing living shorelines to protect against erosion from rising sea levels.

For more information on best practices used by the Authority, see the National Working Waterfront Network’s CASE STUDY: Enabling Legislation in Virginia Establishes The Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority, Virginia counties of Essex, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, and Mathews and the Towns of Tappahannock, Urbanna, and West Point.

Some of the best practices mentioned:

  • Clarify project objectives with the community and relevant stakeholders to build a broad base of support
  • Invest in site-specific comprehensive planning that details the development objectives for each site
  • Use innovative approaches for cost savings, such as budget management and partnering with other organizations to increase capacity
 

1 Kristen Grant, “Case Study: Enabling Legislation in Virginia Establishes the Middle Peninsula Chesapeake Bay Access Authority, Virginia Counties of Essex, Gloucester, King and Queen, King William, and Mathews and the Towns of Tappahannock, Urbanna, and West Point,” National Working Waterfront Network, last modified March 19, 2013. https://nationalworkingwaterfronts.com/portfolio_page/case-study-enabling-legislation-in-virginia-establishes-the-middle-peninsula-chesapeake-bay-public-access-authority-virginia-counties-of-essex-gloucester-king-and-queen-king-william-and-mathews/.
2 Middle Peninsula Public Access Authority, “Captain Sinclair’s Recreational Area,” https://mppaa.virginiainteractive.org/Item/Detail/77.

3 “Public Private Partnership Drives New Recreation Area in Gloucester,” Virginia Water Trails, June 26, 2019, https://virginiawatertrails.org/public-private-partnership-drives-new-recreation-area-in-gloucester/.

Buyouts

Voluntary buyouts are a policy tool to strategically move residents out of flood-prone areas through the acquisition of homes that are repeatedly flooded. In a buy-out program, the government purchases a home in a flood-prone area and demolishes it, returning the lot to open space that can then serve as a recreational space or flood buffer area for remaining development. A limitation is that participation in such programs is voluntary, meaning that only those who wish to, or can afford to, will choose to sell out and move. Another challenge is that the selection of individual properties for purchase is not limited to those at highest risk; nor is it based upon ecological, hydrological or equity considerations, nor the most value for money. The pool of properties to select from for a buyout program is limited from the start by the fact that it is a voluntary program, and then it is further limited by the very specific criteria that can be imposed by various funding sources. There also can be disparate impacts on some communities if a government focuses on buying out lower-priced homes because of limited funds.

Localities should keep these factors in mind when designing any local buy-out program. The “new normal” of increasingly severe and frequent storms means that there is an increased need to not just look at historical data for determination of floodplains. Local governments can look at the actual flood heights from storm events, map expanded floodplains as needed, and use that information to identify vulnerable areas to target for voluntary buyout programs. They also can incorporate innovative concepts such as offering density bonuses to incentivize the building of safe homes on higher ground for residents who are relocating from vulnerable areas. And making strategic retreat and voluntary buyouts part of an overall community visioning process can increase community support, shifting the focus to what can be done with vacated land, versus just what cannot be done.

Funding for buy-outs often comes from federal post-disaster relief funds, so additional, consistent funding sources need to be developed for buy-out programs. In Virginia, the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF) can provide funding for buyouts that are necessary for the construction of mitigation and resilience projects, buyout assistance for homes, relocating residents, and gap funding for buyouts to move residents out of floodplain hazard areas.29 To learn more about the RVRF, see the Grants & Loans section of Step 4. The following case studies about Charlotte, N.C.’s buyout program funded by an impervious surface tax, and Harris County, TX’s buyout program funded by green bonds (Home Buyout Program), feature programs with a replenishing funding source. In Virginia, localities are authorized by Va. Code § 15.2-2114  to establish a utility or enact a system of service charges to support a local stormwater management program, with income limited to actual costs incurred by the locality. Generated revenue only can be used for limited purposes, including to pay or recover costs for the acquisition of real and personal property necessary to construct, operate and maintain stormwater control facilities. Va. Code § 15.2-2114.A.  So in order to use such revenue for a voluntary buyout program, the program would need to fall within the limited purposes authorized in the statute.

Case Studies

An often-cited buyout program is New Jersey’s Blue Acres Program, which administers buyouts at the state level. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) designs, coordinates, funds, and implements buyout programs across the State. Since 1995, the Blue Acres Program has completed over 1,100 home acquisitions as of May 2024, with an average timeline of 6-12 months.1

The program was founded using state bond funds, and uses a mix of state and federal funding to finance buyouts annually. Since Hurricane Sandy in 2012, New Jersey has spent $190 million for buyouts. In addition, NJDEP uses a portion of the State’s Corporate Business Tax to fund buyouts, offering a longer-term funding mechanism than post-disaster federal grants.2

The Blue Acres Program derives success from its human interactions, ensuring localities are part of the decision-making process, building long-standing relationships with communities, and conducting extensive outreach with residents. Its outreach program with multiple staffers allows case managers to work more closely with community members to engage and inform them of the buyout process. This focus on human interactions generates community buy-in and higher buyout participation, as residents learn to trust staff and the process.

