R O C K E F E L L E R

B R I E F

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast
State University of New York 411 State Street Albany, New York 12203 (518) 443-5522
www.rockinst.org

Is a Regional Solution Possible?

Carl Hayden Chair, Board of Overseers Thomas Gais Director Robert Bullock Deputy Director for Operations Jason Lane Deputy Director for Research Michael Cooper Director of Publications Michele Charbonneau Staff Assistant for Publications

James W. Fossett and Kathryn Friedman1 March 2014
Introduction
n the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, sea level rise has emerged as perhaps the most significant manifestation of climate change in Northeastern coastal areas, particularly in the densely settled area around New York City. A variety of official reports and published research have documented a recent increase in the rate of sea level rise around New York City, Northern New Jersey, Connecticut, and the New York suburbs on both Long Island and the mainland. Most observers expect sea level rise to continue, or even accelerate over the next several decades, placing increasingly large numbers of people at risk in future storms from the increased storm surge associated with sea level rise. This paper examines the institutional structures that might be required to devise a coherent response to sea level rise. We are not optimistic that such structures will materialize, at least in the short run. Sea level rise, particularly in the area around New York Harbor, is a regional problem in which large scale actions by one government to protect against storm surge can have consequences for other governments. The governors of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey and the mayor of New York, who are the major actors in the recovery from Sandy, have different preferences on the appropriate way to address this issue, and other elected officials in the area have their own agendas as well. There’s no current forum to negotiate and resolve these differences. Other
Page 1 www.rockinst.org

I

Nancy L. Zimpher Chancellor

Rockefeller Institute

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

regional issues have been addressed by multistate bodies of various sorts, but the record of such bodies in addressing controversial recovery issues is distinctly mixed. There has been little evidence to date of any coordinated efforts to address sea level rise or its consequences, with individual states and New York City proceeding with recovery independent of each other. Action by federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers to plan and implement large scale regional solutions, which has been the most common means of addressing regional problems in the past, doesn’t appear likely in this case because of the large amounts of funding that would be required.

Sea Level Rise in the New York City Area
Sea level rise in the New York City area has been a matter of concern for environmental advocates for some time. Official and political attention has intensified after Hurricanes Irene and Lee and Superstorm Sandy did considerable damage to the region within a short period of time. Sea level rise has a variety of undesirable consequences. As outlined in the NYS 2100 report commissioned by Governor Andrew Cuomo after Sandy, increasing sea levels significantly enhance the magnitude of damage from storm surge and flooding produced by any given storm; increase the erosion and inundation of marshes, beaches, and other natural protections during regular tidal cycles; and increase the risk of disease transmission though the inundation of waste water treatment facilities, among other things. Multiple reports commissioned by New York State and New York City and a variety of published research have documented a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise, which is widely expected to continue. Sea level in New York City, as measured at the Battery at the tip of Manhattan, has risen by 1.1 feet since 1900. More recent estimates, which are developed from the middle ranges of projections from a large number of global change models, suggest this rate will increase significantly over the course of the 21st century. A pre-Sandy report commissioned by the New York State Legislature projected increases in sea level in Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley between 2-6 inches by the 2020s, rising to 12-23 inches by the 2080s. Incorporating assumptions about increases in the rate of polar ice melt increases these estimates still further, with middle ranges of 5-10 inches by the 2020s and 41-55 inches by the 2080s. 2 The NYS 2100 Commission projected midrange estimates for 2100 of between 15 to 30 inches for New York City and Long Island, with midrange projections of 56-72 inches under a rapid ice melt scenario. 3 The New York Mayor’s Climate Change Panel 2013 report projected higher levels of increase, with midrange estimates of 4-8 inches by the 2020s and 11-24 inches by the 2050s. 4 Sea level rise is expected to be more rapid in the Northeast than elsewhere because of slowing in the rate of flow in the Gulf Stream, which lessens the amount of water “pulled” away from the coast. 5 While precise estimates of
Rockefeller Institute Page 2 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

