[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   LET'S REBUILD OUR FLOOD PROTECTION

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, our colleague, Senator Christopher 
``Kit'' Bond, had an op-ed piece in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about 
the Federal Government and levees, as they apply to Missouri.
  The reality is the same kind of article could be written about 
Illinois, Iowa and, to a lesser extent, other States.
  My colleagues may recall that I offered an amendment which Senator 
Bond, among others, cosponsored to have the Federal Government move 
expeditiously on the matter of levees.
  Too often, the word expeditious is not in the lexicon of the Federal 
Government, and we have not had as rapid or as full a response as we 
should have had.
  Unquestionably, this spring there will be floods and greater damage 
than there should be because of the Federal Government's failure to 
respond.
  I ask to insert the Kit Bond article into the Record at this point.
  The statement follows:

                   Let's Rebuild Our Flood Protection

                    (By Christopher S. ``Kit'' Bond)

       Months after the national spotlight focused somewhere else, 
     a battle is still raging over the damage caused by the summer 
     flooding. For the Missourians who lost the most from the 
     floods, it's a fight for their homes, communities and lands. 
     For taxpayers, it's wasted tax dollars on a haphazard policy. 
     For all Americans, it's a troubling assault on our basic 
     rights of self-determination and private property.
       There is a disturbing temptation in Washington to make 
     decisions about how people should live their lives. It's an 
     elitist temptation to say subtly, and sometimes not so 
     subtly, that we in Washington know what's best for you. While 
     Mother Nature was the Midwest's foe in the disaster, that 
     elite Washington attitude is our foe during the recovery.
       I believe the strongest element of our federal relief 
     effort has been to let the communities and the people who 
     have suffered through this tragedy make the choices about the 
     recovery--choices about whether people should repair their 
     levees, turn their lands into new wetlands, sell their lands 
     to the government or move back into the homes belonging to 
     the families and communities that have suffered. I do not 
     believe I should make that decision for them, nor do I 
     believe that some bureaucrat, environmentalist or committee 
     chairman should make it either.
       However, some in Washington disagree with me. Beginning in 
     late August, the Clinton administration began a retreat from 
     helping people rebuild damaged levees along the Missouri and 
     Mississippi rivers. Under pressure from Washington 
     professional environmentalists, the White House directed the 
     Army Corps of Engineers to consider new alternatives, like 
     wetlands, to repairing our current flood-protection system.
       After assuring many flood-ravaged Missouri communities that 
     it would assist them with levee rebuilding, the corps did a 
     complete reversal on Sept. 28. Under orders from Washington, 
     the corps refused to help communities that it had earlier 
     pledged to assist. Small towns on the river like Orrick and 
     Hardin that had been devastated by flooding have been left 
     with nowhere to turn for help. If their levees remain 
     unrepaired, they will be unprotected from flood waters this 
     spring.
       My solution to this crisis is straightforward. I want the 
     corps to allow levees that are sponsored by communities and 
     other public organizations the option of entering the federal 
     levee program and getting assistance in rebuilding their 
     levees to pre-flood conditions. The public sponsors of levees 
     entering the federal program would be required to meet the 
     corps' high standards for levees and abide fully by the 
     program's requirements. Only publicly sponsored levees, not 
     private levees, could participate and get federal rebuilding 
     assistance under my approach.
       The environmental activists and their allies want to deny 
     this assistance to flood-ravaged communities. They know these 
     towns and families are financially wiped out from the 
     flooding. By depriving them of any assistance, and thus their 
     choices, they hope to drive people from their homes. They 
     even go as far as claiming that rebuilding these publicly 
     sponsored levees amounts to ``flood pork.'' Frankly, that's 
     an argument only people sitting high and dry in Washington or 
     behind 30-foot-high, multimillion-dollar levees would make so 
     cavalierly.
       No Missouri flood victim would profit from ``flood pork.'' 
     Forty-seven people lost their lives, and the homes of 55,000 
     families were damaged. All told, our state suffered nearly 
     $15 billion in economic losses. Federal assistance will not 
     come close to compensating flood victims for their actual 
     damages, let alone their suffering. People who call this 
     humanitarian aid ``pork'' should be ashamed.
       Most Missourians agree that Washington should not try to 
     prevent flood victims from returning to their homes and 
     communities. But as taxpayers, as people may question whether 
     this is the wisest use of their tax dollars. Let me briefly 
     outline the three federal alternatives: doing nothing, 
     creating a new flood-protection system like a floodway or 
     rebuilding damaged levees.
       First, if the federal government does nothing to help 
     repair these levees, then people in the Midwest will continue 
     to suffer flood damages, costing the government more in lost 
     tax revenue, economic damages and disaster assistance until 
     they are protected. It would also waste billions of dollars 
     already invested in these communities and cause untold 
     suffering.
       As a result, one of every four damaged levees along the 
     river would be left without federal assistance for repairs. 
     This haphazard approach would hold the river back as well as 
     a bucket full of holes holds water. When the river breaches 
     damaged levees, it will roll behind the protection system, 
     flooding everything in its path, including towns like Orrick 
     and Hardin.
       Next, if the federal government were to create a new flood 
     protection system, it would easily cost billions of tax 
     dollars. We would need to buy out miles and miles of land, 
     including entire communities along the river, and pay people 
     a fair price. That's unless the government just seizes 
     people's land or pays them next to nothing for it. Then a new 
     system of levees and wetlands would have to be constructed 
     from scratch. That's by far the most costly approach, and the 
     one favored by some environmental activists.
       Finally, simple common sense and hard budget figures 
     dictate that repairing our damaged levees is the most cost-
     effective way to protect people from flooding. Using 
     information from the corps, I estimate that up to 482 
     publicly sponsored levees would enter the federal program 
     under my proposal at an average cost of $218,000 a levee. The 
     total federal cost could come to $105 million.
       So, the options are: invest some tax dollars now in 
     repairing our current levee system; spend a lot of tax 
     dollars now to experiment with a new flood system, or shell 
     out a bunch of money down the road as the price of doing 
     little or nothing to repair these levees. As taxpayers, you 
     should be appalled to know that your federal government 
     threatens to impose the most expensive and cold-hearted levee 
     option on people along the river--doing nothing.
       There is no single answer or approach that is right for 
     everyone along the river. Each family and community has its 
     own unique situation and must make its own choices about its 
     future. The simple fact is that the federal government cannot 
     afford to buy out all the land in the flood plain or create 
     new wetlands. Yet we also cannot afford to sit and just watch 
     while Missouri families are wiped out again this spring when 
     the normal spring rains come and which public airports, 
     roads, bridges and water treatment facilities we just paid to 
     repair are once again destroyed by flood waters. Lets put 
     people first so that we can rebuild our flood protection 
     before it's too late.

                          ____________________