Best Practices:

  • Bring residents into the decision-making process of buyouts through comprehensive outreach. Have staffers available for case management, which can increase community buy-in and trust.
  • Leverage the skills of existing departments that can help with buyouts, such as stormwater management or neighborhood development; or partner with regional planning district commissions. Diverse backgrounds can provide unique skill sets for buyout programs, which require much coordination and expertise.
  • Seek funding across federal and state sources when possible. Federal funding can be slow and have complex application requirements. State funding, however, may not be available in sufficient amounts.

For more information on The Blue Acres Program and best practices, visit the Georgetown Climate Center “Managing the Retreat from Rising Seas” report.

Drawbacks:

Although successful in New Jersey, the Blue Acres program may not be entirely relevant for Virginia communities:

  • Much of the money used for buyouts is federal grant money obtained post-Hurricane Sandy, which is not a sustainable source of funding since it is a one-time grant. It is important for localities or states to develop a source of funds in addition to and independent of federal money to fund buyouts. Additionally, communities facing increasing sunny-day or rainfall-triggered flooding may not be eligible for federal disaster money, so it is doubly important to establish a sustainable funding source for buyouts in those situations.
  • New Jersey employs a buyout staff larger than what Virginia localities have the capacity to hire. The NJ Blue Acres program is well funded using a mix of state and federal funding, allowing them to have a greater capacity. Funding sources include federal sources such as FEMA and HUD and a portion of the State’s corporate business tax revenues.3 Having a lower capacity may impact Virginia staffers’ ability to apply for grants, adequately engage communities, and implement buyout programs. It is thus important to leverage the skills of existing departments outside of the department responsible for administering the buyouts.
 

1 Anna Weber, “Blueprint of a Buyout: Blue Acres Program, New Jersey,” National Resources Defense Council, September 26, 2019,
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/anna-weber/blueprint-buyout-blue-acres-program-nj. See also Department of Environmental Quality, “New Jersey’s Approach to Flood Buyouts Earns National Attention,” May 22, 2024, https://dep.nj.gov/blueacres/new-jerseys-approach-to-flood-buyouts-earns-national-attention/.
2 “Managing the Retreat from Rising Seas: New Jersey Blue Acres Buyout Program,” Adaptation Clearing House: Georgetown Climate Center (2020): 1-5. https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/MRT/GCC_20_NewJersey-3web.pdf.
3 Ibid. See also “New Jersey Blue Acres Buyout Program,” Urban Land Institute, 2021, https://developingresilience.uli.org/case/new-jersey-blue-acres-buyout-program/.

After Hurricane Sandy in 2012, New York State bought out 99% of properties in Oakwood Beach, a neighborhood on Staten Island.1 The community had previously experienced large floods, and they reacted swiftly by establishing the Oakwood Beach Buyout Committee.2 Residents led the decision to apply for the buyout program, and almost all were selected to be bought out. To further increase community buy-in, the State offered a 10% increase in the pre-storm fair market value of the home.3 By buying out the entire neighborhood as opposed to just individual properties, the community avoided “checkerboarding” the area, which changes the appearance of a community and could have resulted in increased local maintenance fees.

Almost ten years later, though, the few residents who stayed in the neighborhood feel neglected, claiming that New York City has not prioritized their neighborhood for infrastructure improvements or trash pick-ups.4

Best Practices:

  • If feasible, communities can provide financial incentives to increase voluntary participation in buyouts.
  • Community-led and informed buyout plans can increase buy-in and participation. Localities should have inclusive, extended community engagement to improve buy-in and trust.
  • Neighborhood-level buyouts, as opposed to individual buyouts, can reduce the checkerboarding effect and reduce subsequent stressors or costs.
  • Planning is important, because community buy-out programs can be coupled with wetlands preservation and living shoreline installation efforts to help provide paths for upland migration of wetlands as sea level rises.

Drawbacks:

  • Buying out an entire neighborhood is expensive, requiring access to a very large sum of money. More often, houses are purchased one by one.
  • Buying out an entire neighborhood also could result in a large tax-base loss, so communities should consider how this could impact their finances or find a way to incentivize relocation to other areas still within the locality’s jurisdiction.
 