sea level rise vary in magnitude and timing depending on assumptions about the rate of polar ice melt and other factors, even the more conservative estimates envision a significant increase in sea levels over the next several decades. The number of people at risk from future storms is also expected to increase significantly from current levels. Estimates by the nonprofit group Climate Central place the population living in areas less than five feet above sea level in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey at approximately 700,000, which might be taken as a conservative estimate of the population at risk for flooding. 6 Climate Central reports storm surge levels during a reference 100 year flood at over five feet at multiple points throughout the region, even without considering the effects of global warming. The New York City Mayor’s Climate Change Panel projects midrange estimates of flood heights in a 100 year flood at the Battery of over 15 feet by the 2020s and as high as 17.6 feet by the 2080s. These in creases in sea level and storm surge indicate that significantly larger areas of New York City are at risk beyond those currently recognized in FEMA’s flood plain maps.7 An analysis by Princeton University researchers indicated that more than 3 percent of the land area in New Jersey would be inundated by a 48 inch increase in sea level, well within projected ranges, and more than 8 percent of the state’s land area would be temporarily inundated by a reference 100 year flood. 8 Quite clearly, the potential risk to the region from the elevated storm surge resulting from sea level rise seems likely to increase over the next several decades.

Addressing Sea Level Rise — The Institutional Problem
The governance system in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area is ill-suited institutionally to deal with the problem of sea level rise. Sea level rise affects the entire coastal region, though not uniformly, and the choices made by individual governments to address it have consequences, whether good or ill, for other governments. Particularly around New York Harbor, which borders New York City, other parts of New York State, and significant portions of New Jersey, it is difficult to imagine any large scale solution to sea level rise that might be implemented by any one government that doesn’t affect large numbers of other stakeholders as well. Clearly major elements of an effective response to sea level rise have to be negotiated and implemented at a regional level. By contrast, control over the major policy elements required to affect a regional solution is fragmented among different levels of government and federal, state, and local agencies. Both New York and New Jersey are home rule states, meaning that control over zoning, land use, and building codes are vested in local governments, including the large number of smaller governments in flood prone coastal areas. In similar fashion, control over transportation, housing, utilities, coastal zone management and other critical infrastructure is split in complex ways between state
Rockefeller Institute Page 3 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

government agencies in different states and such regional entities as the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This fragmentation has been reinforced by the federal agencies that support recovery efforts. Historically, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which has served as the lead agency for disaster recovery, has dealt directly with local governments to support cleanup and the reconstruction of important public and nonprofit facilities through its Public Assistance program. FEMA’s flood insurance program, which is managed through private insurance agencies, also deals directly with communities in flood plains, which can take actions that reduce their citizens’ flood insurance rates. Importantly, FEMA’s Public Assistance and Flood Insurance programs are intended to repair or replace structures damaged by disasters in the same condition and location as before the disaster, rather than supporting upgrades or relocation. FEMA also manages a predisaster mitigation program that supports relocation of homes and facilities, but this program is small in scale relative to the Public Assistance and Flood Insurance programs.9 President Obama vested responsibility for overseeing the federal response to Sandy in a Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, created by executive order in early December 2012. The Task Force is chaired by the secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The largest portion of the funds for Sandy relief comes not from FEMA, but from programs to replace and upgrade infrastructure such as subways, roads, and sewage systems overseen by such federal agencies as the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The largest single piece of the Sandy relief bill comes from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is administered by HUD. CDBG funds can be used to pay the local share of FEMA-supported projects, provide housing and economic development support beyond that available from FEMA’s Flood Insurance program and the U.S. Small Business Administration’s disaster loan program, and a variety of other purposes not supported by other federal programs. The first allocations of CDBG funds to New York, New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut, which amounted to roughly one-third of the available funds, took place within a week of the president’s signature on the relief bill. This allocation system has provided Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey and Andrew Cuomo of New York and New York City Mayors Michael Bloomberg and Bill DiBlasio with independent access to large amounts of CDBG funds and allowed them to develop plans for spending these funds more or less independently. These plans had to be developed for spending these funds in a short period of time, with many programmatic components having to be devised from scratch. Since neither state emergency management agencies nor FEMA have much experience with
Rockefeller Institute Page 4 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

housing or economic redevelopment programs, these plans were developed by state housing or economic development agencies that have little experience with disaster recovery. Spending plans for the first round of CDBG allocations appear to focus on housing rehabilitation and replacement and small-business loan and grant programs and paying for the local share of FEMA funded projects, areas where the primary economic impact is localized and one jurisdiction’s programs may have limited consequences for others. This is not the case, though, for subsequent strategies. Public discussion has shifted the debate from the immediate recovery from Superstorm Sandy to devising longer term strategies for responding to sea level rise and other manifestations of climate change. Governor Cuomo commissioned four post-Sandy reports that addressed questions of response to sea level rise and other manifestations of climate change. 10 Mayor Bloomberg of New York City established an advisory panel on climate change and an Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability in 2006 that has undertaken a variety of initiatives. These include a major post-Sandy report on maintaining New York’s sustainability in the face of climate change. 11 Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy has signed legislation to incorporate sea level rise into that state’s Coastal Management Act and encouraging the use of “less environmentally damaging alternatives” to sea walls as protection against storm surge.12 Other elected officials, most notably Senator Schumer of New York, have weighed in on the debate over how to spend Sandy recovery money. Still other elected officials and advocacy groups have their own agendas and political interests to defend. Not surprisingly, there are significant substantive differences among these various governments and stakeholders. There are three basic options for mitigating against the risk of storm surge resulting from sea level rise — protection against surge by constructing structures such as sea walls, surge barriers, or so-called “soft infrastructure”; increasing the resilience of structures against flooding; or retreating from vulnerable areas to higher ground.13 Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg have been vocal about the problem of climate change, but have significantly different preferences about the appropriate mix of these activities to address its consequences. A Cuomo proposal to buy out homeowners under favorable terms won substantial editorial support and public indications of interest from at least one Staten Island community. The proposal, however, got a cool public reception from Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Schumer, Governor Christie, and local officials. New York is also supporting community risk assessment and mitigation planning through significant grants of CDBG funds to local communities and New York City neighborhoods.14 Governor Cuomo has also recently announced a major $17 billion recovery package that focuses heavily on expanding coastal protection and flood control systems and making critical
Rockefeller Institute Page 5 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

infrastructures such as subways, roads, bridges, airports, power grids, and wastewater systems more resilient to future storms. 15 While the proposal also includes funding for home construction, enhanced emergency management and response, and significant funding for upstate areas affected by earlier storms, the bulk of funding will go to areas most affected by sea level rise. Mayor Bloomberg’s recent proposal for adapting to climate change relies on continued waterfront development, upgrades to local building codes, and local structural protections against storm surge rather than any large scale retreat. Climate change has been an important issue for Mayor Bloomberg, which he apparently intends to continue to pursue on leaving office. 16 New Mayor Bill DiBlasio campaigned on other issues and has not made climate change a priority, so the city’s future position is unclear.17 DiBlasio’s campaign website replaces Bloomberg’s proposals for bulkheads, barriers, and levees with a preference for “soft infrastructure,” but there are few details. 18 By way of further contrast, Governor Christie has pronounced the question of climate change as “esoteric,” and has pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The governor has focused his post-Sandy efforts on reopening the New Jersey Shore and has made few public pronouncements on particular mitigation strategies. Unlike New York, New Jersey has announced no support for community risk assessment and mitigation planning, although the state has adopted a home buyout program similar to New York’s.19 The state’s plan for the second round of CDBG funds, by contrast with New York State, focuses heavily on expansion of programs for homeowners and renters and relatively less on infrastructure.20 Other elected officials and advocacy groups have also weighed in with proposals that may push programs in different directions. These differences might be expected to persist, and even intensify, as the recovery process proceeds. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with different jurisdictions making different choices about the management of funds to support local recovery. Longer term or larger scale issues, such as sea level rise or expensive flood control measures that inevitably affect the entire region, are another matter. Christie, Cuomo, Schumer, Bloomberg, and DiBlasio appear to have different views on the importance of climate change and the value of alternative strategies for dealing with disaster recovery, and there is no clear governance mechanism for them to arbitrate their differences and arrive at a coherent regional approach. The strategy of providing the governors and the mayor with separate pots of money that they can spend without reference to each other limits potential conflict and allows short term recovery spending to proceed expeditiously, but it makes concerted regional action more difficult.