1 Robert Freudenberg et al., “Buy-In for Buyouts,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2016, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/buy-buyouts.
2 “Staten Island, New York: Oakwood Beach Buyout Committee and Program,” Georgetown Climate Center, (2020): 2, https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/MRT/GCC_20_Oakwood-4web.pdf.
3 Ibid., 3.
4 Joaquim Salles, “Left Behind,” Grist, September 21, 2022, https://grist.org/equity/oakwood-beach-staten-island-buyouts-superstorm-sandy/.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg area frequently experiences flash flooding and many structures were built in the floodplain. To address its flooding challenges, Charlotte-Mecklenberg established the Storm Water Services (SWS) buyout program. Since 1999, over 400 properties have been voluntarily bought out under this program.1

The SWS program utilizes cash from stormwater utility fees to fund the buyouts, as the area was ineligible for federal buyout grants.2 Typically, federal grants are given to areas that have been hit by large storms, not places like Charlotte that faced localized, day-to-day flooding.3 An advantage of this local funding is that the program can successfully implement buyouts within six months, compared to the average federal buyout timeline of five years.4

The success of the SWS program is not just due to its funding; it also utilizes a lease-back policy. This policy allows residents to prolong their stay in their homes until they are ready to leave, but they must rent their property from the government. Although the government must pay the cost of the buyout up front, the revenue generated from the rent-back program can be used to offset the cost of buyouts.5

Beyond merely returning the vacant lots to floodplain, the County’s buyout program plans buyouts holistically, considering how to reuse the space for public use.6 Adaptive reuse projects from buyouts may include public parks, green corridors, or community gardens. For example, the Little Sugar Creek Greenway and Chantilly Ecological Sanctuary were built after the SWS program bought out flood-prone properties on the land.7

Not all residents, though, believe the program was equitable; they assert that capacity constraints within the SWS program left some properties unkept and staff were not always available to residents, leaving some feeling neglected.8 This points to a general lesson that localities should provide adequate program staffing and ensure that equity is considered before, during, and after the buyout process.

Best Practices:

  • Localities can develop funding mechanisms to reduce reliance on federal funding, which can shorten the buyout timeline and allow for more flexibility. For example, the City of Newport News, VA uses stormwater utility fee revenue to fund local buyouts.286
  • Equity needs to be addressed in each stage of a buyout process, ensuring residents feel that they have a voice and are not neglected. When considering adaptive reuse projects, it is important to engage residents and ask what they want to ensure greater acceptance and use of the land.

Challenges:

  • Capacity constraints within the local office administering buyouts can affect post-buyout processes and make continual upkeep of the vacant properties difficult.
 

1 Mecklenburg County, “Floodplain Buyout Program,” https://stormwaterservices.mecknc.gov/floodplain-buyout-program.
2 Anna Weber, “Blueprint of a Buyout: Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina,” National Resources Defense Council, September 19, 2019, https://www.nrdc.org/bio/anna-weber/blueprint-buyout-charlottemecklenburg-county-north-carolina.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid. See also Anna Weber and Rob Moore, “Long Wait Times for Post-Flood Buyouts Leave Homeowners Underwater,” Natural Resources Defense Council, 2019, https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/going-under-post-flood-buyouts-report.pdf.
5 “Introduction to Leasebacks,” Georgetown Climate Center, https://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/toolkits/managed-retreat-toolkit/leasebacks.html.
6 “Charlotte-Mecklenburg Floodplain Buyout Program,” Urban Land Institute, 2021, https://developingresilience.uli.org/case/charlotte-mecklenburg-floodplain-buyout-program/.
7 Ibid.
8 Julia Cardwell, “Community perceptions of a floodplain buyout program in Charlotte, North Carolina,” Natural Hazards 115, (2023): 2141–2160, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-022-05631-1.

Municipal bonds can be a useful tool for localities to use to finance climate resilience projects. For example, in 2018 after Hurricane Harvey, Harris County, Texas established a $2.5 billion green bond program to fund flood mitigation programs, such as buyouts.1 The County used $59 million in bond funds to cost-match a federal Housing & Urban Development (HUD) grant, which ultimately provided them with $159 million for buyouts.2 Of the 4,000 residents who applied for buyouts, though, only 1,150 homes have been acquired as of May 2024.3 Harris County’s buyout process takes between 12-18 months, depending on how long it takes to secure funding.4

Best Practices:

  • State or local funding mechanisms can be used to help meet the cost-match requirements of federal buyout programs. If a state or local government cannot develop their own buyout program, using bond funds might be an option to help leverage more federal money for buyouts – but local bonding capacity is limited.
  • Large storms, like Hurricane Harvey, can open a window of opportunity to push forth climate resilience policies, and at such a time Virginia localities may have citizen support to pass funding mechanisms like bonds.

Challenges:

  • Similar to New Jersey, Harris County’s funding mechanism for buyouts may not be applicable to Virginia localities. Hurricane Harvey, like Hurricane Sandy, generated much political will to pass flood mitigation policies in Texas, resulting in approval of the $2.5 billion bond. Localities facing smaller-scale flooding may not receive as much attention and thus have less political will to adopt climate resilience policies and programs.
  • Harris County still uses federal money, which slows the buyout timeline as grant applications take many months to complete.
  • Cost-burdened localities may not be able to use bonds according to the Virginia Constitution, Art. VII, Section 10, which has a debt-ceiling for the issuance of bonds.
  • Harris County is the third most populous county in the United States, and the size of its bond reflects the County’s large population. Smaller Virginia localities will not be able to generate such a large green bond to finance buyouts.
 