Rockefeller Institute

Page 6

www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

The History of Regional Action
Addressing issues that require coordinated action across state lines to address sea level rise may be difficult. Elected officials in charge of recovery efforts will continue to have differing policy views and political needs on such issues as sea level rise and large scale flood control, and there is no clear forum to resolve these differences. Coordinated regional action to address other problems that span state borders has been at least partially effective in the past. New York is party to a variety of joint undertakings with other governments through public benefit corporations, whose boards are jointly appointed by the participating governments, that might serve as models for regional action. The record of these undertakings is mixed. The MTA and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have managed the area’s transportation systems for decades. The MTA’s governing board is appointed by the governor of New York, the mayor of New York City, and the executives of the counties that the MTA serves. The MTA operates the subway and bus systems that serve New York City and manages the rail systems used by New York commuters coming from suburbs in New York and Connecticut. The Port Authority, whose board is jointly appointed by the governors of New York and New Jersey, manages the commuter rail, bus, bridge, and tunnel systems that serve New Jersey commuters; the area’s ports; and several airports and has extensive real estate holdings in Manhattan, including the site of the World Trade Center. Historically, the Port Authority has been seen as an effective institution that was designed and managed to operate independently of political interference.21 Since the 9/11 attacks, however, the agency has had its difficulties. A number of employees were killed in the attacks, subsequent turnover in executive positions has been high, and the professional engineering work force has been significantly diminished. The agency’s upper management has increasingly become divided into “New York” and “New Jersey” blocs. The Port Authority has come under fire recently on a number of fronts, including slow performance of capital improvements at two New York Airports, difficulties from its involvement in the 9/11 recovery, large increases in tolls, and alleged actions by New Jersey appointees to punish a local mayor for failure to endorse Governor Christie for re-election.22 Facilities operated by both agencies were damaged by Sandy, and both are receiving funding from the Sandy relief bill to repair and upgrade the facilities. In addition to these interstate or interjurisdictional organizations, several bridges between New York and Canada are managed by joint enterprises between the state of New York and the relevant Canadian province, as well as between the United States and Canada. Board members for these authorities are jointly appointed by New York state officials and those of the relevant Canadian province. These authorities are generally agreed to have functioned reasonably well, although not without some rancorous
Rockefeller Institute Page 7 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

conflicts between New York and Canadian officials. The Peace Bridge Authority,23 which manages a bridge of the same name between Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, Ontario, has recently been through a long running dispute between American and Canadian board members that was only resolved after threats by the New York Legislature and governor to dissolve the Authority and intervention by ambassadors from both countries. 24 The one past attempt to use such intergovernmental entities to address contentious recovery issues has not gone well. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) was created with a board appointed by the New York City mayor and the New York governor to oversee the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site and manage the allocation of CDBG funds to appropriate projects in the area. LMDC did provide the necessary forum for arbitrating the complex and controversial issues surrounding 9/11 recovery, but it was frequently undercut by mayors and governors alike, and found it difficult to effectively arbitrate the rancorous conflicts over nearly every aspect of the recovery. Ten years after 9/11, over 20 percent of the allocated CBDG funds were still unspent. The 9/11 recovery was likely unique in its architectural and emotional issues, but it does illustrate the difficulties of joint undertakings when the appointing authorities of these organizations represent different interests and stakeholders and are divided over substantive issues. Past efforts at sustained intergovernmental cooperation in the New York area, in sum, have had mixed results. While some regional bodies have functioned well for decades, others have been susceptible to gridlock and conflict between participating governments and have experienced difficulty achieving their objectives. A revitalized Port Authority might serve as a model for a regional body that could address the problem of sea level rise, but such an undertaking would be a long term proposition.

The Outlook for Federal Action
Historically, the American system has managed interstate disagreements over large scale infrastructure projects that cross state lines through federal action to plan routes or locations, award contracts, and finance and manage construction. The Army Corps of Engineers has long been involved in the construction of interstate networks of flood control and navigation systems, dams, and harbors along the nation’s rivers and coasts. Federal agencies oversaw the construction and management of such interstate projects as the Great National Road, the transcontinental railroad, and the interstate highway system. More recently, Congress provided support for the Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild and enhance the flood control system in and around New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One large round of funding was initially approved for states and other federal agencies to address immediate response and recovery issues, with funding for the Corps approved in a subsequent appropriation.
Rockefeller Institute Page 8 www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

Separate funding for the Army Corps to develop and implement a large scale solution to the problem of sea level rise in the New York City area seems unlikely to materialize in the current federal budget environment. Approval of the initial Sandy relief bill was a heavy political lift, marked by rancorous conflicts between regions and parties, particularly in the House of Representatives. Senator Charles Schumer of New York was able to secure funding for a large scale engineering study by the Army Corps to develop plans for protection of the New York Harbor area against future storms, with the apparent intention of securing support for the implementation of such plans in future appropriations. Such support seems unlikely to materialize. Large scale protective or mitigation measures, whether levees, dams, surge barriers, so-called “soft infrastructure” or large scale housing buyouts to support retreat from the waterfront are expensive — publicly cited price tags for such undertakings in the New York City harbor area are in the $10-20 billion range. The same pattern of regional and partisan division that marked the passage of the initial Sandy relief bill seems likely to persist in the short term, making further large appropriations for recovery unlikely. Federal action to overcome interstate disagreements has worked in the past, but the outlook for such action in this case is slim at best.

Conclusion
Grappling with sea level rise in a multijurisdictional setting is clearly fraught with governance challenges. Elected officials in different jurisdictions have different policy preferences and interstate institutions for negotiating and resolving such differences have frequently gridlocked in the past. The attention of state and local elected officials has been diverted by other issues, including a mayoral election in New York and gubernatorial elections in both New York and New Jersey. There have been no explicit public discussions addressing this issue across jurisdictional lines. Coordinated or joint action between the affected states and New York City is not impossible, but it seems unlikely to emerge at this point in the Sandy recovery. Large scale federal action to manage sea level rise around New York Harbor also seems unlikely. More likely, individual jurisdictions will proceed with their own efforts along these lines from the resources available to them, with the result that some areas may be protected and others may not.