1 Harris County, “2018 Bond Program,” https://www.hcfcd.org/2018-bond-program.
2 Kelsey Peterson et al., “A Review of Funding Mechanisms for US Floodplain Buyouts,” Sustainability 12, Art. 23, (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310112.
3 Harris County, “Home Buyout Program,” https://www.hcfcd.org/Activity/Additional-Programs/Home-Buyout-Program.
4 Ibid.

Approximately 1,200 of Henrico County’s residential buildings are located in floodplains. Henrico has been developing a proactive voluntary buyout program for its flood prone properties so that it can strategically remove people from floodplains before disaster. Henrico was awarded a $361,500 grant from the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) to research and design the program, which they believe is the first of its kind in the nation. As of 2024, Henrico has researched similar programs in the United States with a full literature review so that it may anticipate and avoid problems that other buyout programs have faced. Through its research, the County learned from staff in Charlotte and Mecklenburg, N.C.  that community engagement is pivotal for project success, and has begun to engage the local community to establish community ambassadors (see Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina’s Locally-Financed Buyouts case study above). The County hopes to remove all of the at-risk homes eventually, but homes in the floodplain range in economic value, with some properties worth over $1 million; so the County plans to remove as many as possible with the resources it has. After administrative development of the program, Henrico plans to use County funds or future grants to buyout homes. The County has also considered using rentbacks as an option for home acquisition (see Buyouts with Rent Backs, below).1 For more information on Henrico’s CFPF-funded project, visit the Virginia Conservation Network report.

1 Data from Meeting with Kristin Owen, Henrico County Floodplain Manager, July 1, 2024.

Buyouts with Rent Backs

One challenge in convincing residents to leave their flood-prone properties is that many are not emotionally ready to leave, despite the risk. Rent back (also known as leaseback) programs can offer a solution to this problem. The government will still acquire the flood-prone property, but they will rent the property back to the prior owners, allowing the former residents to stay until a certain date or risk level is achieved. This gives the residents flexibility to leave the property when they are ready (within reason) and gives the government the ability to generate money to fund subsequent buyouts.30 This may be a particularly useful tool for communities with a large elderly population that resists moving away from their memories and cultural connections and starting over elsewhere.

As noted above, Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s program is an example of a buyout program that allows rent-backs. The term of a leaseback is determined on a case-by-case basis, but there may be “triggers” that end the lease, including a major flood event or death of an owner.31

Virginia localities may be able to use the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund (RVRF) to purchase homes and then lease them back to the prior owners. See the 2023 RVRF Funding Manual.32

For more information on the benefits and drawbacks of leasebacks, see:
Buyouts with rentbacks: a policy proposal for managing coastal retreat | Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Also see Managed Retreat and the Life Estate: A Practical Path Forward for Coastal Communities, which discusses the potential use of both buyouts with rent backs and life estates to ease residents’ transitions away from risky areas.

Redevelopment or relocation of socially vulnerable communities

Replacing vulnerable low income developments is often spurred by HUD and FEMA Hazard Mitigation grant funding and can be undertaken to remove unsafe, flood-prone housing. However, that process also uproots and divides the most socially vulnerable communities, so local governments undertaking such projects need to strive to avoid disproportionate loss of culture, community, and heritage for their most vulnerable residents. Additionally, reviewed research indicated that few relocation efforts have offered adequate funding to meet the needs of residents and allow all residents to participate, regardless of their financial situation.33 So local governments need to assess their funding and engage vulnerable communities to determine their full set of needs before initiating buyout efforts.

Below are three case studies – two from Norfolk, Virginia and one from Princeville, North Carolina – that discuss efforts to redevelop and adapt or relocate socially vulnerable, flood-prone communities.

Case Studies

Recently, the City of Norfolk completed a plan to incorporate climate resilience into community design known as the Ohio Creek Watershed Project. This project focused on the Chesterfield Heights community, a historic and predominantly Black neighborhood located along the Elizabeth River, and Grandy Village, a public housing community with over 300 units.1 For years, flooding isolated residents from their homes and essential services, inundating the only two access roads to the neighborhood.2 Residents called for action in 2014, and a local nonprofit, Wetlands Watch, responded, partnering with students from Hampton University, Old Dominion University and the City to redesign the community to be resilient in the face of climate change.3 The partnership successfully competed in the National Disaster Resilience Competition and received $112 million in funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement the project.4

The project centered community voice in its design, responding to residents’ concerns about changes to Chesterfield Heights’ historic and cultural character. Over five years, 35-40 meetings were conducted with the community to design a climate resilient neighborhood.5 The resulting project included an overhaul of the outdated stormwater infrastructure and inclusion of nature-based solutions, including bioswales, living shorelines, and earthen berms.6

Now complete, the Ohio Creek Watershed Project has been noted as a model for future local climate resilience projects.7 The project’s success can be attributed to its centering of community voices and recognition of the need to address an underserved community’s concerns. Many community members felt satisfied with the project’s end product, with some complaints for the disruption caused by years of construction as well as some coastal views blocked by the new vegetated landscape.8

Best Practices for Local Governments:

  1. Ensure effective and transparent community engagement: The Ohio Creek Watershed Project demonstrates effective community engagement and transparency. The project kept Chesterfield Heights’ residents in focus, changing design based on resident concerns and holding extensive community engagement meetings.
  2. Value all flood-prone communities, not just high-income areas: Additionally, the Ohio Creek Watershed Project recognized the value of the Chesterfield Heights community. By contrast, some Norfolk residents are concerned about the City’s Coastal Storm Risk Management Project, as the project’s initial plan does not protect historically Black neighborhoods with floodwalls because the City relied on benefit-cost analyses to outline areas for protection, which did not include many low-income neighborhoods.9 This prioritization mirrors what existing literature suggests: cost-benefit analyses prioritize project funding for higher-property value communities.10 Instead, the Ohio Creek Watershed Project prioritized funding for a historically overlooked, low to middle income community, Chesterfield Heights, to address social impacts from climate change.
  3. Funding is crucial for success: Success for the Ohio Creek Watershed Project could not have happened without the significant HUD funding, an opportunity not all localities may have when developing climate resilience projects. There is hope, though, with increased funding opportunities through recent federal legislation, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, that can help to fund climate resilience projects in localities.
 

1 City of Norfolk, “Ohio Creek Watershed Project,” https://www.norfolk.gov/3867/Ohio-Creek-Watershed-Project.
2 “Protecting Coastlines & Transforming Communities: Ohio Creek Watershed Project,” VHB, November 11, 2021, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c0986ddedb764f0cb3e1c8f8f5950fed.
3 Jeremy Cox, “Black communities in Norfolk see major climate overhaul,” Bay Journal, January 30, 2023, https://www.bayjournal.com/news/climate_change/black-communities-in-norfolk-see-major-climate-overhaul/article_765f6c5e-92ab-11ed-a94f-cbed5d87d3dc.html. See also “Chesterfield Heights,” Wetlands Watch, https://wetlandswatch.org/chesterfield-heights.
4  VHB, 2021. (See 2). See also U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “National Disaster Resilience Competition: Grantee Profiles,” January 2016, https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/NDRCGRANTPROFILES.PDF.
5 Jim Morrison, “Norfolk Has A Plan To Save Itself From Rising Seas. For Many, It’s A $2.7 Billion Mystery,” Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO, December 17, 2023, https://vcij.org/stories/norfolkfloodwall. See also The City of Norfolk, “Agenda – Tuesday, February 9, 2021,” (2021): 273 vii. https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64540/R-3-Authorize-the-purchase-of-a-permanent-easement-at-2308-Kimball-Terrace.
6 VHB, 2021. (See 2)
7 Emily Steinhilber, “Transformational climate adaptation puts communities at the center. This project shows us how,” Environmental Defense Fund, November 1, 2023, https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns/2023/11/01/transformational-climate-adaptation-puts-communities-at-the-center-this-project-shows-us-how/.
8 Jim Morrison, 2023. (See 5).
9 Ibid. See also Eliza Noe, “How Norfolk Residents Fought Discriminatory Flood Policies,” Government Technology, June 26, 2023, https://www.govtech.com/em/safety/how-norfolk-residents-fought-discriminatory-flood-policies.
10 Kelly McGee, “A Place Worth Protecting: Rethinking Cost-Benefit Analysis Under FEMA’s Flood-Mitigation Programs,” The University of Chicago Law Review, (2021), https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/place-worth-protecting-rethinking-cost-benefit-analysis-under-femas-flood-mitigation.

In 2017, the City of Norfolk decided to raze its St. Paul’s neighborhood, a low-income and outdated public housing development that frequently flooded as it was built on an old creek bed. The City aimed to redevelop the neighborhood to be flood resilient and economically diverse. Residents, however, would need to move out of their homes as the redevelopment started, and many were concerned about the potential loss of community. Although they were given the option to move into other public housing or use vouchers in neighboring areas, a Virginian-Pilot investigation found that most of the residents who moved out relocated to poor and predominantly Black neighborhoods, reinforcing long-standing racial segregation.1

A lawsuit opposing the project was brought by residents of the former Tidewater Gardens neighborhood, alleging a racial segregation pattern and insufficient housing for those who moved out. The lawsuit was settled in 2021 and effectively guaranteed residents the right to move back into the neighborhood once completed.2 Now, the City must ensure the availability of affordable housing units as well as provide housing to those using housing vouchers.3

The new development will include greener streets and a mixed income neighborhood, making for a more sustainable and diverse area.309There will be 714 on-site housing units, with more than half providing affordable options as well as some units dedicated to senior living.5 The project highlights the complexity in redesigning and equitably redeveloping flood-prone, low income neighborhoods that also hold cultural significance.

Best Practices for Local Governments:

  • Maintain consistent contact with residents throughout a relocation process, listen to their feedback, and act on it. Residents should be actively involved in relocation planning and implementation, and they should have a role in the decision making process.
  • Ensure accessible housing opportunities for residents who are displaced during a relocation process, to maintain community cohesion and trust.
  • Consider the loss of community or cultural or historical significance during relocation, and potentially develop a memorial or sign to commemorate the area or prior structure’s significance.
 

1 Ryan Murphy, “People moving out of Norfolk public housing are mostly ending up in other poor, racially segregated areas,” The Virginian-Pilot, last modified February 10, 2022, https://www.pilotonline.com/2021/02/14/people-moving-out-of-norfolk-public-housing-are-mostly-ending-up-in-other-poor-racially-segregated-areas/.
2 Ryan Murphy, “Norfolk settles lawsuit over St. Paul’s redevelopment,” WHRO, November 30, 2021. https://www.whro.org/local-news/2021-11-30/norfolk-settles-lawsuit-over-st-paul-s-redevelopment.
3 Ibid.
4 City of Norfolk, “St. Paul’s Transformation Project – Transformation Plan,” 2021, https://stpaulsdistrict.org/home/about/transformation-plan/.
5 City of Norfolk, “Housing,” https://stpaulsdistrict.org/project/.

Relocation can be particularly difficult for communities with deep cultural and historical roots. For example, both residents and local government officials were reluctant to leave Princeville, North Carolina, a historically Black community that had faced flooding for decades. FEMA offered buyouts to residents, but many were either unwilling to leave or distrusting that there would be a rapid response by the federal government. Previous federal financial efforts to help rebuild took years, leaving residents without access to their homes.1

In 2016, however, the State proposed a new solution to relocate the entire town to a 53-acre vacant lot nearby, which would be funded by a HUD Community Development Block Grant.2 There would be access to affordable housing, and the Town’s essential services would also be relocated or elevated.3 Six years later, however, the Town and its residents have yet to move; residents and government officials were deeply tied to their local history and did not want to leave, refusing multiple buyout offers over the years. The community felt they would lose their history by leaving, and long delays in delivering buyout money reinforced their reluctance to leave. 4

Residents were hoping that a levee could stop their eventual relocation, but as of 2023, the USACE determined the structure would not work.5 Currently, the project is still ongoing and relocation is still on the table. This case highlights the challenges in relocating historically-rich communities that are culturally tied to their location.

Best Practices for Local Governments:

  • Annexing nearby vacant land to relocate an entire town or neighborhood could be a good tool to ensure community cohesion, when sufficient land is available. Providing relocation areas close to the areas being abandoned can enable residents to still feel connected to their community, livelihoods, and cultural ties. And localities can generate interest in living in relocation areas by requiring public green space, LEED certified buildings, or other amenities there.
  • Enable residents to have a significant role in decision-making for relocation efforts, especially those who are from communities with historical or long-standing cultural ties. Localities need to understand and listen to residents’ needs, concerns, and ideas for the future, avoiding making assumptions about what a community would want.
  • Provide adequate funding for relocation.

For more information, see: Annexing and Preparing Higher Ground Receiving Areas in Princeville, North Carolina Through Post-Disaster Recovery Processes | Adaptation Clearinghouse

1 Jake Bittle, “America’s oldest Black town is trapped between rebuilding and retreating,” Grist, September 20, 2022, https://grist.org/housing/princeville-north-carolina-flood-black-history-managed-retreat/.
2 Ibid.
3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “North Carolina: Town of Princeville Relocation Project,” 2023, https://www.fema.gov/case-study/north-carolina-town-princeville-relocation-project.
4 Jake Bittle, 2022. (See 1).
5 J. Michael Welton, “America’s oldest Black town is threatened by floods — and seeking a Plan B,” The Washington Post, January 28, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2024/01/28/princeville-oldest-black-town-flooding/.

Relocation Challenges & Pitfalls to Avoid

When planning for relocation of communities, localities need to ensure that assistance is available not just to fee simple owners of land, but also to renters, owners of homes on leased land (including owners of homes purchased from community land trusts), and heirs property owners.

Throughout Virginia, localities may encounter heirs’ property—a form of property ownership via intestate (i.e., dying without a will) succession that frequently results in fractionalized and murky property titles. This can result in exclusion from climate adaptation programs, particularly among Black communities, where heirs’ property ownership is prevalent. Localities should thus be cognizant of heirs’ property concerns when crafting their adaptation plans and ensure that vulnerable landowners are not left out.
  • Definition: Heirs’ property is property that has been passed down to multiple family members, typically via intestate succession.1 Heirs’ property is unique because all of the heirs collectively own the property together as tenants-in-common, with each owner possessing an interest in the undivided property rather than a specific portion of the property.2
  • Vulnerabilities: Each generation of intestate succession has the potential to exponentially increase the number of heirs, further fractionalizing the property ownership.3 This ownership uncertainty can lead to lowered property values and heightened vulnerability to property loss.4 Heirs’ property is a leading source of involuntary land loss among Black communities, where it is prevalent due to historic barriers to accessing legal services.5
  • Adaptation Considerations: Notwithstanding legal reforms, both nationally and in Virginia, ownership uncertainty still persists.6 Heirs’ property owners struggle to access government assistance and are often left out of climate adaptation plans.7 To combat the disenfranchisement of heirs’ property owners, localities may want to consider the following action items:
    • Identification: Because heirs’ property does not exist within the title system, it can be difficult to identify it in the first place.8 Nevertheless, several resources exist within Virginia to help identify heirs’ property; see, e.g., Heirs’ Property: Understanding the Legal Issues in Virginia.
    • Documentation: Government programs requiring formal proof of property ownership, like a deed, leave out heirs’ property owners.9 Localities may thus want to consider adopting more accessible documentation requirements, like a letter from a public official.10 Virginia’s real estate affidavit process, in particular, allows “[a]ny person having an interest in real estate that is part of an intestate decedent’s estate” to “execute an affidavit” that effectuates the “transfer [of] real estate upon the land books.”11 For more information, visit the full text of Virginia Code § 64.2-510.
    • Virginia’s Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Act: In 2020, Virginia enacted its own version of the model Uniform Partition of Heirs’ Property Act (UPHPA).12 This law helps prevent the involuntary property loss frequently associated with heirs’ property by promoting fair property appraisals and permitting buyouts by heirs seeking to preserve ownership, among other legal reforms.13 Localities can point heirs’ property owners to Virginia’s UPHPA as a resource. For more information, visit the full text of Virginia’s law on partition of property (Code §§ 8.01-81–8.01-83.3); and for a helpful resource, see Heirs Property CLE: Understanding the Concept to Protect Ownership and Prevent Land Loss.

1 Francine Miller, “Heirs’ Property: Understanding the Legal Issues in Virginia,” Vermont Law & Graduate School, (2022): 2, https://farmlandaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/heirs-property-legal-issues-virginia.pdf. 2 Ibid. 3 J. Noble Pearson and Lillian Coward, “Heirs Property in Virginia: Filling in the Gaps,” William & Mary Law School Virginia Coastal Policy Center, (2023): 3, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=vcpclinic. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 6–8, 10–12. 7 Ibid. 4–5. See also Sarah Sax, “Black Families Passed Their Homes from One Generation to the Next. Now They May Be Lost,” Guardian, October 6, 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/06/leading-cause-black-land-loss-how-climate-crisis-supercharging-dispossession. 8 Pearson & Coward, 2023, 5. (See 3). 9 Ibid., 7. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid., 13 (“Real estate affidavits thus seem to be a strong tool for heirs’ property owners in the state looking to gain clear title after intestate land transfer.”). See also Va. Code § 64.2-510, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title64.2/chapter5/section64.2-510/. 12 Pearson & Coward, 2023, 6. (See 3). See also Va. Code §§ 8.01-81 to 8.01-83.3, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title8.01/chapter3/article9/. 13 Pearson & Coward, 2023, 6, 10. (See 3).

While easements can be a useful tool for land conservation and sea-level rise adaptation, the accompanying tax credits only accrue to landowners.1 This leaves out renters and owners of lots that are too small to accommodate easements. To ensure that all community members have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from adaptation initiatives, localities can utilize easements as just one among a diverse array of adaptation tools.

1 “Virginia Land Conservation Incentives Act of 1999,” Va. Code §§ 58.1-510 to 58.1-513, https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title58.1/chapter3/article20.1/.

Citations for This Page

1 Mathew E. Hauer, “Migration induced by sea-level rise could reshape the US population landscape,” Nature Climate Change 7, (2017): 321-325, https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3271.
2 Renia Ehrenfeucht and Marla Nelson, “Towards Transformative Climate Relocation Initiatives,” Journal of Planning Literature, 38(3), (2022): 395-407, https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221130287.
3 Ibid.
4 Anamaria Bukvic and Mingeng Kim, “Pull and push of coastal relocation: What matters the most when thinking about moving,” Social Coast Forum, Charleston, S.C., February 12-15, 2024.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Anamaria Bukvic and Steven Barnett, “Drivers of flood-induced relocation among coastal urban residents: Insight from the US east coast,” Journal of Environmental Management 325, (2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479722020023.
8 Ibid., 10.
9 Justin Dorazio, “Localized Anti-Displacement Policies,” Center for American Progress, September 26, 2022, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/localized-anti-displacement-policies/.
10 Aparna Nathan, “Climate is the Newest Gentrifying Force, and its Effects are Already Re-Shaping Cities,” Science in the News, July 15, 2019, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/climate-newest-gentrifying-force-effects-already-re-shaping-cities/.
11 Dieu-Nalio Chéry and Christina Morales, “Little Haiti Residents Fear Losing Their Miami Community to Gentrification,” The New York Times, June 12, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/realestate/little-haiti-miami.html.
12 Shelia Hu, “What Is Climate Gentrification?,” Natural Resources Defense Council, August 27, 2020, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-climate-gentrification.
13 Virginia Department of Forestry, “Wildfire in Virginia,” https://dof.virginia.gov/wildland-prescribed-fire/learn-about-wildland-and-prescribed-fire/wildfire-in-virginia/#:~:text=The%20ability%20to%20adapt%20to,(10%2Dyear%20average).
14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Wildfire climate connection,” last modified July 24, 2023, https://www.noaa.gov/noaa-wildfire/wildfire-climate-connection#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%20changes%20in,fuels%20during%20the%20fire%20season.
15 Li Zhou, “Wildfires will put even more pressure on the country’s housing crisis,” Vox, July 30, 2024, https://www.vox.com/climate/363880/park-fire-california-evacuations-housing-crisis.
16 “Accessory Dwelling Units,” American Planning Association, https://www.planning.org/knowledgebase/accessorydwellings/. See also “Why Your Community Needs Planning-Led Zoning Reform,” American Planning Association, https://www.planning.org/resources/citysummit/.
17 Patrick Sisson, “What is Zoning Reform and Why Do We Need It?,” American Planning Association, January 18, 2023, https://www.planning.org/planning/2023/winter/what-is-zoning-reform-and-why-do-we-need-it/.
18 Laurel Wamsley, “The hottest trend in U.S. cities? Changing zoning rules to allow more housing,” NPR, February 17, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/02/17/1229867031/housing-shortage-zoning-reform-cities.
19 American Planning Association, “Why Your Community Needs …” (See 16).
20 Va. Statewide Community Land Trust, “About,” https://www.vsclt.org/about/.
21 Alexander Thompson and Jocelyn Yang, “Community land trusts make housing affordable,” YES! Magazine, May 2, 2022, https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2022/05/02/affordable-housing-community-land-trusts.
22 Jakob Kendall Schneider, Mary Clare Lennon, and Susan Saegert, “Do community land trusts improve resident outcomes?,” Housing Matters; Urban Institute, February 21, 2024, https://housingmatters.urban.org/research-summary/do-community-land-trusts-improve-resident-outcomes.
23 Jessica Grannis, “Community Land = Community Resilience: How Community Land Trusts Can Support Urban Affordable Housing and Climate Initiatives,” Adaptation Clearing House: Georgetown Climate Center, January 2021, https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/community-land-community-resilience-how-community-land-trusts-can-support-urban-affordable-housing-and-climate-initiatives.html.
24 Ibid.
25 “Land Bank Entities Act,” Va. Code §§ 15.2-7500 to 15.2-7512. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title15.2/chapter75/.
26 Flora Valdes-Dapena, “Back to Basics: Land Banks – The FWD,” HousingForward Virginia, November 30, 2023, https://housingforwardva.org/news/fwd-b14-land-bank-basics/.
27 “Land Banks – Demonstrating the Positive Impacts on Communities,” Center for Community Progress, 2022, https://communityprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Progress-Points-Land-Banks-Land-Bank-Impacts-2022.pdf.
28 State of Ohio Department of Development, “Welcome Home Ohio Program,” https://development.ohio.gov/community/redevelopment/welcomehome. See also “Welcome Home Ohio: County Land Banks Setting the Table for Affordable Housing Development,” Bricker Graydon, July 17, 2023, https://www.brickergraydon.com/insights/publications/Welcome-Home-Ohio-County-Land-Banks-Setting-the-Table-for-Affordable-Housing-Development.
29 Luke Weir, “Roanoke land bank proving viable asset for affordable housing,” The Roanoke Times, December 18, 2023, https://roanoke.com/news/local/government-politics/roanoke-land-bank-proving-viable-asset-for-affordable-housing/article_f2f8b56a-9df7-11ee-a1ab-ffa7fb4a962f.html.
30 Andrew G. Keeler et al., “Buyouts with rentbacks: A policy proposal for managing coastal retreat,” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 12(3), (2022): 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-022-00762-0.
31 “Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: Floodplain Buyout Program,” Georgetown Climate Center, (2020): 2. https://www.georgetownclimate.org/files/MRT/GCC_20_Charlotte-3web.pdf.
32 Va. Department of Conservation and Recreation, “2023 Funding Manual for the Resilient Virginia Revolving Fund,” Part I(A)(i) and (ii), 2023, https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam-safety-and-floodplains/document/Round-4-2023-RVRF-Manual-FINAL-Sept-13.2023.pdf.
33 “Ehrenfeucht and Nelson, “Towards Transformative Climate Relocation Initiatives”, (See 2).”

Scroll to Top