Rockefeller Institute

Page 9

www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

Endnotes
1 Fossett is a senior fellow at the Rockefeller Institute of Government and an associate professor at the University at Albany. Friedman is a research associate professor at the University at Buffalo’s Regional Institute. They would like to acknowledge helpful comments on earlier drafts from Tom Gais and David Shaffer. New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force, Report to the Legislature (Albany, NY: NYS Sea Level Rise Task Force, 2010), 18, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf. NYS 2100 Commission, Recommendations to Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire State’s Infrastructure (Albany,NY: NY 2100 Commission, 2013), 21, http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/NYS2100.pdf New York City Panel on Climate Change, Climate Risk Information 2013: Observations, Climate Change Projections, and Maps, ed. Cynthia Rosenzweig and William Solecki. Prepared for use by the City of New York Special Initiative on Rebuilding and Resiliancy, 2013, p. 7, http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pdf/npcc_climate_risk_information_2013_report.pdf. Michael D. Lemonick, “East Coast Faces Rising Seas from Slowing Gulf Stream,” Climate Central, February 12, 2013, http://www.climatecentral.org/news/east-coast-faces-rising-seas-from-slowing-gulf-stream-15587. Climate Central, Surging Seas State Factsheets, March 14, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/research/reports/surging-seas-state-factsheets/. Climate Risk Information 2013, pp. 5-6 Matthew J.P. Cooper, Michael D. Beevers, and Michael Oppenheimer, “Future Sea Level Rise and the New Jersey Coast: Assessing Potential Impacts and Opportunities,” Unpublished paper, Science Technology and Environmental Policy Program, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, November 2005, http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/recent-publications/Future-Sea-Lev el-Rise-and-the-New-Jersey-Coast-Assessing-Potential-Impacts-and-Opportunities.pdf. Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, July 10, 2009), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34537.pdf. NYS 2100 Commission, Recommendations to Improve the Strength and Resilience of the Empire State’s Infrastructure (Albany, NY: NYS 2100 Commission, 2013), http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/NYS2100.pdf. plaNYC, A Stronger, More Resilient New York (New York, NY: NYC Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, June 11, 2013), http://www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/html/report/report.shtml. Jan Ellen Spiegel, “Coastal management legislation balances environmental concerns with property rights” Connecticut Mirror, May 9, 2012, http://ctmirror.org/coastal-management-legislation-balances-environmental-concerns-property-rights/. Klaus Jacob, “The Case Against Rebuilding the Coastline After Superstorm Sandy,” Mother Jones, September 17, 2013, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/against-rebuilding-sandy-coastline-resilience. “New York Rising Communities Conceptual Reconstruction Plans,” New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program, http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/nyrcr/conceptual-plans. Notable exceptions are the reports from Staten Island and Broome County Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, “Governor Cuomo Announces Broad Series of Innovative Protections; Vice President Biden Credits Governor Cuomo’s Storm Plan as a Model for Future Recovery Efforts,” News Release, January 7, 2014, https://www.governor.ny.gov/press/01072013-cuomo-biden-future-recovery-efforts. Michael Bloomberg, Hank Paulson, and Tom Steyer, “We Need Climate-Change Risk Assessment,” Washington Post, October 3, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-climate-change-risk-assessment/2013/10/03/d4f70e3c-2bb5-1 1e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html.

2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16

Rockefeller Institute

Page 10

www.rockinst.org

Rockefeller Brief

Responding to Sea Level Change in the Northeast: Is a Regional Solution Possible?

17

For a more detailed discussion, see Spencer Bruce, Brian Fargnoli, and Alyson Kelly, “Disaster Relief and Climate Change Preparedness: Anticipated Policy and Political Outcomes,” Unpublished paper, Department of Public Administration, University at Albany, 2013). Ibid., 11. See Shiva Polefka, Moving Out of Harm’s Way (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, December 12, 2013), http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/FloodBuyouts-2.pdf, for a description of the two programs. Heather Haddon, “Christie Administration Releases Sandy Aid Plan” Wall Street Journal (February 3, 2014). Jameson W. Doig, Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Political Power at the Port of New York Authority (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2004). See Jameson W. Doig, “Restore Integrity at the Port Authority,” New York Times,February 20, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/opinion/restore-integrity-at-the-port-authority.html?pagewanted=all &_r=0. The authority’s official name is the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority, but it’s popularly referred to as the “Peace Bridge Authority” after the bridge it manages. Danny Hakim, “Cuomo and Canada Have Peace Bridge Deal,” New York Times (June 26, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/nyregion/cuomo-and-canadian-officials-reach-deal-on-peace-bridge. html; Thomas Kaplan, “Peace Bridge Authority Given Deadline by Legislature,” New York Times,June 12, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/nyregion/peace-bridge-authority-given-deadline-by-legislature.html; and Danny Hakim, “The Peace Bridge (What Else?) Sets Off a Cuomo-Canada War,” New York Times, May 27, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/nyregion/cuomo-and-canadians-in-verbal-war-over-peace-bridge.ht ml.

18 19

20 21 22

23 24

About The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of the State University of New York, was established in 1982 to bring the resources of the sixty-four-campus SUNY system to bear on public policy issues. The Institute is active nationally in research and special projects on the role of state governments in American federalism and the management and finances of both state and local governments in major areas of domestic public affairs.
Rockefeller Institute Page 11 www.rockinst.org

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful