[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
A B L U 1?--P.R,,I'N'-r -`F 0 R C H A N G E `771 m"r @l ,d@l 0-1le 4,W 71 _4*p GB1 399. 3 S52 RH 1994 IN lb Report of the Interonent-y jqjOojj:jjOd[jjjWjv*g,@ jjjjjrjij@M To the AdmWstiaflon *Ioodp'foj@, Mainaipment- Task THE FLOOD Then God, our Lord, hindered the work with a mighty flood of the great river, which at that time - about the eighth or tenth of March [of 1543] -- began to come down with an enormous increase of water: Which in the beginning overflowed the wide level ground between the river and cliffs; then little by little it rose to the top of the cliffs. Soon it began to flow over the fields in an immense flood, and as the land was level without any hills there was nothing to stop the inundation. ... The flood was 40 days in reaching its greatest height, which was the 20th of April, and it was a beautiful thing to look upon the sea where there had been fields, for on each side of the river the water extended over twenty leagues of land, and all this area was navigated by canoes, and nothing was seen but the top of the tallest trees... ... By the end of May the river had returned within its banks. Garciliaso de la Vega describing the DeSoto Expedition On the banks of the Mississippi River near Tunica, Mississippi History of Hernando DeSoto, Lisbon, 1605 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE SHARING THE CHALLENGE: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT INTO THE 21ST CENTURY US Department of Commerce NOAA Coastal Services Center Library 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 Dec 05 1995 Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee To the Administration- Floodplain Management Task Force WASHINGTON, D,C. JUNE 1994 Property of CSC Library For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16-045078-0 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT INTERAGENCY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 June 30, 1994 TO: The Administration Floodplain Management Task Force T. J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget Kathleen McGinty, Director, White House Office of Environmental Policy James R. Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources SUBJECT: Final Report Forwarded herewith for your consideration is, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21" Century, the final report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee. In January 1994 you assigned the Review Committee the mission to delineate the major causes and consequences of the 1993 Midwest flooding; to evaluate the performance of existing floodplain management and related watershed management programs. The review Committee also was to make recommendations to the Task Force on changes in current policies, programs, and activities of the federal government that most effectively would achieve risk reduction, economic efficiency, and environmental enhancement in the floodplain and related watersheds. The report provides the Review Committee's findings and recommendations for action. The thesis of the report is straightforward. Floods will continue to occur. The goals for floodplain management are clear. The means to carry out effective floodplain management exist today but need improvement and refocusing. It is now time to organize a national effort to conduct effective and efficient floodplain management. It is time to share responsibility and accountability for accomplishing floodpl'ain management among all levels of government and with the citizens of the nation. I would emphasize that the report represents the views of the Review Committee and is based on its research and interactions with federal, state and local officials, businesses, interest groups, and individuals in and outside the upper Mississippi River Basin. It does not necessarily represent the views of the agencies represented on the Review Committee or the views of the Administration. It is now up to the Administration to determine which of the recommendations and actions should be implemented on what schedule. The Review Committee appreciates the support and guidance that you provided over the past six months as well as the opportunity to participate in such an interesting and important endeavor. V Perald E. Ga ay 'Briga er Gene al, U.S. Army o dil e n E@xecutive Director Thanks The Review Committee acknowledges with deep appreciation the assistance and thoughtful advice received from many federal, state, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted during the course of this review. The collective wisdom, insights and experiences of these many people provided the Review Committee with an understanding of the problems and challenges of both living in and managing the floodplain. The Review Committee owes a debt of gratitude to those who set up and facilitated the public outreach sessions and the visits to flood affected areas. There will never be a substitute for seeing the problem area or talking to someone who has been through a flood. Far too many people contributed to the effort to name them all individually. Because of their special contributions, however, the Review Committee would like to give special thanks to several groups and individuals. The leadership of the Administration Floodplain Management Task Force -- T. J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget; Kathleen McGinty, Director, White House Office for Environmental Policy; James R. Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources -- gave the Committee its charge and guided it along its path. Kathryn Way, White House Domestic Policy Council assisted in coordinating efforts with the states. Bruce Long, OMB, and Will Stelle, White House Office for Environmental Policy provided both expertise and day-to-day shepherding of Committee activities. Mark Schaefer, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, assisted with SAST. Ray Clark, Patti Leppert-Slack and Kathleen Gallagher, Council on Environmental Quality, provided substantive insights and moral and administrative support. The White House Council of Economic Advisors sponsored Economics Advisory Group with Erik Lichtenberg, Chair; Jon Goldstein, USFWS; Jim Schaub, USDA; Peter Kuch, EPA; Robert Stearns, Department of the Army; and Norm Starler, OMB, served as an invaluable sounding board. Margaret Siegel, the National Governors Association, facilitated contacts with the flood-affected and other interested states. Connie Hunt, the World Wildlife Fund, sponsored three in-basin workshops on use of the floodplain. Chris Brescia, MARC 2000, facilitated access to the agriculture and river communities. W. H. Klingner and John Robb, Upper Mississippi Flood Control Association, provided entry to the many levee and drainage districts of the basin. Tom Waters, the Missouri Levee and Drainage District Association, offered a steady stream of information about the Missouri River levee situation. The Universities Council on Water Resources, Duane Baumann, gathered a team of distinguished academicians -- Ray Burby, Shirley Laska, Luna Leopold, Mary Fran Myers, Leonard Shabman, and Gilbert White -- to provide their views on floodplain management. Doug Plasencia and Larry Larson, Association of State Floodplain Managers, and Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers, shared their experiences and opened their files and their membership to the Review Committee. The nine flood state governors and their representatives facilitated and guided the Committee's extensive contacts within the states: Al Grosboll, Don Vonnahme and Maureen Crocker, Illinois; General Harold (Tommy) Thompson and LTC Tom Tucker, Iowa; Cindy Luxem, Kansas; Todd Johnson and Jim Franklin, Minnesota; Jerry Uhlman and Jill Friedman, Missouri; Dayle Williamson and Brian Dunnigan, Nebraska; Dave Sprynczynatyk and Jeff Klein, North Dakota; Gary Whitney, South Dakota; Lee Conner and Diane Kleiboer, Wisconsin. Holly Stoerker, Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, and Richard Oppek, Missouri River Basin Association invited the Review Committee to participate in the meetings of the Associations and shared their years of experience. Throughout the study process, the Review Committee benefited from the advice and information provided by many members of Congress, by their staff members, and by the key committee staffs. Tha Review Committee would also like to thank the' many Washington and basin based orgranizations that provided assistance and advice, especially the American Farm Bureau FoJeration, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Association of State Flood and Stormwater Managers, the Association of American State Geologists, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Illinois Farm Bureau Federation, the McKnight Foundation, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Waterways Conference, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Disaster Coalition, the Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club. The individuals within federal agencies who served as advisors on agency activities and as focal points to facilitate information exchange with the Review Committee deserve special note: Army, John Zirschky; DOI, Michelle Altemus and Russ Earnest; USDA, Tom Hebert, Oleta Fitzgerald, and Eric Olsen; EPA, Dick Sanderson and David Davis; FEMA, Dick Moore, Dick Krimm, Jane Bullock, Morrie Goodman, and Martha Braddock; HHS, RADM Frank Young; HUD, Truman Goins; DOT, Susan Gaskins; DOL, Ed Flynn; NWS, Eugene St0ings; and USACE, MG Stan Genega, Hugh Wright, and Jerry Peterson. During the preparation of any report, invaluable assistance is provided by the individuals who go beyond 'the call of duty.' The Review Committee would like extend its thanks to Paul Alberti, Don Barnes, Whalen Blair, Patti Cogdell, Gary Dyhouse, Mary Lou East, Brian Hyde, George Johnson, Jim Kazel, Stuart Kasden, John Kerr, David Lawson, Andy Manale, Kermit Mann, David May, John McShane, Jeanne Melanson, Mark Merritt, Matt Miller, Marty Reuss, Kyle Schilling, Josephine Scott, Eugene Stakhiv, Kevin Tonat, Nancy Ycager, Chet Worm, Larry Zensinger, and Don Zochi. Thanks are due to the National Park Service, the USACE, the USDA and the Missouri Department of Conservation for the photographs used in the report. While the above groups and individuals have provided much valuable advice, the Review Committee bears sole responsibility for all views expressed in this report. SHARING THE CHALLENGE: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT INTO THE 21sCENTURY The Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee ABSTRACT June 1994 The Midwest Flood of 1993 was a significant the focus and the incentive to engage itself seriously in hydrometeorological event. In some areas it floodplain management. The 1993 flood has managed represented an unusual event; in most others, however, to focus attention on the floodplain and has provided the it was just another of the many that have been seen incentive for action. before and will be seen again. Flood flows similar to those experienced by most of the Midwest can occur at The Interagency Floodplain Management Review any time. During the decade ending in 1993, average Committee proposes a better way to manage the annual flood damages in the United States exceed $3 floodplains. It begins by establishing that all levels of billion. Flood damages are a national problem. government, all businesses and all citizens have a stake in properly managing the floodplain. All of those who Excessive rainfall, which produced standing water, support risky behavior, either directly or indirectly, saturated soils, and overland flow, caused major must share in floodplain management and in the costs of damages to upland agriculture and some communities. reducing that risk. The federal government can lead by In turn, runoff from this rainfall created, throughout the example; but state and local governments must manage basin, flood events that became a part of the nation's their own floodplains. Individual citizens must adjust 1993 TV experience. Damages overall were extensive: their actions to the risk they face and bear a greater between $12 billion and $16 billion that can be counted, share of the economic costs. and a large amount in unquantifiable impacts on the health and well-being of the population of the Midwest. The Review Committee supports a floodplain management strategy of, sequentially, avoiding Human activities in the floodplains of the Midwest over inappropriate use of the floodplain, minimizing the last three centuries have placed people and property vulnerability to damage through both structural and at risk. Local and federal flood damage reduction nonstructural means, and mitigating flood damages projects were constructed to minimize the annual risk, when they do occur. and, during the 1993 flood, prevented nearly $20 billion in damages. Some of these programs, however, By controlling runoff, managing ecosystems for all their attracted people to high risk areas and created greater benefits, planning the use of the land and identifying exposure to future damages. In addition, flood control, those areas at risk, many hazards can be avoided. navigation, and agricultural activities severely reduced Where the risk cannot be avoided, damage minimization available floodplain habitat and compromised natural approaches, such as elevation and relocation of functions upon which fish and wildlife rely. buildings or construction of reservoirs or flood protection structures, are used only when they can be Over the last 30 years the nation has learned that integrated into a systems approach to flood damage effective floodplain management can reduce reduction in the basin. When floods occur, impacts on vulnerability to damages and create a balance among individuals and communities can be mitigated with a natural and human uses of floodplains and their related flood insurance program that is funded by those who watersheds to meet both social and environmental goals. are protected. Full disaster support for those in the The nation, however, has not taken full advantage of floodplain is contingent on their participation in these this knowledge. The United States simply has lacked self-help mitigation programs. Measures that v internalize risks reduce the moral hazard associated with The upper Mississippi River Basin includes both full government support. individually authorized federal flood damage reduction projects and levees built by local groups and To ensure a long-term, nationwide approach to individuals. This pattern of development is unique and floodplain management, the Review Committee requires a unique approach. The Review Committee proposes legislation to develop and ftind a national proposes a plan to identify and evaluate the needs of the Floodplain Management Program with principal basin, to ensure the integrity of a flood damage responsibility and accountability at the state level. It reduction system that meets the needs of the basin, and also proposes revitalization of the federal Water to restore natural floodplain functions on appropriate Resources Council to better coordinate federal lands. activities, limited restoration of some basin commissions for basin-wide planning, and issuance of a Presidential The nation knows where to go with floodplain Executive Order requiring federal agencies to follow management and how to get there. This report provides floodplain management principles in the execution of a map showing the shortest route to success. The their programs. nation now must take the actions required to do so. vi REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE to the ADMINISTRATION FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The time has come to face the fact that this Nation can no longer afford the high costs of natural disasters. We can no longer afford the economic costs to the American taxpayer, nor can we afford the social costs to our communities and individuals. James L. Witt Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency Testimony before Congress, October 27, 1993 FLOODPLAINS AND THE NATION The upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their appreciate fully the significance of the fragile tributaries have played a major role in the nations's ecosystems of the upper Mississippi River Basin. history. Their existence was critical to the growth of Given the tremendous loss of habitat over the last two the upper Midwest region of the United States and centuries, many suggest that the nation now faces fostered the development of major cities and a severe ecological consequences. transportation network linking the region to the rest of the world. The floodplains of these rivers provide Third, the division of responsibilities for floodplain some of the most productive farmland in the country. management among federal, state, tribal and local They offer diverse recreational opportunities and governments needs clear definition. Currently, attention contain important ecological systems. While to floodplain management varies widely among and development of the region has produced significant within federal, state, tribal and local govermnents. benefits, it has not always been conducted in a wise manner. As a result, today the nation faces three major The Interagency Floodplain Management Review problems: Committee proposes a better way to manage the nation's floodplains. This report not only describes the First, as the Midwest Flood of 1993 has shown, people nature and extent of the 1993 flooding and government and property remain at risk, not only in the floodplains efforts to cope with the event but also presents a of the upper Mississippi River Basin, but also blueprint for change. This blueprint is directed at both throughout the nation. Many of those at risk do not the upper Mississippi River Basin and the nation as a fully understand the nature and the potential whole. Its foundation is a sharing of responsibilities and consequences of that risk; nor do they share fully in the accountability among all levels of government, fiscal implications of bearing that risk. business,and private citizens. It provides for a balance among the many competing uses of the rivers and their Second, only in recent years has the nation come to floodplains; it recognizes, however, that all existing vii EXECUTTVE SUMMARY activities in the floodplain simply cannot be discarded as major flood events and the more frequent smaller ones. inappropriate. Implementing this approach, the Review Implementation also will reduce the environmental, Committee believes, will bring about changes necessary social, and economic burdens imposed by current to reduce flood vulnerability to both the infrequent conditions on both public and private sectors. SHARING THE CHALLENGE - FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,' BUSINESSES, CITIZENS Since passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, the federal government has dominated the nation's flood 0 Share responsibility and accountability for damage reduction efforts and, as a result, the nation's accomplishing floodplain management among floodplain management activity. Structural programs all levels of government and with all citizens of were deemed important and were also the principal the nation. The federal government cannot go it sources of funds for any efforts to stem the rising tide alone nor should it take a dominant role in the of flood losses. In recent years, the federal government process. has begun to support nonstructural approaches. Many states, tribes, and local governments have developed 0 Establish, as goals for the future, the and carried out floodplain management efforts that both reduction of the vulnerability of the nation to reduced flood damages and enhanced the natural the dangers and damages that result from functions of floodplains. In carrying out these floods and the concurrent and integrated programs, however, they have been. hampered by preservation and enhancement of the natural uncoordinated and conflicting federal programs, resources and functions of floodplains. Such policies, regulations and guidelines that have hindered an approach seeks to avoid unwise use of the efficient floodplain management. Some state and local floodplain, to minimize vulnerability when governments have not been as active in floodplain floodplains must be used, and to mitigate management. With the federal government assuming damages when they do occur. the dominant role and funding most ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and flood recovery Organize federal programs to provide the activities, the incentive has been limited for many state, support and the tools necessary for all levels of tribal and local governments, businesses, and private government to carry out and participate in citizens to share responsibility for making wise effective floodplain management. decisions concerning floodplain activity. Now is the time to: COMMITTEE FINDINGS: In conducting the review, the Committee divided its findings into two areas: the Midwest Flood of 1993, and Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Floodplain Management. The Nfidwest Flood of 1993 In reviewing the Midwest Flood of 1993, the hydrometeorological event unprecedented in recent Committee found that: times. It was caused by excessive rainfall that occurred throughout a significant section of the upper Mississippi 0 The Midwest Flood of 1993 was a River Basin. The damaging impacts of this rainfall and viii EXECUTTVE SUAMARY related runoff were felt both in upland areas and in the over half of the damages. More than 70 percent of the floodplains. Pre-flood rainfall saturated the ground and crop disaster assistance payments were made to counties swelled tributary rivers. Subsequent rains quickly filled in upland areas where ground saturation prevented surface areas, forcing runoff into the lower lands and planting or killed the crop. Nearly 50 percent of the creating flood conditions. The recurrence interval of approximately 100,000 homes damaged, suffered losses the flood ranged from less than 100 years at many due to groundwater or sewer backup as opposed to locations to near 500 years on segments of the riverine flooding. Flood response and recovery Mississippi River from Keithsburg, Illinois, to above operations cost the nation more than $6 billion. In St. Louis, Missouri, and on segments of the Missouri addition many costs can not yet be quantified. Impacts River from Rulo, Nebraska, to above Hermann, on businesses in and out of the basin have not been Missouri. At 45 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) calculated. Tax losses to governments are unknown. gaging stations, the flow levels exceeded the 100-year The impacts of the flood on the population's physical mark. The duration of the flood added to its and mental wellbeing are just being identified and are of significance. Many areas were under water for months. concern. * Rainfall and floods like the 1993 event will 0 Flood damage reduction projects and continue to occur. Floods are natural repetitive floodplain management programs, where implemented, phenomena. Considering the nation's short history of worked essentially as designed and significantly reduced hydrologic record-keeping as well as the limited the damages to population centers, agriculture, and knowledge of long-term weather patterns, flood industry. It is estimated that reservoirs and levees built recurrence intervals are difficult to predict. Activities by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in the floodplain, even with levee protection, continue prevented more than $19 billion in potential damages. to remain at risk. Large areas of Kansas City and St. Louis were spared the ravages of the flood, although several suburbs The loss of wetlands and upland cover and suffered heavy damages. Watershed projects built by the modification of the landscape throughout the basin the Soil Conservation Service saved an estimated over the last century and a half significantly increased additional $400 million. Land use controls required by runoff. Most losses occurred prior to 1930, but some the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and state are related to more recent drainage, flood damage floodplain management programs reduced the number reduction, and navigation development. Although of structures at risk throughout the basin. upland watershed treatment and restoration of upland and bottoniland wetlands can reduce flood stages in Many locally constructed levees breached more frequent floods (25 years and less), it is and/or overtopped. Frequently, these events resulted in questionable whether they would have significantly considerable damage to the land behind the levees altered the 1993 conditions. through scour and deposition. 0 Human activity throughout the basin has 0 Flooding during the 1993 event would have caused significant loss of habitat and ecosystem covered much of the floodplains of the main stem lower diversity. Flood damage reduction and navigation Missouri and upper Mississippi rivers whether or not works and land use practices have altered botton-dand levees were there. Levees can cause problems in some habitat adversely. critical reaches by backing water up on other levees or lowlands. Locks and dams and other navigation related 0 The costs to the nation from the flood were structures did not raise flood heights. For more extensive. Thirty-eight deaths can be attributed directly frequent floods -- less flow -- navigation dikes may to the flood and estimates of fiscal damages range from cause some minor increase in flood heights. $12 billion to $16 billion. Agriculture accounted for ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal, State, Tribal and Local impacts are frequently understated or omitted. Many Floodplain Management critics of Principles and Guidelines see it as biased The Review Committee examined the structure of against nonstructural approaches. current federal programs, relationships among federal, 0 Existing federal programs designed to state, tribal and local governments, the performance of protect and enhance the floodplain and watershed various programs during and after the flood, and the environment are not as effective as they should be. after action reports stemming from these activities. The They lack support, flexibility and funding, and are not Review Committee reached the following conclusions: well coordinated, As a result, progress in habitat 0 The division of responsibilities for floodplain improvement is slow. management activities among and between federal, 0 Federal pre-disaster, response, recovery and state, tribal, and local governments needs to be clearly mitigation programs need streamlining but are making defined. Within the federal system, water resources marked progress. The nation clearly recognized the activities in general and floodplain management in aggressive and caring response of the government to the particular need better coordination. State and local needs of flood victims, but coordination problems that governments must have a fiscal stake in floodplain developed need to be addressed. Buyouts of floodprone management; without this stake, few incentives exist for homes and damaged lands made considerable inroads in them to be fully involved in floodplain management. reducing future flood losses. State governments must assist local governments in dealing with federal programs. The federal government 0 The nation needs a coordinated strategy for must set the example in floodplain management effective management of the water resources of the activities. upper Mississippi River Basin. Responsibility for 0 The National Flood Insurance Program integrated navigation, flood damage reduction and (NFIP) needs improvement. Penetration of flood ecosystem management is divided among several federal insurance into the target market -- floodplain occupants programs. -- is very low, 20-30 percent. Communities choosing 0 The current flood damage reduction system not to participate in the NFIP continue to receive in the upper Mississippi River Basin represents a loose substantial disaster assistance. Provision of major aggregation of federal, local, and individual levees and federal disaster assistance to those without insurance reservoirs. This aggregation does not ensure the creates a perception with many floodplain residents that desired reduction in the vulnerability of floodplain purchase of flood insurance is not a worthwhile activities to damages. Many levees are poorly sited and investment. The mapping program is underfunded and will fail again in the future. Without change in current needs greater accuracy and coverage. Some federal programs, some of these levees will remain requirements within the program that vary from disaster eligible for post-disaster support. Levee restoration to disaster need stabilization. programs need greater flexibility to provide for concurrent environmental restoration. 0 The principal federal water resources planning document, Principles and Guidelines, is 0 The nation is not using science and outdated and does not reflect a balance among the technology to full advantage in gathering and economic, social, and environmental goals of the disseminating critical water resources management nation. This lack of balance is exacerbated by a present information. Opportunities exist to provide information inability to quantify, in monetary terms, some needed to better plan the use of the floodplain and to environmental and social impacts. As a result, these operate during crisis conditions. x EXECUTIVE SUNMARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Committee developed recommendations in and/or local cost-sharing in pre-disaster, recovery, consonance with the proposed goals: response, and mitigation activities. 0 To ensure that the floodplain management 0 To provide for coordination of the multiple effort is organized for success, the President should: federal programs dealing with watershed management, the Administration should establish an Interagency Task Propose enactment of a Floodplain Force to develop a coordination strategy to guide these Management Act which establishes a national actions. model for floodplain management, clearly delineates federal, state, tribal, and local 0 To take full advantage of existing federal responsibilities, provides fiscal support for state programs which enhance the floodplain environment and local floodplain management activities, and and provide for natural storage in bottomlands and recognizes states as the nation's principal uplands, the Administration should: floodplain managers; Seek legislative authority to increase Issue a revised Executive Order clearly post-disaster flexibility in the execution of the defining the responsibility of federal agencies land acquisition programs; to exercise sound judgement in floodplain activities; and Increase environmental attention in federal operation and maintenance and disaster Activate the Water Resources Council to recovery activities; coordinate federal and federal -state-tribal activities in water resources; as appropriate, Better coordinate the environmentally-related reestablish basin commissions to provide a land interest acquisition activities of the federal forum for federal -state-tribal coordination on government; and regional issues. Fund, through existing authorities, 0 To focus attention on comprehensive programmatic acquisition of needed lands from evaluation of all federal water project and program willing sellers. effects, the President should immediately establish environmental quality and national economic 0 To enhance the efficiency and effectiveness development as co-equal objectives of planning of the National Flood Insurance Program, the conducted under the Principles and Guidelines. Administration should: Principles and Guidelines should be revised to accommodate the new objectives and to ensure full Take vigorous steps to improve the marketing consideration of nonstructural alternatives. of flood insurance, enforce lender compliance rules, and seek state support of insurance 0 To enhance coordination of project marketing; development, to address multiple objective planning, and to increase customer service, the Administration Reduce the amount of post-disaster support to should support collaborative efforts among federal those who were eligible to buy insurance but agencies and across state, tribal, and local governments. did not to that level needed to provide for immediate health, safety, and welfare; provide 0 To ensure continuing state, tribal and local a safety net for low income flood victims who interest in floodplain management success, the were unable to afford flood insurance; Administration should provide for federal, state,tribal, xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Reduce repetitive loss outlays by adding a the standard project flood discharge through surcharge to flood insurance policies following use of floodplain management activities and each claim under a policy, providing for programs. mitigation insurance riders, and supporting other mitigation activities; 0 To ensure that existing federally constructed Require those who are behind levees that water resources projects continue to meet their intended provide protection against less than the purposes and are reflective of current national social standard project flood discharge to purchase and environmental goals, the Administration should actuarially based insurance; require periodic review of completed projects. Increase the waiting period for activation of 0 To provide for efficiency in operations and flood insurance policies from 5 to 15 days to for consistency of,standards, thcAdministration should avoid purchases when flooding is imminent; assign principal responsibility for repair, rehabilitation, and construction of levees under federal programs to the Leverage technology to improve the timeliness, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. coverage, and accuracy of flood insurance maps; support map development by levies on 0 To ensure the integrity of levees and the the policy base and from appropriated funds environmental and hydraulic efficiencies of the because the general taxpayer benefits from this floodplain, states and tribes should ensure proper siting, program; and construction, and maintenance of non-federal levees. Provide for the purchase of mitigation 0 To capitalize on the successes in federal, insurance to cover the cost of elevating, state, tribal, and local pre-disaster, response, recovery, demolishing, or relocating substantially and mitigation efforts during and following the 1993 damaged buildings. flood and to streamline future efforts, the Administration should: 0 To reduce the vulnerability to flood damages of those in the floodplain, the Administration should: Through the NFIP Community Rating System, encourage states and communities to develop Give full consideration to all possible and implement floodplain management and alternatives for vulnerability reduction, hazard mitigation plans; including permanent evacuation of floodprone areas, flood warning, floodproofing of Provide funding for programmatic buyouts of structures remaining in the floodplain, creation structures at risk in the floodplain; of additional natural and artificial storage, and adequately sized and maintained levees and Provide states the option of receiving Section other structures; 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants as block grants; Adopt flood damage reduction guidelines based Assign the Director of the Federal Emergency on a revised Principles and Guidelines which Management Agency responsibility for would give fall weight to social, economic, and integrating federal disaster response and environmental values and assure that all recovery operations; and vulnerability reduction alternatives are given equal consideration; and Encourage federal agencies to use non-disaster funding to support hazard mitigation activities Where appropriate, reduce the vulnerability of on a routine basis. population centers and critical infrastructure to Xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 0 To provide integrated, hydrologic, activities in the upper Mississippi River Basin; hydraulic, and ecosystems management of the upper Mississippi River basin, the Administration should: Establish the upper Mississippi River Basin as an additional national cross-agency Ecosystem Establish upper Mississippi River Basin and Management Demonstration Project; and Missouri River Basin commissions to deal with basin-level program coordination; Charge the Department of the Interior with conducting an ecosystems needs analysis of the Assign responsibility, in consultation with the upper Mississippi River Basin. Congress, to the Mississippi River Commission (MRQ, for integrated management of flood 0 To provide timely gathering and damage reduction, ecosystem management, and dissemination of the critical water resources information navigation on the upper Mississippi River and needed for floodplain management and disaster tributaries; expand MRC membership to operations, the Administration should: include representation from the Department of the Interior; assign MRC responsibility for Establish an information clearing house at development of a plan to provide long-term USGS to provide federal agencies and state and control and maintenance of sound federally local activities the information already gathered built and federally supported levees along the by the federal government during and main stems of the Mississippi and Missouri following the 1993 flood and to build on the rivers; this support would be contingent on pioneering nature of this effort; and meeting appropriate engineering, environmental, and social standards. Exploit science and technology to support monitoring, analysis, modeling, and the Seek authorization from the Congress to development of decision support systems and establish an Upper Mississippi River and geographic information systems for floodplain Tributaries project for management of the activities. federal flood damage reduction and navigation STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW Throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 1993, the Committee, a group of 31 professionals assigned to people of the United States were faced each night with federal agencies with responsibilities in the water pictures of the devastation wrought on the midwestern resources arena. United States by the Great Flood of 1993. For ndarly six decades, the nation had labored to reduce the The Review Committee conducted its activity from impacts of floods, yet the toll in lives lost, homes January through June 1994 in Washington and damaged, and property destroyed was enormous. Why throughout the Midwest. Working through the offices had this happened? What caused the flood? Had of the governors of the nine flood-affected states, the human intervention over time exacerbated the situation? Review Committee met with state and local officials and What should the nation be doing to prevent a repetition? visited over 60 locations. The Review Committee also To answer these questions, the Administration made extensive contacts with federal agencies, interest Floodplain Management Task Force, part of the groups, members of Congress and their staffs and Administration Flood Recovery Task Force headed by numerous private citizens who expressed an interest in Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, established the the flood. A part of the Review Committee, the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team, chartered in xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY November 1993 by the White House, conducted its The report of the Review Committee includes an action activities at the EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls, plan delineating proposed responsibilities and timelines South Dakota, where it developed a major data base of for execution of the recommendations, a fiscal impact flood and basin information. statement, and the preliminary report of the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team. xiv CONTENTS THANKS .................................................................. ABSTRACT .................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ............................................................. xix Part I THE FLOOD .... I Chapter I The Flood of 1993 .................................................... 3 The Basin ....................................................... 3 The Flood Event ................................................... 8 Damages Reported .................................................. 15 Damages Prevented ................................................. 20 Response and Recovery Costs ........................................... 22 Beneficial Effects ................................................... 31 Chapter 2 Impacts of Human Intervention ............................................. 37 History ......................................................... 37 Impact and Effect .................................................. 43 Chapter 3 Future Flood Potential .................................................. 59 What is a 100-year Flood Event? ......................................... 59 Standard Project Flood ............................................... 60 Residual Risk Behind Levees ........................................... 61 Future Floods ..................................................... 61 Part 11 A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE ..... 63 Chapter 4 A Vision for the Floodplain .............................................. 65 Defining the Vision ................................................. 66 Floodplain of the Future .............................................. 67 Chapter 5 Organizing Floodplain Management for Success .................................. 73 Define Federal-State-Tribal-Local Relationships and Responsibilities ................... 74 Improve Federal Coordination, Efficiency and Federal-State-Tribal Planning .............. 75 Federal Actions in the Floodplain -- Setting an Example ........................... 78 States Lead the Way ................................................. 80 Increase the State-Local Stake in Floodplain Management ......................... 82 Funding for Public Facilities ............................................ 84 Provide a Balanced Focus in the Planning Process .............................. 85 Collaborative Efforts ................................................ 87 Xv CONTENTS Reevaluating Water Resources Projects ..................................... 89 Funding Considerations for Projects That Include Future Development .................. 89 Chapter 6 Avoiding Vulnerability Through Planning ...................................... 93 Managing Floodplains as Watershed Components ............................... 93 Streamlining Disaster Planning .......................................... 96 Floodplain Planning and the National Flood Insurance Program ...................... 97 Increasing Education and Outreach Efforts .................................. 101 Chapter 7 Focusing on Environmental Enhancement ..................................... 105 Establishing a Lead Agency for Land Acquisitions ............................ 105 Protecting the Tax Base of Local Governments ............................... 107 Allowing Agencies Procedural Flexibility in Disasters ........................... 108 Acquiring and Restoring Land on Problem River Reaches ......................... 109 Using O&M Funds to Manage Ecosystems ................................. 110 Expanding Federal, State, and NGO Cost-sharing ............................. 111 Moving Mitigation at the Same Rate as Development ........................... 111 Chapter 8 Minimi ing the Vulnerability of Existing Development ............................. 113 Adopting a Systems Approach .......................................... 113 Improving Structural Measures ......................................... 114 Expanding Nonstructural Measures ...................................... 118 Chapter 9 Mitigating Flood Impacts Through Recovery and Insurance .......................... 127 Reorganizing Disaster Recovery ........................................ 127 Rebuilding More Efficiently ........................................... 130 Mitigating Losses Through Flood Insurance ................................. 130 Improving the Federal Crop Insurance Program ............................... 137 Part III A FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN .... 139 Chapter 10 A New Approach for the Upper Mississippi River Basin ............................ 141 Dealing With the River System as a Whole .................................. 141 Reducing the Vulnerability of Those in the Floodplain ........................... 142 Coordination of Levee Activity ......................................... 146 Ecosystem Needs .................................................. 149 Part IV INTO THE 21" CENTURY ..... 153 Chapter 11 Using Science and Technology to Gather and Disseminate Critical Water Resources Information ... 155 A Common Database ............................................... 155 Building on the Database ............................................. 156 Analysis and Research Needs .......................................... 160 xvi CONTENTS Chapter 12 A Floodplain Action Plan .............................................. 165 Congressional Actions ............................................... 166 Executive Branch Actions ............................................ 167 Chapter 13 Cost Analysis ..................................................... 171 Chapter 14 Perceptions, ideas, and Proposals ......................................... 179 Federal Farm Programs .............................................. 179 Moral Hazard .................................................... 180 Federal Fiscal Role in Flood Control ..................................... 180 Funding Disasters ................................................. 181 People, the Media, and the Federal Flood Response ............................ 182 Non-urban Levees ................................................. 183 Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation .............................. 183 Property Rights ................................................... 184 Chapter 15 Into the 21st Century ................................................ 187 The 21st Century Floodplain .......................................... 188 Sharing The Challenge ............................................. 189 What's Next? ................................................... 189 Part V SAST REPORT ..... (To be Published Separately) ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS GLOSSARY APPENDIX A Charter of the Floodplain Management Review Committee APPENDIX B Floodplain Management Review Committee Membership and Activities APPENDIX C U.S. Farm Program APPENDIX D Floodplain Management Act APPENDIX E Federal Policies and Programs for Floodplain Management APPENDIX F State Floodplain Management Programs APPENDIX G Executive Order on Floodplain Management APPENDIX H Proposed Federal Program for Major Maintenance and Major Rehabilitation of Levees APPENDIX I Coordination Mechanisms APPENDIX I Comments on Draft Report APPENDIX K List of Photographs List of Tables Table 1.1 Land Use and Land Cover in the Floodplain and Areal Extent of Flooding in 1993 ............ 7 Table 1. 2 Population Characteristics of the Study Area .................................... 9 Table 1.3 Damage estimates for 1993 Midwest Flooding, in Millions of Dollars ..................... 15 Table 1.4 Summary of Federal Expenditures by State for the Midwest Flood of 1993, in Millions of Dollars ... 23 Table 1.5 U.S. Department of Agriculture ASCS Disaster Payments, 1993 ......................... 25 Table 1.6 Summary of Federal Insurance Claims Payments by State for the 1993 Midwest Floods, in Millions of Dollars ............................................ 27 Table 1.7 NFIP Flood Insurance Losses for the Period From April 1 Through September 30, 1993 by State for the 1993 Midwest Floods ...................................... 28 xvii CONTENTS Table 1. 8 Federal Crop Insurance Participation and Payments, 1993 ............................ 29 Table 1. 9 Summary of Amount of Federal Loans by State for the 1993 Midwest Flood, in Millions of Dollars ................................................... 31 Table 2.1 Agricultural Characteristics of Flood Affected States ............................... 39 Table 2.2 Levees Constructed or Improved by the USACE in the Upper Mississippi River Basin . .......... 42 Table 8.1 NFIP-insured Buildings with Repetitive Losses, by Midwest States, 1978-1993 . ............. 126 Table 9.1 Interagency Hazard Mitigation Teams, 1992-1993 . ............................... 129 Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee . ..................... 172 List of Figures Figure 1.1 Upper Mississippi River Basin ............................................ 5 Figure 1.2 Population Change, Nine Midwest States, 1980-1990 .............................. 8 Figure 1.3 Average and Observed Monthly Precipitation Totals for the Upper Mississippi River Basin ........ 10 Figure 1.4 Weather Pattern June-July 1993 ............................................ I I Figure 1.5 Hydrographs; for the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers ............................... 13 Figure 1.6 Areas Flooded in 1993 . ........................ ....................... 14 Figure 1.7 Construction Dates of NFIP Insured Buildings in the Nine Midwest States ................. 21 Figure 1.8 Crop Disaster Payments, 1993 ............................................ 26 Figure 1.9 National Flood Insurance Claims, 1993 ...................................... 29 Figure 2.1 Upper Mississippi River System Nine-foot Commercial Navigation Project With Timetable of Development ................................................ 40 Figure 2.2 Typical Upper Mississippi River Lock and Dam ................................. 41 Figure 2.3 Estimated Wetland Losses, 1780 Through 1980 .................................. 44 Figure 2.4 Effects of the Food Security Act . .......................................... 45 Figure 2.5 Typical Reservoir Cross Section and Hydrograph ................................. 49 Figure 2.6 Reach of the Missouri River Bottoms Showing "High Energy" Erosion and Deposition Zones ...... 52 Figure 2.7 Changes in Channel Morphology . .......................................... 54 Figure 2.8 Missouri River Reservoirs and Navigation System ................................ 55 Figure 4.1 A Typical Reach of a 21st Century Floodplain .................. : *.' * , * * ,** ** , * * , 69 Figure 5. 1 Proposed Institutional Framework for Water Resources Council, Basin Commissions, and Federal gencies .............................................. 77 Figure 9.1 NFIP Payments for 1993 Losses That Occured Within 15 Days of Purchase of the Policy ....... 136 Figure 10. 1 Proposed Institutional Framework . ........................................ 146 Figure 14. 1 Presidential Disaster Declarations, 1989-1993 ................................... 182 xviii INTRODUCTION ne time has come to face the fact that this Nation can no longer afford the high costs of natural disasters. We can no longer afford the economic costs to the American taxpayer, nor can we afford the social costs to our communities and individuals. James L. Witt Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency Testimony before Congress, October 27, 1993 Throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 1993, the 0 Make recomm nditions to the Task Force people of the United States were faced with pictures of on changes in current policies, programs, and activities the devastation wrought on the Midwest by what of the federal government that would most effectively became known as "The Great Flood of 1993. " For achieve risk reduction, economic efficiency, and nearly six decades, the nation had labored to reduce the environmental enhancement in the floodplain and related impacts of floods, yet within a few months tens of watersheds. thousands of homes were damaged, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans disrupted. Acre The Review Committee consisted of federal engineers upon acre of some of the nation's richest farmland lay and physical, social, and biological scientists who fallow. Why did this happen? What caused the flood? contributed technical and institutional knowledge in the Did human intervention over the years exacerbate the fields of flood damage-reduction and river basin situation? What should the nation be doing to prevent a ecosystem management. Of the 3 1 -member Review repetition of the 1993 event? The Administration Committee, 15 members were located in Washington, Floodplain Management Task Force, a part of the D.C., and 16 formed the Scientific Assessment and Clinton Administration's Flood Recovery Task Force, Strategy Team (SAST), which operated from the Earth headed by Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, Resources Observation System (EROS) center at Sioux established the Interagency Floodplain Management Falls, South Dakota. The SAST was chartered by the Review Committee to seek answers to these questions White House in November 1993 "to provide scientific and to make recommendations. advice and assistance to officials responsible for making decisions with respect to flood recovery in the upper The charter of the Review Committee (see Appendix A) Mississippi River Basin. " It was incorporated into the assigns it the mission to: Review Committee in January 1994 to serve as its research arm for scientific analysis. For a full listing of Delineate the major causes and Review Committee members and their parent agencies, consequences of the 1993 flooding; see Appendix B. 0 Evaluate the performance of existing The Review Committee began its work in January floodplain management and related watershed 1994, focusing on federal agency briefings and management programs; and consultations with other levels of government to gain a better understanding of the complex intergovernmental system of responsibilities and decisionmaking in xiX INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A FLOODPLAIN? Floodplains are the relatively low and periodically inundated areas adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans. Floodplain lands and adjacent waters combine to form a complex, dynamic physical and biological system that supports a multitude of water resources, living resources, and societal resources. Floodplains provide the nation with natural flood and erosion control, water filtering processes, a wide variety of habitats for flora and fauna, places for recreation and scientific study, and historic and archeological sites. They are also the locus of a variety of human activities, including commerce, agriculture, residence, and infrastructure. Estimates of the extent of the nation's floodplains vary according to the areas measured. In 1977 the U.S. Water Resources Council estimated that floodplains comprise about 7 percent, or 178.8 million acres of the total area of the United States and its territories. During the 1993 flood, floodplains along the upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers became part of the rivers when they were inundated by river stages exceeding channel capacity or the design elevations of flood-control levees or when the levees failed or overtopped. Adapted, in part, from the draft 1994 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management. floodplain management. This initial effort was followed during or after the flood. All were asked to critique the by discussions in the nine Midwest states most affected strengths and weaknesses of federal programs and by the flood. Review Committee members met with the policies as presently structured, and to discuss what governors and their representatives, state flood recovery federal and state roles should be in long-term and mitigation task forces, staffs of relevant management of floodplains. congressional committees, staffs of congressional members from the flood states, and interest groups at Throughout the review process, a steady stream of the national, regional, and local level. In March the letters arrived from organizations, interest groups, state Review Committee shifted its focus to outreach visits in and local officials,and from individuals offering the Midwest communities and areas affected by the information, personal viewpoints, and advice, all of flood. During this phase of review, the Review which the Review Committee greatly appreciated. Committee visited over 60 communities where county, city, and other local officials and citizens assembled to Following visits to the Midwest, the Review Committee provide information and insights. The Review formulated an array of floodplain management options, Committee asked those contacted to share their candid briefs of which were presented to the Administration opinions about the best use of flood hazard areas, their FloodpWn Management Task Force, congressional visions of the future, and how that vision was changed interests, federal agencies, state officials, and interest by the 1993 flood. They were asked about hazard groups. Meetings to review the options were held in mitigation, floodplain management, and the emergency Washington, D.C.; Kansas City, Missouri; Springfield, response plans of the flood-affected communities, with Illinois; and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Review particular regard to whether such plans were useful Committee then developed its recommendations. XX INTRODUCTION mitigate damages and suffering. Those who were recipients of this assistance will never forget this FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT demonstration of true caring. While the Review Committee report will not address all of these successes, they should not be forgotten. Floodplain management is a decisionmaking process whose goal is to achieve appropriate use of the nation's floodplains. Appropriate use is any SHARING THE CHALLENGE activity or set of activities compatible with the risk to natural resources (natural Today the nation faces three major problems in and beneficial functions of floodplains) floodplain management: and human resources (life and property). 0 As the Midwest Flood of 1993 has shown, people and property remain at risk, not only in the floodplains The history of the nation's of the upper Mississippi River Basin but also throughout floodplain activity is as old as the nation the nation. Many of those at risk neither fully itself and is well chronicled in An understand the nature and the potential consequences of that risk nor share fully in the fiscal implications of Assessment Report: Floodplain bearing that risk. Over the last thirty years, average Management in the United States, annual riverine flood damages have exceeded $2 billion. prepared in 1992 for the Federal Over the last ten, they have been over $3 billion. Interagency Floodplain Management Between 1988 and 1992, the Federal Emergency Task Force Management Agency has expended nearly $200 million each year in flood recovery activities.' 0 Only in recent years has the nation come to appreciate fully the significance of the fragile ecosystems of the upper Mississippi River Basin. GOOD NEWS Given the tremendous loss of habitat over the last two centuries, many suggest that we now face severe Although the flood of 1993 ultimately caused major ecological consequences. damages throughout the upper Mississippi River Basin, many elements of structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction systems put in place by federal, state, A lot of great things have been and local governments over the years did work and prevented billions of dollars in damages. done that prevented damages and During the flood the outreach from all over the country mitigated the damages that did and the world to those suffering the effects of the occur... we can't lose sight of this. flooding was most impressive. Thousands filled and stacked sandbags to hold weakening levees; others Terry Brandstad worked day after day to help clean the homes and Governor of Iowa businesses of people they had never met. Dry February 16, 1994 communities adopted those in need. Contributions to assist flood victims poured in from people in many nations. Federal, state, and local disaster teams worked around the clock, month after month, to xxi INTRODUCTION The division of responsibilities for floodplain The report contains conclusions, actions, and management among federal, state, tribal, and local recommendations. Conclusions represent the governments is not clearly defined. As a result, Committee's evaluation of its research or analysis attention to floodplain management varies widely among related to the Flood of 1993 and its consequences. The and within federal, state, tribal, and local governments. Review Committee identified specific approaches required to move forward in floodplain management as This report provides the Review Committee's findings actions. Actions may involve resource commitm nts and recommendations for action. Part I (Chapters 1-3) beyond an agency's baseline posture. discusses the flood event and its impacts as well as the Recommendations address problems that the Review effects of human intervention, over time, on the nature Committee believes merit attention; however, the of this flood. It also provides insights into the potential solutions to these problems can be accomplished within for recurrence of the event. Part II (Chapters 4-9) agency resources, existing programs, or cooperative provides a blueprint for the future -- a consensus view efforts. of floodplain management for the 21st century. Part III addresses the residual problems with floodplain The thesis of this report is straightforward. The tools management in the upper Mississippi River Basin. Part to carry out effective floodplain management exist today IV (Chapters 11-15) highlights needs in the fields of but need improvement. The goals are clear. It is now research, science, and technology; discusses the time to organi e a national effort to conduct effective economic impacts of the report's findings and and efficient floodplain management. It is time to share recommendations; converts the general actions proposed responsibility and accountability for accomplishing in Chapters 5 to I I into specific tasks for floodplain management among all levels of government accomplishment and summarizes the report. and with the citizens of the nation. Working together, the nation's public and private sectors can accomplish the mission. A MESSAGE FROM ELIZABETH Dear General Galloway: My name is Elizabeth Darabcsek. I am eleven years old and in the 5th grade at Christ Prince of Peace School. I read your article in the news paper and was interested. I thought I could help. I did a science fair project on floods. I tested levees, back to nature and something I made up, it was a small levee by the river and a larger one a little farther back. The little one held most of the water but not all. The water that was not held back from the small levee would then stay in the space between the big and little levee. The land between the two levees could be used as farm land or other things that could not be badly damaged by a big flood. The damaged levee could be used as the levee in the front (the smaller levee). Therefore, we would only have to build one new levee. This information may not help you, but I wanted you to know that I am trying to help protect our cities too. Sincerely, Elizabeth Darabcsek P.S. Just to tell you, I won first place for my project out of the whole 5th grade. xxii INTRODUCTION ENDNOTE 1. Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report. (Washington, DC: FIFMTF, 1992. USACE and NWS. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Annual Flood Damage Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993, Prepared by the USACE Engineering Division in cooperation with the National Weather Service Office of Hydrology, (Washington, DC: USACE, April 1994); Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Disaster Payment Report," (Washington, DC: FEMA, May 1994). xxiii Ahk& @32446 iF xxiv Part I THE FLOOD I IN U-A-, 17" Chapter I THE FLOOD OF 1993 I have visited the Midwest states affected by the '93 Flood many times. Each time I have come away saddened by the enormous loss. I have never seen such devastation. On the other hand, I have never witnessed such tremendous courage as that displayed by individuals who are beginning to rebuild their lives. Mike Espy Secretary of Agriculture Chair, Flood Recovery Task Force November 10, 1993 Floods are a function of the location, intensity, volume, costly flood disasters in U.S. history. This chapter and duration of rainfall and snowmelt. Other factors surveys the damages prevented and the record damages include the characteristics of a region's topography, its reported in the 1993 flooding of the upper Mississippi land-cover conditions, and the capacity of its floodplain River Basin. It also addresses the response and to convey or store water. In 1993 a singular recovery costs for affected towns, cities, and states and combination of these factors resulted in one of the most for the nation. THE BASIN The upper Mississippi River Basin is physiographically, falls 1,463 feet and drains 1.25 million square miles ecologically, and climatologically diverse. (sq. mi.) or 41 percent of the land area of the 48 Physiographically it ranges from the Rocky Mountains contiguous United States. That portion of the to the Ozark Plateau to the Glaciated Plains and central Mississippi River drainage lying above its confluence lowlands. Climatologically it ranges from the semi-arid with the Ohio River and referred to as the upper basins and plains of eastern Colorado and Wyoming to Mississippi River Basin is the focus of this report. It is the humid-temperate margins of the Great Lakes. in this basin where the deluge of rain and consequent Geographic analysis divides this region into 70 terrain record flooding occurred during the spring, summer, units defined by distinct combinations of physical, and fall of 1993. geologic, soil, ecological, climate, and land-use characteristics. Each unit is subject to different Draining all or part of 13 states, the upper Mississippi combinations and intensities of hydrologic and River Basin encompasses approximately 714,000 square geomorphic processes. Individual areas respond miles. It comprises 57 percent of the total Mississippi differently to storm events and land treatments. River Basin and 23 percent of the area in the contiguous United States. From its source at Lake Itaska, The Mississippi River rises at the outlet of Lake Itasca Minnesota, to its confluence with the Ohio River at in the lake and forest country of north-central Cairo, Illinois, the Mississippi River courses a distance Minnesota and empties into the Gulf of Mexico in the of 1,366 miles. Its principal tributary is the Missouri marshy delta just below Head-of-Passes, Louisiana. River, which drains 529,300 sq. mi. above its mouth at Over its journey of 2,320 miles, the Mississippi River St Louis, Missouri, including 9,700 sq. mi. in Canada. 3 THE FLOOD OF 1993 UPPER, LOWER, MUDDLE? Lending confusion to a discussion of the Mississippi River and its drainage basin is the fact that hydrologists divide the basin, including tributary basins, into two parts: the upper and the lower; and the river into three reaches -- the upper, middle, and lower. Division between the upper basin and lower basin is at Cairo (above the mouth of the Ohio River). For the Mississippi River itself, the reach upstream from St. Louis is called the upper Mississippi River (upper Miss.), the reach between St. Louis and Cairo is the middle Mississippi River (middle Miss.), and the reach downstream from Cairo is called the lower Mississippi River (lower Miss.). Other major tributaries include the Minnesota, centuries. By 1824 early steamboat travel and Wisconsin, Iowa, Des Moines, and Illinois rivers, all of commerce created a demand for navigation which drain watersheds greater than 10,000 sq. mi. in improvements. Urban and rural populations continued area (Figure 1. 1). to grow, creating an increased demand for forest lumber resources and agricultural products. Most early The Missouri River, which drains all or part of ten urban settlements were located on or near rivers to be states and 74 percent of the upper Mississippi River close to water supplies and transportation arteries. By Basin, contributes only 42 percent of the long-term the late 1800s, settlers had cleared and drained many average annual flow of the Mississippi River at St. wetlands for agriculture and planted higher floodplain Louis. The Missouri River does contribute the most sediment in the upper Mississippi River Basin. Hydrologically the Missouri River Basin is divided into upper and lower portions with demarcation at Sioux VOLUMES OF WATER City, Iowa. The upper and lower basins contain 314,600 sq. mi. and 214,700 sq. mi. respectively. When quantifying large volumes Runoff from the upper basin is controlled in great of water, a measuring unit as small as a measure by regulation of six large dam and reservoir gallon results in numbers in the billions projects on the main stem Missouri River operated by or trillions and makes perception the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The difficult. Water engineers and scientists drainage area (279,400 sq. mi.) above Gavins Point have adopted a larger unit and, therefore, Dam, the dam furthest downstream, encompasses about employ smaller, somewhat more readily 90 percent of the upper Missouri River Basin and over envisioned numbers. That unit is the 50 percent of the total Missouri River Basin area. The amount of water that runs off the upper basin annually acre-foot and represents the volume of averages 24.6 million acre-feet. water standing one foot deep over an area of one acre. Thus the mean annual volume of water that runs off the upper History of Development Missouri River Basin can be expressed as The upper Mississippi River valley was settled by 25 million acre-feet rather than European immigrants during the 18th and 19th 8,145,720,000,000 gallons. 4 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.1 Upper Mississippi River Basin. Helena St. Ul Pietr ach on 'i U,C CWcago C Yenne a es s A oin Denv St.. se ii eld Topek Kan NIV Jefferson ro areas to crops.2 Some areas were protected with agricultural levees. Early development of the basin was closely tied to the river system, and many navigation and local flood-control efforts were installed without federal assistance. By the early 1900s, the basin's fisheries resources were declining as a result of various environmental perturbations, sedimentation, pollution, and water-level fluctuations caused by deforestation and agricultural development. Between 1930 and 1950, extensive modification continued on the main rivers, while upland areas continued to be drained for agricultural purposes. Major q urban areas such as St. Louis, Kansas City, and Minneapolis/St. Paul developed as business and industry centers. The Midwest Flood of 1993, one of the most costly 5 THE FLOOD OF 1993 flood events in this nation's history, flooded over 6.6 Developed floodplains with larger urban areas such as million acres in the 419 counties in the study area.' Omaha/Council Bluffs, Kansas City, and St. Louis are The damages experienced reflected the land-use and largely protected by levees. Near Kansas City and St. settlement patterns within and adjacent to the floodplain. Louis, several residential, industrial, and commercial The floodplains along the main stem Mississippi and areas are built on floodplains behind levees that Missouri rivers and the major tributaries that were overtopped or failed in 1993. Other residential, inundated generally are used for agriculture, and most industrial, or commercial areas were flooded along the areas are sparsely populated. Throughout most of the larger tributary streams in these urban areas. Rural area, river towns are protected by urban levees, or they subdivisions are scattered along the river, many of are located primarily on a bluff. Floodwaters thus which began as hunting and fishing camps and evolved inundated neighborhoods rather than entire into year-around communities. These subdivisions communities. Residences, businesses, and industries provide inexpensive housing in part because of cheap did receive extensive damages in bottomland areas and land, lack of services such as sewer and water, limited along tributaries near Kansas City and St. Louis. land-use controls, and few building requirements. Development in these urban areas, however, is largely in the uplands or protected by urban levees that On the major tributaries, the patterns of development provided flood protection. As a point of comparison, are much the same as along the Mississippi and significantly fewer people were impacted by the Missouri main stems, although the bottomlands; are Midwest Flood of 1993 than were impacted by the 1927 narrower with fewer farmsteads. The small towns flood on the lower Mississippi River. along these tributaries often have floodprone neighborhoods, but most of the population lives in the Floodplain land-use patterns. Above Rock Island, adjoining uplands. Table 1. 1 includes information on Illinois, the Mississippi River valley is relatively narrow land use and land cover categories for the floodplain and bottomlands: are filled to a large extent by and the flood extent for the study area. The estimates navigation pools -- the slack water pools that form of land use and land cover were developed using behind navigation dams. Most of the remaining satellite imagery. floodplain in this area is contained in wildlife refuges with limited agriculture. Along this reach of the river Population trends. In general rural counties declared are scattered towns settled during the steamboat era that disaster are-as in the nine states affected by the 1993 have developed as market centers and service areas for flood are losing population. No data are available on agricultural hinterlands. Industries were established in gain or loss of floodplain populations during this many of these towns to take advantage of river period. The only comparable data from the 1980 navigation and the railroads that later followed the river Census and the 1990 Census are aggregated by county valleys. Such towns generally have been protected by or community. Population increases that have occurred urban levees or are largely out of the floodplain. are generally in the suburban counties of major urban Below Rock Island the valley widens out to as much as areas such as Minneapolis/St. Paul, Des Moines, six miles. The extensive bottomlands in these areas are Kansas City, and St. Louis. Loss of population in rural protected by agricultural levees and used for crops. areas is the result of farm consolidation, lack of The leveed areas include farmsteads and a few small employment opportunities, and improvements in farm communities entirely within the floodplain. transportation. Fewer farmers mean a lower demand for local goods and services, which has a ripple effect Missouri Riverbottomlands, used predominantly for on the local economy. Those who remain on the land agriculture, are protected to varying degrees by levees. drive to larger communities to shop and for many of the On the fringes of the bottomlands are small farm services previously provided by farm towns. Such communities. In the adjoining uplands a number of trends, not unlike those occurring throughout the nation, larger communities are located on the bluffs above the are limiting development pressure within die, floodplain.- valley. Figure 1.2 shows the population gain or loss by county 6 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.1 Land Use and Land Cover in the Floodplain and Areal Extent of Flooding in 1993. Land use/cover category Floodplain Use in floodplain Flood extent Use in flood (acres) M (acres) extent M Urban built-up 518,891 5.0 165,980 2.5 Agriculture 7,073,696 68.8 4,155,830 63.4 Water 933,085 9.1 956,983 14.6 Wetland/forested wetland 1,435,411 13.9 882,174 13.5 Other 321,906 3.1 394,109 6.0 Total 10,282,989 6,555,076 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency contract with Earth Satellite Corporation, April 1994. Note: The land use and land cover categories in the table are Anderson Level One used by the U.S. Geologic Survey (Anderson, James R., Ernest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E. Witmer, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 964, 1976). The floodplain was identified using landform analysis and includes areas protected by levees and areas above the elevation of the 1993 flood. The flood extent is the area flooded and includes some ponding in upland areas not in the geomorphologic floodplain. in the flood-affected 9-state region between 1980 and will generally include both floodplain and upland areas. 1990. Demographic differences must be recognized and floodplain policies must be carefully designed to prevent Population characteristics. The Review Committee inequities.' found during visits to over 60 communities in the flood- affected region that the floodplain neighborhoods and rural subdivisions tended to be lower income neighborhoods of the community. These neighborhoods appear to have a higher percentage of rental properties, more elderly residents, more young families more people on assistance, and lower value housing. It is common to find homes in the floodplains of these communities that have market values of less than $25,000 and often as low as $10,000 or $5,000. -income because In part these neighborhoods may be low they contain older housing and because they are floodprone. In many of these communities these floodplain neighborhoods are an important source of affordable housing for low and moderate income families. The U.S. Census data shown in Table 1.2 tend to confirm these observations.' The data for the AF % study area, however, is available only by community and by Census Block Group. These geographic areas 7 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.2 Population Change, Nine Midwest States, 1980-1990. Population 1980-1990 0 P U 10000 a t 0 n 5000- X 'T- 0 0 0 0 loop 1A IL KSMNMONDNESDWI FMRC 1980 State 1990 Population Change 1980 to 1990 +2.5% to +50% (182) EJ -2.5%to +2.5% (107) F EJ -2.5%to -25% (503) 0 Miles Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census THE FLOOD EVENT The National Weather Service (NWS) reported that the federal, state, and local governments avoided potential Flood of 1993 caused at least 38 deaths, severe damage by preventing development in the floodplain. damages, and extreme hardship for the people of the Midwest. Agricultural damages exceeded 50 percent of The Flood of 1993 in the Midwest was a the total, but less than 30 percent of such damages were hydrometeorological event without precedent in modem in the floodplains of the main stem rivers. The times. In terms of precipitation amounts, record river majority of agricultural damages were in the uplands levels, flood duration, area of flooding, and economic where the cause was wet soil conditions rather than losses, it surpassed all previous floods in the United inundation. The duration of flooding caused people to States. During the period from June through September, be driven from their homes and businesses for an record and near record precipitation fell on soil already extended period. In the major cities, such as St. Louis saturated by previous seasonal rainfall and spring and Kansas City, damages were prevented by flood- snowmelt, resulting in flooding along major rivers and control improvements. In many areas past policies of their tributaries in the upper Mississippi River Basin. 8 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.2 Population Characteristics of the Study Area. Flood Extent/Floodplain Flood Extent/ Floodplain Upland CBGs CBGs in MSAs CBGs in non-MSAs Age Over 65 13.4% 10.8% 16.7% Public Assistance 5.9% 5.7% 6.7% Per Capita Income $12,636 $10,635 $10,542 Median Household Income $27,953 $22,692 $21,249 Mobile Homes 4.8 % 10.8% 12.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990. Notes: (1) CBGs = Census Block Groups; MSAs = Metropolitan Statistical Areas. (2) Per capita and median household income are lower for the CBGs within the flood extent. Mobile homes represent a considerably higher percentage of the housing units, another indication of a lower income population. River levels exceeded flood stage at approximately 500 November - April period in 121 years of record. This NWS river forecast points and record flooding occurred period was followed by above-normal precipitation over at 95 forecast points throughout the flood-affected the upper Mississippi River Basin during April and May region.' At 45 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Figure 1.3). The April - June period was the wettest streamflow gaging stations, the peak discharge rate observed in the upper Mississippi River Basin in the (flowrate) exceeded that of the 1-percent annual-chance last 99 years. Consequently even before the onset of (100-year) flood value.' Not only extensive in the heavy summer rains, most upper basin soils were magnitude and area, the 1993 flood was prolonged in saturated, and many streams and rivers were flowing at time as evidenced by many locations that remained well above seasonal normal levels. above flood stage for weeks, with some remaining for as long as five straight months. Rainfall Soil Conditions Prior to the 1993 Flood During much of the summer of 1993, a persistent atmospheric pattern of excessive rainfall occurred The antecedent conditions that gave rise to the Flood of across much of the upper Mississippi River Basin.' 1993 include, in addition to record rainfalls, wet soil The major river flooding resulted primarily from conditions that began in the central Great Plains during numerous series of heavy rainfall events from June the summer of 1992 and rose rapidly with the through late July. The recurrence of heavy rainfall was increasing precipitation and cooling air temperatures of the direct result of a stable upper-level atmospheric late 1992. July, September, and especially November circulation pattern with a deep trough to the west of the 1992 were much wetter than normal over the upper upper Mississippi valley and a strong ridge along the Mississippi River Basin. That winter precipitation was East Coast (Figure 1.4). In late July and early August, near normal, but a wet spring followed. By late a change in the upper air circulation pattern brought March, extremely moist conditions covered much of the drier conditions to the Midwest as the trough shifted region as a result of the wet fall and spring snowmelt eastward. Locally heavy thunderstorms generated some runoff.' Iowa, which was centrally located in the area additional flooding in parts of the soaked upper of heaviest flooding, experienced the second wettest Mississippi River Basin during mid-August; however, 9 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.3 Average and Observed Monthly Precipitation Totals for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 7- 6- 5 4 -6 3- 0 L_ CL 0 7/92 9/92 11/92 1/93 3/93 5/93 7/93 8/92 10/92 12/92 2/93 4/93 6/93 8/93 Month Average C= Obowved Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service.6 these rains were associated with a typical summertime Rainfall amounts over the upper Mississippi River Basin pattern and not a return to the anomalous and persistent during the May-August 1993 period are unmatched in June and July atmospheric conditions. the historical records of the central United Sta:es. In July broad areas in the lower Missouri River Basin During the June-August 1993 period, rainfall totals experienced rainfall amounting to four times normal. surpassed 12 inches across the eastern Dakotas, The series of storms producing these record rainfalls southern Minnesota, eastern Nebraska, and most of were remarkable not only in their magnitude but also Wisconsin, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, and for their broad regional extent; record wetness existed Indiana. Over 24 inches of rain fell on central and over 26,000 sq. mi. of the upper Mississippi River northeastern Kansas, northern and central Missouri, Basin. Seasonal rainfall records were shattered in all most of Iowa, southern Minnesota, and southeastern nine states impacted by the deluge of 1993. Summer Nebraska. Up to 38.4 inches fell in east-central Iowa. rainfall amounts equalled those computed for storm @F_ i flil d I Ifi Generally precipitation amounts were 200 to 350 frequencies having 75-year to 300-year recurrence percent of normal from the northern plains intervals. Figure 1.4 shows the weather pattern that southeastward into the central Corn Belt. existed in 1993. 10 THE FLOOD OF 1993 INGREDIENTS FOR A MAJOR FLOOD The following weather facts tell why Iowa flooded in 1993: Wettest period. Precipitation from January through September 1993 was the greatest amount, 44.5 inches, in 121 years of record; the previous record was 44.2 inches in 1881. Wettest 12 months. Precipitation from September 1992 through August 1993 was the greatest amount in history, 54 inches; previous record was 49 inches in 1881. Unusual persistence of rainfall. The Midwest had no previous record for such a sustained period of precipitation. Highest soil moisture. Soil moisture readings in August 1993 were the highest in history. Cloudiest period. Cloud cover from November 1992 through August 1993 was the greatest for that time period on record. Lowest evaporation. Evaporation was the lowest in history. Source: Hillaker, Harry, Iowa State Climatologist, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Special Summary, Great Iowa Floods, 1993 (Des Moines, Iowa, September 7, 1993). Figure 1.4 Weather Pattern, June-July 1993. Unseasonably 01 Dry Air ..... .. ......... .............. X. ... .... .............. ft . ........ X XXX Mx:x: .. ........... at ty a 11, Oist XX H Un table ow "Bermuda HIgh" Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service. UiE FLOOD OF 1993 River Flow The Kansas City graph shows two flood peaks, one The deluge across the upper Mississippi River Basin caused by the June 30 to July I I rainfall and the other produced record setting peak flowrates and water levels by rain falling from July 21-25. The Quad Cities graph in many tributaries and in the main stem rivers, shows only the single peak from the earlier period. including a large reach of the upper Mississippi, over This comparison demonstrates the generally southern the full reach of the middle Mississippi, and over much focus of this second event. Both peaks are evident on of the length of the lower Missouri River. Flooding the hydrograph for the Mississippi River at St. Louis began in the northern portion of the upper Mississippi (Figure 1.5). While flooding from the latter rainfall River Basin in June and then moved southward with the period did not extend as far upstream on the Mississippi shifting of the storm-producing weather pattern and the River, new record river levels occurred at many travel of the flood flows downstream as summer locations downstream and on much of that portion of progressed. the Missouri River that flows through Missouri. Figure 1.6 shows those reaches of main stem and tributary Rainfall was particularly heavy between June 17 and 20 rivers where peak stages exceeded previous record in southwest Minnesota and northwest Iowa, causing levels and where they reached unusually high but not record flooding on the Minnesota River. The next reecord levels. major pulse of precipitation occurred from June 23-25. Runoff from these rains combined with flood flows Above normal rains continued to occur over parts of the from the Minnesota River to initiate the first flood crest flood-affected region during August, especially over that moved down the upper Mississippi River. Iowa where accumulations were twice the normal monthly amount over much of the state. By mid- Following a short, dry period, a prolonged siege of September, however, rainfall began to diminish and heavy precipitation occurred from June 30 to July 11. rivers began to recede. Then, at the end of September, This included extreme amounts of rainfall on July 9 in a strong system of thunderstorms deposited I to 3 Iowa, which produced record flooding on the Raccoon inches of rain over the State of Missouri and 7 inches and Des Moines rivers. Just as the crests from these or more from the central part of the state eastward. two rivers reached Des Moines, a relatively small, The consequence was major flash flooding on many convective pocket dumped several inches of rain on the tributaries and new flood crests on the lower Missouri crests rapidly boosting the river levels and flooding the and middle Mississippi rivers. Farmlands behind city's water treatment plant. The intense rainfall during previously breached levees were reflooded and two this period also led to record flooding on portions of the people drowned in separate incidents. Many roads lower Missouri River and combined with the crest were washed out and there was much damage to already rolling down the Mississippi to establish record property in Missouri. river stages from the Quad Cities area on the upper Mississippi River downstream to Thebes, Illinois, on the middle Mississippi River. Conclusion: Wet antecedent soil and swollen river conditions, record rainfall, and Another major precipitation event occurred from July significant upland runoff resulted in 1993 21-25. The heaviest rains were focused farther south floodflows that rangedfrom below the 100- than the earlier events, with especially heavy rain year up to the 500-year recurrence interval falling over eastern Nebraska and Kansas, leading to the second major crests on both the Missouri and magnitude at many locations. Mississippi rivers. Hydrographs of river stages (elevations) over time for the Missouri River at Kansas City and the upper Mississippi River at the Quad Cities are shown in Figure 1.5. 12 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.5 Hydrographs for the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. 122.6 Fet July 9. 1 ow :2-e F-W Q@aum FI-c-rcS (a2.5 F@@t) a" A%,Prll 00. '1000 Jul, -1 1.. za-I Jul 'I'l Jul 43-1 ^uja 00 Hydrograph for the Mississippi River at Quad Cities. .445- IL Jul, I J- mi Jul I I JU. 4@@' ^um ao Hydrograph for the Mississippi River at St. Louis. 148.92 Feet on July - @1- -4Z. F'@'@--u Fl@carcl (.40-a fw@t) an July I I eas-I -015- _-to 77 =0 Jull Jul 01 ^uw--Ia Hydrograph for Missouri River at Kansas City. 13 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.6 Areas Flooded in 1993. "ISO & V @:V^W5. Re 11blican Rive, sillonlan Riv Saline River River Smoky HM:Riv *.......... Sa" Record Flooding M ajor Flooding Source; U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service. 14 THE FLOOD OF 1993 DAMAGES REPORTED Estimates of total damages in the Midwest from weather type. In August 1993 The New York Times published events during 1993 range between $12 billion and $16 an estimate of nearly $12 billion in damages based on billion. Over half of these were agricultural damages to information it obtained from state and federal officials." crops, livestock, fields, levees, farm buildings, and State and federal officials could not assess all damages equipment. The remaining damages were primarily to until floodwaters receded, and the full extent of residences, businesses, public facilities, or agricultural damages was not known until after the end transportation. Much of the agricultural damage of the growing season. Most of the affected states have occurred in upland areas as the result of wet fields and updated their damage estimates, and the total ranges a short growing season rather than inundation by from $12 billion to $13 billion. The available estimates floodwaters. Similarly a portion of residential and are summarized in Table 1.3. business damages was caused by basement flooding due to high groundwater and sewer back-up in areas outside The Review Committee developed an estimate of flood the floodplain. damages using federal payments and making assumptions as to what percentage of damages those The NWS has estimated damages for the Midwest flood payments represent. This information indicates that at $15.7 billion based on information provided by its total damages were more than $12 billion with as much field offices." This estimate was based on totals by as $4 billion to $5 billion of that total being agricultural state, but did not include breakdowns of damage by damages in upland areas. Table 1.3 Damage Estimates for 1993 Midwest Flooding, in Millions of Dollars. NWS State State NY Times NY Times State Totals Totals Agriculture Totals Agriculture Illinois 2,640 1,000-2,000 565 1,535 605 Iowa 5,740 > 3,400 Da 2,200 1,200 Kansas 551 > 500 441 574 434 Minnesota 964 1,700 1,500 1,023 800 Missouri 3,430 3,000 1,790 3,000 1,800 Nebraska 295 na na 347 292 North Dakota 414 600 500 1,500 705 South Dakota 763 596 572 595 595 Wisconsin 904 930 800 909 800 Total 15,701 12,000-13,000 na 11,683 7, Sources" Note: "na" means data not available. 15 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Damage estimates for the Midwest flood show marked F inconsistencies. No federal agency is responsible for developing accurate assessments of flood damages, nor @3_ is funded to do so. The affected states and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conduct preliminary damage assessments to determine if a Presidential disaster declaration is warranted and to estimate the resources necessary for response and recovery. Once sufficient damage has been identified that justifies a declaration and once FEMA has a general idea of how resources should be allocated, federal agencies have little incentive to expend resources updating preliminary assessments. Resources are instead focused on tracking and projecting expenditures. The NWS is not funded to estimate total damages but does so to support other missions. The USACE, which in the past estimated flood damages, is no longer funded to do so. The Review Committee is example, Missouri with 34 percent of its cropland (5.1 concerned that decisions involving hundreds of millions million acres) in the floodplain, had crop damages from of dollars often are being made without systematic flooding on 3.1 million acres causing $247 million in assessments of flood damages and without a clear lost sales. 14 In Illinois, only 3 percent of the state's understanding of the nature and extent of those corn and soybean acreage (312,000 and 276,000 acres damages. respectively) were lost to flooding with a loss in sales of $153.4 million." Minnesota farmers lost $500 million in crop sales, but most of the damage was Agriculture caused by wet conditions rather than riverine flooding." Agricultural damages from the Flood of 1993 had two Damage from scour and deposition affected 455,000 primary causes: excessive moisture that prevented acres on the Missouri River floodplain representing 20 planting and reduced yields in upland and floodplain percent of the flooded cropland along the Missouri and areas and actual flooding that destroyed crops and Mississippi rivers." Drainage ditches were filled with severely damaged many acres of fertile floodplain sediments, and other agricultural infrastructure was cropland. It is difficult to separate the factors that destroyed. Almost 60,000 acres have sand deposition influenced crop production during the 1993 growing more than 24 inches thick and reclamation costs to season in the 9-state region. They included rain, low restore fertility to damaged cropland are approximately temperatures, early frost, and floods. More than 70 $190/acre. " If cropland restoration requires removal of percent of the crop disaster assistance payments, sand, it will cost approximately $3,200 to remove each however, were made to counties in upland areas -- not acre-foot of sand." It will cost $10.8 million to remove in main stem river floodplains. 13 sediment an .d debris from ditches.' Agricultural damages directly attributed to actual Secondary impacts of agricultural losses to a local flooding totaled more than $2.5 billion, with an economy vary substantially with the dependence of that estimated $1.4 billion in lost com and soybean sales. economy on the agricultural sector. Immediate losses Most of these losses were restricted to 1993 as the are due to lost sales and unemployment. In the long productive capacity of the land was unchanged. There run, the assessed value of land that sustained long-term damage may be reduced which will affect the property were, however, damages to field fertility and farm tax base of affected communities. infrastructure of at least $100 million. Each state suffered different types of losses. For Another secondary effect was a reduction in crop- support payments after prices adjusted to the reduced 16 THE FLOOD OF 1993 production caused by wet weather in the Midwest and drought in the Southeast in 1993. This loss to farmers identified more than 55,000 flooded residences.' was a gain for taxpayers since subsidies represent FEMA subsequently verified these damages with Red transfer payments. For corn, these deficiency payments Cross chapters and developed an updated estimate of were reduced by more than $2.6 billion .21 These price 70,545 residences." The New York Times estimated effects and subsequent reduction in deficiency payments that more than 84,000 residences were damaged.' As will be temporary, if the 1994 crop supply returns to of April 11, 1994, the federal government had received past levels. 167,224 registrations for individual assistance and 112,042 applications for the Disaster Housing Program. Among this latter group, 89,734 applications have been Conclusion: The majority of 1993 approved. The Disaster Housing Program data agricultural damages in the Midwest were indicates that more than 100,000 residences were caused by wet soil conditions and inundation flooded." in upland areas. Damage to inundated The fluctuating numbers illustrate an overlooked cropland in the floodplain was significant characteristic of this flood. While the media focused on with almost complete crop losses behind flooding of communities along the main stem failed levees. Areas affected by severe Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their major erosion and deposition may suffer long-term tributaries, at least as many families were impacted by loss of productivity. flooded basements due to high groundwater, overloaded storra sewer systems, or sewer back-up. Many of the homes with flooded basements were not in the 100-year floodplain or behind levees that overtopped or failed. In Cook County, Illinois, for instance, large numbers of IL homes on the south and west sides of Chicago had basement flooding due to stormwater and sewer back-up caused by heavy rainfall which overwhelmed the city's combined storm and sanitary sewer system. The county was eventually added to the Illinois disaster declaration even though this type of damage generally does not warrant inclusion. Over half of the 60,448 registrations for individual disaster assistance in Illinois and 20 W6- 70 X Residences and Businesses Estimates vary on the number of homes flooded and families impacted by the Midwest flood. Surveys made A by Red Cross workers immediately after the floods 17 THE FLOOD OF 1993 percent of the registrations for the entire 9-state region were in Cook County." Businesses sustained significant physical damages particularly in urban areas such as St. Louis County and the Kansas City areas of Missouri. Much of this damage occurred behind levees that failed or were overtopped. The 996 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claims payments made to small businesses" and the 4,667 Small Business Administration (SBA) loans for damages to businesses" indicate that in excess of 5,000 individual businesses were damaged. No overall damage estimates for businesses are available, but a measure of this damage, SBA loans to businesses, exceeded $334 million for physical damagell and economic injury. Add to these loans NFIP flood insurance payments for small businesses and other non-residential buildings that exceeded $94 million," and the total exceeds $431 million. In addition to physical damage to buildings funded through the FEMA Public Assistance Program and their contents, lost profits and wages from or the Department of Transportation. Funds expended businesses closed by the flood had local and regional by those agencies when added to the state/local cost impacts. For example, an American Cyanamid Plant share for public assistance indicates that total physical near Hannibal, Missouri, was protected by its own damages to roads and bridges exceeded $250 million." levee and not damaged by floodwaters, but the plant was shut down for nearly three months because its Road and bridge flooding caused indirect losses related access road was inundated when an agricultural levee to increased transportation costs. In extreme cases, failed. detours of 100 miles were required to travel between adjoining communities that had been connected by a bridge. Often bridges were elevated high above the Transportation Systems river to allow for navigation or to minimize hydraulic impacts of floods, but bridge approaches built at or near Rivers and river valleys historically have been major the natural elevation of the floodplain were inundated transportation routes, particularly in the area impacted by floodwaters. Even though the bridge was by the 1993 flood. In the Midwest, transcontinental undamaged and the approach damage was minimal, the railroads, interstate highways, and other road systems economic impacts on the communities served by the either follow river valleys or cross them. As a result, bridge could be extreme, particularly for a long physical damages to transportation systems form a duration flood such as occurred in 1993. For example, significant percentage of total flood damages. In Keokuk, Iowa, was cut off from market areas in Illinois addition to direct damages, indirect costs accrue when and Missouri for several weeks when the approaches to transportation routes are inundated by floodwaters, and bridges over the Mississippi and Des Moines rivers traffic is halted or detoured. were inundated. This resulted in serious economic impacts on local businesses. Flooding of the A major portion of flood damages to public facilities in approaches to the bridge over the Mississippi River at 1993 involved roads and bridges. These damages Quincy, Illinois, for 73 days resulted in an estimated ranged from blown culverts and wash-outs on rural $30 million in lost business to Quincy merchants." in roads and city streets to loss of bridges and damages to addition, many people who lived in Missouri and could interstate highways inundated by floodwaters. The not commute to work in Illinois were temporarily repair of flood-damaged roads and bridges generally is unemployed. Ferries were eventually established to address part of this problem. The full magnitude of 18 THE FLOOD OF 1993 these losses are reflected in over 36,000 claims navigation industry were $300 million per month." approved for a total of $92 million in Disaster More than $165 million were lost in Illinois alone. Unemployment Assistance." Regional impacts on jobs from barge and port disruptions were also greatest in Illinois .31 Historically railroads were built in floodplains and river valleys to minimize construction and fuel costs. Main lines continue to parallel both the Missouri and Public Facilities Mississippi rivers. Although generally tracks are elevated on embankments above the elevation of most The M-idwest flood caused extensive damages to water floods or are located behind levees, they remain subject and wastewater treatment plants and other public to major flood events. In 1993 over 800 miles of track facilities. Damages to utilities, including water and were flooded and several main lines were inundated for wastewater treatment facilities and stormsewer systems, 39 varying periods of time, but most trains were routed exceeded $85 million. Water treatment plants often around flooded areas. The Association of American are located in floodplains to be near well fields or the Railroads estimates that railroad damages totalled $182 surface water that supplies the system. In addition, million, including $131 million in physical damages to water supply lines must cross floodplains to serve tracks, bridges, signals, communication lines, switches, floodplain residents. The EPA has identified 200 locomotives, rolling stock, and buildings. Additional municipal water systems impacted to some degree by costs of $51 million resulted from detouring trains the flood." The most prominent example is the Des around sections of flooded track.' Repair costs are Moines Water Works that serves the City of Des generally borne by the railroads themselves although Moines and adjoining communities. The plant was $21 million was distributed to railroads through the flooded and remained out of operation for 12 days, and Supplemental Appropriation for Local Rail Freight water from it was not safe to drink for another seven Assistance .31 days. In addition to physical damages of $12 million, significant impacts were felt in the service area." Airports often are located in floodplains because of the Businesses and government offices closed because of flat terrain and close proximity to urban areas. The lack of fire protection, and bottled water and portable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has identified toilets had to be provided for residents. The economic 33 airports with varying degrees of flood damage. impact of the shutdown may far exceed the cost of Estimated repair costs exceed $5.4 million. The repair of the physical damage. airports range in size from the Spirit of St. Louis Airport in St. Louis County, Missouri, to airports that Wastewater treatment plants tend to be located in are little more than grass landing strips with a few floodplains which are generally the lowest point in a hangars for private aviation. Most of the flooded community and offer the advantage of gravity flow. airports were in Missouri (16) and Iowa (12). The Furthermore the effluent from these plants is discharged Spirit of St. Louis Airport, an alternate for Lambert-St. into major rivers or streams. The impact of flooding Louis Airport, sustained $1.7 million in damages when ranges from temporary plant shutdown and the the Monarch-Chesterfield Levee failed. Other major discharge of raw sewage into the river during the flood airports that were flooded include those at Creve Couer to physical damage that results in extended plant and Jefferson City and the Kansas City Downtown shutdowns and continued discharges of raw sewage or Airport. Several smaller airports remain closed and partially treated effluent until such time as the plant can may not reopen." be repaired. A total of 388 wastewater facilities were impacted by the flood." Navigation Damages to public buildings exceeded $27 million. Water control facilities had more than $20 million in Most of the main stem rivers were closed to barge damages, and facilities such as parks and other traffic from July 11 until August 15, 1993, and severe recreation facilities recorded more than $22 million. limitations on barge traffic continued through These estimates are based on FEMA projections of September, October, and November. The Maritime infrastructure spending that include a 10-percent local Administration estimated that losses of revenue to the cost share." 19 TIM FLOOD OF 1993 DAMAGES PREVENTED Management and structural practices prevented damages and conveyance of a portion of the 1993 floodwaters from being worse than they were. These practices within the floodplains of the lower Minnesota and upper involved nonstructural solutions, upland conservation Mississippi River valleys. Refuges, parklands, treatment, and major flood control projects. greenways, and agriculture are examples of appropriate floodplain uses that reduce flood damages by minimizing the number of structures at risk. Nonstructural Flood Protection The National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP The term "nonstructural measures" is used to describe has not encouraged floodplain development in the techniques that "modify susceptibility to flooding (such Midwest and, in combination with state and local as regulation, floodplain acquisition, and floodproofing floodplain managment programs, appears to have techniques). "I A nonstructural approach to flood discouraged it. The NFIP has discottraged floodplain damage prevention was effective in the town of Prairie development by (1) increasing awareness of flooding by Du Chein, Wisconsin where the flood was a 40- to 50- identifying and mapping the flood hazard, (2) internalizing the cost of floodplain occupancy, making development in the floodplain more costly (i.e., added 'J" cost of protecting buildings from flooding and the added 4-' cost of the NFIP flood insurance premium), and (3) requiring additional permitting and engineering studies that developers and individuals may choose to avoid. A- 2 The Review Committee met with a number of communities in the Midwest, large and small, that actively discourage development in their floodplains even if permitted by federal or state regulations. This "steering" of development to flood-free locations has deterred new floodplain development in these communities. Approximately 93 percent of the properties which are located in the 100-year floodplain in the flooded area a nd are currently insured by the NFIP were constructed before the issuance of a Flood Insurance Rate Map year event. Prairie du Chein was the site of the first (FIRM) for the community and conversion of the relocation project undertaken by the USACE and community to the Regular Program of the NFIP," i.e., carried out between 1978 and 1984. A measure of the between December 31, 1974 and the early to mid- project's success was reported by the Red Cross. Used 1980's. Floodplain management regulations appear to to responding to floods in Prairie Du Chein, Red Cross have prevented or reduced damages to new construction workers came to town but left within two weeks (post-FIRM construction). These buildings sustained because no one needed their help .4' Relocation had proportionally fewer losses than older buildings even freed citizens of anxiety about the risk of flood damage though the flood elevations exceeded the 100-year to their homes and businesses. Nonstructural land design standard in many locations. These new management applications such as the Minnesota Valley buildings comprise 6.4 percent of the insured floodplain National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Mississippi buildings in the declared counties, but account for only River Wildlife and Fish Refuge provided for storage 3.2 percent of the losses.' 20 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Upland Watershed Treatment Figure 1.7 indicates a significant reduction in the number of buildings built in the floodplain after 1980. The Flood of 1993 demonstrated the value of installing Since insured buildings tend to include newer, more flood-prevention measures and of improving land- expensive buildings with mortgages subject to the treatment practices on agricultural lands throughout the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement, the watershed. In upland watershed areas, the Soil percentage and numbers of all buildings built prior to Conservation Service (SCS) small watershed projects enactment of the NFIP are likely to be even higher. prevented damages estimated at $400 million. Crop losses to landowners were lower in areas with upland Figure 1.7 Construction Dates of NFI1P Insured watershed treatment. An example is the SCS project on Buildings in the Nine Midwest States the Grindstone-Lost-Muddy Watershed Project that protects approximately 60 percent of Dekalb County and portions of Clinton, Gentry, and Davies counties in Missouri. Flood protection on the 326-sq. mi. watershed includes land treatment, flood prevention, 16,000- multi-purpose flood control reservoirs, and erosion- 14,000-- grade control structures. The project area recorded two U) IZ000- storms exceeding the 1-percent chance of occurrence in July and September 1993. Estimated agricultural 10,000-/ benefits accrued were $915,900 for the July storm and 0 8,000 a- $989,700 for the September storm with road and bridge U_ 6,000- benefits of $66,000 and $10,000. Agricultural disaster 0 4,000- payments per acre in Dekalb County were less than half Z000 those paid in neighboring counties. Since the storm, 01 Iqu _11TA local people have donated $3,000 to purchase landrights <1950 'SD-59 '60-69 *70-79 '190-M >1990 for construction of remaining flood control reservoirs. YEARS Flood Damage Reduction Projects Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration. computer Printout, March 28, 1994. The USACE estimates that flood-control facilities in place during the 1993 flood prevented $19.1 billion in 41 Acquisition and relocation. Acquisition or relocation damages. Of that total, $11.5 billion in damages were of floodprone buildings through federal programs Qr prevented along the Missouri River. Damages prevented by the water control management of flood state and local initiatives continues to be an important storage reservoirs amounted to $7.4 billion in the strategy for reducing potential flood damages. Missouri River Basin; $4.0 billion by the storage of Successful buy-out programs normally are a response to flood water in the six main stem Missouri River a flood or series of floods. Implemention occurs over a reservoirs, and $3.4 billion by the dams and reservoirs multi-year period as funding becomes available. The on the tributaries. The other $4.1 billion in damages Review Committee identified more than 600 buildings prevented along the Missouri River is attributed to levee in the upper Mississippi River Basin which have been projects. USACE and Bureau of Reclamation flood acquired and relocated out of floodprone areas over the control reservoirs on the main stem and tributaries in past 20 years. Most of these buildings had been the Missouri River Basin reduced peak discharges on damaged previously by floods and would have been the Missouri River by storing over 17 million acre-feet severely damaged by the higher waters of the Flood of of flood water between June and August .49 In the St. 1993. Louis metropolitan area, a combination of upstream reservoirs, levees, and floodwalls prevented damages of approximately $3 billion. Upstream reservoirs and 21 THE FLOOD OF 1993 levees also prevented damages of about $5.6 billion at Kansas City. I 'A I IN! 9VA 0110% 1kom Conclusion: Damagesfrom the 1993 flood were reduced significantly through use of nonstructural and structural measures. L RESPONSE AND RECOVERY COSTS By the end of the flood, nine state disaster declarations services; and costs associated with hazard mitigation, included more than 525 counties. Current estimated housing, and community development. A summary of federal response and recovery costs include $4.2 billion federal expenditures for the Midwest flood is included in direct federal expenditures, $1.3 billion in payments in Table 1.4. from federal insurance programs, and more than $621 million in federal loans to individuals, businesses, and Crop disaster payments. Disaster payments are made communities. for production and quality losses of most commercially- grown crops when losses are caused by damaging A review of the types and amounts of federal response weather and related conditions. Production losses and recovery costs by state illustrate again the related to prevented planting and low yield are eligible differences in types of damages among the nine states. for compensation. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of USDA can authorize crop In the upper basin states of Minnesota, Nebraska, North disaster payments without a Presidential Disaster Dakota, and South Dakota and in Wisconsin and Declaration. Participation in price-support programs northern Iowa, the losses were primarily to agriculture, does not affect eligibility or payment levels. Producers much of it in upland areas. Along the main stems of with crop insurance qualify if losses are greater than 35 the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their major percent of expected production; and those without crop tributaries in Missouri, Illinois, and central Iowa, insurance qualify if losses are greater than 40 percent. significant losses occurred in agriculture as a result of For most crops grown in the 9-state region, payments bottomland flooding, but urban areas also recorded are calculated by detennining the eligible amount of damages. loss and multiplying it by 65 percent. As a general rule of thumb, farmers can expect disaster payments to cover 40 percent of expected cash receipts.' For 1993, Federal Expenditures yields less than 9 bushels an acre of com or 4 bushels per acre of wheat counted as total losses for calculation Federal expenditures represent disaster response and of disaster payments. Figure 1.8 shows the location of recovery costs borne by the federal government. crop disaster payments in the 9-state region. More than Among these are disaster assistance payments to 70 percent ($1.02 billion) went to the prairie pothole individuals and farmers, costs to repair levees and other infrastructure, costs to provide health and social 22 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.4 Summary of Federal Expenditures by State for the Midwest Flood of 1993 in Millions of Dollars.51 Program Total IL IA KS MN Mo NE ND SD WI Crop Loss Payments 1,463.3 49.2 351.1 65.5 442.5 121.2 76.0 99.5 151.1 107.2 Emergency Conservation Program 2.7 0.1 1 1.5 - 0.1 1 0.7 0.1 - 0.2 - Emergency Watershed Program 57.2 9.5 13.8 4.0 1.1 11.9 1.0 0.9 3.5 1.0 Food Stamps and Commodities 10.9 2.1 2.4 - - 6.4 - - - - FmHA Loans and Grants 15.8 2.4 7.4 0.2 2.5 1 1.4 0.1 0.2 1 0.9 0.8 SCS Supplemental for 1994 150.0 - USDA Subtotal 1,699.9 63.3 376.2 69.7 446.2 141.6 77.2 100.6 155.7 109.0 Infrastructure (proi.) 424.4 92.8 99.6 31.2 27.5 94.9 41.8 8.2 9.9 18.5 Human Services (proj.) 449.1 59.7 1 54.9 56.5 24.4 125.9 3.5 22.7 20.4 18.0 Hazard Mitigation (proj.) 134.9 26.3 27.0 15.2 9.7 30.0 10.0 4.2 4.5 8.0 Administration (proj.) 89.6 18.7 8.3 8.8 1.3 40.7 3.5 2.0 2.1 1.9 FEMA Subtotal 1,098.0 197.5 1 189.80 111.7 62.90 291.5 58.80 37.10 36.90 46.40 CDBG 1993 Allocations 200.0 35.9 43.1 18.8 13.5 57.2 7.8 11.9 6.0 5.9 HOME 1993 Allocations 50.0 10.8 11.4 3.4 2.7 1 15.3 1.3 2.6 1.30 1.30 CDBG 1994 Allocations 250.0 48.2 1 53.2 18.4 13.6 79.6 15.3 7.7 6.8 7.2 HUD Subtotal 500.0 94.9 107.7 40.6 29.8 152.1 24.4 22.2 14.1 14.4 EDA Assistance Programs * 200.0 8.3 48.4 17.9 7.4 51.7 0.6 2.9 1.6 0.7 NOAA Expenses 1.0 0.1 1 0.1 - 0.5 0.2 - - - 0.1 Legal Services Corporation 0.3 - - Commerce Subtotal 201.3 8.4 48.5 17.9 7.9 51.9 0.6 1 2.9 1.6 0.8 10.1 23 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.4 Summary of Federal Expenditures by State for the Midwest Flood of 1993 in Millions of Dollars (cont'd). Program Total IL IA KS MN MO NE ND SD W1 Flood Control Emergency 218.0 70.0 7.0 11.0 0.3 128.0 1.0 Emergency Operations and Contingencies 31.4 - - - - - - Operation and Maintenance 3.7 0.3 1 2.7 - - 0.7 - - USACE Subtotal 253.1 70.3 9.7 11.0 0.3 128.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 HHS Subtotal 75.0 7.4 22.8 4.2 4.0 19.3 2.3 2.2 2.6 3.9 Impact Aid 70.0 - - - - - - - - - Student Financial Assistance 30.0 1.4 1 11.1 0.2 0.8 4.5 0.4 0.8 1 0.5 0.3 Education Subtotal 100.0 1.4 11.1 0.2 0.8 4.5 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 Labor Subtotal 64.6 10.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 3.0 2.0 3.1 1.5 National Community Service Subtotal 4.0 0.4 1 1.2 0.4 0.7 1.0 - - 0.3 Coast Guard Operation 10.0 - - - - - Federal Highway Administration 152.1 32.7 16.7 19.8 4.6 66.4 3.0 3.6 2.5 2.8 Local Rail Freight Assistance 21.0 0.6 5.4 3.8 2.7 1 7.1 - - 1.4 DOT Subtotal 146.7 33.3 22.1 23.6 7.3 73.5 3.0_ 3.6 3.9 2.8 Abatement, Control, and Compliance 24.3 3.4 3.4 1.9 0.8 6.9 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 Program and Research Operations 1.0 0.2 - 0.1 - Underground Storage Tanks 8.0 1.4 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 3 1.5 Oil Spill Response 0.7 0.3 0.4 EPA Subtotal 1 34.0 5.3 4.6 3.1 2.2 1 7.6 1 2.0 1.2 1 3.7 2.4 24 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.4 Summary of Federal Expenditures by State for the Midwest Flood of 1993 in Millions of Dollars (cont'd). Program Total IL IA KS MN MO NE ND SD WI FWS Construction 30.0 10.5 0.2 0.7 5.2 2.7 - 0.4 - 4.3 Historic Preservation 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 NPS Construction 0.9 - 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - 0.1 USGS Surveys 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 BIA Programs 3.9 - - - 0.1 - - - 0.4 - DOI Subtota 4L 11.8 2.1 1.3 6. 5.1 0.5 0. 4.8 TOTAL 4,254.2 520.8 810.8 294.1 573.5 910.4 173.2 173.4 203.4 186.1 Includes $18M for Levees Sources' Table 1.5 U.S. Department of Agriculture ASCS Disaster Payments, 1993. States Program Non-Program Total Crops Crops Payments ($) ($) M Illinois 42,662,617 7,445,761 50,108,378 Iowa 342,849,940 12,910,334 355,760,274 Kansas 42,662,617 4,823,055 65,562,624 Minnesota 414,574,259 30,983,156 445,557,415 Missouri 113,812,607 8,290,327 122,102,934 Nebraska 64,123,698 13,233,694 77,357,392 N. Dakota 67,127,874 34,760,511 101,888,385 S. Dakota 142,318,846 11,299,410 153,618,256 Wisconsin 82,468,812 18,377,402 100,846,214 9-State total 1,330,678,222 142,123,650 1,472,801,872 Source: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, April 15, 1994. Note: Program crops that received 1993 disaster payments within the 9-state region include those within the Commodity Program (barley, com, upland cotton, oats, rice, sorghum, sugar beets, wheat) plus those in special programs (soybeans and tobacco). 25 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.8 Crop Disaster Payments, 1993. ASCS State Totals $1.4 Billion Dollars 450000000. Mean Average = $1.8 Million Standard Deviation = S2.8 Million 400000000 Ma)dmum $24.6 Million 350000000- D 300000000- 0 250000000- a 200000000- r s 150000000 N 100000000 50000000 0 IL t@ KS MN @O 4 14D S:) Wt FMRC State J.. J-T I I MM ASCS Disaster Payments 1993 - Processed as of 3/94 $10,000,000 to $24,700,000 (18) 1 $5,000,000to$10,000,000 (52) $1,000,000to $5,000,000 (284) 17 0 to $1,000,000 (417) 0 100 200 Miles Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, March 1994. region of the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and northern Iowa." Cropland in this area of hydric soils Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Federal Crop and excessive rainfall does not drain well. The Insurance Program. Claims payments by federal majority of payments went to farmers participating in insurance programs are distinct from federal commodity programs (Table 1.5), but damages would expenditures. Table 1.6 summarizes claims payments have been higher without fanner enrollment because the from these programs by state. Under both programs, 6 million acres of land set aside (the 1993 requirement individuals pay an annual insurance premium to the for program participation) would have incurred crop government and the government provides insurance losses if production had been allowed. coverage. Tables showing insurance payments from the NFIP and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ance Program Federallusur s (FCIC) follow. The federal government operates two insurance National Flood Insurance Program. Flood insurance programs that provided claims payments to those coverage on buildings and their contents is available impacted by the Midwest flood; the National Flood through the NFIP in participating communities. Under 26 TliE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.6 Summary of Federal Insurance Claims Payments by State for the 1993 Midwest floods in Millions of Dollars. Program Total IL IA KS MN Mo NE ND SD wi Federal Crop Insurance Program Claims Payments 1,017.0 25.4 281.2 40.4 353..9 27.7 49.0 139.3 54.1 46.0 National Flood Insurance Program Claims Payments 297.3 61.4 23.4 1 10.7 1.7 192.3 4.8 0.3 0.8 2.0 Total Claims Payments 1 11314 3 1 86.8 51.1 1 355.6 220.0 53.8 139.6 54.9 48.0 Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Flood Information Center, "USDA Emergency Assistance Paid to Flood States," April 4, 1994; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, computer print-out, March 16, 1994. the NFIP insurance premiums for buildings that pre- Federal Crop Insurance Program. Farmers can date the identification of the flood hazard in a particular protect themselves from actual crop losses or prevented community are subsidized, but for buildings built after planting caused by uncontrollable natural events through that date, premiums are based on ftill actuarial rates. purchase of crop insurance from the FCIC. This All costs of administering the program, including the government corporation within the USDA provides costs of floodplain mapping and salaries of federal coverage for 51 crops in the event of loss from employees are charged to policyholders. The Midwest drought, excess soil moisture, flood, frost, hail, wind, flood was the third most costly in terms of NFIP insects, and other natural perils. Historically drought payments, exceeded only by Hurricane Hugo and the has been the major cause of crop loss (55 percent) December 1992 coastal storm that struck New York, while floods represent only two percent of claims. New Jersey, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Excess soil moisture, however, represents 16 percent of Connecticut. In 1993, over half of the losses and two losses. thirds of the payments were in Missouri. States in the upper basin had lower average payments since buildings Farmers must purchase the insurance early in the crop were generally subject to shallow flooding along year. For example, a policy to cover a corn crop tributaries which flooded basements and some first planted in 1994 in the Midwest would have to be floors. States in the lower basin had much higher purchased by April 15. Farmers can choose the level average losses reflecting the deep flooding in the of insurance coverage that they wish to purchase, but bottoms along the main stems of the Mississippi and they are not able to insure their crop for the full value. Missouri rivers (Table 1.7 and Figure 1.9). High Maximum coverage is 75 percent of expected crop average paym-ents in Missouri also reflect large yield.' To encourage participation, the federal payments to small businesses and other non-residential government subsidizes crop insurance premiums up to buildings, particularly in Chesterfield and elsewhere in 30 percent and pays administrative, actuarial, St. Louis County. Even in the counties with disaster underwriting, and selling expenses. status, in excess of 80,000 insured properties did not sustain flood losses. Some of these were behind levees Table 1.8 shows the participation rate for crop that did not overtop or fail, but most were on tributaries insurance purchases in the 9-state area for 1993 as well c that did not flood or where flooding was of less than as the indemnities paid to policyholder s. Pard ipation 100-year frequency. is lowest in the corn/soybean region and highest where 27 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.7 NFIP Flood Insurance Losses for the Period From April 1 Through September 30, 1993 by State for the 1993 Midwest Floods. State Policies Loss Count Total Average Losses Payments 1/31/94 Payments Payment ($) (%) M Illinois 36,844 3,624 61,389,123 16,939.60 22 21 Iowa 8,689 1,690 23,378,415 13,833.38 10 8 Kansas 11,065 1,071 10,702,780 9,993.26 7 4 Minnesota 3,472 372 1,712,960 4,604.73 2 > 1 Missouri 20,981 8,271 192,296,740 23,249.52 S 65 Nebraska 6,652 503 4,833,133 9,608.61 3 2 North Dakota 3,008 198 285,572 1,442.28 1 > 1 South Dakota 1,313 115 745,309 6,480.95 2 > I Wisconsin 7,096 323 1,999,654 6,190.88 2 > I Total 99,120 16,167 297,343,686.00 18,392.01 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Computer print-out, March 16, 1994. wheat is the principal crop. The largest claims were in making loans to farmers. the prairie pothole region (as were the bulk of the crop disaster payments) rather than in the floodplains. The probability of participation in the crop insurance Federal income tax deductions. Uninsured and program is lower for floodplain farmers than for those otherwise unreimbursed losses resulting from casualties in the upland because flood damage is, in general, more such as a flood are deductible for Federal Income Tax localized than drought which is the primary hazard in purposes to the extent that they exceed 10 percent of the Midwest. Federal Adjusted Gross Income plus $100. This deduction results in decreased tax revenue to the federal Loans. Federal agencies have approved $623 million government. The Internal Revenue Service provides in loans to individuals, businesses, and communities tax counseling to disaster victims to assist them in impacted by the Midwest flood. These loans, which applying for refunds by amending their previous years must be repaid, are a federal expenditure only to the tax return when a major disaster is declared. The loss degree that interest rates are subsidized, borrowers of tax revenue has not been quantified for the Midwest default on loans, and administrative costs are incurred flood. Due to the amount of insurance and disaster (See Table 1.9). The primary source of the loans is the assistance payments, the income levels of many of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loan flood victims, and the requirement that the loss exceed Program which provided $597 million in loans to flood- 10 percent of adjusted gross income, the loss may not affected homeowners and renters, businesses of all be substantial. The casualty loss deduction, however, sizes, and non-profit organizations. Interest subsidies, does act as an additional mechanism for transferring the defaults, and administrative costs amount to costs of flood damage from the private sector to the approximately 30 percent of the loans." Farmers federal government. Home Administration (FmHA) is the source of agricultural loans because SBA is prohibited from 28 THE FLOOD OF 1993 Figure 1.9 National Flood Insurance Claims, 1993. NFIP State Totals $297 Mllion Dollars 150000000 D 0 1 100000000 a r s 50000000 1 IN III tL IAKSMNMONENDSDIM FMRC State NFIP Claims Payments Processed as of 0 1/94 N S20,000,000 to $50,000,000 (2) 0 $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 (3) N $1,000,000 to $10,000,000 (32) S100,000t. $1,000,000 (86) $1 to $100,000 (181) 0 100 200 f-1 all others (58) enTniiaiiim@ Miles Table 1.8 Federal Crop Insurance Participation and Payments, 1993. State Participation Payments M ($ million) Illinois 44.4 25.4 Iowa 60.2 281.2 Kansas 76.4 40.4 Minnesota 52.4 353.9 Missouri 24.0 27.7 Nebraska 56.1 49.0 N. Dakota 93.4 139.3 S. Dakota 47.0 54.1 Wisconsin 11.3 46.0 Total 1,017.0 gource: U.S. Department of Agric-uTt-urTe,77eTeral Crop Insurance Corporation, April 15, 1994. 29 THE FLOOD OF 1993 State and Local Costs herbicides (atrazine and cyanazine) in some samples from the Mississippi River exceeded health-based limits The Midwest flood was also costly for state and local for drinking water; however, the annual concentration governments. Because the FEMA provided assistance was not expected to exceed those limits for 1993." The at a 90/10 cost share, the state/local share was cumulative impact of any flood-related releases of approximately $42 million for Public Assistance and hazardous materials, including pesticides, herbicides, nearly the same amount for assistance to individuals." and other toxic materials has not been established. States and communities also had unreimbursed expenses associated with response and recovery. State and local The effects of flooding on groundwater hydrology and costs for the restoration of damaged levees and groundwater quality have yet to be determined. In watersheds exceeded $130 million. These expenditures response to concerns regarding the safety of private were part of the USACE 80/20 and the SCS 75/25 wells, the Administration established a well-water required cost shares. contamination survey in coordination with the nine flood states.' The EPA performed floodwater quality Of greater concern to some communities is the short- sampling around major metropolitan areas on the and long-term reductions in real estate tax revenues as Missouri River. In some cases, drinking water properties are reassessed to reflect flood damages to standards were exceeded, but the majority of the buildings and agricultural lands or losses in market readings posed no health risk." Results from sampling value due to the increased awareness of the flood of treated drinking water revealed three locations where hazard. In those areas, where homes are not being Maximum Contaminant Levels were exceeded although rebuilt and fields are not being restored, these losses results from a single sample do not necessarily indicate will be permanent. Impact aid from the U.S. a problem." USGS and National Oceanic and Department of Education, currently budgeted at $70 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have not found million, will replace a part of the lost tax revenues that significant changes in water chemistry since the 1993 would have gone to schools.' At the state level, losses flood. in tax revenue may result from lost profits and wages. Partial compensation for these losses may come in part Impacts of the flooding on the distribution of from the increased economic activity of the recovery contaminated river sediments is also unknown. Studies effort and from federal assistance. are underway to determine sediment chemistry and characterize sediment deposition patterns in rivers and 68 streams. Non-Quantifiable Costs Effects of the flood on public and mental health are The EPA determined that 59 Superfund sites largely anecdotal. Some communities noted increases experienced flooding; however, impacts to the sites in spousal and child abuse and numbers of calls for were minimal and corrective measures have been police response. Mental health effects of community completed on sites requiring them." In addition, 73 and individual buyout/relocation are poorly understood. solid waste treatment,59 storage, and disposal sites were Several studies are currently being completed to assess also flooded,' and large propane tanks that were the human response to the 1993 flood and to evaluate dislodged floated downriver creating the potential for the factors that strain the ability of families to function massive explosions. Besides the large propane tanks, adaptively to the event." Experience with other floods the states collected over 18,000 orphaned drums" indicates that outbreaks of Equine,Western, and St. each with a potential hazardous or toxic substance Louis encphalitidies can be expected two years after a and a large amount of household hazardous wastes flooding event (due to the lag time in amplification of whose disposal was necessitated by the flooding. Daily disease vectors)." The length of time between the loads of agricultural chemicals (herbicides and nitrates) flood event and the appearance of disease adds to the transported by the Mississippi River were large relative problem of attributing costs. to previous years; record flooding did not dilute the The flood took its toll on historic and cultural resources concentrations of herbicides." Concentrations of two 30 TNE FLOOD OF 1993 Table 1.9 Summary of Amount of Federal Loans by State for the 1993 Midwest Flood in Millions of Dollars. Program Total IL IA KS MN M0 NE ND SD WI Small Business Administration Disaster Loans 597.3 134.7 1 108.5 31.6 27.4 1 235.3 14.2 16.1 1 16.7 12.8 Rural Development Administration Loans 9.3 - 6.7 1.2 - 0.7 0.1 - 0.6 - Farmers Home Administration Emergency Disaster Loans 14.7 2.1 7.3 0.1 2.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.8 Total Amount Approved 621.3 136.8 122.5 32.9 29.8 236.9 14.4 16.3 18.2 13.6 Sources: Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, U. S. Small Business Administration, personal communication, May 3, 1994; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Flood Information Center,"USDA Emergency Assistance Paid to Flood States," April 4, 1994. in the area. Historic homes in Grafton, Illinois and Ste. Preliminary field investigations by state and federal Genevieve, Missouri and a church in Portage des Sioux forestry staff in Mississippi River navigation pools 25 were damaged. A cemetery in Hardin, Missouri was and 26 revealed that all hackberry and sugarberry and a inundated which disinterred over 500 bodies. There large percentage of sycamore appeared to be dead or were several American Indian tribes affected by the dying at those locations. Similar effects might be Flood of 1993. The SAC and Fox of the Mississippi in expected elsewhere in the Basin's floodplain where Iowa (Mesquakie) lost 10 homes and the ceremonial flood duration coincided with the entire growing season. area of their Pow-wow grounds." The Kickapoo Tribe Hackberry and sugarberry are important mast-producing in Kansas had damages to their crops, bridges, roads, trees, and mature sycamore are frequently selected by and water system." Indian lands in the prairie pothole species of colonial nesting birds." The full effects on area were saturated by frequent rains. Local lakes forest canopy and subcanopy structure will not be flooded homes on the shore and contaminated drinking known for years to come. water wells. Well and lake water continue to be monitored for pesticides, animal wastes, and other pollutants potentially carried by runoff to the upland Conclusion: Not all costs of the Rood of lakes . 1993 can be quantified in monetary terms, but both quantifiable and non-quandfiable costs were significant in magnitude and importance. BENEFICIAL EFFECTS Flooding is a natural phenomenon of every river. 1993 flood connected many midwestern rivers with their Historically, flood water enriched bottomlands and floodplains, and for the first time in decades this flood provided spawning habitats for native fish. The coincided with the natural spawning period of riverine ecological value of maintaining connections between the fishes. The benefits of this inundation to fisheries and river and its floodplain and the flood-pulse advantage aquatic resources was evidenced anecdotally in reports are among the benefits conveyed by a flood." The of fishermen utilizing newly created scour holes, and 31 THE FLOOD OF 1993 empirically in fisheries samples collected as part of the (LTRMP). Catches of young-of-the-year fish in fall fall fish sampling for the cooperative interagency 1993 samples (after the flood) were greater than (USACE, FWS, and 5 states) upper Mississippi River numbers of such fish collected in all samples for the System Long Term Resource Monitoring Program entire 1992 sampling year (before the flood)." ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Reservoir Control Center, 1993-1994 Missouri River Mairistem Reservoirs Annual Operating Plan, December 1994. 2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District, maps of the Missouri River from Rulo, Nebraska to St. Louis, Missouri 1879-1954. 3. The Fame study area was selected in the early phases of the response and recovery effort and includes 419 contiguous counties in the upper Mississippi and Missouri River basins believed at the time to be most severely impacted by the 1993 flood. 4. The analysis was based on those Census Block Groups (CBGs) whose centrolds were in the flood extent and the floodplain as mapped by the SAST team. These CBGs then were compared to CBGs with their centroids in uplands. Although most of the CBGs with centrolds within the flood extent and floodplain contain extensive upland areas, the data are an indicator that areas inundated by the Midwest flood differ from upland areas. The data were developed for both CBGs within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and those outside of those areas. 5. The Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations (EO 128-98, February 11, 1994) requires agencies to conduct activities related to human health and the environment in a manner that does not have the effect of discriminating against low-income and minority populations. 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Natural Disaster Survey Report, The Great Flood of 1993, (Silver Springs, MD: DOC, February 1994). 7. Parrett, Charles, Nick B. Melcher, and Robert W. James, Jr., Flood Discharges in The Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1120-A, Second printing (with revisions), September 24, 1993. 8. Natural Disaster Survey Report, The Great Flood of 1993. 9. The primary source for information in the Rainfall and River Flow sections was Natura/Disaster Survey Report, The Great Flood of 1993. 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Annual Flood Damage Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993, Prepared by USACE Engineering Division in Cooperation with the National Weather Service Office of Hydrology, (Washington, DC: USACE, April 1994). The NWS supporting report, Water Year '93 Flood Damage Report, includes several pages of discussions on the problems and limitations of current methods of estimating flood damages. 11. Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr., "What's Left from the Great Flood of '93," The New York Times, (August 10, 1993). 12. NWS Totals: "Water Year '93 Flood Damage Report," Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, 1994. NY Times Totals: Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr., "What's Left from the Great Flood of '93," Kew York Times, August 10, 1993. Illinois: Bhowmik, Nani G., editor, The 1993 Flood on the Mississippi River in Illinois, (Illinois State Water Survey Misc. Publication No. 151. 1993). Iowa: Ostendorf, Jerry, Iowa Department of Public Defense, Emergency Management Division, personal communication, April 1, 1994. Kansas: Region VII Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Report for FEMA-DR-1000-KS, 1993. Minnesota: McCright, Kathee, Director, State of Minnesota, Washington Office, letter, April 14, 1994. Missouri: Governors Task Force on Floodplain Management, Draft Recommendations and Updates, February 1994. North Dakota: North Dakota Governor's Office, personal communication, March 29, 1994. South Dakota: Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team, HazardMidgadon Opportunities for South Dakota, FEMA 999-DR-SD, August 1993. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, The Floods of 1993, The WW'sconsin Experience, December 1993. 13. Derived from USDA/ASCS and USDA/FCIC data, April 1994. 14. Cassidy, Dan, and Rickert Althaus, "The Flood of 1993: The Economic Aftermath," Choices (First Quarter 1994), pages 29-31. 15. Bhowmik, Nan! G., (ad.), The 1993 Flood on the Mississippi River in Illinois, (Illinois State Water Survey Misc. Publication No. 151, 1993). 32 THE FLOOD OF 1993 16. Taff, Steven J., and Wilbur Maki, University of Minnesota Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, (Letter Report, October 25, 1993). 17. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service data sheet, (Columbia, MO: USDA, October 1993). 18. Ibid. 19. "The Flood of 1993: The Economic Aftermath." 20. USDA, data sheet, October 1993. 21. Ibid, also see Table 1.5, that shows total crop disaster payments for the 9-state area were $1.46 billion and crop insurance payments were $1.02 billion. 22. American Red Cross National Headquarters, "Mid-West Floods 1993 American Red Cross Disaster Relief Operations, Statistical and Cost Report," (ARC, 1993). 23. Shepard, Bonnie, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, personal communication April 14, 1994. 24. "What's Left from the Great Flood of '93." 25. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Status of Individual Assistance Activities for Major Disasters in the Midwest", (Washington, DC: FEMA, April 13, 1994). 26. Federal Emergency Management Agency, computer tape data of individual assistance for the Midwest disasters, (Washington, DC: FEMA, April, 1994). 27. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, computer print-out (Washington, DC: March 16, 1994). 28. Kulik, Bernard, Associate Administrator lot Disaster Assistance, Small Business Administration, personal communication, May 3, 1994." 29. Ibid. 30. FEMA, computer print-out March 16, 1994. 31. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Big Disasters 1989-1994 - Projected Infrastructure Funding (formerly Public Assistance)," (Washington, DC: FEMA, April 1, 1994). 32. The 1993 Flood on the Mississippi River in Illinois. 33. "Status of Individual Assistance Activities for Major Disasters in the Midwest." 34. Harper, Edwin L., President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads, testimony before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Hazardous Materials, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, September 23, 1993. 35. U.S. Congress, PL 103-75, emergency supplemental appropriations for relief from the major, widespread flooding in the Midwest for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes, (Washington, DC, August 11, 1993). 36. Trilling, Donald R., Director, Office of Transportation Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, personal communication, February 16, 1994. 37. U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (MARAD), data sheet, August 17, 1993. 38. Ibid. 39. "Big Disasters 1989-1994 - Projected Infrastructure Funding." 40. Knight, D. Karen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Emergency Operation Center, personal communication, August 25, 1993. 41. On March 4, 1994, members of the FMRC met with representatives of the Des Moines Water Works in Des Moines, Iowa. 42. Knight, personal communication. 43. "Big Disasters 1989-1994 - Projected Infrastructure Funding." 44. Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, Volume 2, (Washington, DC: FIFMTF, 1992), pages 9-8. 45. Klemme, Dale, Relocation Coordinator, Prairie du Chein, WI, personal communication, 1994. 46. FEMA, computer print-out, March 16, 1994. 47. Ibid. 48. Annual Flood Damage Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1993. 33 THE FLOOD OF 1993 49. The 1993 flood occurred after a six-year drought which resulted in lower than normal elevations in the reservoirs. If the reservoirs had been at normal pool elevations, however, the same flood damage reduction benefits would have been provided. 50. "The Flood of 1993: The Economic Aftermath." 51. National totals may not equal cumulative state totals for some programs because funds have not been fully allocated, obligated, or expended. 52. PL 103-75, Making emergency supplemental appropriations for relief from the major, widespread flooding in the Midwest for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993 and for other purposes. P.L. 103-211, Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 and for other purposes. "USDA Emergency Assistance Paid to Flood States," U.S. Department of Agriculture Flood Information Center, Report Date: April 4, 1994. "Big Disasters 1989-1994 - Projected Infrastructure Funding" and "Big Disasters 1989-1994, Projected Costs for Human Services, Hazard Mitigation, Administration," Federal Emergency Management Agency, Data as of April 1, 1994. HUD 1993 CDGB and HOME allocations-Meeting with Dan Patch, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, January 12, 1994. HUD 1994 CDGB allocations- Personal communication, Phyllis Amon, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 22, 1994. EDA data for states is grants awarded and applications invited-Personal communication, Dave McIlwain, Economic Development Administration, April 15, 1994. USACE data-Personal communication, Capt. Ken Young, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Readiness Branch, April 20, 1994. EPA data-Personal communication, Kathy Jones, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, April 21, 1994. DOT data for highways and railroads- Personal communication, Susan D. Gaskins, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, May 6, 1994. NOAA, student financial assistance, National Community Service, and DOI data - "Federal Spending on the Mid- West Flood Recovery," Office of Management and Budget, April 8, 1994. Labor data-Personal communication, Tom Edwards, ETA Public Affairs, May 13, 1994. 53. FMRC analysis of USDA/ASCS county-leyel data. 54. The amount paid for a claim is based on loss below the coverage amount. For example, a farmer with a 65 percent level of crop insurance who lost half of his or her crop would be compensated for 15 percent of the crop value (65% - 500/0 = 15%). A farmer with a 35 percent level (the minimum) would get no compensation. The price paid per unit of eligible crop loss can be selected as the market price or as a percentage of an established price. The insurance premium depends on both the chosen yield coverage and price election. 55. Kulik, personal communication; USDA Flood Information Center, "USDA Emergency Assistance Paid to Flood States," Washington, DC: USDA, April 4, 1994). 56. Ibid. 57. PL 103-75, emergency supplemental appropriations for relief from the major, widespread flooding in the Midwest for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes (Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, August 11, 1993). 58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Draft Report, (Washington, DC: EPA, January 1, 1994). 59. "Big Disasters 1989-1994 - Projected Infrastructure Funding." 60. Permitted pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 42 USC Sections 6901-6987. 61. EPA, Draft Report, January 1, 1994. 62. Goolsby, Donald A., William A. Battaglin, and E. Michael Thurman, Occurrence and Transport of Agricultural Chemicals in the Mississippi River Basin, July through August 1993, U.S. Gr.-ological Survey, Circular 11 20-C, (Washington, DC: USGS, 1993). 63. Ibid. 64. Young, Admiral Frank, Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness/National Disaster Medical System, Public Health Service, personal communication, January 10, 1994. 65. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The 1993 Midwest Flood Water Quality MonitonIng Update of EPA's Flood Monitoring Task ForcelWater Workgroup, (issue 2, December 31, 1993). 66. Ibid. 67. Occurrence and Transport of Agricultural Chemicals in the Mississippi River Basin, July through August 1993; Natural Disaster Survey Report, The Great Flood of 1993. 68. The 1993 Midwest Flood Water Quality Monitoring Update. 69. Among proposed studies are the following: "Human Response to Repeated Floods", Carol North, Principal Investigator, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, and "Marital Violence in the Wake of the Great Flood," Patricia Resick, Principal Investigator, University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO. 34 THE FLOOD OF 1993 70. Young, personal communication. 71. Wilson, John, Tribal Liaison, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, personal communication, May 16, 1994. 72. Ibid. 73. Oliver, Sheila, Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Sisseton Agency, South Dakota, personal communication, May 16, 1994. 74. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum CENCR-OD-RM, April 12, 1994. 75. Bayley, P.B. , "The Flood Pulse Advantage and the Restoration of River-floodplain Systems," Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 6:75-86, (1991); Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley, and R.E. Spark's, "The Flood Pulse Concept in River-floodplain Systems," In: D.P. Dodge led.) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106: 110-127 (1989). 76. Hrablk, B., October-December 1993 Open River Field Station Activities and Projects Report, memorandum, (Cape Girardeau, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation, 1994), pages 1-7. 35 . .......... . . . 77 A-r Mar In *-or 36 Chapter 2 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION In the matter offloodplain management, most people agree that some combination of structural and nonstructural methods are probably a better approach than the previous complete reliance on dams and levees. Luna B. Leopold Water Resources Update, Issue No. 95: Spring, 1994 HISTORY The rivers and streams of the Midwest were focal Agricultural Policy and Farm Production points for early settlement because they provided sources of drinking water and avenues for transportation Since the 1930s, when one quarter of the population and trade. Once settlements were established along lived on farms, U.S. farm policy has used a system of rivers, the problem of controlling floods to protect price supports (loans, purchases, payments, or a human life and investments became readily apparent. combination of methods) to improve farm income and At first small mounds of dirt were thrown up to divert promote conservation, while assuring a dependable food water away from towns, and over the course of time, supply for the United States. The Food, Agriculture, these mounds became levees and floodwalls. Many Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA) people living in floodplains behind those levees and continued the market orientation of its predecessor, the floodwalls remain at risk because of decisions made Food Security Act of 1985. Stated goals of the 1990 many years ago. The modem challenge is to reduce Farm Bill (FACTA) were to ease financial stress on those risks. farmers, reduce government costs, reduce crop surpluses, maintain export competitiveness, and enhance As settlers spread west they altered prairie, forest, environmental quality. Among the best known features meandering streams, and free-flowing river landscapes of the farm policy are the Production Adjustment/Price to provide arable farmland, raw materials for homes Support Programs administered by the Agricultural and industry, and transportation. Federal policies Stabilization and Conservation Service of the U.S. encouraged extensive private land development which Department of Agriculture (USDA). Appendix C then required construction of reservoirs and levees for provides an example of how price supports operate. flood protection. Human use thus changed midwestem landscapes to the detriment of natural ecological Agriculture is the leading industry in most counties of systems. The Flood of 1993 raised questions as to what the nine states affected by the Flood of 1993 (See Table extent these landscape changes have contributed to flood 2. 1). The area's 208 million cropland acres represent frequency and duration. 32 percent of the nation's farm acreage, 35 37 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION PRODUCTION DIFFERENCES OF FLOODPLAINS VS. OTHER AREAS Agricultural production in floodplains of the nine midwestern states affected by the flood is focused on commodity crops such as corn and soybeans. Corn yields in well-drained floodplains uniformly average 15 percent higher than the state average in Missouri. Production on portions of the floodplains, however, can be reduced by poor drainage. Upland production yields are variable, depending on soil type and location. The highest upland corn yields are 16 percent higher than the highest floodplain yields; however, high-yield upland areas are presently in full production. Any additional production in upland areas would be in areas with yields averaging 14-26 percent lower than the average well-drained floodplain yield. percent of total agricultural sales, and almost 60 percent ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial of total national corn, wheat, and soybean acreage! navigation system. Combined production from Illinois and Iowa alone represent 33 percent of corn and 30 percent of soybean Navigation on the Mississippi River was a primary acreage in the United States, but dominant crops and factor in settlement of the valley. The federal yields vary by state throughout the region. Floodplains government began to support commercial navigation comprise approximately I I percent of total acreage actively in 1824; first with 4-foot deep channels, then affected by the 1993 flood and 66 percent of this 4.5-foot and then 6-foot channels. The navigation acreage is in agricultural production.' channel projects, authorized by Congress in the 1930s for the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, extended 9-foot draft navigation upstream to Minneapolis/St. Paul and Navigation connected the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes with the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri navigation systems (Figure There are two types of navigation projects present in 2.1). the Basin. One, on the upper Mississippi River, is slack water navigation created and controlled by a The upper Mississippi River 9-foot navigation project system of locks and dams. The other, open water has converted the Mississippi River (St. Louis to navigation, is utilized on the Missouri River and middle Minneapolis/St. Paul) into a series of pools at low and Mississippi River. normal flow (Figure 2.2). Navigation dams, each consisting of a row of gates mounted between piers Upper Mississippi River. The upper Mississippi River over a low sill, are used to maintain sufficient water navigation system provides a variety of uses: depth for navigation. During periods of high flow, the commercial transportation, recreation, environmental navigation gates are completely opened to allow passage resources, water supplies for domestic and industrial of the flood flows. use, and energy production. The Water Resource Development Act of 1986 declared the upper Construction of the 29 lock and dam projects on the Mississippi River system to be a nationally significant Mississippi River north of St. Louis was completed by 1950. These locks are nearing the end of their economic life span and may soon start to require 38 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Table 2.1 Agricultural Characteristics of Flood Affected States CASH CASH AVERAGE CROPS RECEIPTS: LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS: FARMLAND FARM SIZE STATE (million acres) (acres) $million/yr U.S. Rank $million/yr U.S. Rank Illinois 28.5 321 3,913 3 2,262 10 Iowa 31.6 301 3,510 4 5,270 2 Kansas 46.6 680 1,807 11 3,914 6 Minnesota 26.6 312 2,165 6 3,645 7 Missouri 29.2 275 1,517 14 2,173 11 Nebraska 45.3 749 1,975 8 4,848 3 N. Dakota 40.3 1143 1,548 13 760 32 S. Dakota 44.2 1214 813 27 1,910 15 Wisconsin 16.6 221 795 28 4,222 1 5 Source: 1987 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agficulture, expensive replacement. Locks and Dam 26 near Alton, Illinois, was replaced during the early 1980s at a cost of Mississippi River, consists of seven separate navigation nearly $1 billion. Below the southernmost lock, Lock locks. This system was completed in 1965. 27 at Granite City, Illinois, navigation is maintained through placement of flow regulating structures such as Missouri River. In 1945 Congress authorized a wing dikes and by dredging that channelize, narrow, comprehensive navigation plan for the Missouri River and deepen the river. system. The result was a 9-foot channel navigation project to channelize and deepen the river from St. Maintenance of the upper Mississippi River navigation Louis upstream to Sioux City, Iowa. Six multi-purpose system requires periodic dredging at over 200 sites, main stem reservoirs, affecting over 900 river miles, removing an average of 9.5 million cubic yards of were developed above Gavins Point Dam. One purpose material annually. Additionally, about 2,400 was to provide a regulated release of water for submergent and 700 emergent wing dikes are downstream navigation. Downstream of Gavins Point maintained to reduce main-channel sedimentation and Dam, the river consists largely of a 735-mile navigation 420 miles of bankline stabilization are maintained to channel maintained with wing dikes, channel prevent shoreline erosion.' stabilization and other erosion and sedimentation control devices. Annual water release for navigation is based Illinois River. Two construction projects have upon available water supplies. Navigation needs supported navigation activities on the Illinois River. combined with winter releases for water supply and The first, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, hydropower demands obligate all available water during completed in 1900, diverted water from Lake Michigan a normal year. The navigation season on the Missouri into the Illinois River. The second, a modem lock and River is limited to the ice-free season between April 1 darn system, similar to that in operation on the upper and December 1. 39 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Figure 2.1 Upper Mississippi River System Nine-foot Commercial Navigation Project with Timetable of Development. Timetable of N avigation Activities Activity Year Mississippi River: Congress authorizes removal or snags and local obstructions 1824 Congress authorizes 4.5 ft. channel from St. Louis ININES TA to St. Paul 1878 nnespoll 1. P.&I Congress authorizes 6 ft. channel 1907 t, L%D 1AI 3 Trempealcas Na I L 2 11) 4Wildlife Refuge L1 @1@ Construction of Lock and Dam 19 1914 L UWISCONSIN Construction or Lock and Dam 1 1917 ?,., I Upper klissis 'I P 11 Congress authorizes 9 ft. deep, 300 ft. wide clianne LID 9 NEMIRMI ildTife St Louis to Cairo 1927 and Fix Refocc L11 Congress authorizes extension of 9 ft. channel to I, I I St. Paul through construction or locks and dams 1930 IOWA 12 ILLINO Construction of 29 locks and dams 1930-1950 D 1-1 0 Ll 1., 14 we port Construction of Lock and Dam 27 1953 LID)I &sden Island LW 16 uad Al a I seillrb Construction of 1200 ft. chamber at L 1)0cidex Sram!d Rock L 11 Lock and Dam 19 1957 L. L D L. Illinois River: LID 20 LID 21 Mark T Congress authorizes construction of the waln Nreflona' LID 22 IV I d,, c Rfusc Illinois and Michigan Canal 1822 LID 24 La Gr.ng, Construction of Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal LW 25 LID 26 LID 2- and 5 low navigation locks and dams 1900 "Chain of Roe Construction of present day system of 7 locks 1% and dams 1933-1939 MISSOURI Source: Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Comprehensive Marter Plan for the Management of the Upper Mississippi River 4stem. January 1, 1982. Flood Damage Reduction milestone event leading to major changes in national A flood in 1927 affected millions of people throughout floodplain management policy. The 1928 Flood the Mississippi River Basin and demonstrated the Control Act, which established the lower Mississippi inadequacy of the pattern of private flood damage River flood damage reduction system, and the 1936 reduction measures begun in 1879. It became a Flood Control Act were the first codification of the 40 BIPACTS OF HUMAN HTMRVENTION Figure 2.2 Typical Upper NEssissippi River Lock and Dam. .9 Main :::X Channel X:: Rock j BacIONater Wing N X. La ke Dikes X. x -X.: ........ :X ..... X` Side Channel ".-: . . . . . . . . . . . X xx X :X. -Y 9- X" ... . ........ X X, Lake . ................ Dam nd G tes .... ................ X.: . .. ... ...... Tallwater ::X.Xi:@: X X ..... Side X", x Channel x X X" . :11 . . ....... X 1i .. ...... xxxxxxxxxxxxx::.: .......................... ........... __j Source: Adapted from Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the Upper Mississippi River System. January 1, 1982. 41 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION federal interest in the coordinated development and Flood damage reduction-related activities of the SCS installation of flood damage reduction measures. The began nationally in 1944 with passage of PL 78-534 primary method used to prevent damages in those early authorizing installation of upland treatment and flood years was floodplain levees. Starting in 1936 the damage reduction works in selected watersheds. The USACE responsibilities were focused on major rivers Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 and development of congressionally approved plans for (PL 83-566, referred to herein as PL-566) expanded the reservoirs, levees, channelization, and diversions. The SCS flood damage reduction program to the entire methods used were those determined to be most cost nation. During the past 40 years, in the nine effective for preventing flood damages. midwestern states affected by the Flood of 1993, the SCS has planned and evaluated 316 watershed projects The USACE has constructed 76 reservoirs in the upper covering 40,000 sq. mi. (25.5 million acres). Locally Mississippi River Basin. These control a drainage area sponsored PL-566 projects have resulted in the of almost 370,000 square miles and contain a total flood installation of 2,964 reservoirs that influence the storage volume of 40 million acre-feet of water.' drainage of over 5 million upland acres, and 818 miles Forty-nine are located in the Missouri River Basin of channel work, 75 percent of which is located in where the USACE also operates 22 Bureau of North Dakota, Minnesota, and Illinois. The SCS Reclamation reservoirs for flood storage. The majority requires 75 percent of the land above a proposed of the reservoirs are operated to provide benefits on the reservoir site to be treated before construction. It is tributaries where they are located; some are operated to estimated that PL-566 has resulted in soil and water benefit the main stem rivers. conservation treatments on more than 3 million upland acres. In addition to the reservoirs, the USACE has constructed or improved over 2,200 miles of levees for Although flood damage reduction reservoirs and levees the protection of communities and agriculture in the reduce the risk of flooding, they do not eliminate it. upper Mississippi River Basin. Though records on the Given enough rainfall the flood damage reduction federal levees are kept by the USACE (Table 2.2), storage capacity of a reservoir can be exceeded and there is no known inventory about the estimated 5800 water will overtop the spillway. Local flooding may miles of non-federal levees that are in the upper basin. then occur downstream; its extent will depend upon the Table 2.2 Levees Constructed or Improved by the USACE in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Federal Local Maintenance Maintenance River Reach Corps District (Miles) (Miles) Upper Mississippi Saint Paul 17 Upper Mississippi Rock Island 27 650 Missouri Omaha/Kansas City 15 1100 Middle Mississippi Saint Louis 440 Total Above Cairo, IL 42 2207 Source: USACE Headquarters. 42 EMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION condition of the stream when the overtopping occurs. state administration for the purpose of expediting their Throughout the basin, the Flood of 1993 exceeded the drainage.' design capacity of many levees and the flood storage capacity of some reservoirs, flooding lands and property United States policy from the mid to the late 1800s has of persons who may have thought they were not at risk. been to cede "overflow and swampy" lands to the states and to convert these lands to productive use.' Substantial bottomland timber harvesting began with the Wetland Losses arrival.of pioneers, and by the 1930s, most wetlands had been converted from natural to agricultural uses and Wetlands occur in poorly drained soils and in areas over 84 million acres nationwide had been included in where water is found at or near the ground surface. regional enterprises known as drainage districts. Between 1780 and 1980 an estimated 53 percent of the nation's original 221 million acres of wetlands were By the 1950s, forested wetlands had been reduced to drained.' In the nine midwestern states affected by the 66.7 million acres, and by the mid-1970s an additional flood 57 percent of the wetlands have been converted to 6.5 million acres had disappeared.' Between the mid- other uses (Figure 2.3). The Swamp Land Acts of 1950s and 1970s an average of 458,000 wetland acres 1849, 1850, and 1860 resulted in the transfer of nearly were lost each year in the coterminous United States. 65 million acres of wetlands in 15 states from federal to Agricultural development was responsible for 87 percent of the loss as wetlands were drained, filled, or otherwise converted to cropland. IMPACT AND EFTECT Development in the upper Mississippi River Basin for Midwest cropland erosion can be reduced by using agriculture and other economic activity, flood damage measures such as conservation tillage, terraces, crop reduction and navigation has greatly altered the original rotations, field borders, sediment and debris basins, landscape. The characteristics of flood events and the strip cropping, and permanent vegetation. Such land modification of the basin's natural resources reflect use practices increase infiltration rates and help hold these changes. both water and soil in place. It is estimated that 37 Upland Treatment and Runoff Upstream land use and land treatment affect downstream flow regimes of rivers and floodplains. In considering floods and floodplain management, knowledge of where and how runoff occurs and which land practices can hold the rain where it falls for as long as possible become critical. Proper management 4@ can greatly affect the quantity and quality of water and sediment transported by flood waters. Factors influencing the amount and velocity of runoff include the amount and intensity of precipitation, soil type, land slope, available storage and land cover. 4 Proper management of agricultural lands requires use of protective cover or land conservation practices. In the 43 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Figure 2.3 Estimated Wetland Losses, 1780 Through 1980 Est. Wetlands 1780 and 1980 15000000 No A MN c 10000000 r SL P..1 so wi s 5000000 N 0 1L 1A KS MN MO NE SD W1 We @@-d 780 NE We aM 980 State Percent Wetlands Lost 1780 to 1980 KS 85% to 93% El 45% to 85% r-1 34%to45% o 1w C:;::: ........... Mile. Source: Based on GAO/RCED-92-79FS, Report of November 1991. 44 IMIPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION percent of the nation's croplands have adequate land from cropland to grass or tree cover at a ten year cost treatment installed.' of $11.3 billion. This has reduced the average erosion rate from 18.6 tons per acre per year to 1.4 tons per The 1985 Food Security Act (1985 Farm Bill) mandated acre per year. Assuming normal antecedent soil treatment of all highly erodible land (HEL) with moisture conditions, CRP lands reduced runoff volumes conservation measures needed to reduce erosion. 'fhe by approximately 6-12 percent for the I-year event, 3-8 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established by percent for the 25-year event, and 2-4 percent for the the Act was intended to encourage landowners to retire 100-year event." In the case of the 1993 flood, soils highly erodible and other environmentally fragile land were saturated and the quantity and intensity of rainfall from crop production for ten years. In the upper so great that runoff reduction attributable to land Mississippi River Basin, over 200,000 CRP contracts treatment was minimal (Figure 2.4). were signed and 19.9 million acres were converted Figure 2.4 Effects of the Food Sectnity Act. REDUCTION IN RUNOFF FROM CRP AND FSA % REDUCTION FLOOD FREQUENCY 12 C31-YR 1`1 10 C35-YR 12 M2 5 - Y R 10 C31oo-YR 6 2 0 2 0 N D SO NE KS MN I A MO WI IL 5 T A T E 45 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION As CRP contracts begin to expire in September 1995, a flow from pothole to pothole through an ill-defined large portion of enrolled acres are expected to revert to drainage network, eventually finding an outlet to a cereal, row-crop, and forage production. Current surface stream. This intricate network of depressions estimates are that 63 percent of land under contracts slows runoff. A different pattern of runoff occurs in will revert to cropland and 23 percent to grazing and the remainder of the basin. There surface runoff flows pasture land. The remainder are expected to remain in through an open network of streams, with only minor permanent grass and trees and other miscellaneous areas of surface water storage available. Historically, uses." Conversion of these lands to cropland is shallow wetlands and wet prairies which occurred in expected to increase storm runoff even allowing for these areas served a similar, but less effective, function installation of proper conservation practices. to that of potholes. Topography has a direct impact on water movement and Conclusion: Upland watershed treatments soil formation. The upper Mississippi River Basin is such as conservation tillage practices and characterized by two distinct kinds of landscape: open CRP land easements are effective in reducing systems which drain externally, and closed systems Upland runoff, especially for smaller storm where drainage is trapped within a common depository. Due to the extended period of rain preceding the 1993 events. For large events like the 1993 flood, flood, the impacted area became completely saturated upland treatments had little effect. and surface depressions filled; therefore, storage available for additional runoff could only be found in the deep depressional areas located in the prairie pothole region of the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa. Wetlands and Flood Storage Hydrologic model studies of four watersheds that are Pre-1850 historical records indicate that even prior to representative of distinctly different upper Mississippi the clearing of wetland areas major floods occurred in River Basin areas or terrain units were completed in the Mississippi River Basin. As part of economic 1994.11 The modeled watersheds represent only 5 of development in the midwest a substantial percentage of the 70 terrain types in the basin and therefore agricultural lands were created by drainage of wetlands information derived ftom these models has limited and hydric soils. Hydric soils, good indicators of past applicability to assessing flood flow reductions basin- and present wetland locations, total 10.4 percent of wide. The following watersheds were selected for Mississippi and Missouri basin soils." The Review hydrologic studies: Committee heard numerous times that flooding would have been reduced had more wetlands been available Boone River near Webster City, Iowa -- a for rainfall and runoff storage. An evaluation of the Central Iowa and Minnesota Till Prairie with a upper Mississippi River Basin's capacity to store relatively flat 840 sq. mi. watershed with low rainfall runoff estimates that the soil profile has 10 relief prairie pothole terrain. times more storage capacity than above ground storage in depressional potholes." Because much of the basin Wbitebreast Creek near Dallas, Iowa -- a was wet in 1993, particularly the areas that received the Illinois and Iowa Deep Loess and Drift and highest rainfall, the buffering capacity of the basin was Iowa and Missouri Heavy Till Plain with a depleted and unable to store water from the rains of relatively steep 380 sq. mi. watershed with June and July."' well incised drainage. Surface depressions or potholes occur throughout the 9 West Fork Cedar River near Finchford, glacial landscapes of north central Iowa, east central Iowa -- a Eastern Iowa and Minnesota Till Illinois, Minnesota, eastern South Dakota, and North Prairie with a flat 850 sq. mi. watershed but Dakota. When these depressions fill, surface waters having well defined drainage system. 46 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Redwood River Watershed above Redwood more than three decades ago that small flood damage Falls, Minnesota -- a Central Iowa and reduction dams are effective in the reach of stream Minnesota Till Prairie and Loess Uplands and immediately downstream but their effect diminishes Till Plain with both high relief and low relief rapidly with distance. As far as a series of small pothole areas of a 700 sq. mi. watershed. headwater dams is concerned, they are essentially ineffective under conditions in which major floods For the analysis all model runs used antecedent occur on large rivers." moisture condition 11 for the start of modeling conditions. Condition 11 is defined as the average soil A State of Illinois report concluded that for certain condition prior to the annual flood event. For the 1993 watersheds, peak flow decreases as wetland areas flood antecedent conditions were condition III in most increase. In very small watersheds (less than 100 sq. areas. Condition III indicates near saturated soils prior mi.), peak flowrates decreased by an average of 3.7 to the storm and gives significantly higher runoff than percent for each increase in wetland area equivalent to antecedent 11. Because the model analysis used a lower one percent of the area of the watershed. Applicability antecedent moisture condition than was actually of this report may be limited only to the study areas. experienced in the 1993 flood, the peak discharge While wetlands may have some impact on peak flow in reductions resulting from the model analysis are greater the smaller watersheds during smaller storms, their than would have occurred. effects in larger watersheds during larger events has not been sufficiently documented and needs further study. In areas where opportunity exists, wetlands and small detention structures can aid in lowering peaks. Previous watershed evaluations, such as the study of However, flood peak discharge reduction is dependent Devils Lake in North Dakota (a closed basin), indicate on the topography of the watershed, the percentage of reductions of peak flowrates up to 41 percent for a 100- the basin containing deep depressional storage, and the year storm. These widely ranging results from the intensity and volume of the rainfall. aforementioned studies demonstrate that alternative watershed practices produce varying degrees of success In the watersheds modeled the maximum reduction for in reducing flood runoff rates depending (in addition to floodplain wetlands was 6 percent of the peak discharge the magnitude and intensity of the rainfall and for the I-year event and 3 percent of a 25- and 100- antecedent moisture conditions) on the percentage of the year storm event. Wetlands are more effective in basin treated and basin topography. Generally, as upland areas with more deeply incised potholes, such as drainage areas increase, upland treatment measures, the Redwood River watershed, where reductions were wetlands, and small detention structures have less effect 23 percent of the I-year event, 11 percent of the 25- in decreasing peak flowrates. In short, land treatment year event, and 10 percent of the 100-year event. In and detention storage (upland wetlands) can play a role areas of shallow depressions, such as the Boone River in reducing peak runoff in some watersheds but are not watershed, restored wetlands reduced peak discharge by a panacea for solving flood problems. Only a 9 percent of the I-year event, 7 percent of the 25-year combination of upland and floodplain management event, and 5 percent of the 100-year event. practices can reduce floodplain damages in the future. With the installation of a combination of land treatment Conclusion: Upland wetlands restoration measures and restored wetlands in the watershed, the can be effective for smaller floods but models indicate runoff reductions of 12 to 18 percent diminishes in value as storage capacity is are possible for the 25-year or less event. This exceeded in larger floods such as the Hood indicates these practices could be effective for the smaller storm events. of 1993. Present evaluations of the effect that welland restoration would have on peak Wedand restorations in the uplands could function much flows for large floods on main rivers and the same as small upland reservoirs. It was shown tributaries are inconclusive. 47 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Flood-storage Reservoirs upland flood damage reduction reservoirs. Flood damage reduction reservoirs effectively controlled The 1993 flood demonstrated that dams and reservoirs, excess runoff and reduced damages to downstream engineered and built to store and regulate floodwater floodplains during the 1993 flood event. The combined discharge, can reduce flood damages. All federally effect of the storage of flood waters in the federal flood funded flood storage reservoirs operated as planned damage-reduction reservoirs in the Missouri River basin during the 1993 flood. At some facilities, such as reduced the average discharge of the Missouri River Tuttle Creek Reservoir (Kansas) and Coralville near its mouth, during the month of July, by 211,000 Reservoir (Iowa), emergency spillway flows occurred cfs. This had the effect of lowering the peak stage of when inflow volume exceeded reservoir storage the Mississippi River at St. Louis by 5 feet. capacity. The storage space allocated in a typical reservoir and the effect of flood storage is depicted in Figure 2.5. During the period of peak flooding (April Levees I to August 1, 1993), the USACE reservoirs stored 22.2 million acre-feet of floodwater." Approximately Federally constructed levees, in concert with upstream 18.7 million acre-feet were stored in the Missouri flood-storage reservoirs, protect many large urban areas Basin, half of which was stored in the 6 main stem from potentially significant damage. For example, without levees or floodwalls, portions of low lying areas in Rock Island and Moline, Illinois, and Kansas City would have been devastated. At St. Louis the RESERVOIR OPERATIONS Mississippi River crested at 49.6 feet on the USGS gage, almost 20 feet above flood stage, yet that portion Flood-control reservoirs of the city protected by the large flood wall escaped temporarily store a part of the flood flow inundation. for later release so that peak downstream flows will be reduced. Flood-storage capacity is always located above sediment and multi-purpose pool elevations. Flood damage reduction reservoirs have emergency spillways that allow safe passage of flows that exceed storage capacity. All managed flood damage reduction reservoirs are operated pursuant to a water control management plan. In no case will the peak discharge from the dam exceed that which would have occurred without the dam. Missouri River reservoirs. Most of the remainder was stored in tributary reservoirs of the Kansas and Osage rivers. About 3.5 million acre-feet of water was stored in the Mississippi River Basin and an additional 1. 1 -X; million acre-feet were stored in 2,964 small PL-566 48, IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Figure 2.5 Typical Reservoir Cross Section and Hydrograph. MEMO Emergency Flood Storage Pool Spillway Multi-Purpose Pool Noi:, Sediment Pool Gated PC et . .... .... ............ .... ............... ... ................ .... .............. ....................... . Reservoir Cross-Section 3 I nf low Reduction (D In Peak Stage 2 - Outflow Time Lag Time River Hydrograph as Affected by Reservoir Source: Floodplain Management Review Committee. Adaptation 49 UVIPACTS OF E[UMAN INTERVENTION Much of the speculation about the effect of levees on at St. Louis by 1.6 feet." This analysis used a steady- flood levels during the 1993 flood was based upon state model applied to a short stretch of the river and inferences drawn from comparisons between recent lends support to the UNET findings. event data, obtained from systematically-measured river flow (discharge) and river level (stage) records, and A physical model study conducted at the Waterway similar data for historical floods. Such discussions fail Experiment Station (WES) in 1979 by Foster and to recognize that significant differences in data quality Allee showed that the removal of the trees between exist between the modem (after 1930) and the historic the river bank and levee along the middle Mississippi record." In addition, many other changes have River between St. Louis and Cape Girardeau would occurred in the upper Mississippi River Basin which lower the stage at St. Louis about 2.5 feet for the 1973 have created differences in flow regimes over time. flood, which corresponds with the mathematical (UNET) model results for the fully open, treeless To ascertain the actual effect existing levees had on floodplain assumption. peak 1993 Mississippi and Missouri river flood stages, the UNET model, which analyzes unsteady state river Farther downstream along the middle Mississippi River, flow conditions," was applied to the river reaches the UNET model predicted that there would have been where cross-sectional data were available: a sizeable local drop in river levels in the absence of levees under the most conducive flow scenario. At (1) the Mississippi River between Hannibal, Chester, Illinois, the stage of the Mississippi River Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois, during the 1993 flood would have been approximately I I feet lower if the levees containing the river were (2) the Missouri River between Hermann, removed. But the floodplain would have been under Missouri, and the mouth at St. Louis, and water. The model predicted that there would be no stage reduction if the entire floodplain was covered in (3) the Illinois River between Meredosia, dense forest or brush -- a scenario representing a least Illinois, and the mouth above St. Louis. conducive flow condition. It is expected that a typical floodplain without levees would contain a mix of uses The analysis used flow data from 1993, 1986, and 1973 and associated land covers such as sloughs, side floods and developed water surface profiles resulting channels, forested and non-forested wetlands and from the same flood flows without levees. The model agriculture. was calibrated and a range of possible floodplain ground covers was used .2' The analysis suggested that if all the levees (other than urban levees) were absent, Conclusion: Levees did not cause the 1993 the peak stage at St. Louis in 1993 would have been flood. During large events such as occurred reduced by 2.5 feet, but still more than 17 feet above in 1993, levees have minor overall effects on flood stage and almost 4 feet higher than the previous floodstage but may have significant localized known maximum level recorded during the 1973 event. This model scenario assumes the improbable condition effects. of a totally open floodplain covered only with bare soil or short grass cover. If one assumes existing levees would have been constructed to contain all flows, peak Erosion and Sedimentation stages at St. Louis would have been increased by 2.3 feet. Upland erosion and the sedimentation in downstream areas are major causes* of reduced water quality and An independent model commissioned by the St. Louis habitat destruction in most midwestem rivers and Post-Dispatch showed that the overtopping and streams. Sedimentation in the backwaters of the upper breaching of two levees downstream from St. Louis at Mississippi River is the most significant problem in that Columbia and Harrisonville, Illinois, reduced peak stage river. In recent years, Missouri, Minnesota and 50 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Wisconsin have developed watershed management floodplain (downstream from St. Louis). Levee programs to reduce runoff and erosion. Land use breaches along the lower Missouri commonly resulted planning and land stewardship are key nonstructural in high-velocity flows across its relatively narrow and factors in reducing runoff and downstream flooding. relatively steep (high gradient) floodplain, contributing to extensive deep scour and thick sand deposition across Significant floodplain erosion and deposition occurred agricultural lands located there. In contrast, levee during the 1993 flood, principally on floodplain breaches along the middle Mississippi produced less agricultural lands along the Missouri River. intense erosion and sedimentation; impacts were largely Preliminary analyses of aerial photography, satellite limited-to passive inundation of large bottomland tracts. imagery, and historic Missouri River floodplain maps reveal that more than 90 percent of the areas affected The Pick-Sloan plan authorized by Congress in 1944 by significant erosion and deposition are associated with called for the creation of a floodway from 3,000 to breached levees situated in active, high-energy 5,000 feet wide between levees along the Missouri floodplain zones." Review of the history of levee River from Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth near St. failures in this area shows levees have been breached Louis, Missouri. The purpose of this floodway was to repeatedly at sites of natural river cutoffs or chutes in provide sufficient space for flood waters to pass and the past three decades. Construction of levees across reduce potential damage to adjacent farmlands. For a these high energy channels is a risky investment which number of reasons, this plan was never implemented. has required repetitive repair. The Flood of 1993 demonstrated the need for some form of floodway to provide greater capacity to convey In most cases where levees breached, scour holes, flood flows. Implementation of any future flood locally known as blow holes or blue holes, occurred. damage reduction plan should recognize that in lieu of a These holes, typically 25 to 50 feet deep, are caused by standard setback distance, the floodway should coincide scouring of alluvial soils underlying the levees and farm with the natural high-energy zone of the river, which fields and are caused when the head of water exceeds commonly is wide in areas of large meanders and the height of a levee or its ability to withstand water narrow in straighter portion of the river. pressure, overtopping or breaching the levee and releasing river water through the constricted levee breach with velocities similar to that of a dam break Conclusion: Levee location and height are flood wave. This sudden release of energy scours factors in determining erosion and deposition tremendous volumes of materials creating both new in the floodplain. There are certain locations aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Erosional zones of scour where levees should not be constructed. In and stripping can extend as far as one mile downstream from the larger breaches (Figure 2.6). Locally these cases set-back levees might allow constricted floodflows in breaches through railway normal riverfunctions. Each situation needs embankments and in the vicinity of railroad and to be evaluated on its own merits. highway bridges act in a similar manner. Comparison of the effects of the 1993 floods on the Navigation upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers shows that river reaches in broadly similar physiographic regions may The Review Committee received numerous suggestions respond very differently to floods. The annual that the flood crest could be lowered significantly by discharges of the upper Mississippi River are generally opening navigation dam gates before the arrival of flood comparable to those of the Missouri River, but sediment waters. Hydraulic investigations by the University of yields of the Missouri average more than five times Iowa,' and evaluations of the 1993 flood show that those of the Upper Mississippi. Average slope of the navigation dams cause slight, localized increases in lower Missouri River floodplain (upstream of St. Louis) is about twice that of the middle Mississippi River 51 RUPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Figure 2.6 Reach of the Missouri River Bottoms Showing "High Energy" Erosion and Deposition Zones. Chwiton ffiver Bottoms Levees 14 7A issoi,li 14 N ..... ...... Levee Source: Floodplain Management Review Committee. Adapted from SAST data, 1994 52 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION flood height just upstream of a dam. They do not cause found. In the lower end, immediately above each dam, increases in flood elevations for the entire Mississippi wide open water lake-like areas occur (Figure 2.2). River System. In the middle Mississippi (from St. Louis to the confluence with the Ohio River) and on the While impoundment of the upper Mississippi River for Missouri River, navigation channels have no locks and slackwater navigation created a variety of backwater dams, and the dikes and revetments which are in place and side-channel habitats, these dams also slowed river cause little or no restriction to flow. currents, starting the irreversible process of sedimentation. Many backwater habitats are filling with sediments from the erosion of upland agricultural and Conclusion: Navigation dams and locks did developed lands. Rock dikes and channel maintenance not cause an increase in the stage heights of dredging also contribute to the problem. Mississippi the 1993 flood. River backwaters still provide critical fish production and nursery habitats, but may be lost to sedimentation and eutrophication within 50 yrs.' Habitat Loss Downstream from its confluence with the Missouri River, the upper Mississippi River takes on a very Fish and wildlife resources in the upper Mississippi different character, similar to that of the Missouri River River Basin have been significantly affected by the loss (see Missouri River habitat description). Forty-six of wetlands and other terrestrial and aquatic habitats due species of Mississippi River fish, virtually all of which to construction for navigation and flood damage have been affected by flood damage reduction measures reduction structures. and navigation, are listed by basin states as rare, threatened, endangered, or a species of special concern. Upper Mississippi River. The upper Mississippi River was originally a free-flowing, alluvial riverine environment with associated riparian habitats. Missouri River. Parts of the Missouri River were well Construction of navigation control structures (rock known as a braided river with swift, muddy flows. The dikes) and installation of the slackwater navigation dams historic floodplain was a ribbon of islands, chutes, have created habitat types substantially different from oxbow lakes, backwaters, marshes, grasslands, and those found in a free-flowing alluvial river. forests. Sandbars and wooded islands dotted the channel. Between 1879 and 1954, human actions and Habitat types within the upper Mississippi River natural changes shortened the river by 45.6 miles, slackwater navigation pools are created by coincident reduced river surface area by over 50,000 acres, physical, water quality, and botanical characteristics. reduced the number of islands from 161 (24,419 acres) River position, depth, water-surface area, stage and to 18 (419 acres), and converted nearly 67,000 acres of discharge, vegetation, river-bottom types, water 4uality, river habitat from public to private ownership, most to 27 and the superimposed structural elements within the agriculture. river define the various habitats. Three distinct habitat zones occur in the slackwater navigation pools. The Nearly one-third of the Missouri River has been upper end of each pool is like the original river impounded, another one-third channelized, and the although subject to exaggerated water level fluctuations hydrologic cycle, including temporal flow volume and from the upstream dam releases. Marsh development is sediment transport, has been altered on the remainder. limited. In the middle portion of the pools, downstream The Missouri River formerly had peak run-off during impoundment backs water up and over the islands and two periods, March-April and June. Prior to 1954 old hay meadows, creating large areas of shallow flushing flows, known as dominant discharge, occurred water. This section has the best marsh development, every 1.5 years. The river was in a state of and some deep sloughs and wooded islands can be equilibrium; net sediment entering a reach replaced an equal amount leaving allowing for ample habitat 53 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Figure 2.7 Changes in Channel Morphology Following the Addition of Navigation Dikes, Indian Cave Bend, Missouri River, North of Rulo, Nebraska. Art",'. Pir 1 11,K] 'oii ;it I\- Is Re 1, A Source: USACE 54 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION development, and aquatic nutrition. Loss of sediment Changes in basin and floodplain physiography and load led to channel degradation which contributed to the channel morphology have reduced commercial fish loss of off-channel habitat and further severed the river harvest by more than 80 percent and are implicated in from its floodplain. Since the early 1950s the Missouri the demise of native species. The Missouri River's River has thus been deprived of a floodplain in most natural riparian ecosystem has been nearly eliminated reaches. Water temperature, photoperiod, and run-off and presently consists of a discontinuous, single row of cues have been altered by reservoir releases for trees. Missouri River floodplain forest coverage navigation and other purposes."' decreased from 76 percent in 1826 to 13 percent in 1972, while cultivated lands increased from 18 percent to 83 percent. Figure 2.8 Missouri River Reservoirs and Navigation System. Ft. Peck Da n arfison D Oahe am Big e QW Vi 9 'nt loux Kansas ty PT Ct S,t.Lis 55 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION Thirty-four species of Missouri River Basin stream fish floodplain through the construction of levees and are listed by basin states as rare, threatened, pumping stations, (3) an upsurge in untreated urban and endangered, or as species of special concern." The industrial pollution during the 1920s, (4) the creation of pallid sturgeon, piping plover, least tern, and bald eagle a 9 ft. channel and its attendant navigation dams in the are all native Missouri River species listed as 1930s, and (5) an acceleration in sedimentation rates endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service following World War 11, apparently resulting from an (FWS).' Population densities of five species of chubs" increase in the amount of open row crops grown within and two species of minnows' have been reduced by as the basin.' As an example, in 1908, a 200-mile reach much as 95 percent since 1971." Burbot have been of the Illinois River produced 10% of the total U.S. nearly extirpated, sauger have been greatly reduced, catch of freshwater fish (employing 2,000 commercial and blue catfish are rare. fishermen and yielding 24 million lbs. of fish annually). Commercial fish yield totalled about 178 lbs/ac of The Master Water Control Manual for the six Missouri permanent water, but by the 1950s yield had dropped to River main stem reservoirs is currently under review by 38 lbs/ac and by the 1970's to 4 lbs/ac, totaling 0.32% the USACE. Decisions made with regard to this of the total U.S. freshwater harvest.' manual are important to the future of the Missouri River ecosystem. For example reservoir water releases could be adjusted to simulate natural hydrographs and, Conclusion: Alteration o Mississippi, in combination with riparian land acquisition, be used to f restore many of the river's natural functions including Illinois and Missouri Rivers and floodplains low4evel flooding of riparian lands. has resulted in significant changes or losses of habitat. The disruption of natural ecosystems has caused the destruction of Illinois River. Aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the many native species populations and has Illinois River Valley have suffered a series of caused an increasing number to be listed as cataclysmic events since 1900: (1) permanent rise in threatened or endangered. water level from water diverted from Lake Michigan, (2) the draining of more than half of the 400,000 acre ENDNOTES 1. The statistics in this section are from U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987 Census of Agdcufture, (Washington DC: DOC, 1988). The 1992 census figures are being compiled as this report goes to press. A preliminary look at data from three states in the region indicates that the relative values are consistent with the 1987 figures. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Regional Anal@sis of I I Major Land Resource Areas, Agriculture Handbook 296, lWashington DC: SCS, December 1981). 3. Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the Upper Mississippi River System, (Minneapolis, MN: UMRBC, January 1, 1982). 4. The USACE and Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in the Missouri River contain 28 million and 5 million acre feet of flood storage capacity respectively, those in the upper Mississippi River 4,5 million and those in the middle Mississippi River 1.2 million acre feet. 5. U.S. Government Accounting Office, Wetlands Overview, (Washington DC: GAO, November 1991). 6. Reuss, Martin, Wedands, Farmlands, and Shifting Federal PoficV. A Bdef HistorV, (Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 1994), pages 3-5. 7. lbid, page 3. B. Sharitz, R., "Bottomiand hardwood wetland restoration in the Mississippi drainage," pages 496-505 in National Research Council, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992). 56 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION 9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Summary Report 1987 Nadonal Resources Inventory, Statistical Bulletin, No. 790, (Washington DC: SCS, 1988). 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Impacts of Food Security Act (CRP and HEL), SAST Studies, (Des Moines, IA: SCS, February 1994). 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Analysis of the Conservation Reserve Program: Farmers' Plans and Environmental Targeting Issues, (Washington, DC: ERS, April 1994), page 9. 12. Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team, "Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team Report", Draft, (Sioux Falls, SO: SAST, 1994). 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Leopold, Luna B., "Flood hydrology and the floodplain", Water Resources Update, 95: page 11. 17. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Effects of Reservoirs on Flood Discharges., Circular 1120-E, (Washington DC: USGS, January 1994). 18. Dyhouse, G.R., Competing Flood Stage-Discharge Date-Be Carefull (Orlando, FL: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Hydraulics Specialty Conference, August 1985). Belt, C.B., Jr., Science Vol. 189, footnote 9, August 29, 1975 19. The UNET Model is a computer program that solves unsteady state flow equations to describe floodflow conditions. Unsteady state means that the depth of flow changes with both distance along the channel and with time. The model uses a network approach to solving the unsteady state flow relationships. UNET is a 1 -dimensional model and assumes that the calculated velocity at a cross-section exists across the entire river. The area behind levees are modeled as storage cells. After calibration using flow data observed in the 1993, 1986, and 1973 flows with pre-flood conditions of levee development in the floodplain, the model analyzed the water surface profiles that would result from those same flood flows assuming levees were absent. Under such a scenario, land use in most areas would be different than presently exists as would ground cover types. Because the hydraulic roughness (resistance to flow) of the floodplain cross-section must be represented in the model, a range of possible ground cover types was used, from bare soil or short grass to dense forest or dense brush. A floodplain absent of levees would likely have a mix of ground cover types ranging between and including these extremes. 20. Ibid. 21. Koenig, Robert L., and Virgil Tipton, "The Flood That Wasn't", St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (December 26, 1993), 0-1. 22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Effects of Overbank Vegetation on the Mississippi River Stages in the Saint Louis -To Thebes Reach, Vicksburg, MS, Mississippi Basin Model Report 81-6 (Vicksburg, MS: USACE, June 1979). 23. Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team Report. 24. The University of Iowa, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Effects of Navigadon-Dam, Operadng procedures on the Mississippi River Flood Levels, (Ames, IA: The University of Iowa, August 1969). 25. Fremling, C.R., at aL, "Mississippi River fisheries: a case history", pages 309-351 In Dodge, D.P., (ed.) Proceedings of the Internadonal Large filver Symposium. (Ontario. Canada: Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Scl. 106, 1989). 26. Ibid. 27. Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson, Changes in the Channel of the Lower Missoud River and Effects on Fish and Wildlife. Aquatic Series No. 11, (Jeff erson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation. November 1974). 28. Ibid. 29. Hesse, L.W., J.C. Schmulbach, J.M. Carr, K.D. Keenlyne, D.G. Unkenholz, J.W. Robinson, and G.E. Mesti. Missoud River fishery resources in refadon to past, present, and future stresses, pp. 352-371. In: D.P. Dodge (ad.) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106. (1989). 30. Hesse, L.W., at al., "Missouri River fishery resources in relation to past, present, and future stresses", pages 352-371 in Dodge, D.P., (ad.) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, tOntsdo, Canada: Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106, 1989). 3 1. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened WIdlffe and Plants, 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12, (Washington, DC: FWS, 1993). 32. The sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, flathead chub, silver chub, and speckled chub. 57 IMPACTS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION 33. The plains minnow and the silvery minnow. 34. Hesse, L.W., "Flora and Fauna of the Missouri River Downstream from Fort Randall Dam to the Mouth as They Relate to the Alteration of the Hydrosystem," Prepared for the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (SAST) of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, (Sioux Falls, SD: SAST 1994), pages 1-68. 35. Sparks, R.E., "The Illinois River-floodplain ecosystem." pages 412-432 in National Research Council, Restorsdan of Aquadc Ecosystems. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992). 58 Chapter 3 FUTURE FLOOD POTENTIAL After the 1965 flood, they told us this wouldn't happen again for another 100 years. Midwestern mayor July 1993 This quote illustrates the lack of understanding by many flood, 100-year flood, or 500-year flood. The Midwest individuals concerning flood potential. Many people flood of 1993 varied from less than a 50-year flood at think of flooding only in relation to a flood of a 100- St. Paul, Minnesota, to less than a 100-year flood at year magnitude. They overlook the fact that although Lincoln, Nebraska,' to over a 100-year flood at St. government regulators have selected the 100-year flood Louis, Missouri.' No one -- especially those living at as a reasonable regulatory standard, it is not the only risk in floodplains -- should be misled into believing magnitude of flood that can occur. Floods are random, that a 100-year flood occurs only once in a century. variable events. Through frequency analysis, What happened in the Midwest in 1993 could happen hydrologists can characterize them as a 50-year again at any time! WHAT IS A 100-YEAR FLOOD EVENT? The American people have heard quite a bit recently of one percent. The risk rises for sites closer to a about a 100-year flood. What exactly is it? A 100-year river, ocean or other water feature, and also at lower flood has a I-percent chance of being equaled or elevations, yet most people think of the entire area exceeded in any given year. It has a 26-percent chance between the water body and the outer edge of the 100- of occurring over the life of a 30-year mortgage, and a year floodplain as subject to the same risk.' Variation 63-percent chance of occurring over the next 100 years. of risk is not usually shown on floodplain maps. There The terminology used to describe the 100-year flood are areas within the mapped 100-year floodplain that can be confusing. The terms 100-year flood, 100-year may flood more frequently and to greater depths than recurrence interval flood, 100-year frequency flood, I- others. percent flood, I-percent annual chance flood, and base flood, which all refer to the same event, are often used Uncertainties surround 100-year discharges and interchangeably. Confusion can result because the 100- elevations, and mapping 100-year floodplain boundaries year flood is usually the only type people hear about, is at best an imperfect science. Estimates of the 100- even though larger and smaller floods are likely to year flood discharge (or flowrate) can be based on a occur. range of techniques, and current techniques provide 4 estimates that could be off as much as 5 to 45 percent. As commonly applied, the concepts of a 100-year flood Factors such as the size of the watershed, the and 100-year floodplain can be misleading. Technically availability and length of strearngaging records, and the only the outer edge of a 100-year floodplain has a risk level of detail of mapping for use in determining model 59 FUTURE FLOOD POTENTIAL parameters contribute to the uncertainty in a 100-year flood discharge estimate. Flood discharges associated uncertainty associated with them. Even if a fairly with infrequent events, such as the 500-year flood accurate 100-year discharge is determined, it may discharge, are more difficult to predict and have more subsequently change due to land-use changes in the watershed and natural and human changes to the channel and floodplain. MA"LES AND FLOODS After determining a discharge rate, this figure is entered into a hydraulic model to determine the elevation of the At one of the public meetings 100-year flood. Hydraulic models, depending upon the level of accuracy of information on topography, friction attended by the Review Committee, a losses, and hydrology, can produce estimates of 100- young Missouri farmer provided a year flood elevations within 0.5 to 2 feet.' correct explanation of the possibility of experiencing a 100-year flood. He Once the elevation of the 100-year flood has been described a bag full of 100 marbles determined, the extent of the floodplain can be mapped. with 99 clear marbles and one black Topographic maps vary in precision and level of detail. marble. Every time you pull one of The accuracy of the floodplain boundary line is those marbles out, and it's black, influenced most strongly by the quality of the 100-year you've got a 100-year flood. After flood discharge estimate. The next most significant each draw, you put all 100 marbles factor is the quality of the topographic mapping. back in the bag and shake it up. It's Research suggests that the probable nationwide standard possible that you could pull the black error for base (100-year) flood elevation mapping is 23 percent of the base (100-year) flood depth. This value, one out two or even three times in a translated into an average depth, amounts to about 3 row. To represent the uncertainty of feet.' Thus, the floodplain boundary line shown on a estimating a 100-year flood, it's also map is not absolute and structures located within several possible that the bag could hold two or feet (vertically) of the 100-year floodplain are still at three black marbles. risk. In flat areas, structures located within several hundred feet (horizontally) of the 100-year floodplain also may be at risk. STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD Another magnitude of flood that can occur is one that of the discharge-frequency approach because of the results from the standard project flood (SPF) discharge. unreliability inherent in estimating large magnitude This event is not assigned a frequency or recurrence infrequent events from short record, or even regional, interval, although it i's often used by hydrologic discharge-frequency analyses. engineers to approximate the 0.2 percent annual chance (500-year) flood. The SPF discharge in a river The SPF discharge is currently used for design of represents the flow that can be expected from the most engineered structures which, if compromised, could severe combination of meteorologic and hydrologic result in catastrophic flooding. The SPF discharge is conditions reasonably characteristic of the geographic generally used to determine the level of protection for region involved. SPF discharges exclude extremely urban population centers where there is great threat of rare combinations. The SPF procedure is used in lieu loss of life and of damage to critical infrastructure. 60 FUTURE F`LOOD POTENTIAL RESIDUAL RISK BEHIND LEVEES Risk exists in all areas within a floodplain -- both areas level of protection. Engineers may account for protected by channel modifications, dams, or levees and discharge and elevation uncertainties in the design of a areas outside the 100-year floodplain. Levees built to levee by the use of freeboard -- the difference between provide a 100-year level of protection modify the the top of the levee and the design flood height. Even natural overflow boundary of the 100-year floodplain though areas protected by levees are considered safe, and the boundaries for lesser floods. Individuals and the potential for catastrophic loss still exists. If businesses remaining in what was once the 100-year floodwaters overtop a levee, flooding in the protected floodplain, are not required to carry flood insurance area could reach depths equaling or exceeding the even though the chance of a flood greater than the 100- levee's height. Higher levees reduce risk but could year flood occurring in the next 30 years is about I in increase potential damage. 4. Uncertainties also surround a levee's CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change could increase flood risk. Although considerable uncertainty exists, climate change could bring about more-frequent and/or more intense floods. Given that development in and near floodplains is expected to last a considerable period of time and that the nation's ability to predict the magnitude and frequency of future events is still limited, it may be prudent to consider the potential effects of climate change when decisions are made (or revised) about the type and amount of development allowed in vulnerable areas. In the absence of sufficient data, flexible and cautious policies are preferred. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment Preparing for an Uncertain Climate ---- Volume I FUTURE FLOODS Not every state and local government regulates in natural river systems and produce higher, sharper stormwater runoff, and the volume of runoff and flood flood peaks. Unless steps are taken to mitigate the peaks may increase in the future because of impacts of urbanization, flood volumes and peaks will urbanization. The streets, parking lots, gutters, drains, continue to increase. and storm sewers accompanying urbanization convey rainfall rapidly to stream channels. Natural channels Current flood records are limited by their length. As are often straightened, deepened or lined, transmitting flood records for more years become available, current flood waves downstream more quickly. Stormwaters estimates of flood discharge, volume, stage, and can therefore accumulate downstream more quickly than duration will change. 61 FUTURE FLOOD POTENTIAL In the 1993 flood, out of more than 500 USGS gaging in 1993, may experience a 100- to 500-year flood in the stations in the area of flooding streams,' 45 exceeded near future. There is no question that flooding is the 100-year discharge,' but at least 450 did not. Many inevitable. The open questions are when? where? and people think that the entire upper Mississippi River how much? Basin experienced a 500-year flood, when estimates indicate that only the reach of the Mississippi River Conclusion: Floods equal to and greater from Keithsburg, Illinois, to above St. Louis and the than the flood of 1993 will continue to occur reach of the Missouri River from Rulo, Nebraska, to above Hermann, Missouri, endured such a flood.' across the nation. It is difficult to predict Since 1900, St. Louis has experienced large floods in precisely when and on what rivers these large 1903, 1909, 1927, 1973, and 1993. The communities events will happen. in the Midwest that experienced a 10- to 50-year flood ENDNOTES 1. Parrett, Charles, Nick B. Melcher, and Robert W. James, Jr., Flood Discharges in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1120-A, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Second Printing, with revisions, September 24, 1993). 2. Bhowmik, Nani G., et al., The 1993 Flood on the Mississippi River in Illinois, Miscellaneous Publication 151, (Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey, 1994). 3. Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, FIA-18, (Washington, DC: Federal Insurance Administration, June 1992). 4. Burkham, D.E., "Accuracy of flood mapping," Journal of Research, U.S. Geological Survey, 6(4): 515-527 (July-August 1978). 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Accuracy of Computed Water Surface Profiles, (Davis, CA: USACE, December 1986). 6. "Accuracy of flood mapping," page 526. 7. Kirby, William H., Hydrologist, Office of Surface Water, USGS, Reston, VA, personal communication, June 13, 1994. 8. Flood Discharges in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, page 1. 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, 1993-94 Annual Operating Plan, Missouri River Main Stem Reservoirs, (Omaha, NE: December 1993). 62 Part 11 A BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE 63 Chapter 4 A VISION FOR THE FLOODPLAIN The Congress... declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general weffiare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, andfuNll the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. Section 101, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with the States, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof; that investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways, including watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes are in the interest of the general weffiare; that the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries, including watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs, and if the lives and social security ofpeople are otherwise adversely affected. Section 1, Flood Control Act of 1936 The United States, as it moves into the 21" century, is lands upland of the floodplains. Subsequent increases at a crossroads in the use of its floodplains. The nation in runoff generated the need for additional flood may choose to use these flood-prone lands for the damage reduction activities. Levees, built by both the primary purpose of economic development, or it may federal government and private landowners, helped take action to better balance their economic and agriculture flourish in the fertile bottoniland environmental outputs. Floodplain resources can be environment; however, the overtopping of these levees shared by human occupants and natural systems. Over by floodwater created major economic losses. the last century, in the upper Mississippi River Basin, Reservoirs, like levees, reduce the flood threat to many while human activities have produced significant downstream communities, but the reduction in flood economic and social benefits, some of these activities flows simultaneously creates incentives for many people have placed both humans and nature at risk. to settle riverbanks and become subject to the impacts of the next major flood. The promise of post-flood Flood control works have allowed cities to grow in the support from government and private agencies may face of periodic high waters. Until the middle of this encourage people to continue occupying land at frequent century, the nation did little to control the clearing of risk of flooding. 65 VISION In recognition of this continuing vulnerability to activity, over which they had no control, increasing flooding, watershed-focused programs are now their hazard. As the nation seeks a new approach for emerging, and the United States has begun to move in a floodplain management, it must not lose sight of the new direction. Concern for the environment and realities of the past. sustainable development as well as recognition of the severe limits on federal spending and of funding Recognition in the early 1960s of the natural functions opportunities lost in flood recovery speak clearly to the and resources of the floodplain -- habitat, scenic beauty, need for reexamining the nation's flood damage water filtration, storm buffer, groundwater recharge, reduction strategy. and floodwater storage -- caused the nation to reconsider its policy of supporting wholesale conversion This reexamination must acknowledge that the current of natural areas to other uses. Persistent flood losses state of floodplains reflects in part a succession of during a half century of flood-control programs raise political decisions made at the national level. Much of serious questions concerning the long-term efficiency of the flood-control effort of the last half-century in such programs. A movement to reduce flood damages combination with other infrastructure development had through nonstructural means, limiting unwise major land-development implications. Many people development of the floodplain and evacuating those at moved to or remained in the floodplain with the most risk, gradually has become a viable alternative to understanding that the federal government was the construction of dams, levees, and floodwalls. providing them flood protection. Others saw upstream DEFINING THE VISION The National Commission on the Environment, a non- definition.' Based on this input, the Review Committee profit group, proposes a concept of sustainable proposes strategic and operational goals for the nation's development to accomplish economic progress by future use of its floodplains and management of that protecting and restoring the quality of the natural use: environment, improving the quality of life for individuals, and broadening the prospects for future generations.' Effective floodplain management Strateizic Goals embodies these very concepts by seeking to balance competing uses in a way that maximizes the net benefits to society. Reduce the vulnerability of the nation to the What then should be the national vision for use of the dangers and damages that result from floods. floodplains? To assist in developing this vision, the Floodplain Management Review Committee reviewed Reduce the vulnerability to urban areas, industry and the literature on early and recent goals of the nation's agriculture, when such reduction is justified and floodplain management. Committee members consulted reasonable; avoid new development when reduction is with interest groups at national, regional, and local not appropriate, As appropriate, move those currently levels and discussed possible goals with citizens affected at risk from the floodplain. Strive to eliminate threats by the flood of 1993. The governors of the 9 flood- to life, property, and the environment, and to the affected states in the Midwes 't provided their vision of mental health and well being of floodplain occupants. future floodplain activity. The Review Committee Ensure the viability of critical infrastructure and the looked to the National Assessment and the regional economy. accompanying Action Agenda prepared by the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force for 66 VISION Preserve and enhance the natural National Flood Insurance Program, federal-state-tribal- resources and functions of floodplains. local-individual relationships, and the conduct of mitigation and disaster planning and execution. Ensure Treat the floodplain as part of a physical and biological federal-state-tribal-local-individuaI collaboration and system that includes the floodplain within the larger accountability in a bottom-up, shared planning and context of its watershed. Seek to identify and enhance decisionmaking process. Reduce the cost to the nation the cultural, historic, and aesthetic values of of flood damages. Share the risk among all levels of floodplains. Where appropriate, restore and enhance government and among flood-affected individuals. bottomland and related upland habitat and flood storage. Use existing government and private programs to acquire, over time, environmental interest in these lands Capitalize on technology to provide from willing sellers. Ensure the consideration of social information required to manage the and environmental factors in all actions relating to the floodplain. floodplain. Provide timely and accurate information to assist in Operational Goals identifying hazards, determining impacts of proposed actions, and developing a temporal and spatial basis for Streamline thefloodplain management long-term action strategies. Leverage the strength of process. geographic information systems. Implement consistent, equitable, flexible, cost-shared, and efficient floodplain management by improving the FLOODPLAIN OF THE FUTURE If this vision was implemented, how would the Sections of communities with frequently flooded floodplain of the future appear and how would it be businesses or homes would become river-focused parks managed? Human activity in the floodplain would and recreation areas as former occupants relocated to continue (Figure 4. 1) but with a clear recognition that safer areas on higher ground. any such activity would be subject to the residual risk of flooding and assumption of the costs of this risk by In areas outside of these highly protected communities, those sponsoring the activity. Determining future where land elevation provided natural protection from activities would depend on historical settlement, on a floods, state and local officials would control new balancing of the economic, social, and environmental construction by requiring it to be at elevations well out impacts of an activity together with a recognition of its of harm's way. Those who were at risk in low-lying place in the hydrologic and hydraulic regime of the areas would be relocated, over time, to other areas. river basin and what physical impacts its existence has Higher land in these alluvial areas would continue to on other segments of that basin. produce rich harvests. Outside of the urban areas, industry would protect its own facilities against major Urban centers whose existence depends on a river for floods. Critical infrastructure, such as water and commerce or whose locational advantage is tied wastewater treatment plants, power plants, and major historically to a floodplain would be protected from the highways and bridges would be either elevated out of ravages of devastating floods by means of levees, the flood's reach or protected against its ravages. floodwalls, upstream reservoirs, or floodwater storage Much of this infrastructure, as well as the homes, in managed upland and floodplain natural areas. businesses, and agricultural activities located behind 67 VISION lower levees, would be insured against flooding through availability of basin-wide data and the rapid processing full participation in commercial or federally supported of these data. Use of high technology remote sensing insurance programs. platforms and data-filled geographic information systems would provide highly accurate information on At the upstream end of many levees, federally built which to base key decisions for both planning and crisis water-control structures would permit river waters to management. keep sloughs wet throughout the year maintaining and restoring aquatic habitat with resultant benefits for fisheries, waterfowl, and other wildlife. Levees would A New Approach be modified to provide for controlled overtopping in the event of major high waters, eliminating the catastrophic Through most of the past two centuries, the nation's failures that have occurred in the past. approach to floodplain management has focused on reducing flood impacts through structural means. Some botton-dand owners behind modified levees would Floodplain management has been flood control. In the choose to convert from row crops to alternative crops 19th century and the first half of this century, the or silviculture or to return their lands to a natural state debate was whether or not a levees-only policy should under federal or state easements. Owners would base be pursued. Only in the last 30 years has the nation their decisions on private and government analyses that moved to increase the use of nonstructural. approaches. found their land too wet for farming or in a location where levee protection was impossible to maintain. To achieve the goals of floodplain management, the nation must adopt a new approach--one that takes full Upland of the floodplain, federal-state-tribal-local advantage of all methods available to reduce programs to improve the treatment of lands, control vulnerabilities to damages and, in parallel, to protect new runoff, and restore wetlands, would reduce the and enhance the natural resources and functions of the flows during frequent floods and shave the peaks off floodplain. Translated into actions this approach, larger events. espoused in the draft 1994 Unified National Program, would achieve floodplain management through: Both commercial and recreational vessels would continue to ply the river's waters, operating in a 0 Avoiding the risks of the floodplain; navigation system that would enhance riverine 0 Minimizing the impacts of those risks when ecosystems through water-level adjustments and control. they cannot be avoided; Modifications in river-control structures would continue 0 Mitigating the impacts of damages when to increase fisheries and wildlife habitat. they occur; and 9 Accomplishing the above in a manner that Floodplain activity would be guided by broad-based concurrently protects and enhances the natural plans of federal-state-tribal-local governments working environment. together as partners in a streamlined floodplain management effort. Operation of the waterway and the The citizens of the nation bear a responsibility to levee systems, with their attendant environmental exercise good judgment in their use of the floodplain components, would be focused in a single agency that and to share in the costs of their judgments. Under this would collaborate with other interested agencies. approach, state and local governments serve as the Levees along main stem rivers and principal tributaries principal managers of the land. The federal would be maintained on a cost-shared basis by federal government provides support for state and local and state governments and local levee boards. floodplain management, establishes broad national Decisions concerning activities in and near the water goals, and, by its own actions, sets an example. would be assessed using computer models to indicate Federal actions will continue given the interstate nature the effects of such actions on other regions of the river of water and the related impact of all riverine activity basin. Forecasts of river conditions would reflect the on these waters, the ever-present potential for 68 VISION Figure 4.1 A Typical Reach of a 21" Century Floodplain. .......... Upland Treament ildlife 0 e u g e f Former Town Site a as :j:j. Bo omland'::::. Riparian Co Forest Vegetation "Ne Water 'K. 0 Plan -i' ate j:j:: 30 Park" :iiiii: 0 04 "'Croplands. elf Upland 0 :*X*: @, Treatment *3 Ce *,.*:. ,p Croplands rt mall iiii i.ii Marina Town xi ated S Croplands rE Ref roplands . . . . . ..... C @ r C U4 Bo Water S Gated Spillway Reserv r: 69 VISION catastrophic floods, and the federal government's Defining the Risk longstanding commitment to flood-control activities as being in the interest of the general welfare. Against what magnitude of flooding should damage reduction programs be focused? The answer depends on the social, environmental, and economic assets of Reducing the Vulnerability of the the flood-prone area. This will be reflected by the use Nation to Flood Damages being made of the land, as well as the amount of human activity and critical infrastructure located in the area. Individuals and their investments in the floodplain will always be at risk. Though it is impossible to remove Risk of damage or loss from flooding is greatest where the risk completely and remain in the floodplain, it is human life and property are concentrated in highly possible to reduce the degree of risk. populated areas on the floodplain. For many years following the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, One solution is to evacuate floodplains and move people the federal government focused its efforts on protecting and their public and private investments out of harm's communities at risk from the largest flood they could way. This is not always a viable or desirable solution. expect to encounter. Over time, with limited federal Techniques that either modify the susceptibility to flood monies available for flood damage reduction purposes, damage and disruption or modify the extent of the selection of this high level of protection diminished as flooding may be more reasonable for cases in which decisions on level of protection came to be driven more evacuation is not feasible. The new vision seeks to by benefit-cost analyses. Communities with little at reduce the vulnerability of those floodplain residents economic risk received less protection that those with and activities whose continuing presence in the more. Today many cities and towns are able to see floodplain makes economic, social, and environmental major floods move by with minimal effect. Others sense. could not survive a lesser event without experiencing major trauma. Had the 1993 flood been centered The lessons of the flood of 1993 are clear. The United slightly to the north, several urban centers would have States should not continue to tolerate the loss of life and been inundated. Given the social and economic the damage to cities, rural communities, and farms consequences of such flooding in affected communities, caused by major flooding, nor should the nation carry floodplain management activities need to focus on the burden of massive federal flood disaster relief costs reducing the vulnerability of population concentrations that current policies generate each time a major flood to the most significant flood event expected to occur. occurs. Even with a large infusion of federal funds, Reducing the vulnerability of communities, where private donations, and volunteer assistance, the 9-state appropriate, to the discharge associated with the area still has not returned to normal. Individuals, standard project flood (SPF) provides a greater communities, and the agricultural sector will expGrience reduction in residual risk than is provided by using the the long-term effects of the flood for years. Many of I percent annual chance (100-year) flood discharge. these damages could be avoided through vulnerability The SPF serves as a practicable expression of the reduction measures. discharge to be considered in evaluating alternatives to reduce the vulnerability of activities associated with This chapter addresses the vulnerability reduction goals communities where large population and high-value that the Review Committee seeks to achieve with the property are involved. In most cases the SPF new vision. Subsequent chapters will address, given approximates the 0.2 percent chance (500-year) the experiences of 1993, the strategies for achieving discharge.' these goals. 70 VISION Recommendation 4. 1: Reduce the 0 Those that, if rendered unserviceable, would vulnerability of population centers to impose significant hardship on the public, or damages from the standard project flood * Those that, if flooded, would pose a threat discharge. to public health, public safety, and/or the environment. Critical infrastructure could include, on a situation- The identification of a target flood does not represent a dependent basis, municipal drinking water facilities, call for new levees or floodwalls. In fact, given this wastewater treatment plants, interior drainage pumping target discharge, floodplain managers would develop a stations, major highway bridges, major passenger and strategy for evaluating vulnerability reduction freight railroads, critical access roads running through considering all of the nonstructuraI and structural or over floodplains, major airports, hospitals and approaches available. Planning for the future may related medical care facilities, electricity generating move a community to first seek funding for ,jtigation plants, and facilities that generate, store, or dispose of activities such as relocation or elevation. Ava,@ability hazardous, toxic, or radioactive materials. For many of of land in the watershed or in the floodplain may msult these facilities, such as roads, the element of flood in upstream storage or riverine floodways being duration must be considered in determining the considered better approaches. When other approaches applicability of the definition. A road out for five have been reviewed, higher or upgraded levees or hours may not be critical, but one out for three months floodwalls might also be considered. The costs and might be. The only road to a county hospital might be benefits of each approach would determine whether the critical under any circumstances. vulnerability would be eliminated, reduced, or the status quo maintained. Where feasible, critical infrastructure should be located outside the floodplain. Critical infrastructure, which Critical Infrastructure must be situated in the floodplain, should be evaluated for protection against the SPF discharge. This issue is The risk of imposing severe hardship on the public or not new. Floodplain Management Guidelines for endangering public health and safety arises when implementing Executive Order (EO) 11988, issued by infrastructure critical to maintaining the wellbeing of a the Water Resources Council in February 1978, require community, region or nation is damaged. This is that critical high-risk activities be protected at a especially true in floods of long duration, such as the minimum against the 0.2 percent annual chance (500- one that occurred in the Midwest in 1993. For year) flood. They also provide planners assistance in example, when the city of Quincy, Illinois, lost both of determining whether infrastructure should be considered its crossings over the Mississippi River, it faced the critical.' In 1982, a National Academy of Science situation of having no open bridge across the river panel concurred and recommended that critical between Iowa and St. Louis, Missouri, for over two inftastructure be protected against, at a minimum, the months. People were put out of work, local businesses 0.2 percent annual chance flood.' were isolated from their market areas, and the local economy was disrupted. Vulnerability of Other Areas Recommendation 4.2: Reduce the If the goal of floodplain management is to reduce the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to vulnerability of population centers and critical damage from the standard project flood infrastructure to damages from an SPF discharge, what discharge. should it be for areas that do not fall into these categories? While extending an SPF goal to all areas Critical infrastructure can be defined as structures, might seem equitable to many, such an action is neither facilities, and installations of the following type and physically, economically, environmentally, nor socially function: feasible. The strategy for damage reduction and the 71 VISION target flood against which the strategy is based must be needed for flood damage reduction were also the determined on a case-by-case basis using modem principal sources of funds for any efforts to stem the planning techniques and methods of analysis. In the rising tide of flood losses. Many states and local long term, much human habitation and related governments have developed and carried out floodplain businesses might move to higher ground leaving only management efforts that both reduced flood damages agriculture, silviculture, and natural use behind existing and enhanced the natural functions of the floodplain; but levees. Where such an approach is not feasible or in carrying out these programs they were hampered by desirable and structural solutions appear appropriate, the diversity of federal programs, regulations, and the hard facts of benefit-cost analysis normally will guidelines that hindered efficient floodplain preclude using the SPF discharge as a basis for management. The dominant federal role in funding federally supported increases in protection. flood damage reduction and recovery activities limited the incentive for many state and local governments, The level of protection provided these areas would be businesse,,. and private citizens to share responsibility determined considering social and environmental values for makhIg wise decisions concerning floodplain as well as the economic benefits and costs. Depending activity. Now is the time to: on the mix of population, infrastructure, industry, and agriculture, the level of protection will vary. 0 Share responsibility and accountability for accomplishing floodplain management among all levels of government and with the citizens of the nation. Sharing the Challenge -- Government, Business, Citizen 0 Organize the federal government and its programs to provide the support and tools necessary to Since passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, the carry out effective floodplain management. federal government has for the most part, dominated the Succeeding chapters detail how the nation should nation's flood control efforts and as a result the nation's floodplain management activity. Structural programs organize for successful floodplain management and then, by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of programs already in existence, reduce the vulnerability of the nation to flood damages in the years ahead. ENDNOTES 1. National Commission on the Environment, Choosing a Sustainable Future, (Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund, 1992) 2. Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, (Washington, DC: FIFMTF, 1992); and, White. Gilbert, at al., Actfon Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains, Special Publication 25, National Hazards Research and Application Information Center, (Boulder, CO: NHRAIC, March 1992). 3. The Economics Advisory Group strongly disagrees with the establishment of the standard project flood discharge as any form of a reference point, believing that the level of protection provided should be determined only by appropriate project evaluation. The Review Committee believes that there are sound engineering reasons to establish a target for vulnerability reduction and an understanding of the problems associated with passing the target flood discharge. Determination of the level of protection should result from appropriate benefit-cost analysis. 4. U.S. Water Resources Council, "Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing E.O. 11988," Federal Register, February 10, 1978 (44 FR 6030). S.National Research Council, Committee on a Levee Policy for the National Flood Insurance Program, A Levee Policy for the National Flood Insurance Program, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1982) 72 Chapter 5 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS ... it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to encourage the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal Government, States, localities... Section 2, Water Resources Planning Act of July 21, 1965 The c 'urrent system for managing floodplains and protecting the nation from impacts of unwise use is piecemeal. It is dispersed among a variety of agencies at federal, state, and local levels. The Unified National Program was intended to correct this ... that program has not succeeded ... the Unified National Program is neither unified nor national. In several respects if falls short of achieving the goals set out for it by the Congress and previous administrations. Gilbert White, et al. Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains March 1992 The test of how well floodplain management activities are being carried out is in what happens at the level of private sector must be improved. Together they can individual farms, households, and local communities. use the regionally and nationally significant assets of The 1993 Midwest flooding illustrates where local, watersheds and associated floodplains to reduce risk, state, and national efforts succeeded and failed. achieve economic efficiency, and enhance natural Progress has been short of what is desirable or possible resources and functions. The current floodplain or of what was anticipated when current policies and management infrastructure has the capability and the 2 activities were initiated. responsibility to influence floodplain development and recovery from floods. At issue is the appropriate The collective floodplain management efforts of federal, distribution of responsibilities across and creation of state, tribal and local governments, individuals, and the accountability for governments and individuals. 73 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS DEFINE FEDERAL-STATE-TRIBAL-LOCAL RELATIONSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The strengths of the federal government -- nationwide greater responsibility in their land use planning to not experience; ability to examine issues from a national, increase potential losses. The federal government inter-state and systems perspective; and multi- should not undertake actions that lower the incentive for disciplinary technical expertise -- should guide strategic those in the floodplain to avoid risk because they know decisions regarding its obligations and duties. Since the the federal government will provide compensation for Water Resources Council ceased operations in 1981, damages resulting from the risk (see Chapter 14). The however, activities of the federal government have federal role should be to coordinate interstate water offered little leadership or guidance in resolving flows while promoting and assuring interstate interstate water-resource issues. commerce, national economic development including a viable agriculture industry, and national environmental Management of the nation's water resources is provided quality including the enhancement of the quality of the by several federal agencies. Yet water resource issues human environment. Congress established the federal are inextricably linked and accomplishment of agency interest in flood damage reduction.' This interest mandates requires coordination and collaboration among complements the fundamental state, tribal, and local agencies. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 interests in flood damage reduction. required reports to Congress analyzing the implementation of current programs and recommending actions needed to achieve a unified program of planning Action 5. 1: Enact a national Roodplain and action at all levels of government to reduce flood Management Act to define governmental losses and losses of floodplain natural values.' Despite responsibilities, strengthen federal-state these Unified National Program for Floodplain coordination and assure accountability. Management reports, the United States, in practice, has no unified national program for floodplain management.' This stems in part from ambiguity in The Administration should propose enactment of a national goals.' If limited resources of money and Floodplain Management Act to declare a national policy people are to be utilized effectively, the vision and goals for floodplain management. These should articulated in this Report needs to be accepted and reflect the vision articulated in Chapter 4 and move the adopted by the populace and assimilated into all levels nation toward implementation of a new floodplain of government. management vision that: A major component of floodplain management is land- e Reduces vulnerability to flooding by use control, which is the sole responsibility qf state, avoiding of flood risk through watershed planning, land tribal, and local entities. The local process for land use treatment, floodplain management planning, buyout of and construction decisions (i.e., what, where and how structures in the floodplain, and mitigation; to build) is supplemented in some states by state floodplain permit programs. The federal responsibility Reduces vulnerability to flooding by rests with providing leadership, technical information, modifying flood risk or protecting against floods by data, and advice to assist the states in their pursuit of minimizing risk to existing population centers (such as sound floodplain management. The federal government cities), protecting existing critical infrastructure, and is also a partner with states, tribes, and communities in protecting the nation from flood-related releases of funding floodplain management activities. Where the hazardous materials; and federal government is contributing funds to protect local communities, however, there is a compelling interest Recognizes that floods will continue to occur that the funds do not spur increased development in but that the residual risk in floodplains can be reduced vulnerable locations and that local jurisdictions assume 74 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS by insuring against flood loss and rebuilding properly authorize funds to supplement state efforts to build and when flood losses occur. institute effective floodplain management programs. Participation in on-going, non-disaster flood damage The purpose of the Act should be to provide incentives reduction and mitigation activities could be withheld including funding for state and local entities to develop from those states that do not conduct floodplain and implement floodplain management plans and management planning. To support local planning and increase their accountability for actions in the emphasize state leadership, the Act should require that floodplain. This should be achieved by assigning federal activities affecting floodplains be consistent to primary responsibility for floodplain management to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved states and providing federal guidance and technical and state programs. The fundamental components of the financial assistance to them for development and proposed Floodplain Management Act are found in implementation of floodplain management programs Appendix D. meeting minimum federal standards. The Act should ... there needs to be a fundamental change in the federal flood protection role. Thisnewrole must be to facilitate and to assist state and local government in the implementation of these multi-objective programs. Doug Plasencia, P.E. Chair, Association of State Floodplain Managers Testimony before Congress, October 27, 1993 IMPROVE FEDERAL COORDINATION, EFFICIENCY AND FEDERAL- STATE-TRIBAL PLANNING The 1965 federal Water Resource Planning Act 1993 illustrates the need to move toward the unified established the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRQ.' national program of floodplain management that the However, the WRC ceased operations in the early nation has sought since, at least, 1968. 1980s when funding was discontinued. Lost with the WRC funding was its ability to provide interagency Some federal agencies and states, numerous coordination, technology transfer, and data and organizations and individuals noted to the Review information services. Deficiencies inherent in the Committee the continued need to revive the VVRC or original WRC which established a command-and- some WRC-type of organization to provide a control, top-down approach to achieve consistency in coordination function. Many examples demonstrate federal water resources activities should not be why a WRC, composed of department and agency repeated.' Nevertheless, the WRC provided an avenue heads, is needed to provide policy-level coordination of to bring together federal agencies to address water cross-cutting issues of floodplain management and other resources issues, in general, and floodplain water resource issues: management, in particular. The Midwest Flood of 75 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS Federal agencies continue to fail to comply Development (HUD); and, Health and Human Services with the spirit and letter of Executive Order 11988, and the Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Floodplain Management, by locating or funding non- Commission. The Secretary of the Interior, as Chair of floodplain dependent activities in floodplains putting the VVRC, should restaff the Council. A small staff and federal investments at considerable risk (this issue is budget to support pursuit of the Council's mandate is further discussed below); suggested. Appendix I provides additional details about this proposal. The shortcomings of and opportunities for increasing the effectiveness of floodplain management The 1965 federal Water Resource Planning Act also identified by the Federal Interagency Floodplain authorized creation of federal-state-tribe basin Management Task Force in 1992 in its Floodplain commissions and authorized financial assistance to Management in the United States: An Assessment Report states-tribes for water planning." The individual basin have not been acted upon. No entity exists to act upon commissions produced comprehensive, coordinated those recommendations. plans for water and related land resources that were advisory to federal, state, tribal and local authorities. The Unified National Program is neither The basin commissions established pursuant to the Act unified nor national -- it does not adequately integrate were abolished, along with federal funding, in 1981." either the numerous program aims that have been set While several interstate organizations evolved to fill, in forth or the efforts of those charged with implementing part, the gap left by the demise of the basin diem. There is no central direction for the Unified commissions, federal participation is limited to non- National Program.' voting membership. A mechanism is needed to facilitate enhanced federal presence among and A minimal staff would facilitate operations of the continuing participation with these groups." Basin Council and would prepare, based on input from federal commissions provide a means of preserving and agencies and states, items for discussion or action by enhancing the state and local attention to floodplain the Council. management as well as broader water and natural resource issues, while providing a mechanism to involve or enroll appropriate federal agencies in state Action 5.2: Revitalize the Water and local floodplain management activities. Because Resources Council. watersheds and associated ecosystems do not coincide with, nor do water resources and environmental Immediate revitalization of the WRC would launch and protection problems respect, political boundaries, a promote cooperation among federal agencies and the vehicle is needed to integrate federal-multi-jurisdictional states-tribes. The VVRC would, among other things, examination of issues and solutions. This basis for serve to align federal floodplain management goals with formation of basin commissions remains valid. other broad national goals; provide a single point of focus to assist coordination and resolution of interstate water resource management issues; serve as an Action 5.3: Reestablish basin commissions innovative planning and technology center, including in a revised form reflecting current needs. intergovernmental data gathering and dissemination activities; and facilitate resolution of federal agency The President should reestablish basin commissions to issues. The Secretary of the Interior, as designated provide a forum for coordinated federal and state chairman of the WRC, should request that the planning. Basin commissions are not needed Administrator of EPA and the Director of FEMA everywhere. Basin commissions would be formed in become full-time participants on the Council. Other consultation with the governors of states for those areas full-time members, as established by the 1965 federal where the governors determined that interstate or Water Resources Planning Act, are the Secretaries of federal-state coordination of several activities was Army; Agriculture; Commerce; Housing and Urban needed or appropriate. The states, in consultation with 76 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS the WRC, would define the geographical extent of each basin commission would be co-chaired by a state and proposed basin commission. Each basin commission federal representative and would operate with a limited would serve as the principal agency for the coordination staff of four to five professionals. While many federal of federal, state-tribe, interstate, local, and non- agencies would participate on the commissions, that governmental plans for their designated areas and would voice could be limited to increase state significance and undertake other activities pursuant to Tide 11 of the responsibility in addressing land-use planning issues. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Their focus The basin commissions would use federal and state should be results oriented and their process agencies, working within existing programs and collaborative. Their charters should look beyond structures to realize commission responsibilities. Actual traditional water and flood management challenges to staffing requirements, therefore, would be small. allow the commissions to address regional issues of Public participation and comment should be vital biodiversity conservation, water quality, sustainable aspects of their functions. The above changes are development, and other environmental goals. Each proposed to address criticisms of the original basin Figure 5.1 Proposed Institutional Framework for Water Resources Council, River Basin Commissions, and Federal Agencies. STRUCTURE ACTIONS WHITE HOUSE I I FEDERAL AGENCIES WATERRESOURCES FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL COORDINATION SUPPORT OF COORDINATED BASIN DOI LEVEL PROJECTS & PLANNING EPA FEMA ARMY USDA DOC FERC HUD HHS Others as needed I BASIN COMMISSIONS FOCAL POINT FOR BASIN FEDERAL / STATE / TRIBAL LEVEL WATER RESOURCES MEMBERSHIP COORDINATION AND GOAL SETTING Organizational Control Coordination 77 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS commissions. Funding of the commissions would be associations; however, the federal government would shared by federal and state governments. It is have to contribute some ftinding." Appendix I anticipated that no increase in costs to states will occur describes in greater detail the Review Committee's for those states currently participating in river basin concept of revived basin comn-lissions. FEDERAL ACTIONS IN THE FLOODPLAIN -- SETTING AN EXAMPLE In 1977 with issuance of Executive Order (EO) 11988, requires scientific and technical expertise beyond the Floodplain Management, President Carter raised federal capacity of a single reviewer, and often requires agency attention to issues of floodplain use." With consultation with FEMA or USACE. time, however, it has become apparent that some federal agencies either are unaware of or misunderstand The EO applies to all federal agency activities including the requirements of the EO and either build or support the acquisition, management, and disposition of lands building in floodplains. Under the EO, federal agencies and facilities. It covers federally undertaken, financed, must or assisted construction and improvements and federal 0 Demonstrate that no practicable alternative activities and programs affecting land use. `Ihese site exists outside of the floodplain, and include but are not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. 0 If no alternative exists, take steps to One objective of the EO is to ensure that all federal minimize direct and indirect impacts of the agencies avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and proposed action and to restore and preserve the short-term adverse impacts associated with the floodplain. occupancy of floodplains. Review Committee visits to the Midwest and Federal activities that induce development weaken the discussions with the FEMA, USACE, and state effectiveness of existing local or state floodplain floodplain managers revealed several examples of management regulations and place pressure on local apparent non-compliance by federal agencies with the governments to relax their regulations. Conversely an EO. While the responsible agencies no doubt believe active federal program to undertake activities outside they have complied with the EO, these developments the floodplain sets an example and encourages the point out some of the deficiencies with the EO. Among establishment and implementation of state and local the most notable examples were a low-income housing programs. A number of states and communities have project funded by HUD and a federally funded state enacted floodplain management regulations, some of prison within floodplains, and a proposed construction which are more stringent than those issued by FEMA. 15 of a federal weather station behind an uncertified levee. The EO does not explicitly recognize the existence of The Association of State Floodplain Managers report local or state floodplain regulations or the effect federal that such federal activities occur nationwide. This type actions may have on them. Neither are federal agencies of activity lessens the capacity of the federal required to consult with state floodplain managers government to demonstrate leadership in floodplain concerning floodplain activities. Federal leadership in management. floodplain management requires an adjustment in the way that federal activities are undertaken in the The EO also requires that federal agencies with floodplain. responsibility for federal real property and facilities in the floodplain comply with the National Environmental The EO does not explicitly recognize that certain Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and the construction federal actions or activities in the floodplain are critical standards of the NFIP. This task of evaluating to the health and welfare of floodplain inhabitants. The cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts and risks extended closure of transportation systems, pipelines, associated with individual projects within a floodplain dispersal of hazardous materials, and power outages 78 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS caused by the 1993 flood demonstrated the vulnerability health, and welfare"; however, Section 1134 of the of floodplain infrastructure. The destruction or Water Resources Development Act of 1986 directed the disruption of critical infrastructure can have a Secretary of the Army to extend the leases until such widespread impact on a community or region. The time as they are terminated by the leaseholder or their current definition of critical actions contained in the EO assigns. Guidelines, "those for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great," suggests that critical Action 5.4: Issue a new Executive Order to actions not be undertaken in any area subject to reaffirm the federal government's flooding of greater than a 500-year frequency. The commitment to floodplain management with guidelines, which fail to recognize that flood events differ in frequency, duration, and type, must be made an expanded scope. more flexible." A new EO, built upon EO 11988, will reaffirm the Federal and federally sponsored facilities, including federal commitment to floodplain management by critical infrastructure, remain at risk. To reduce the addressing the full scope of federal activities, possibility of major losses, the vulnerability of these particularly critical infrastructure, acknowledging existing buildings and infrastructure should be assessed. uncertainties of scientific information, stating the Federal agencies that provide funds for improvements to economic policy implications of floodplain previous investments in the floodplain fall under the EO development, and requiring an interagency consultative requirements and accordingly should take measures to process. The EO would provide a means to clearly reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of articulate and thereby institutionalize the new vision of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. There is floodplain management. It would emphasize avoidance an opportunity to mitigate the impacts of federal of federal activities in the floodplain. Requiring federal activities completed prior to the creation of the NFIP agencies to evaluate all structures during maintenance and the EO that may have resulted in flow constrictions and repair activities to determine the feasibility of that increased flood risk." Continuing improvements to mitigating flow constrictions or undertaking other federal facilities in the floodplain, such as the Defense mitigating measures will reduce the risk of flooding and Mapping Agency's facility in St. Louis that was minimize the impacts of floods. Requiring federal severely flooded and damaged in the 1993 flood, also activities to comply with state and local regulations require consideration of the EO. Federal programs that when more stringent than national standards will affirm are delegated to or assumed by states may fall outside the state's role as floodplain manager. The revision the EO. Examples of the latter are state revolving will also require each agency to prepare new funds authorized by the EPA and Rural Development implementing guidelines for activities potentially Administration or situations where the use of federal occurring in or affecting floodplains, increasing agency funds is at the discretion of state or local governments. awareness of the issue, and allowing agencies to address These federal funds may directly or indirectly affect issues unique to their programs. It would also require development in floodplains in ways that are inconsistent that federal spending does not increase development in with the intent of the EO. sites vulnerable to flood damages. The FEMA will provide oversight of EO compliance as described in The federal government also leases some of its property Appendix G. in floodplains for seasonal recreational cottage use. Some leasees are using the cottages on a full-time basis. Action 5.5: OMB should direct all federal In St. Charles County, Missouri, 13 percent of the agencies to conduct an assessment of the repetitive NFIP claims are from properties on land vulnerability of flooding using a scientific leased from the federal government." These leases sample of federal facilities and those state appear to contradict the EO mandate that the and local facilities constructed wholly or in government "take action to reduce the risk of flood loss to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, part with federal aid. 79 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS This vulnerability assessment should identify and final regulations addressing flood design require that no quantify the total federal investment subject to flood wash out of hazardous materials occurs. Therefore they damage. The target flood for protecting critical apply only to those facilities located in areas with a 1 infrastructure (i.e., SPF or 500-year) should be percent annual chance of flooding." The EPA requires considered in the assessment. The assessment also that permitted facilities have contingency plans should contain recommendations on mitigation measures addressing notification and response for any unplanned to protect federal facilities currently at risk. The results sudden or non-sudden release. The regulations do not of this study would be used to make decisions regarding specifically require that the plans address flooding the need, if any, to take mitigative measures. events, even for facilities in areas with 1 percent annual chance of flooding where an obvious cause of releases could be flooding.' Furthermore, there exists no Action 5.6: Seek revision of Section 1134 feedback mechanism regarding plan effectiveness in the of the Water Resources Development Act of event of a hazardous material release. 1986 to provide for phase-out of federal leases in the floodplain. Recommendation 5. 1: Revise the RCRA The Administration should seek revision of Section locational standards and contingency 1134 which requires continuation of leases of federal planning regulations for consideration of lands. Then the Administration should phase out leases flood hazards in areas impacted by the along the Mississippi River to reduce the risk of flood Standard Project Flood. loss and minimi e the impact of floods on human safety. The USACE should enforce provisions of the Revision of the site regulations to recognize that leases prohibiting year-round occupancy. In the interim releases of hazardous materials are critical actions for community floodplain management ordinances should which "even a slight chance of flooding is too great" apply. 19 would provide a greater level of environmental protection and public health and safety and would be The EPA's regulations for the Resource Conservation consistent with implementing guidelines for EO 11988.' and Recovery Act (RCRA) on permitting hazardous Revision of the EO would automatically trigger this materials treatment, storage, or disposal facilities have action. Specifically requiring contingency plans to locational standards; but these standards appear reflect the special activities and coordination required in inconsistent with the EO guidelines for critical actions.' the event of flooding would also decrease the risk of The EPA, in draft regulations (1978), proposed design hazardous material releases and enhance governmental standards for facilities located in the 500-year response. An additional requirement for review of floodplain. Public comment on the draft reflected contingency plans after hazardous material releases difficulties with identifying the 500-year floodplain and would provide the means to enhance pre-disaster a concern that EPA was holding these facilities to a planning. higher standard than that required by EO 11988. The STATES LEAD TIRE WAY The state should be the entity best able to coordinate the watershed management goals as well as other state overall watershed and floodplain management activities natural resource and economic goals. States need to be occurring within its borders. Communities deal with more involved in setting floodplain management local problems and solutions. Active involvement by priorities, adjudicating intrastate issues regarding the states is necessary to develop flood-reduction priorities and determining impacts of floodplain projects consistent with multiple floodplain and management projects, and in brokering federal 80 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS assistance. Currently, the extent of state involvement in priorities for proposed local watershed projects. locally sponsored flood-reduction projects is highly variable, ranging from requiring approval of the Increasing state involvement will require greater state governor at the end of project planning to multiple technical capabilities in floodplain management. Few agency collaborative commitment throughout project incentives exist, however, for the state to build this planning. In many areas state-level leadership and expertise. The federal government currently provides coordination is vital: floodfighting, repair activities, technical assistance directly to local entities and/or buyouts, hazard mitigation, and permitting of levees and states through the USACE Floodplain Management other structures that impact beyond the local area. State Services and Planning Assistance to States programs, involvement in levee programs should be increased. the SCS PL-566 Program, and the Tennessee Valley The Association of State Floodplain Managers notes that Authority (TVA) programs. Provision of technical only 16 of the contiguous states regulate levees -- five assistance directly to individuals and local communities of which are Midwest states. does not build and, in fact, detracts from state capabilities. The FEMA Community Assistance State floodplain management programs vary within the Program provides technical assistance to local entities region and the nation. Several of the states in the upper through the states. The TVA, in a self review to Midwest are pioneers in floodplain management and increase customer service, determined that provision of have programs that pre-date the NFIP. These states assistance directly to individuals was not the most have adopted floodplain management laws and efficient use of federal resources and decided to focus minimum floodplain management regulations its assistance on states.24 implemented with state funds. They provide technical assistance to communities and undertake other activities that are critical to achieving the vision articulated in this Recommendation 5.2: Increase the state report. Other states in the region have minimal state role in all floodplain management activities floodplain management programs., In these states including, but not limited to floodfighting, floodplain management is often incidental to other recovery, hazard mitigation, 'buyout, resource and emergency management. Appendix F summarizes state floodplain management activities. floodplain regulation, levee permitting, zoning, enforcement, and planning. Prior to the 1993 flood, states took little cognizance of the fact that many levees had been dropped from the A shift towards a state role from what is now primarily USACE emergency levee repair program. States need a federal-local relationship is necessary to set priorities, to be more involved in coordinating floodfight to ensure adjudicate intrastate issues regarding priorities and that these efforts do not hann other parties, that they impacts of floodplain management projects, and broker are focused to ensure greatest public benefit, and that federal assistance. This could be accomplished for all they have no long-term adverse effect on floodplain federally assisted or funded floodfight, repair and management. Several midwestern communities noted recovery, flood damage reduction, and other floodplain that because they did not belong to a levee district activities by requiring: offering some level of protection, they were not involved in levee maintenance or floodfight decisions. 0 State sponsorship or co-sponsorship in State involvement could raise community issues to the conjunction with local sponsorship or attention of federal officials. State involvement in coordinating levee repairs needs to be enhanced. Some 0 Prior state approval. states did not assume an active role, so the USACE and USDA levee repair programs had to work directly with The non-federal cost share could be provided by either local entities. An example of more appropriate state or both the state or local entity or both. involvement is the PL-566 watershed program wherein each governor makes recommendations and sets 81 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS Recommendation 5.3: Restructure and federal funds because the same information reaches refine the scope offederal technical services more people and provides a public service. In its most programs and increase funding for the recent testimony to Congress, the Association of State USACE in the areas of Floodplain Floodplain Managers indicated that floodplain management funding and planning assistance for states Management Services and Planning are not sufficient to provide dissemination of critical Assistance to the States programs and data necessary to support sound decisions at the local increase funding for states through the and state level. This viewpoint was echoed by state FEMA Community Assistance Program. officials in the Midwest. The federal government receives far more requests for assistance from local By altering the focus of technical and planning governments and individuals than can be accommodated assistance for floodplain management from individual given current funding constraints. The inability to and local assistance to state assistance for coordinated provide assistance in some situations can lead to dispersal to local areas, federal programs can create an inappropriate floodplain development decisions and, incentive for states to build these types of expertise. therefore, increased long-term costs. Additional Federal information transfer and training for the states funding would allow federal agencies to provide and for subsequent transmittal to local governments are far analyze pertinent data necessary for state and local more efficient uses of federal expertise and limited governments to make sound floodplain management decisions. INCREASE THE STATE-LOCAL STAKE IN FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Ultimate responsibility for floodplain management rests behind cost-sharing which is to increase the amount of with individuals and local government through local local involvement, responsibility, and accountability. land use planning decisions. The federal government By lessening the non-federal investment, state and local must ensure that it provides incentives for, and no governments have less at stake and, therefore, may disincentives to, community-based floodplain have a lower incentive to develop and adopt sound management. Cost-sharing is essential to maintain the floodplain management policies and practices." state and local stake in all floodplain management Community consequences for choosing not to participate activities and should be retained. in the NFIP are limited because FEMA disaster assistance pays for damages to all public (i.e., In the series of recent disasters impacting large community) facilities and infrastructure other than populations (i.e., Hurricane Andrew, the Midwest buildings regardless of whether a community is flooding, and the Northridge earthquake), non-federal participating in the NFIP. In non-participating cost-share requirements were decreased to respond to communities individual citizens suffer the consequences state and local financial constraints. Disaster-specific of non-participation by losing eligibility for flood changes in federal/non-federal cost-share percentages insurance and individual/family assistance related to the for FEMA disaster assistance programs may have an repair of buildings, while the community itself suffers adverse effect on floodplain management. The federal- lesser consequences. Few, if any, incentives exist for state cost-share originally 75/25 was adjusted for all communities to seek private insurance for damages to three disasters to a 90/10 basis. These cost-share community facilities; rather, most communities rely changes have two potentially significant consequences. solely on FEMA to provide reparation. This is First they set up an expectation of similar treatment in inconsistent with the philosophy that federal disaster subsequent disasters and increase political pressure to assistance should be provided in situations where provide a lower non-federal share. This perpetuates the communities and states, due to the magnitude of dominant federal role in recovery and increases federal damages, will exhaust their resources and not have the costs. Second they may defeat the fundamental purpose capability to recover on their own. 82 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS PRIVATE INSURANCE HELPS CITY COVER ITS LOSSES In July 1993 the Des Moines Water Works was inundated and put out of commission for two weeks. The damage totalled $12 million, $9.9 million of which will be covered by private insurance previously obtained by the water works. This resulted in minimizing federal public assistance costs to $2.1 million. Although the insurance carrier would not renew their insurance, the water works was able to acquire new insurance for the water treatment plant. The new private insurance premium of $1,720 per year purchased $10 million of flood insurance. Subsequent to the flood of 1993, the levees surrounding the plant have been raised six feet and concrete flood gates have been constructed to close the gap made by the roadway into the plant. Recommendation 5.4: Hold FEMA's emergency operations only. Participation in the NFIP existing disaster assistance cost-sharing will help assure that new infrastructure complies with requirements to no more than 75125, seek to basic floodplain management requirements and does not make other agencies disaster programs' cost- adversely impact other development. share requirements consistent at 75125. By retaining 75/25 as the basic FEMA disaster Action 5.8: Encourage communities to assistance cost-share for mitigation and disaster, non- obtain private affordable insurance for federal investments will serve as an incentive for non- infrastructure as a prerequisite to receiving federal interests to pursue means to protect those public assistance. investments through more effective floodplain management. Cost-sharing requirements by other Require a community desiring public assistance to federal programs for floodfighting and repair should be demonstrate that it had done all it could to secure consistent. Circumstances may occur where changes in affordable private insurance for public facilities. T11is the cost-share ratio are justified; further evaluation of would help to increase community responsibility and how to define those circumstances is warranted. accountability and would reduce the federal taxpayer burden associated with risky behavior in floodplains. Action 5.7: For communities not participating in the NFIP, limit public assistance grants. Create additional incentives for communities to participate in the NFIP by limiting public assistance given to non-NFIP communities to rescue and 83 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS FUNDING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES Concerns have been expressed that the current FEMA measures that will reduce future damages to a facility. public assistance program may provide disincentives for In addition a community can decide not to repair, communities to take actions to protect public restore, reconstruct, or replace a facility at its existing infrastructure from flood damages or to relocate those location and obtain up to 90 percent of the federal share facilities out of the floodplain. Public Assistance funds of repair costs to expand alternate facilities, build a new the repair of damaged public facilities under a 75/25 facility, or fund hazard mitigation measures. However, cost share formula (although a 90/10 cost share was the community must pay any additional costs to relocate used for the Midwest flood). A local cost share of less or upgrade the facility. If it can not afford to do so, than the cost of relocating the facility out of the the facility is then repaired to its pre-flood condition at floodplain or protecting the facility from flood damages, its current location and remains vulnerable to further creates a disincentive for the community to mitigate. A flood damage. Some funds may also be available further concern is that communities may not budget through FEMA Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant adequate funds for the maintenance and upgrading of Program to upgrade these systems. However, these infrastructure and other public facilities. When a flood funds are often fully allocated for other purposes and disaster occurs and the facilities are damaged, a portion are not available for public facilities. of the damage may be due to deferred maintenance or to the community's failure to upgrade or properly size States and communities should undertake efforts to the infrastructure. Although FEMA can reduce the identify vulnerable facilities in the floodplain. This amount of the grant to account for deferred inventory would help target priorities for pre-disaster maintenance, it is often difficult to make this distinction mitigation and would be necessary to determine and the community receives a windfall in the form of a insurance needs. new or repaired facility, A further problem is that storm and sanitary sewer Action 5.9: Provide loans for the upgrade systems were inadequate to handle the high groundwater of infrastructure and other public facilities. and rainfall that occurred in many areas of the Midwest in 1993. This resulted in flooding and sewer back-up A loan program would encourage and enable into the basements of thousands of homes and businesses. The public assistance program currently communities to undertake actions during recovery to will provide funds to repair sewer systems to their pre- reduce future damages to public facilities by relocating flood conditions but not to upgrade those systems so or protecting those facilities rather than repairing the that they are adequately sized to handle similar storm facility at its current location. In addition such a events with minimal damages. program would assist communities to upgrade undersized storm sewer systems or other flood control The Review Committee considered a recommendation facilities. Because upgrades are capital improvements that all public assistance to communities for the repair that have long term benefits for the community, loans or upgrading of infrastructure or other public facilities are more appropriate than grants. The loan program be in the form of loans rather than grants to remove can be established to allow flexible terms based on the these disincentives, but loans may not be practicable for communities' ability to pay (e.g., zero or low interest a community devastated by a major disaster. rates and long repayment periods). The Administration should seek Congressional action to establish such a FEMA can provide limited funds through the public program. assistance program for cost effective mitigation 84 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS PROVIDE A BALANCED FOCUS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Federal actions taken to develop water resources reflect Because of their non-market nature, environmental the objectives set over several decades by the Congress. quality, ecosystem health, the existence of endangered Various Administrations have defined federal water species, and other social effects are not as easily resources objectives." The two most significant quantified in monetary values.' This limits formulation publications on federal water resources development are and acceptance of projects capable of striking a better Principles and Standards for Planning Water and balance between flood damage reduction or other water Related Land Resources commonly referred to as resources development and the environment. Principles and Standards or P&S, published in 1973, and Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Action 5. 10: Establish as the new, Implementation Studies commonly referred to as co-equal objectives for planning water Principles and Guidelines or P&G published in 1983. resources projects under Pfinciples and The P&S was a rule applied to water and land Guidelines: programs, projects, and activities carried out by the federal government and non-federal entities with federal To enhance national economic financial or technical assistance. The rule guided development by increasing the formulation and evaluation of projects to enhance value of the Nation's output of goods national economic development (NED) and the quality and services and improving national of the environment. When the P&S was superseded by economic efficiency, and P&G in 1983, rules became guidelines. The P&G 0 To enhance the quality of the contain a single objective for planning of water environment b the management, resources projects: "contribute to national economic y development consistent with protecting the Nation's conservation, preservation, creation, environment, pursuant to national environmental restoration, or improvement of the statutes, applicable executive orders, and other federal quality of natural and cultural planning requirements. " Contributions to NED are resources and ecological systems. increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary units. Under P&G, alternative plans can reduce net NED The current national economic development objective of benefits to further address other federal, state, local, the P&G should be revised immediately through the and international concerns not fully addressed by the issuance of an executive order. This will provide a NED plan. A plan recommending federal action is to balanced focus for guiding decision making. be that with "die greatest net economic benefit consistent with protecting the nation's environment" (the NED plan), unless the Secretary of a department or Update hinciples and Guidelines head of an independent agency grants an exception to this rule. Exceptions require overriding reasons for recommending another plan, based on other federal, The P&G is now more than ten years old, and several state, local, and international concerns. Since 1983, areas are in need of thorough review. Critics of the exceptions to the NED plan have been limited. P&G see a bias toward structural solutions to flooding problems and a failure to evaluate nonstructural. Calculations of NED are meant to include all alternatives in the same way as structural alternatives, environmental and social benefits and costs for which such as levees. One of the differences in the evaluation monetary values can be obtained. The monetary focus is that for structural alternatives the reduction in flood on NED, however, does not give adequate consideration to unquantifiable enviromnental and social values. 85 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS damages is included as a measure of the benefits of a alternative considered on the following accounts: project, while for some nonstructural alternatives, such national economic development; regional economic as evacuation of structures from the floodplain, reduced development; other social effects; and environmental damages must be separated into internalized and quality of various project alternatives. The P&G does externalized damages. Then, only the externalized not require the system-of-accounts; however, some damages prevented (those home by other than the agencies strongly encourage this comparison of impacts floodplain residents) are claimed as benefits for the to these four areas within agency rules. The system of nonstructural evacuation alternative. There is an accounts or something similar is needed to help ensure economic rationale for doing this, but the concern still balanced planning. exists that it results in a bias against nonstructural projects. In addition, many social benefits of removing The P&G requires the responsible federal agency to people at risk from the floodplain and environmental contact the governor or designated agency for each benefits of a natural floodplain are not included affected state before initiating a study. It requires the adequately within the evaluation. Although the P&G federal planning agency to provide the state agency or does not exclude these considerations, application agencies responsible for or concerned with water deficiencies exist because of the non-market nature of planning with opportunities to participate in defining the the impacts. Because of these application deficiencies, problems and opportunities in scoping the study and in research is recommended in Chapter I I to allow greater review and consultation. A truly collaborative consideration of difficult to quantify inputs for which no approach, however, is not required or encouraged. The market system exists and to improve techniques for P&G also states that interested and affected agencies, measuring social or environmental outputs that result groups, and individuals should be provided from alternative actions. opportunities to participate throughout the planning process and that a coordinated public participation A system-of-accounts analysis can provide critical program should be established with willing agencies and information on market and non-quantifiable, non-market groups. This falls short of establishing partnerships and impacts necessary to provide the basis for trade-offs. collaborating within an ecosystem context on major Such analysis can support a sound formulation-of- watershed efforts. Benefits of collaborative approaches alternatives process that includes the efficient allocation include improved efficiency and cooperation (both of scarce resources. It includes quantified impacts within and across agencies) and improved service to the where available as well as qualitative impacts and public. The approach also serves to crystalize public displays beneficial and adverse effects of each opinion regarding problems and builds consensus for solutions. Criteria should be established to indicate where collaborative approaches are appropriate and SHIFTING THE PROJECT recommend a mechanism for implementation to include ANALYSIS PARADIGM single or separate agency funding of participation in the collaborative efforts. For cost-shared feasibility studies, a determination should be made as to whether it is Utilizing benefit-cost analysis reasonable to require participation in collaborative under the existing system, net monetary funding by the non-federal cost-sharing sponsor. benefits must exceed zero. Under the proposed approach, the sum of net The P&G provides an overriding philosophy and monetary benefits and society's value of process for formulating alternative plans and weighing net nonmonetary benefits must be greater the impacts of each alternative to select a recommended plan for meeting the study needs. The requirements of than zero. the NEPA are included as part of the P&G process. This process can be applied to all federal agency evaluations of alternatives to most efficiently allocate scarce resources to meet the needs of the nation. 86 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMIENT FOR SUCCESS Currently the only federal agencies required to use P&G are the USACE, the SCS, the TVA, and the Allfederally constructed Bureau of Reclamation. To increase efficient resource watershed and water and land allocations, P&G should be extended. It should apply programs; to the planning and evaluation of the effects of water and land programs, projects, and activities carried out National parks and by the federal government and by the states or other recreation areas, entities with federal financial or technical assistance. 0 Wild, scenic, recreational rivers and wilderness areas; Action 5.11: Establish an interdisciplinary, 0 Wetland and estuary interagency review of the P&G by affected projects and coastal zones, and agency representatives to address: 9 National refuges. 0 Structural versus nonstructural An interdisciplinary, interagency committee of project bias; individuals from potentially affected federal agencies * Inclusion of system of accounts or should be established to focus on the new broadened * similar mechanism for displaying objectives, and to make specific recommendations for impacts; revisions to the current P&G, based on the four areas Inclusion of collaborative planning identified above and any others as appropriate. Revisions must be consistent with the intent of EO in an ecosystems contextfor major 12893, Principles for Federal Infrastructure studies; and Investments, and EO 12898, Environmental Justice, 0 Expansion of the application of the both issued in 1994. This committee should be revised P&G to water and land convened as soon as possible with a goal of making all programs, projects, and activities to necessary revisions by December 1994. To ensure that include: coordination of planning principles occurs at the state, tribal, and local level and that a balanced approach is taken, any revisions to P&G should be published and provided for public review and comment prior to finalizing. COLLABORATIVE EFTORTS Ecosystem, watershed, and large-scale river studies lend well as public and private stakeholders. Such themselves to collaborative approaches by virtue of their collaborative partnerships also constitute a means of scope. Only by working in partnerships with other leveraging limited funds to implement projects with federal agencies, state agencies, tribes, local multiple benefits. Collaborative efforts require more governments, and private organizations can individual than consultation, coordination, and seeking public agencies look beyond their defined missions. A input; they require a commitment to working collaborative approach in an ecosystem context is collectively to solve complex, interrelated concerns. needed for major watershed and floodplain management planning to move agencies away from single-agency The ongoing USACE 18-month Floodplain Management problem solving. A more comprehensive evaluation of Assessment study provides an opportunity to include problems and solutions is likely if a collaborative other agencies as partners in a collaborative approach includes governmental parties at all levels as atmosphere. The study is being coordinated with 87 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS federal agencies, many of which would prefer to watershed in scope or that have not been adequately participate as a partner in the Assessment. By funded to support a multi-agency crAlaborative effort redirecting the current planning process, the Assessment may require that individual agencies budget their own can become a partnership of federal agencies in a participation monies. collaborative effort to assess the floodplain management objectives of the basin. Funding for this collaborative planning effort may necessitate a supplemental Programmatic NEPA Documents appropriation. If necessary, funds would be dispersed at the discretion of USACE, the lead agency, after The Review Committee heard comments that requiring consultation with collaborating agencies. If the independent NEPA documents on similar but individual supplemental request is not approved, USACE should projects can be an inefficient and time-consuming provide the opportunity for other agency collaboration approach to decision making. Efficiencies can be at the expense of each individual agency. Active realized by analyzing all the anticipated actions as a involvement by multi-agency participants in all aspects group and applying NEPA on a programmatic basis of the USACE Floodplain Management Assessment before proceeding on individual projects requiring site- would ensure a holistic review of the area's floodplain specific NEPA compliance. Application of multi- management issues. A collaborative approach would agency programmatic environmental impact analyses identify a broader set of alternative solutions that performed at the watershed scale allows agencies to address problems or multiple state and local objectives. focus on issues that are geographically related or have It would build greater trust in and support for findings timing, impact, or other subject matter similarities. In and recommendations of the Assessment. addition the programmatic NEPA process provides a In keeping with the trend toward ecosystem- or formal public involvement mechanism to address watershed-based planning federal agencies are expected strategic decisions. Subsequent impact analyses would to work as partners or to collaborate. Currently only focus on project-specific purposes and needs and funding constraints limit the ability or most federal those issues in need of decisions.' Where subsequent agencies to participate without reprogramming their plans are consistent with the programmatic analysis, funds. The USACE districts are particularly limited by further analysis would be focused, costs reduced, and the project-specific nature of their funding. Feasibility planning made more efficient. studies are cost-shared with the non-federal sponsor on The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) needs to a 50-50 basis, and partner interests are more likely to actively pursue use of programmatic NEPA documents be limited to the study area than to the entire and issue a directive to agencies to also increase their watershed. Additional funding is needed for all federal emphasis on this approach. agencies for the purpose of collaborative planning. While it will cost more initially, collaborative planning is an investment in the future that will reduce future Recommendation 5.6: Promote the use of project-specific planning expenditures. programmatic NEPA documents in the planning process. Recommendation 5.5: The Administration A workshop should be sponsored on strategic and should seek increased funding for federal programmatic application of NEPA by the CEQ so that agencies to support collaborative planning success stories in this area can be shared. This will participation with otherfederal agencies. build knowledge about the applicability of these approaches, their utility, and the means of For major ecosystem or watershed planning studies, the undertaking broad program-level analyses. The CEQ lead federal agency should budget for adequate funding should explore other means to pursue strategic and to reimburse other key federal agencies for their programmatic analysis of problems. collaborative participation. Studies that are not 88 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS Federal Agency NEPA Participation agency to include these other requesting agencies in the Currently lead agencies designate those agencies that process. The CEQ should revise the regulations should cooperate in the NEPA process. Where implementing NEPA to require the lead agency to agencies have not been designated by the lead agency designate those federal agencies formally requesting but specifically request participation due to a vested cooperating agency status, where appropriate. This interest, these agencies should be allowed to cooperate would further the goal of establishing collaborative in the process. No mechanism exists to require the lead planning among pertinent federal agencies. REEVALUATING WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS Many of the nation's water resources projects were constructed a number of years ago. The Review Projects for which construction was completed 40 or Committee heard concerns that: (1) these projects will more years ago should be reevaluated to consider eventually need major maintenance expenditures, (2) potential project modifications and insure project conditions have changed that make them less effective integrity. Other projects less than 40 years old should (such as headwaters development that increases runoff be reevaluated when known major problems exist, and flood stages causing protection downstream to be where conditions have changed that impact the lessened), and (3) consideration is not adequately given effectiveness of the project, or where changing societal to changing societal goals with regard to potential goals demand that modifications be considered. modifications to the projects themselves or Specific procedures tied to the new P&G should be modifications in the operation of them. established and a directive issued by OMB. Legislation should be provided in a Water Resources Development Act or other act to give water resources construction Recommendation 5.7: OMB should issue a agencies the blanket authority to address these issues, directive that requires periodic reevaluation of where appropriate, without the need for project-specific federal water resources projects to include study authorizations by Congress. potential operation and maintenance modifications. FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Some flood damage reduction projects, in their effort to considerations in establishing funding priorities. reduce damages for existing floodplain structures, also provide protection for undeveloped land areas that have a high potential for future development. In these cases, Recommendation 5.8: * OMB should use future development savings resulting from the project only the benefit-cost ratio for damage are estimated and included in the benefit-cost ratio. A reductions to existing development in separate accounting of existing and future benefits is establishing Administration funding priorities required by P&G to provide decisions makers with the information necessary to make informed decisions. The unless a standard project flood level of total benefit-cost ratio, however, is reported in the protection is provided. feasibility report and usually used for budgetary 89 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS The Office of Management and Budget should give more detailed consideration to the type of project benefits being claimed for each individual project recommendation. Future development benefits should not be used as the basis for increasing the funding priority of flood damage reduction projects unless a standard project flood level of protection is provided. ENDNOTES 1. White, Gilbert, at a[., Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Roodplains. Special Publication 25. (Boulder, CO: National Hazard Research and Application Information Center, March 1992). 2. Ibid, page 4-5. 3. National Flood Insurance Act, PL 90-488 (Section 1302(c)) 1968. The "Unified National Program for Floodplain Management" report has been submitted to Congress in 1979 and 1986 and is planned for submittal in 1994. 4. Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains, page 8. 5. Ibid, page 4. 6. Concern was expressed to the Committee regarding the magnitude of the federal interest. 7. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 244, 42 USC 1962, 1965. 8. Ibid. 9. Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodplains, page S. 10. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, 11. Executive Order 12319 -- River Basin Commissions, September 9, 1981. 12. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Mississippi River Initiative Part II: After the Flood, (Washington, DC: National Fish a@@d Wildlife Foundation March 1994). 13. Historically revenues of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission were shared between the federal government and the participating states. Generally the federal share ranged from 50 to 75 percent of each years revenues; an even larger federal proportion occurred when the WRC funded preparation of a Master Plan in 1980; Stoerker, Holly, Executive Director, Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, personal communication May 5, 1994. 14. For example, see Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, Floodplain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, FIA-1 8. (Washington, DC: Federal Insurance Administration,June 1992). 15. Association of State Floodplain Managers, Inc., Floodplain Management 1992: State and Local Programs. (Madison, WI:ASFPM, 1992). 16. U.S. Water Resource Council, "Floodplain management guidelines f or implementing EO 11988", 43 Federal Register 6030 (Pan 11, Step 1, Section 1(c)). February 10, 1978. 17. Several examples were provided by Kucera, Ron, Director, Intergovernmental Cooperation, Department of Natural Resources, MO, personal communication March 3, 1994. Bachant, Joe, Department of Conservation, MO, personal communication March 3, 1994. 18. Zensinger, Larry, Coordinator, Midwest Acquisition Relocation Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency (based on analysis performed by Miriam Anderson, St. Charles County Planning Department), personal communication April 28, 1994. 19. The U.S. Department of Justice indicated to the Review Committee that state and local floodplain management requirements can apply to structures on lands leased from the federal government. 20. "Floodplain management guidelines for implementing EO 11988." 21. 40 CFR 264.18. Wright, Felicia, EPA Office of Solid Waste, personal communication April 26, 1994. 22. Ibid. 90 ORGANIZING FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS 23. Floodplain management guidelines for implementing ED 11988. 24. Miller, Barbara A. Manager, Flood Risk Reduction, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication February 22, 1994. 25. The Economics Advisory Group pointed out to the Review Committee that optimal cost-share payments should reflect the relative net benefits gained by federal, state, local, and individual interests. If such a cost-share program could be implemented, project costs would be allocated in proportion to the benefits that were accrued by each party. 26. Some objectives are defined in laws such as PL 74-738, PL 89-80, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965; the Flood Control Act of 1936; and the Water Resources Development acts. Some are defined in Congressional Reports, such as the 1958 the report to the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resource "Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects;" and the 1962 "Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources," commonly referred to as "Senate Document Number 97". 27. The Economics Advisory Group pointed out that there methods exist for quantifying and monetizing environmental benefits and costs, but these methods frequently cannot be used because of the lack of an accurate characterization of the biological effects of environmental changes. 28. Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for implemendng the procedural provisions of the national environmental policy act, 40 CFR Part 1502.20, (Washington, D.C.: CEQ,1986). 91 Z,PA, W RR low - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 140ATMEN s GANk 91. r eN @ flle@ 92 Chapter 6 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING Throughout human history it has been the way of nature to visit us on occasions with disaster, without apparent cause, without explanation, often without mercy, always reminding us that we need to live our lives with a little more humility and always understanding that we are not in full control ... We know we cannot contain the fury of a river. President Clinton Remarks on signing flood relief legislation at a tribute to flood heros in St. Louis, Missouri, August 12, 1993 The goals of floodplain management are to reduce the planning activities as well as landowners. Once nation's vulnerability to floods while concurrently communities and individuals understand the residual integrating preservation and enhancement of the natural risk inherent in floodplain use, and once they resources and functions of the floodplain. The basic understand how natural and hydraulic systems operate, tenet of reducing vulnerability is to avoid risks as much they can make more informed decisions that balance as possible in the planning stage. Moving people out of multiple objectives. harm's way or limiting development in the floodplain lessens risks from flood damages. Planning on the With planning and education as the cornerstones of watershed level can balance competing and compatible floodplain management, the nation can further reduce uses of the floodplain to meet social, environmental, risks through watershed management, programs such as economic, and other community goals. the NFIP, and acquisition of floodprone lands. By pursuing planning efforts in a collaborative and For planning to be effective, it needs to be coupled with coordinated fashion, the nation can reduce its an educational program for local people involved with vulnerability to flooding substantially. MANAGING FLOODPLAINS AS WATERSHED COMPONENTS What happens in the larger watershed affects what stage, frequency, and duration normally are influenced happens in the floodplain. The upper Mississippi River by the degree to which rainfall is captured and released Basin consists of watersheds of varying size. Each in the uplands. As discussed in Chapter 2, wetland watershed is a physically discrete hydrologic unit in restoration and maintenance and upland treatment can which water is channelled from upland areas to lower be effective for smaller floods with lesser impacts on areas and eventually into main stem rivers. The flood larger floods. The correlation between upland rainfall 93 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING capture and release and downstream flood stage, though Any pending legislation dealing with watershed planning complex and incompletely understood, indicates that and management should consider achieving multiple well-managed watersheds reduce downstream flood objectives, including flood damage reduction as an stages with concomitant reductions in flood damages element of watershed management and incentives based and increases in water quality and ecosystem benefits. upon demonstrated flood reduction. Legislation should also consider opportunities to trade for flood control, A number of Midwest communities flooded in 1993 such as payments from floodplain farmers to induce reported to the Review Committee that they perceived upland farmers to install land-management practices that an increase in flood stages and frequencies over the past reduce flood peak and frequency. Currently, pending few decades. Some attribute this to structural flood legislation (S. 2093, formally S. 1114; President control (levees), and others to changed land use Clinton's Clean Water Initiative; and H.R. 3948)4 practices in upland areas of the watershed. Among the considers the achievement of multiple objectives for changes they mentioned were agricultural development watersheds, although flood control management and paving of residential and industrial areas -- both of activities and incentives are not explicitly stated. which reduce storage capacity and increase runoff. People rarely consider the downstream cumulative The best parts of federal programs must be merged to effects of individual activities, in large part because encompass a holistic and synergistic approach to watersheds typically encompass a number of political watershed management. Opportunities for change jurisdictions with differing economic interests. include current congressional action on the Clean Water Act and reauthorization of the Farm Bill due in 1995. Watersheds have long been recognized as the optimal To capitalize on potentially forthcoming legislative management unit for water resources planning. As authority, the federal government must build upon early as the 1970s, the USACE was performing ongoing watershed programs, focusing on the most analyses of water quality and supply using watersheds effective means of achieving multiple objectives, and as the basic planning unit.' The USDA for decades has targeting conservation programs to complement recognized benefits of watershed planning under its PL watershed management goals. 566 prograin and through the Forest Service.' More recently within the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service Action 6. 1: The Administration should have instituted watershed management programs, and establish an interagency task force, jointly the Environmental Protection Agency has begun using chaired by the USDA and EPA, to formulate watersheds as the most practical unit to resolve a coordinated, comprehensive approach to problems that traditional programs have been unable to address adequately.' multiple objective watershed management. Federal watershed programs and policies suffer from a Many federal agencies undertake watershed programs to lack of coordination and a failure to develop achievable achieve goals consistent with their primary mission. multiple objectives. Many of these programs focus Such goals may be inconsistent with local, regional, or exclusively on water quality or habitat improvements basin-level ecosystem needs. Currently, success is derived from watershed management but disregard flood measured by achieving agency goals irrespective of damage reduction benefits. Federal watershed other attainable benefits. For example, the Forest programs primarily operate in rural areas, neglecting Service watershed program seeks to improve stream non-agricultural urban and suburban land uses. habitat through reduced siltation and temperature Program eligibility requirements and incentives also reduction. Success is measured by increases in fish differ among agencies. The regional structure of most population. Flood damage reduction and water quality federal agencies, tied to state boundaries, complicates -- goals that could be accomplished with small the ability to focus on watersheds. incremental expenditures of expertise and money -- are not factors in determining program success. 94 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING The recommended task force would provide an cooperating to provide technical assistance for state, overview of federal watershed management programs to tribal, local, and private restoration. ascertain their effectiveness and identify areas for improvements. The task force will necessarily include the USACE and the DOI due to their missions and Enhancing Agricultural Conservation jurisdiction in water resources activities. Task force Programs members could identify areas in which interagency missions coincide and are achievable through watershed The Food Security Act of 1985, and the Food, management on a collaborative level. The task force Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the should also follow up on the demonstration project last comprehensive congressional actions on agricultural discussed in Chapter 11 under the section on hydrologic policy, contained strong conservation measures to and hydraulic benefits of natural floodplain functions. reduce soil loss and improve water quality by creating incentives and disincentives, primarily through cross- Enhancing Stream and Riparian Areas compliance with other agricultural programs. Two programs were of particular importance: the Stream and riparian restoration vital to watershed Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), introduced in management holds, for a relatively small investment, 1985, provided payments to farm operators who agreed promise of improved water quality, wildlife habitat, and to protect temporarily highly erodible lands, and the reduced runoff. Federal efforts designed to restore Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), established in 1990, non-urban stream and riparian areas include those of the acquires conservation easements on agricultural lands from voluntary sellers and restores wetland conditions. Bureau of Land Management, the National Park About 36.4 million acres currently enrolled in the CRP Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Forest will begin to come out of the program in 1995. Even Service. Nonprofit groups and private and local with application of conservation practices, conversion of interests have also focused on similar activities. these acres to cropland will increase runoff. Unfortunately many stream and riparian sites located within urban and suburban areas are degraded, The emergency supplemental appropriation for the undervalued, and ignored by federal programs. Midwest floods established an Emergency Wetlands Properly restored urban streams provide the same Reserve Program (EWRP) applicable to farn-dand benefits as restored rural streams, often becoming damaged by flooding in the nine affected Midwest centerpieces for urban revitalization. Recognizing the states. The Review Committee suggests that the need for stream and riparian restoration, Congress authority for the EWRP be continued in some form to recently introduced legislation to establish a national provide an alternative means of recovery for farmers. urban watershed restoration program.' On the national Other programs within the Agricultural Resource level, current stream and riparian restoration is largely Conservation Program of the USDA also are used to uncoordinated; federal expertise is decentralized and protect wetlands from development and degradation. underutilized; and valuable information on costs, techniques, and effects is unavailable. The USDA found many acres that met program criteria, but funding constraints precluded enrolling all of the eligible land. Conservation programs need to target Action 6.2: The DOI, USDA, and EPA limited funds to acquire critical lands that offer the should coordinate and supportfederal greatest benefits per federal dollar. Present selection riverine and riparian area restoration. criteria, which consider natural characteristics on a site- by-site basis, do not recognize flood control benefits as Because of the importance of stream and riparian an objective. Other benefits of the programs are well restoration to water resource management, the documented.' A systems approach to watershed Administration should establish a stream and riparian management would consider a wider range of restoration program with the DOI, USDA, and EPA environmental objectives within enrollment criteria. 95 AVOEDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING Action 6.3: The Administration's legislative Proposals for the 1995 Farm Bill should support continuation and expansion of conservation and voluntary acquisition programs focused on critical lands within watersheds. The proposal should support technical and financial assistance for implementation of watershed management, riparian enhancement, wettand restoration, A, and upland treatment measures. 4V STREAMLINING DISASTER PLANNING A floodplain management plan that attains the national where to evacuate in the event of a flood or other goals described in Chapter 4 is dependent on the ability emergency is essential. The Review Committee heard to tie together pre-disaster, response, recovery, and from communities where owners did not remove mobile mitigation programs with long-term floodplain planning home trailers on wheels and farm equipment from low- efforts. Many federal agencies have programs designed lying areas. Some individuals reftised to evacuate to help disaster-stricken areas. Such programs can be voluntarily when access was open and later required improved by streamlining the system so that pre-disaster evacuation by air or boat, endangering both themselves and post-disaster efforts are natural extensions of each and their rescuers. For better participation by other. Comprehensive pre-disaster planning and individuals in pre-disaster planning, federal agencies mitigation efforts will reduce risks and damages during must undertake education and outreach. the emergency, and recovery efforts will be consistent with long-term floodpWn management goals. Pre-disaster planning is also a corporate responsibility. Improvements in federal coordination made before the Operators of facilities generating, storing, or disposing 1993 flood led communities to report that things worked of hazardous materials -- including farmers who use "better than expected." herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers -- need plans for removing such materials should the facility lack the capability of assuring that no materials will be released. Pre-Disaster Planning Local emergency managers need to be aware of locations of hazardous materials within their Pre-disaster planning needs to coordinate individual, jurisdiction; local hospitals, fire companies, and others business, community, state, tribal, and federal potentially involved with response need to be personnel and activities to minimize health and safety knowledgeable about threats posed by hazardous impacts and environmental risks. Such planning will materials, their treatment, conWimient, and removal in help ensure adequate response. Awareness of flood the event of an unplanned release. Several emergency threat, the first step in pre-disaster planning, relies on managers working in the Midwest flood reported the individuals who understand their risk and plan for need for more pre-disaster information about facilities disasters. Individual responsibility in knowing what to where hazardous wastes are generated, stored, and do, such as closing household gas lines, and when and disposed. Siting issues should go hand in hand with pre-disaster planning. 96 AVOEDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING Planners also need to consider how to safeguard Recommendation 6. 1: Enhance pre- valuable assets, such as cultural and historical disaster planning and training. properties. Communities should identify these properties prior to a disaster and coordinate with The FEMA, in coordination with the EPA, USACE, emergency managers, local government officials, USDA, DOT, and other federal agencies involved with federal agencies, and others following an event. aspects of emergency response, should increase state, Pre-disaster planning requires action, involvement, and tribal, local, public, and corporate awareness of risk. cooperation among not only floodplain residents, tribes, Those involved should practice implementation of pre- businesses, and industries but also across local, state, disaster plans. The EPA should work with the FEMA and federal government agencies. Application of and states to emphasize local pre-disaster planning, advanced geographic information systems technology including notification and coordination procedures for will increase efficiency and facilitate coordination. responding to releases of hazardous materials. Pre- disaster plans for spilled hazardous materials must identify suitable containment areas and develop a coordinated response of the emergency network. All agencies should encourage the use of geographic information systems to link data sources. FLOODPLAIN PLANNING AND THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a floodplain adjacent to the river channel. primary component of the nation's floodplain management strategy. The Congress created the NFIP Flood insurance rates reinforce NFIP floodplain in 1968 in response to mounting flood losses and management requirements. Rates on new buildings are escalating costs to the general taxpayer for disaster actuarial (based on the risk of flooding). When a relief. Federal flood insurance is available only in structure is built in compliance with a community communities that adopt and enforce floodplain ordinance, the flood insurance premium is generally management regulations that meet minimum NFIP affordable. When a building violates a community requirements. ordinance, the flood insurance premium can increase to thousands of dollars a year or the building can be denied insurance at the request of the community. Building on NFIP Floodplain Management Requirements In the Midwest, the NFIP tends to discourage floodplain development through the increased costs in meeting The NFIP provides a framework for protecting new floodplain management requirements and the cost of an construction from flood damages through its floodplain annual flood insurance premium, although this may not management requirements that communities adopt and be the case elsewhere in the nation. Individuals and enforce as a condition of program participation. New developers appear to choose locations out of the and substantially improved residential buildings must be floodplain to avoid these costs. Developers have the elevated to or above the elevation of the 100-year flood added incentive of wanting to avoid marketing and non-residential buildings must be elevated or floodprone property. Many communities visited by the floodproofed at least to that elevation. Flood insurance Review Committee actively discourage floodplain premiums support floodplain mapping. In riverine development. floodplains, encroachments in the floodway are The NFIP, however, has its limitations. NFIP prohibited if they will result in any increase in flood requirements are minimum standards applied throughout stages. This limits development in areas of the 97 AVOI]DING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING the nation in areas subject to very different flooding floodplain management plans and in some instances conditions. Requirements that are reasonable and encourages communities to undertake new floodplain prudent in some parts of the nation are not reasonable management initiatives. These premium discounts, in others. As a result minimum standards tend to be however, are not sufficient to encourage widespread just that. An example of a requirement that might be participation in the Midwest. New initiatives are reasonable to apply in some areas of the country but not needed to encourage local floodplain management in others, is access to subdivisions and other new planning. development at or near the elevation of the 100-year flood. While access to buildings may not be a critical issue in areas of the country subject to shallow or short- Addressing Issues Raised by States and duration flooding, it is critical in the bottomlands of the Communities Mississippi and Missouri rivers. A home elevated to above the flood elevation is of little use to a family if One state expressed a concern to the Review Committee the house cannot be occupied for weeks at a time that NFIP requirements were not being enforced by because it is cut off by floodwaters. Provision of some communities. Although most communities visited emergency services to these areas also can be a burden by the Review Committee had little new floodplain on a community. These issues are best addressed at the development since joining the NFIP, without a review state or community level, not through a minimum of permit files, it is difficult to determine how well federal regulation. Several states in the Midwest have these communities were implementing floodplain more restrictive state floodplain management regulations management requirements that applied to buildings that address a number of these issues. substantially damaged by the Midwest flood. FEMA NFIP requirements dictate how the structures are to be regional staff have conducted systematic visits to NFIP built to minimize property damage but not whether the communities impacted by the flood to monitor location is appropriate given the flood risk and the enforcement of local floodplain management ordinances. overall objectives of the community. Because land use Preliminary results from these visits indicate that many planning is traditionally a responsibility of state and communities are not enforcing their ordinances local governments, the NFIP does not require that adequately, often because they do not understand the communities undertake these decisionmaking processes program requirements or the long-term benefits of that are a necessary part of an effective floodplain reducing flood damages. This finding indicates the management program. Decisions such as subdivision continuing need for federal or state agencies to provide technical assistance to communities and to monitor their approval and providing capital improvements for roads compliance. The enactment and funding of the and sewer, water, and other utilities are critical to the Floodplain Management Act called for in Action 5.1 of location of development. Such decisions largely this report will enable states to provide significantly determine the uses of the floodplain. Land-use increased levels of technical assistance to communities. controls, including techniques such as density controls, This assistance will improve implementation by cluster development, performance zoning, dedication of communities of floodplain management programs and floodplain lands, and maintenance of greenways and compliance with NFIP requirements. buffers, can result in development that avoids or minimizes impacts on the floodplain but ensures States and communities have suggested that the FEMA property owners and developers an adequate return on amend its minimum floodplain management criteria to their investment. provide freeboard and a more restrictive floodway The NFIP Community Rating System (CRS) provides requirement. They also advocate discontinuing the practice of issuing Letters of Map Revision that remove discounts on flood insurance premiums in those from the floodplain those properties elevated on fill. communities that have floodplain management programs Other issues of concern include access above the 100- above and beyond NFIP minimum requirements. The year flood elevation to all subdivisions and other CRS recognizes those communities that have developed development in areas subject to deep flooding and 98 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING appropriate requirements for agricultural buildings. The FEMA should review these issues in the context of Recommendation 6.2: The FEMA should its minimum criteria for floodplain management with review its policy of issuing revisions to consideration given to hydraulics and environmental flood insurance maps which remove property effects. from the floodplain based on fill. Action 6.4: Promote the NFIP Community Under current NFIP policy, if floodplain areas are filled Rating System as a means of encouraging to above the 100-year flood elevation, the property can be removed from the floodplain by revising the flood communities to develop floodplain insurance map for the community. Within these areas, management and hazard mitigation plans floodplain management measures and the mandatory and incorporate floodplain management flood insurance purchase requirement do not apply. concerns into their ongoing community This policy may encourage the filling of floodplains by planning and decisionmaking. developers to avoid community floodplain management requirements and to assist in marketing floodprone Many of the more restrictive floodplain management properties. It also may result in individuals making requirements suggested by states and communities decisions to purchase a property without full knowledge currently are credited by the NFIP Community Rating of the residual risk of flooding, the advisability of obtaining flood insurance coverage, or access problems System (CRS). The CRS provides discounts on flood during floods. FEMA's review of this policy should insurance premiums in those communities that include consideration of all program and engineering implement floodplain management programs exceeding issues. the NFIP minimum. The CRS should provide additional credits to encourage Identifying Those at Risk comprehensive planning at the community level to incorporate floodplain management into day-to-day State and local officials are concerned that some decisions on capital improvements and land sparsely populated rural counties with occupied development. floodplains have not been mapped by FEMA. The agency did not map these areas because their low Action 6.5: Provide funding for the populations and minimal development did not warrant development of state and community the expenditure or because base mapping was not available when the initial identification of floodprone floodplain management and hazard communities was made in the mid-1970s. Funding mitigation plans. constraints have limited the agency's subsequent ability to map these communities given the priority for The development and implementation of state and communities with more concentrated development. community floodplain management and hazard Without floodplain maps federal sanctions do not mitigation plans can reduce significantly federal encourage community participation. In the nine expenditures for future disasters. Funding should be Midwest states, 209 counties have not been mapped, provided to encourage these planning initiatives. One including 108 that were declared as disaster areas due source of this funding could be a mitigation ftind to the 1993 floods. established using NFIP premiums (such as that provided for in S. 1405 and H.R. 3191 both entitled the National Action 6.6: Map all communities with Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994). An additional flood hazard areas that are developed or source of funding could be a portion of the monies could be developed. appropriated for the FEMA Disaster Fund or other appropriated funds. 99 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING The FEMA should review floodprone communities that The FEMA is striving to automate the mapping process have never been mapped, and map those communities as much as possible under current funding constraints. with flood hazard areas that are developed or have Beginning in FY 1995, all engineering studies potential for development. NFIP communities then contracted by the FEMA will be submitted in digital would have the information necessary to enforce format. A tool for automated review of engineering floodplain management regulations and to ensure that models has been developed. The mapping program individuals at risk purchase flood insurance. Mapping recognizes the benefits derived from using digital the floodplain will provide an incentive for non- techn6logy but has not implemented it through to the participating communities to join the program because final phase of the map production process. Because a federal assistance for acquisition and construction of large inventory of old, traditionally mapped FIRMs do buildings is not available in designated flood hazard not meet national map accuracy standards, the addition areas unless a community is participating in the NFIP. of horizontal control to the FIRM has become part of the digital conversion process. The current level of production is slightly over 2,000 digital map panels per Improving Accuracy and Timeliness in year. I I With current funding and procedures, it would NFIP Mapping take 40 years to complete the digital conversion of 80,000 map panels nationwide. The FEMA is drafting The nation must have an adequate floodplain mapping a plan for flood studies maintenance that would program to achieve its floodplain management goals. inventory and prioritize nationwide floodplain mapping At the core of any floodplain management program is needs every five years. knowledge of the risk-floodplain boundary and flood elevations. Action 6.7: To improve and accelerate The flood risk information on the NFIP Flood Insurance delivery of NFIP map products, the Rate Map (FIRM) forms the technical basis for Administration shouldpropose supplementing administering federal flood insurance and is utilized those funds obtained for floodplain mapping nationwide. Since creation of the NFIP 25 years ago, it from NFIP policyholders with appropriated has identified approximately 22,000 communities as funds. floodprone. Nearly 21,000 of these have been mapped, and over 18,300 are participating in the NFIP.' Current NFIP funding derived from the $25 federal States and communities indicated to the Review policy charge is not adequate for maintaining and Committee that for some areas, NFIP maps are out of updating floodplain management maps. Raising this date, inaccurate, take too long to get revised, or may surcharge may undermine efforts to market flood not exist. Others encountered difficulty in obtaining insurance and would not be equitable since copies of the maps. The program for maintaining and policyholders are only one user of these maps. Since distributing maps is funded entirely by flood insurance the maps are critical for floodplain and emergency policyholders through a $25 surcharge on each policy. management, Congress should supplement policyholder The annual mapping budget is $35 million.' This dollars with appropriated funds. Flood insurance claims surcharge covers administrative costs as well. This payments for the 1993 Midwest flood totaled $297 funding allows the FEMA to initiate about 250 studies million, 12 a small percentage of the federal payments for per year and to respond to requests to update maps this disaster. The federal government has an interest in based on local or state data.' A small portion of the maintaining and updating the NFIP's $1 billion budget goes to the digital conversion of the maps. investment in floodplain mapping to ensure that all About $4 million annually covers the printing and levels of government and individuals have the distribution of the maps." information necessary to manage their floodplains and reduce future damages." 100 AVOWING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING USERS AND USES OF NFIP MAPS WHO WHY Communities participating in the NFIP Enforce floodplain management ordinances State and local floodplain managers Enforce regulations and land use decisionmaking State and local emergency managers Response and recovery planning Federal agencies Compliance with EO 11988 Federal Insurance Administration Establish insurance rates Insurance companies and agents Rate flood insurance policies Lenders Comply with mandatory purchase requirement Designers of floodplain development Determine design requirements Disaster response agencies Coordinate disaster response and recovery Real estate brokers and agents Disclosure of the flood risk Action 6.8: Utilize technology to improve of the Census TIGER files, will facilitate applications floodplain mapping. under floodplain and emergency management. The simplest and most common use is to look up the flood The FEMA should investigate alternative methods of risk data for a specific address. Some areas in which expediting the conversion of FIRMs to digital format. the FEMA would realize savings and increase efficiency Digital conversion will result in a long-term cost are in processing certain revisions, verifying insurance savings because of reduced ongoing map maintenance ratings, analyzing repetitive loss data, assuring local requirements. The digital format will enable the compliance, and marketing. Digital FIRMs will also efficient accommodation of large as well as small facilitate the completion of a national inventory of changes and will result in more accurate maps. Digital floodprone structures, which is recommended in Action floodplain boundary information combined with land 11.2 of this report. parcel records from a community or street address range data, such as are available from the U.S. Bureau INCREASING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH EFFORTS If individuals and communities are going to participate first step in pre-disaster planning. This is especially in pre-disaster, response, recovery, and mitigation true for flood hazards since individuals have to make efforts, then awareness of natural hazards should be the decisions that affect their vulnerability. To increase 101 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING awareness, the federal government should pursue management and past and probable future education and outreach activities. flood heights and extents in their education Because the general populace may not have a complete and public affairs initiatives. understanding of natural physical processes, such as the Floodplain information should be available to the hydrologic cycle and river hydraulics, and of general public in formats that the average person can geomorphology, they poorly grasp their vulnerability to understand and use. All agencies involved in floodplain flooding and the economic, environmental, and social management should continue efforts to inform and benefits of alternative strategies to avoid or reduce risk. educate the public about the nature of flood hazards, the Unawareness of flood vulnerability results in the natural resources and functions of floodplains, and the inappropriate development of floodprone areas. various strategies and tools available for comprehensive Another result is that only a portion of the public floodplain management." Agencies should adhere to responds appropriately to flood warnings, and this lack guidance given in EO 11988 (or in a revised EO on of response can have grave results." floodplain management) regarding the conspicuous Floodplain information is not distributed widely beyond delineation of past and probable flood heights on floodplain regulators, federal and state agencies, and the property used by the general public. insurance and lending industries. Many individuals may not even be aware that flood and other hazard Recommendation 6.4: Statefloodplain information exists for their community. Success stories of local efforts in the area of zoning, pre-disaster management officials should encourage local planning, biotechnical engineering, and collaborative school districts to include natural hazard programs should be distributed and shared with all education in their curricula. levels of government in an effort to achieve widespread application of successful floodplain management Education regarding the existence of natural hazards, strategies and tools. such as floods, should be introduced into the elementary and secondary education curricula to provide an early awareness and understanding of how and why floods Recommendation 6.3: Federal agencies occur. Information should include what to do in the involved in floodplain management should event of a natural hazard emergency. If educated from include information regarding floodplain an early age, adults will be better able to participate in pre-disaster, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. ENDNOTES 1. Water Resources Development Act of 1974, PL 93-251, Section 22. 2. Harper, Warren, Water Resources Program Manager, Watershed and Air Management Division, U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, personal communication, May 19, 1994. 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Watershed Protecdon Framework Document, (Washington, DC: EPA, August 29, 1991). 4. Introduced during the 103rd Congress (1993). 5. H.R. 3873, introduced on February 22, 1994. 6. Young, C. Edwin, and C. Tim Osborne, The Conservation Reserve Program: An Economic Assessment, Agricultural Economic Report No. 626, (Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service, February 1990). 102 AVOIDING VULNERABILITY THROUGH PLANNING 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, reports from the National Flood Insurance Program Community Information System, (Washington, DC: FEMA, December 1993). 8. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, The Flood Studies and Mapping Activities in Support of the National Flood Insurance Program, A Report to the U.S. Congress, (Washington, DC: FEMA, February 1994). 9. Croxdale, Cynthia, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, Washington, DC, personal communication, April 15, 1994. 10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Flood Risk Directories: Applications for the NFIP," (Washington, DC: FEMA, June 30, 1991). 11. Cotter, Daniel M., Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, Washington, DC, personal communication, April 28, 1994. 12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Washington, DC, computer print-out, March 16, 1994. 13. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, A Cost Effective Plan for Flood Studies Maintenance, (Washington, DC: FEMA, February 1989). 14. Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, Floodolain Management in the United States: An Assessment Report, (Washington, DC: FIFMTF, 1992). 15. Natural Hazards Research and Applications Center, Action Agenda for Managing the Nation's Floodolain, Special Publication 25, (Boulder, CO: NHRAC, 1992). 103 Ahl milli 104 Chapter 7 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT Even before the Great Flood of '93, we had started to realize that some of the areas within our levees should have never been cleared for farming. The events of the last year have driven this point home. Many farmers with marginal and submarginal land are tired offighting the river and want to find a way to get out from under their financial burdens. Letter from Union County Board of Commissioners to U.S. Senator Paul Simon (D-IL), April 1994. During the 1993 flood, environmental easement and funded at all. Had they been implemented before the land acquisition programs became tools in assisting 1993 flood, these programs would have restored natural recovery and in removing people from long-term flood lands and provided a measure of flood protection vulnerability. In addition to meeting the needs of through reduced runoff and increased floodwater disaster relief victims, these programs can be effective storage. Environmental mitigation programs also have in achieving the nation's environmental goals. tended to be site-specific rather than focusing on Environmental enhancement and mitigation programs broader ecosystem goals. This chapter recommends essential to ecosystem management are often part of ways to use federal environmental programs in federal development projects. In the past, though, such ecosystem management to meet the needs of hu programs have been delayed, underfunded, or not development and the environment. ESTABLISHING A LEAD AGENCY FOR LAND ACQUISITIONS Following a disaster like the 1993 flood, landowners existing land buyout or easement programs for can benefit from a number of federal assistance environmentally related acquisitions, such as the USDA programs, such as fee title or land easement Wetland Reserve Program, Emergency Wetland acquisitions. During the early post-flood response Reserve Program, and FS forest acquisition program; period, land acquisition did not emerge as a viable risk- the USACE Missouri River Mitigation Project; and the reduction option for a number of reasons: limited funds, FWS National Wildlife Refuge acquisition program. lack of a participatory mechanism for mixing funds from different agencies, and lack of a focal point within Federal acquisition and easement programs share the government for such action. Part of the problem is capabilities to restore habitats for native fish and that no single federal agency has authority to coordinate 105 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT FEDERAL AGENCIES COMPETING FOR THE SAME LAND Stan Hinnah's farm on the Missouri River near Glasgow, Missouri, was devastated by the 1993 flood. His farm lies in one of the river's high energy zones on the site of an old channel bed. When Mr. Hinnah's levee broke, a surge of water scoured out unconsolidated sands from the old channel and deposited them across the remainder of his fields. Mr. Hinnah owns other lands in the nearby uplands and would like to sell his Missouri River bottomland and get on with his farm operations at another location "out of harm's way," as he put it. When Review Committee members spoke with him, he was frustrated because even though several federal and state acquisition programs were available, none were clearly defined, and none were able to get funding approved and released to complete the sale. Mr. Hinnah was confused by the number of governmental units involved in buyouts, and he was hesitant to make a deal with any one of them and miss a better deal. wildlife species of special federal interest. Such acquisition-easement programs provide an opportunity programs can address the needs of landowners who may to address both landowner and ecosystem needs. wish to discontinue row cropping or who may simply Several programs already exist to address these needs, wish to sell fee title interest altogether. One way to but coordination among the primary agencies -- DOI, overcome problems associated with these programs is to USDA, and USACE -- would improve efficiency. involve non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that Because the mission of the FWS within the DOI "...is can contribute financially to the federal buyout process to conserve, protect and enhance the Nation's fish, and act as a catalyst between landowners and wildlife and habitat for the continuing benefit of the government agencies. American people ...... the Review Committee suggests that the DOI coordinate federal acquisitions of During visits with government agencies and environmental lands. This role does not imply ultimate landowners, the Review Committee found an interest in exclusive ownership or management by the DOI but establishing one federal agency as the lead for provides for leadership in identifying the capabilities environmental land acquisitions. and interests of other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local resource managers, as well as individual landowners. Action 7. 1: The Administration should establish a lead agency for coordinating The recommended cooperative land acquisition- acquisition of title and easements to lands easement program would develop Memoranda of acquired for environmental purposes. Agreement (MOA) between the DOI, USDA, USACE and other agencies. Federal land acquisition agencies would establish rules for acquisitions and easements Several federal agencies have land acquisition authority, based on program authority. Transfer of acquisition but lack of coordination between them creates confusion funds to the DOI would be made, as appropriate, under and provides opportunities for landowners to shop Cooperative Agreements (CAs). When such CAs have around, promoting potential bidding wars between interested agencies. Taken together, government land 106 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PRIVATE EWOLVEMENT IN PUBLIC BUYOUTS NGOs, such as the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and the Conservation Fund, played significant roles in acquisition of the Louisa No. 8 Levee District on the Iowa River near its confluence with the Mississippi River. Louisa No. 8 had a history of repair from past floods, and, although it was eligible for repair under the USACE PL 84-99 program, affected landowners expressed an interest in alternatives to continued fanning. Administrative and authority limits in the land acquisition programs of federal Disaster Field Office participants prevented federal agencies from pooling funds to initiate land acquisition. By utilizing their funds, the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and the Conservation Fund were able to step in and purchase the land, holding it until federal funds were released to finish the buyout. This allowed landowners to get on with their lives. been completed, agencies would provide oversight and would assist the DOI with landowner contacts to assure and endangered species. It would help guard against that all federal mandates are met. The DOI would not acquisitions or easements involving disconnected or be involved in non-environmental land acquisitions, disaggregated lands that are checkerboard in appearance such as the purchase of construction sites or FEMA and difficult to manage. structure-buyouts that offer no special potential for environmental enhancement. Federal land acquisitions would be coordinated with existing state and local programs to avoid conflicts, as The nation needs a coordinated program to maximize well as complement and further their environmental federal use of funding for programs such as the FWS activities. In addition, the DOI would not necessarily refuge acquisition program, the USACE Missouri River maintain fee title and operation and maintenance Mitigation Project and the USDA Wetland Reserve responsibility for acquired lands. When appropriate, a Program. Coordinated leadership would help ensure that cooperating agency or state would assume ownership federal environmental land acquisition programs focus and operation-maintenance responsibility, although the on ecosystem management to meet the DOI would maintain those lands critical to federally needs of interjurisdictional, native, and threatened listed threatened and endangered species. PROTECTING THE TAX BASE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS During discussions with individuals and local Sharing Act (RRSA) to reduce the financial hardship of governments regarding federal land acquisitions, the lost tax revenues by providing government payments in Review Committee learned that lost tax revenues from lieu of taxes. Inadequate funding of the RRSA acquired lands are an issue. For acquisitions involving program, however, has limited the attractiveness of the DOI, Congress designed the Refuge Revenue federal land acquisition in various areas of the country. 107 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT Recommendation 7. 1: The Administration should support increased funding for the with review and revision of implementing regulations, Re e Revenue Sharing Act. would assist in equitable distribution of funds among :fug different regions of the country and would address the Increased funding of the RRSA, in conjunction concerns of local governments regarding tax base impacts that negatively affect schools and infrastructure. ALLOWING AGENCIES PROCEDURAL FLEXIBILITY IN DISASTERS In examining the federal flood response, the Review and local options. Following disasters, the federal Committee learned of difficulties encountered by government could use available funds to immediately agencies in their efforts to enhance natural resources acquire lands with preidentified environmental values while considering landowner needs. Uncertainty among and hazard plans. This approach, similar to one used landowners about the ability of federal agencies to by the FWS for acquiring available parcels within pre- execute timely real estate actions limited their interest in identified Waterfowl Production Areas, would involve a full or partial land sale or easement acquisition. larger group of agencies. Statutory features of easement-acquisition authorities for federal agencies prevent spending without first completing full procedural cycles. In a disaster Recovery Operations response situation, procedural flexibility would be advantageous for federal agencies and economically The 1993 flood caused major infrastructure damage distressed landowners. throughout the upper Mississippi River Basin. An August 1993 interagency letter of cooperation' signaled the Administration's awareness that disaster response Action 7.2: The Administration should must -provide innovative actions using various federal develop emergency implementation programs, such as the USDA Emergency Wetland procedures to organize federal agencies for Reserve Program, Section 1135 of the Water Resources environmental land acquisitions. Development Art (WRDA) of 1986, and public-private partnerships. The acquisition of the Louisa No. 8 The waiver of certain procedural components of land Drainage District exemplifies this partnership. acquisition programs that require extended intra- and Although the lack of experience and institutionalization interagency review and comment would improve of buyouts limited actions similm to the Louisa No. 8 response to economic hardships during immediate post- buyout, this situation could be improved if the ad hoc disaster periods. The Administration should direct the relationship established by the aforementioned letter DOI, in cooperation with other federal land acquisition were formalized. agencies, to develop an interagency, programmatic environmental land acquisition plan that could be Action 7.3: The DOI shouldformalize implemented during emergency situations. environmental considerations in multi-agency All agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise in disaster recovery land restoration activity land acquisition should participate in the DOI through a coordinated Memorandum of interagency plan. Agencies will have program-specific Agreement. interests in a planning area, but, within the context of a programmatic document, they can integrate their The Administration should direct the DOI to use the interests to articulate the range of federal, tribal, state, Louisa No. 8 project as an example to develop a MOA 108 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT between agencies for post-disaster recovery. The Congress should provide legislative authority and Formalization of working relationships would expedite flexibility, similar to that provided the USACE by PL recovery efforts by providing coordination points and a 84-99, to other agencies and programs. Such flexibility central clearinghouse for information on buyout options, would expedite landowner relief and enhance the federal sources of funds, and a list of potential cooperators. ability to capitalize on environmental enhancement opportunities. Funds used could be reimbursed, if necessary, from supplemental appropriations, when they Emergency Funding became available and, as appropriate, by reprogramming funds from other sources within the PL 84-99 provides the USACE with flexibility to agency. As an example, following the 1993 flood, the quickly reprogram funds from agency accounts to fund FWS was unable to access several million dollars of Presidentially declared flood disaster response efforts. appropriated Land & Water Conservation (LAWCON) This enables the USACE to use appropriated funds to funds. If the FWS had been able to access those funds, address emergencies and disaster response in a timely which were earmarked for other uses, the agency could manner. have offered landowners an immediate alternative to realigning and repairing levees. The opportunity to restore wildlife habitats was missed. The LAWCON Action 7.4: Seek legislative authority for account could have been reimbursed subsequently either flexibility in use of programmedfunds in by special appropriation or transfer from other emergency situations. accounts. ACQUIRING AND RESTORING LAND ON PROBLEM RIVER REACHES Federal agencies are focusing on ecosystem acquisitions and easements on problem river reaches management in recognition of the functional with known habitat values and threatened and relationships between living resources and physical endangered species. features of the landscape. This is evidenced by the March 1994 concept document Ecosystem Approach to Action 7.5: The DOI shouldfocus land Fish and Wildlife Conservation circulated by the FWS, acquisition efforts on river reaches and areas the April 1993 Ecosystem Management Principles and with significant habitat values or resource Applications document prepared by the FS for the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, and the impacts. Reinventing Environmental Management document prepared by the National Performance Review (NPR) in The Administration should provide funding for and the September 1993. These documents call for interagency DOI should develop and implement cooperative coordination and a resultant collaborative approach to ecosystem management plans with the states and other managing the health of whole ecosystems, such as the agencies. The NBS currently operates a major GIS upper Mississippi River Basin. system for the upper Mississippi River main stem and is in the process of developing GIS capability for the Ecosystem management is in its infancy, and federal Missouri River main stem. The Congress should agencies have just begun ecosystem planning and related appropriate funds to expand these facilities to survey the programs. Explicit funding for ecosystem management natural resources of the entire upper Mississippi River remains minimal and plan development incomplete. In Basin. The NBS should work in collaboration with the the absence of plans and funding, the DOI, as the states, NGOs, and other agencies to identify critical recommended lead agency for environmental land habitats, significantly impacted ecosystems, and acquisitions and easements, should focus federal opportunities for ecosystem management. Participating 109 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT states and agencies should evaluate site-specific, Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture can take collaborative management plans developed as part of advantage of unforeseen opportunities or urgent their own operations for use in ecosystem management. acquisition developments. The NPR Action for this issue stated: "the Secretaries of the Interior and The Accompanying Report on the DOI by the NPR' Agriculture and the Director of OMB should modify the identified several factors that prevent the agency from process for determining land acquisition priorities and making long-term decisions that provide for wise modify current procedures. " The Review Committee ecosystem planning and management. In response, the endorses this action as a key component in providing NPR indicated that the DOI should be able to acquire better focus for such acquisitions. lands using a comprehensive approach and that it should have a set amount of discretionary ftinds so that the USING O&M FUNDS TO MANAGE ECOSYSTEMS Construction of various federal navigation and flood Memorandum of Agreement for fund transfers related control projects have impacted federal trust resources in to Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act compliance many rivers of the upper Mississippi River Basin.' makes such participation possible during the planning Operation and maintenance of some of these projects process, but no authority exists to transfer funds for continue to impact fish and wildlife resources and, in support of post-construction ecosystem planning. some cases, may accelerate those losses. In the 1970s Similarly no funding mechanisms exist for state or local and 1980s, concerns related to these impacts on the participation in either the planning or post-construction upper Mississippi River resulted in formation of phases of federal water resources development. cooperative interagency management efforts, such as the Great River Study,' Upper Mississippi River Master Plan,' and Upper Mississippi River Environmental Action 7.6: Require agencies to co-fund Management Program.' These programs, which ecosystem management using Operation and address both development and natural resource needs, have resolved many interagency conflicts and problems. Maintenance funds. Across the upper Mississippi River Basin, though, Ecosystem management plaiming would document federal agencies need to develop and implement natural resource needs and identify actions that federal ecosystem management plans. Especially on the agencies can take to offset development impacts and Missouri River, such plans would help ensure enhance ecosystem sustainability. Funding for protection of fragile ecosystems and address the needs development and implementation of ecosystem of plant and animal species that are of interjurisdictional management plans should be an annual standard federal interest. Presently a funding mechanism to component of each federal agency's develop and implement ecosystem management plans operation/maintenwice/construction budgets along with does not exist. annual funding for development projects, which often impact the ecosystem. Funds should provide for As a matter of practice, agencies responsible for participation of outside agencies and the states. Once operating and maintaining major development projects costs of minimizing environmental impacts become a should procure funding for representation and standard part of project costs, they can be reflected participation of other federal agencies in their major more closely in federal benefit-cost ratios. study and implementation efforts. The USACE-FWS 110 FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT EXPANDING FEDERAL, STATE, AND NGO COST-SHAIRJNG Many levee and drainage districts contain remnant level review of Section 1135 projects within USACE. natural features, such as oxbow lakes and sloughs, that This may discourage pursuit of small scope projects. It were hydraulically disconnected from the main stem is anticipated that many small projects could be pursued river either by natural processes or by levee at lower administrative costs with abbreviated report construction. Structural modifications to these levees requirements and decentralized approval authority. In would allow periodic, controlled flows between the discussions of the Section 1135 option with river and former oxbows or channels. By providing several landowners and drainage district representatives, these connections, off-channel habitat could be available the USACE found that many did not accept it because during spawning periods. Such areas could contribute of the cost-share burden added under PL 84-99. The to the river fishery and increase seasonal wetland USACE could not overcome the cost-sharing problem values. because other federal agencies, such as the FWS, are not able to participate as cost-share sponsors. During the PL 84-99 review process, resource agencies and landowners sought to use levee modifications to reconnect some oxbows and sloughs to the river, but Action 7.7: Enact legislation allowing cost- they were unable to do so because Congress authorized share patWcipation and eligibility PL 84-99 only for ernergency structural repair and not requirements under Sections 906 and 1135 for modification to serviceable projects. New of the 1986 WRDA to include federal, state, construction for other purposes was simply not possible. On the other hand, the USACE environmental and non-governmental contributions as well enhancement authority provided by Section 1135 of the as work in-kind. 1986 WRDA includes new construction as an option. Additionally, Section 906 of the 1986 WRDA provides By expanding the array of possible cost-share sponsors general authority to undertake mitigation measures for and by providing for cost-sharing consistency in Section projects, whether completed, underway or unstarted, 906, more enhancement opportunities can be leveraged including acquisition of any needed related lands. by cooperating federal, state, and non-governmental Section 906 provides for mitigation cost-sharing organizations. Permitting work in-kind to qualify as consistent with other project purposes. The review local sponsor cost-share contributions would expand the Committee found that potential activities authorized by availability of Section 1135 for envirom-nental Section 906 have not been pursued. restoration activities. It was brought to the Review Committee's attention that current reporting and approval processes require multi- MOVING MITIGATION AT THE SAME RATE AS DEVELOPMENT Development projects often require agreement to unmet mitigation over periods of years. purchase mitigation lands before project construction plans receive approval. Although authority exists for mitigation measures and acquisition of mitigation lands Action 7.8: Allocate funds for mitigation and although agency policy encourages concurrent lands in concert with and at the same pace as mitigation, funding of mitigation land acquisition has project construction. not proceeded on the same schedule as construction funding. In some cases this lack of funding has led to The Administration through OMB must assure an FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT equitable funding stream where mitigation is required as part of authorized projects. ENDNOTES 1. Joint White House/OMB guidance on procedures for evaluation and review of repair and restoration projects for levees, August 23, 1993. 2. National Performance Review, Department of the Interior Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review, U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, (Washington, DC; September 1993). 3. Bellrose, F. C., F. L. Paveglia, Jr., and D. W. Steffeck. "Waterfowl populations and the changing environment of the Illinois River Valley", Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, 32: 1-54. (1979); Fremling, C.R., at al., "Mississippi River fisheries: a case history" pages 309-351, and Hesse, L.W., at al., "Missouri River fishery resources in relation to past, present, and future stresses" pages 352- 371 in Dodge, D.P.(ed.) Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium. Ontario, Canada. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106. (1989); Shaw, S. P., and C. D. Fredine. Wetlands of the Unitedstates, Circular 39, Washington, D.C: FWS (1971); Sparks, R.E., "The Illinois River-floodplain ecosystem," pages 412-432 in National Research Council, Restoratfon of aquatic ecosystems, (Washington DC: National Academy Press 1992). 4. Great River Environmental Action Team I (GREAT 1). A Study of the Upper Mississippi River. 9 vols, (St. Paul, MN: USACE, St. Paul Dist., 1980); GREAT 11, Great H Main Report and Appendices, (Rock Island, IL: USACE, Rock Island Dist., 1980); GREAT Ill. Great River Resource Management Study, St. Louis, MO: USACE, St. Louis Dist., 1982). 6. Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission, Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the Upper Mississippi River System, (Bloomington, MN: UMRBC,1982). 6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fiftb Annual Addendum - Upper Mississippi River System, Environmental Management Program, (Chicago, II: USACE North Central Division, 1990). 112 Chapter 8 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Floods are an act of God; flood damages result from acts of men. House Document 465, 89th Congress, 2d Session A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, August 1966 Development will continue to occur in the nation's implementation of federal environmental protection floodplains. Two fundamental strategies -- protection statutes, have caused or contributed to environmental or removal -- can minimize the vulnerability to floods degradation. The 1993 flood demonstrated not only the in these lowlands. Each strategy is appropriate in strengths of structural approaches but also their different circumstances. The nation should discourage weaknesses, particularly those of levees. new development in floodplains. For areas with existing concentrated development, such as cities where Another approach to minimizing vulnerability, not removal is impracticable, combine structural and widely used in the past, is the removal of vulnerable nonstructural measures to protect existing development. populations from the floodplain. Because of the severity and duration of the 1993 flood, the general In the past structural measures were the primary public has taken a new interest in this strategy. approach to flood damage reduction. Throughout Building on its experience with the NFIP, the FEMA history, well-designed and well-sited structural capitalized on this interest in removals. The measures have demonstrated their effectiveness in Administration responded by targeting federal recovery protecting property and saving lives. The traditional that support buyouts and relocation of floodplain structural strategies to modify flooding have relied on populations. The fundamental value of buyouts over the following tools: dams and reservoirs; urban structural approaches is that they completely eliminate stormwater management systems; dikes, levees, and flood risk for affected individuals and, at the same floodwalls; channel alternations; and diversions, time, may have environmental and hydrologic benefits. spillways, and floodways. Relocation associated with buyouts can, however, involve social, environmental, or hydrological impacts. Each of these measures carry environmental and social For federal relocations, compliance with the NEPA impacts that may limit their future applicability. While would identify and help to avoid such impacts. Careful they work well, they also create problems. Structural planning by state and local agencies should also identify approaches, particularly those taken prior to these issues. ADOPTING A SYSTEMS APPROACH The first step in minimizing flood vulnerability is to current risk that flooding poses. Is the risk one of approach the problem from a systems perspective. debris-laden flows from highly erodible canyons? Is it Determining the array of potential solutions requires an increased runoff? Is it changed river hydrology? Is it understanding of the source of the vulnerability and the flash floods or slowly rising waters? The best solution 113 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT to a localized flooding problem may be watershed Review Committee for the Principles and Guidelines management rather than channelization. The flooding would facilitate this type of consideration. If structural river cannot be analyzed separately from its watershed alternatives provide the only means to address a local and ecosystems. The initial focus ought not be flooding problem, they need to be considered within the exclusively on structural flood damage-reduction context of the larger systems of the river and its projects. The situation calls for a system-wide watershed. The direct and incremental impact of each approach that accounts for basin hydrology, hydraulics, structure on river hydrology, hydraulics, and ecology and ecosystem concerns. Such an approach will needs evaluation and balancing. By understanding the identify the nature of the flooding problem and help in system and designing and constructing in response to the selection of the most appropriate combination of that system, more efficient opportunities to reduce the flood damage reduction measures. A systems approach vulnerability of flood impacts can be found. allows planners to address flood vulnerability and identify the best means for minimizing flood impacts, Existing and future flood damage reduction strategies when they do occur. The systems approach brings to must consider the impact on upland and riparian areas the forefront the ecosystem effects of flood damage- of the ecosystem. The design, operation, and repair of reduction projects, and it allows for avoiding, flood damage reduction systems can lessen these minimizing, and compensating for adverse effects and impacts and may, in some circumstances, enhance the capitalizing on environmental opportunities. environment. Chapter 7 focused on flood damage reduction measures that also protect and improve The next step in changing the historic approach to flood wildlife habitat. damage reduction is to equally consider structural and nonstructural approaches. Objective consideration of the various flood damage reduction options looks at Recommendation 8. 1: Federal agencies their short- and long-term engineering and their should capitalize on opportunities, within environmental, social, and economic feasibility. Such a existing authorities and resources, to enhance consideration is vital to achieving a new pattern of flood vulnerability reduction. The revisions proposed by the the environment when reviewing operations or undertaking repairs or improvements to existing flood damage reduction programs. IMPROVING STRUCTURAL MEASURES Levees will continue to serve as a means of minimizing of federal and non-federal levees damaged by the 1993 flood vulnerability. Of the approximately 8,000 miles flood. These agencies are involved in funding, design, of levees in the upper Mississippi River Basin, roughly construction, or a combination of the three. The water half were constructed by the federal government or resources design and construction agencies, the USACE meet federal standards and thus receive support from and SCS, have been joined in the levee repair and the federal government in post-disaster situations. construction business by the FEMA, EDA, and HUD, Some new levees may be built to protect critical through their public assistance and grant programs. infrastructure, but the remainder of these structural Normally only the USACE and SCS construct levees as flood damage reduction facilities with their numerous part of projects authorized by Congress, although in strengths may also have room for improvement. recent years, SCS levee construction has significantly declined. Constructing and Repairing Levees These agencies have not used the same engineering Five different federal agencies are engaged in the repair standards or methods of economic analysis in carrying out their programs. Some of the differences rest with 114 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT the purposes of the programs and the varying nature of similar types of activities also exist for other federal the levees. Nevertheless these differences cause water resources projects. One example is under the confusion among those dealing with the multiple SCS PL 83-566 program, in which non-federal sponsors programs. The nation cannot afford to have this provide the lands necessary for project construction, but duplication of effort in the federal system. The costs to 100 percent of the cost for flood damage reduction is the nation of this multi-agency approach, measured in provided by the federal government. Non-federal dollars or social and environmental impacts, remain sponsors of flood damage reduction projects constructed large. by the USACE are required to pay a minimum of 25 percent share of the total project cost and a maximum of 50 percent. A minimum cash contribution of 5 Action 8. 1: Establish the USACE as the percent of the total project cost is required as a part of principal federal levee construction agency. this cost-share. In addition, the USACE requires a 50 percent cost-sharing for feasibility studies while the SCS This action is not a call for new levee construction, but feasibility studies are at 100 percent federal cost. The a recognition that when repairs or construction have SCS multi-purpose projects involve non-federal cost- been authorized, the USACE would be the principal sharing but SCS allows credit for in-kind services in agency for the work on major rivers and tributaries. meeting that requirement. The USACE allows credit The USACE, with its long history of levee building and for in-kind services only for meeting a portion of study repair has the in-house expertise to serve as the federal cost-sharing requirements. The SCS multi-purpose government's principal representative pertaining to projects involve non-federal cost-sharing but SCS allows major levee construction and repair. The SCS has the credit for in-kind services in meeting that requirement. history and expertise for assistance pertaining to small The USACE allows credit for in-kind services only for agricultural levees in small watersheds and assistance to meeting study cost-sharing requirements. individual landowners. To coordinate their different responsibilities and engineering and evaluation Another example is in relation to the levee rehabilitation guidelines, the USACE and the SCS should review and program. The SCS Emergency Watershed Protection modify, as appropriate, the existing 1986 Memorandum Program requires a non-federal cost-share of 25 percent of Agreement (MOA). When complete this MOA of the cost of the project which excludes inspections and should be provided to all states and appropriate levee design. Under the USACE PL 84-99 program, there is districts. Other government agencies wishing to pursue no cost-sharing for federally built levees, however, the levee construction must arrange planning, design, and non-federal cost-share for qualified non-federally construction through the USACE which will follow the constructed levees is 20 percent of the cost of the revised P&G procedures. For small agricultural project to include inspections and design. The FEMA projects, the USACE would coordinate the action with and the EDA also are players in levee repair with non- the SCS. federal shares of 25 percent for the FEMA repairs (although this was modified to 10 percent for the 1993 While multiple federal agencies currently participate in flood) and 20 to 25 percent for the EDA repairs. Other levee construction and repair, this report recommends examples of inconsistencies also exist but are not in Action 8.1 that USACE be established as the elaborated on in this document. principal federal levee construction agency. If this recommendation is implemented, cost-sharing inconsistencies between different federal agencies Recommendation 8.2: The Administration currently involved in levee construction would be should propose legislation that establishes resolved. If the recommendation is not implemented, consistent cost-shaying across agencies for cost-sharing inconsistencies exist that should be rectified non-federal participation in like activities. to eliminate shopping by non-federal sponsors for the best federal deal. Regardless of the decision made on Affected federal agencies should coordinate with each levees, inconsistencies between federal agencies for other to identify all differences in cost-sharing and in- 115 MINIM[IZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT kind services and provide documentation of typical flood, this is no reason to deviate from the inconsistencies to the Administration. For those flood established and sound principles of the levee program. damage reduction activities where multiple federal Waivers of these requirements may send the wrong agencies will still be participating, consistent cost- message to levee sponsors. It is in the interest of the sharing is recommended. In addition, consistent nation to provide incentives to ensure the integrity of approaches should be taken regarding non-federal credit public levees. This can best be accomplished by the for in-kind services in meeting the cost-sharing participation of levee sponsors in the USACE program. requirement. It must be clear that the federal government provide repair assistance in the future only to levees enrolled in the program and that the risks associated with non- Performing Emergency Repairs participation are simply too great to take. The federal review of levees impacted by the Midwest Flood of 1993 provided valuable lessons in applying the Action 8.2: The Administration should USACE emergency flood-control repair program under reaffirm its supportfor the USACE criteria PL 84-99. Approximately 1,600 levees (1,400 of them under the PL 84-99 levee repair program and non-federal) were damaged to the point of requiring send a clear message that future exceptions some form of rehabilitation or repair.' Less than 500 will not be made. of these levees are under the USACE program, and of these, only 229 were federally constructed. Many In addition to the specific requirements of the USACE levees which had been under the USACE program in program, the USACE should ensure that levees are the past were not under it at the time of the flood for properly located and aligned to reduce the probability of various reasons, such as failure to operate and maintain repetitive losses and do not adversely impact river the levee properly, individual decisions not to hydraulics and other properties. Benefit-cost analyses participate, lack of a public sponsor, or inability to should be expanded to include consideration of meet required engineering criteria. In the past benefit- environmental and social benefits and costs in addition cost analyses have not included consideration of to the traditionally quantifiable benefits and costs. previous levee failures and the potential for future Where levees have a history of failures and realignment failures. is not feasible, the benefit-cost analysis should consider Given the seriousness of this situation and the fact that the greater risk of failure, adjusting operation and less than 15 percent of the non-federal levees that were maintenance cost estimates appropriately. Where the damaged qualified for repair consideration under the site is unsuitable, no federal support should be USACE program, the Administration and Congress provided. provided supplemental funding for levee repair. Even with the waiver of the USACE requirements, the Administration and Congress stipulated that levee Design Considerations to Lessen Levee districts or sponsors would have to meet the following Overtopping Impacts requirements to receive federal funding: agree to join the USACE program; and, within two years, provide During the 1993 flood, many levees were overtopped public sponsorship, ensure levee maintenance, and meet and catastrophic damages occurred from scour and sand engineering, environmental and other eligibility deposition. There are various methods for lessening requirements of the program. these types of impacts such as use of spillways, control structures, and levee superiority (choosing where a This USACE program should continue in the future. levee should overtop first). The Review Committee reviewed the eligibility requirements of the program and found them to be reasonable. Even though the 1993 flood was not a 116 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Recommendation 8.3: The USACE should significant, it could cause greater damage than investigate procedures to minimize impacts otherwise would have occurred to nearby lands, associated with levee overtoppings. especially if levee raising results in the failure of a neighboring levee. Differing methods to lessen levee overtopping impacts should be investigated. A report should be prepared by Action 8.3: Federal and state off Ycials USACE that details preferred engineering techniques to should restrict support of floodfighting to improve current levee structures, where appropriate. those levees that have been approvedfor floodfighting by the USACE. Coordinating Economic Evaluation Criteria The USACE would determine by advance planning, with the benefit of river hydraulic modeling analysis, Both the SCS and USACE have requirements for those levees that can and those that cannot be economic feasibility with regard to potential levee floodfought without significant adverse impacts on other repairs. Differences exist in the detail of analysis, properties in the floodplain. This action would not period of analysis, and interest rate used for each of prevent floodfights which are consistent with state and these programs. local floodplain management regulations under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Recommendation 8.4: The USACE should coordinate with the SCS to decide on Floodfight, Controls appropriate criteria for evaluating the economics of levee repairs. In 1978, during federal construction of an The Review Committee recommends that one agency, agricultural levee on the Missouri River the USACE, be the principal federal levee repair and downstream of Brunswick, Missouri, the construction agency. Past differences in the evaluations USACE, FEMA, the City of Brunswick, and by the two agencies suggest that coordination of the levee sponsor agreed to limit the height methods could lead to an improved procedure. of the levee being constructed to a 25 year protection level and that the levee district would not increase the levee height during a Floodfighting on Levees flood event. This agreement was to prevent the levee from raising upstream flood Threatened communities and owners of agricultural elevations more than one foot, especially at levees conducted heroic levee floodfighting during the Brunswick. During the 1993 flood, the Flood of 1993. They took action, however, without USACE provided technical assistance to the knowledge or consideration of the effects that keeping Brunswick Dalton Drainage District in its the water off their portion of the floodplain would have efforts to fill in low spots in the levee -- on the river level in proximity to that location. The act locations where the levee elevations were of raising a levee during rising flood conditions has the below the authorized project levels. effect of increasing the river level in the immediate area Therefore, in accordance with the agreement, and possibly upstream and downstream as well. The the levee sponsor did not raise any sections magnitude of the increase could be minor or significant, of the levee above the design grade. In late depending on hydraulic factors pertinent to the affected levee and river reach. If the water level raise is July, the levee overtopped. 117 MU'qIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Urban Stormwater Management magnitude and frequency of downstream flooding and The use of detention basins as a type of structural flood the construction of flood damage reduction structures. damage reduction measure has greatly increased over Reduced groundwater supplies and degraded water the last 20 years. Many local ordinances now require quality are frequent byproducts of this approach. New "zero-increment" runoff for new development, which efforts to handle runoff from frequent storms (e.g., 2- means that on-site detention must be provided. State to 10-year events) include on-site detention or retention and federal government involvement in runoff though a variety of measures and management of total management is typically limited to managing stormwater runoff within a watershed to ensure that discharges runoff from roads and highways. The Floodplain from watershed sub-units reach the main channel at Management in the United States report indicates that different times and, therefore, reduce peak flows in federal and state governments have increased attention downstream areas. Most on-site detention measures to this problem due to an awareness that a large typically provide little protection from large, infrequent percentage of flood insurance claims come from areas events such as those that caused the Midwest flood not identified as floodplains. because their capacity is exceeded. Flooding can be increased significantly by the runoff While the main objective of on-site detention is to from land that has been stripped of vegetation or prevent excessive runoff from developed areas, a covered with buildings, pavements, and other secondary benefit is that on-site detention measures can impervious materials. Historically the approach to such be designed to trap pollutants and, therefore, improve runoff has been to confine and transport that water as water quality. Throughout the country there is quickly as possible. As urbanization spread, this considerable interest in using natural wetlands or approach contributed significantly to increased creating wetlands to help manage stormwater runoff. EXPANDING NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES Hazard mitigation includes those actions taken by individuals and communities to reduce damages from This initiative represents a turning point in flood such hazards as earthquakes, tornados, and floods. recovery policy, since it is the first time that buyouts Examples of actions commonly taken after a flood are have been attempted on such a large scale. buyouts, elevation or floodproofing of damaged buildings, structural flood protection, flood-waming Buyouts are an appropriate federal response for the systems, and flood hazard awareness programs. There Midwest flood and for floods like it. Many of the are ways to reduce the vulnerability of floodplain buyout neighborhoods have been damaged repetitively structures through design for all flood loads, selection by flooding. Subject to deep and long duration of flood-resistant materials, and use of flood-resistant flooding, they were isolated by floodwaters for construction practices. extended periods of time. In addition a significant percentage contain older, lower value housing, much of The Administration established buyouts of flood- it of poor quality and in need of rehabilitation. Under damaged properties as the first priority for mitigation the right circumstances, the buyouts will not only funds available for the Midwest flood. As of April 25, reduce flood damages and protect people and property 1994, the federal government had approved applications but also achieve other objectives such as improving the from 61 communities for acquisition or relocation of quality of affordable housing, increasing recreational 4,181 buildings. Other applications are pending, and as opportunities and wildlife values, and general many as 6,000 buildings will be acquired or relocated.' betterment of the community. 118 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPM[ENT While enforcing a substantial damage requirement is A TEAM EFFORT critical to achieving long-term objectives of reducing flood damages, financial assistance will be required to The Home Life Restoration assist property owners who cannot afford to elevate or relocate their buildings or obtain replacement housing. Committee, a local citizen's group in The buyout initiative, in part, meets this need. Hannibal, Missouri, and the Missouri Housing Development Office joined Individuals and communities impacted by the Midwest forces to assist four families whose flood appear to be far more receptive to buyouts than homes had been severely damaged in the after past floods. Often in the past, people regarded a flood of 1993 to move into new housing flood as a one-time event. Any interest in acquisition or relocation waned with time as memories of the flood outside the floodplain. Bridge loans of faded. But with the Midwest flood, the duration of the up to $5,000, bearing interest of 1 %, flooding and the multiple flood crests and floodfights were provided to each family through a created stress for floodplain occupants and program of the Housing Development communities. By the end of the summer, floodplain Office. The Committee members, in occupants just wanted out. conjunction with another charitable Implementation of buyouts has not been without group, the Natural Resources Community problems. Federal agencies had to overcome significant Action Coalition, solicited a total of obstacles to make the initiative work. This resulted in $50,000 in donations from local business confusion and uncertainty among states, communities, and industry. This joint state/local effort and individuals. Since no federal or state agency had enabled four homes outside the ever attempted buyouts on this scale, agencies had to floodplain to be acquired and invent policies and procedures and establish relationships between programs. They had to create rehabilitated. The state loans will be mechanisms to coordinate programs and provide forgiven if these families remain in their technical assistance to small communities with limited new homes for five years. resources and expertise. They also had to develop expedited procedures for compliance with the NEPA, historic preservation, and other federal mandates. Buyouts and Other Hazard Mitigation A common theme throughout the Review Committee's Actions Following a Flood meetings with states, communities, organizations, and interest groups has been the need for common policies Prior to the current buyout initiative, the primary and procedures among federal agencies participating in federal response to mitigating damages to flooded buyouts and other mitigation activities. The current structures was the substantial damage requirement initiative with multiple programs, applications, and implemented by communities participating in the NFIP. eligibility requirements is overwhelming to Buildings damaged so that the cost of repair is equal to communities, even with the improvements made to or greater than 50 percent of the market value prior to date. A corollary need is for sufficient flexibility in the flood must meet program requirements for new these programs to respond to a variety of flooding construction, such as elevating above the 100-year flood conditions or other circumstances, including responding elevation. Substantially damaged structures also to other types of disasters. become subject to actuarial rates under the NFIP. Expedited decisions on buyouts would reduce the uncertainty of property owners and avoid needless 119 MINMZING THE VULNERABELITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPM[ENT PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR BUYOUTS The following federal programs provide funding for buyouts following a disaster such as the Midwest Flood of 1993: Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). The 1993 Supplemental Appropriation included $200 million for the CDBG program to assist in acquisition and relocation and in meeting other housing needs. The 1994 Earthquake Supplemental included an additional $250 million for a total of $450 million. Federal Emergency Management Agency Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants. The Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993, signed into law on December 7, 1993, revised the formula for determining the amount of the Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant in the Stafford Act and changed the cost share to 75/25. Under the revised formula the FEMA estimates that $134.9 million will be available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for the Midwest flood. Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grants. The 1993 Supplemental Appropriation included $200 million for EDA for grants to states and communities to preserve or create jobs or upgrade infrastructure. The funds can be used to assist in the relocation of businesses or for the infrastructure needed to support those businesses. National Flood Insurance Program Section 1362 Flood Damaged Property Purchase Program. Several million dollars are available from the appropriation for the NFIP Section 1362 program for acquisition of insured properties. These funds are paid from the National Flood Insurance Fund, using premium dollars. Other Programs. Funds were available from other programs such as the FEMA Public Assistance Program to assist in various aspects of buyouts and relocation. SBA loans are available to help individual property owners riot eligible for CDBG monies. expenditures for repairs to houses that are subsequently consolidated to position the government for future purchased. This duplication cannot be entirely avoided. buyouts and other hazard mitigation initiatives. A It takes time to properly conduct a buyout, particularly critical issue is how to transfer the buyout experience for relocation of buildings or neighborhoods. Situations and other mitigation actions of the 1993 flood to other will continue to occur where making minimal repairs to floods. The Midwest flood, a unique event covering a a structure will be more cost-effective than providing 9-state area and impacting over a thousand rental assistance through the FEMA Disaster Housing communities, required large supplemental Program. appropriations. For more typical floods without supplemental appropriations, funding for mitigation While the Review Committee applauds the work of must come from the FEMA Section 404 Hazard federal and state agencies in adapting existing programs Mitigation Grant Program, the NFIP Section 1362 to make buyouts work, these gains need to be program, and other existing programs. 120 MINBUZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMIENT Recommendation 8.5: Maintain flexibility instances where properties are to be bought in hazard mitigation programs to promote out; cost-effective and appropriate mitigation * Identify statutory and regulatory barriers to buyouts and other mitigation actions and techniques. propose changes where appropriate; and, 0 Make recommendations on how Buyouts are the optimal solution for many supplemental appropriations would be neighborhoods impacted by the Midwest flood. channelled through a single program such as Circumstances arise, however, where other mitigation the FEMA Section 404 Hazard Mitigation techniques may be the most cost-effective method for Grant Program rather than being provided reducing flood damages with the least impacts on the through multiple agencies and programs. community and the environment. In areas of shallow, short-duration flooding, elevation of structures on site Coordination issues that arise during future disasters may be the preferred alternative. Where high should be resolved through the Interagency Hazard groundwater or sewer backups flood basements in or Mitigation Task Force. out of identified flood hazard areas, the optimal mitigation action could be drainage improvements, upgrading sewer systems, or installing backwater Recommendation 8.6: Encourage valves. Future mitigation initiatives must be flexible establishment of state-chaired task forces to enough to respond appropriately to these differences. coordinate buyouts and other hazard mitigation activities. Action 8.4: Establish a taskjorce to One of the success stories of the Midwest flood is the develop common procedures for federal creation and operation of state task forces to coordinate buyouts and other mitigation actions. These task forces buyouts and mitigation programs. include participation by representatives of state agencies and of field offices of various federal agencies. In A federal interagency task force should coordinate pre- some cases communities have had to make only one and post-disaster buyouts and other hazard mitigation application to the task force, which then determined the actions. This task force should include representatives funding sources and amounts available to the of agencies that could be involved in a buyout program community. These task forces have proved to be as well as agencies with responsibilities for consultation important forums for resolving differences between and oversight on compliance with laws and executive agencies and for coordinating buyout programs. They orders. The task force should build on the Midwest have provided the additional benefit of involving flood experience to accomplish the following objectives: agencies that previously had not conducted floodplain 0 Develop common policies and procedures management. Operating at the state level, they could among agencies for buyouts and provide for effectively coordinate future buyout programs and increased flexibility in programs to respond to package FEMA Section 404 ftinds with other available the unique circumstances of a disaster; state and federal funds. 0 Address compliance with the NEPA, applicable executive orders, historic preservation requirements, and other federal Action 8.5: Provide states the option of mandates during multi-agency buyouts; receiving FEMA Section 404 Hazard 0 Design delivery systems to expedite buyout Mitigation Grants as a block grant. decisions to be responsive to disaster victims and minimize duplication of assistance in A number of states have indicated an interest in coordinating buyouts and other mitigation actions after 121 MINEMZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPM[ENT disasters. They feel that they could be more responsive Action 8.7: Establish a programmatic to communities and could expedite decisions if they buyout and hazard mitigation program with received FEMA Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants funding authorities independent of disaster in the form of a block grant. Under the current declarations. program, states already are given considerable latitude in establishing priorities and allocating Section 404 The current buyout program is funded primarily Hazard Mitigation Grant Program monies. A block grant also may provide greater flexibility to use these through supplemental appropriations made only after funds in conjunction with other federal, state, and local extraordinary floods and other disasters. Most flood funds. The Review Committee suggests that block events impact on much smaller geographic areas and grants be an offered as an option for those states that may or may not result in a Presidential disaster have adopted approved floodplain management or declaration. Programs need to be in place to hazard mitigation plans. Block grants are consistent accomplish buyouts and other appropriate mitigation for with the Review Committee's call for an expanded state such floods on an on-going basis. role in floodplain management and hazard mitigation. Money currently available for mitigation activities The block grants should be subject to the current cost includes funds from existing programs -- such as the share and to general federal requirements including the FEMA Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, establishment of overall priorities for hazard mitigation the NFIP Section 1362 program, SBA loans to actions. Issues such as compliance with the NEPA, the individuals, and any monies remaining available from Endangered Species Act, Historical Preservation, EO funds allocated to states and communities through 11988 and other Federal mandates require resolution. CDBG and EDA. Recent changes to the Section 404 For the CDBG program, the HUD is authorized to Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to increase available delegate these responsibilities to states and communities, funding will help. but the FEMA is not. Mitigation insurance coverage through the NFIP and cost-shared mitigation grants for states and communities Action 8.6: Provide funds in major for on-going hazard mitigation planning and actions also disasters where supplemental appropriations should be components of such a program. Such are made for buyouts and hazard mitigation, funding measures are included in pending legislation. through FEMA's Section 404 Hazard In addition to this NFIP mitigation fund, the FEMA Mitigation Grant Program. should have authority to allocate a percentage of its annual Disaster Assistance Fund appropriation to states The federal government is providing funds for buyouts for community hazard mitigation plans and actions. and other hazard mitigation activities for the Midwest flood through several agencies and programs. For major disasters that require supplemental Recommendation 8.7: Encourage use of appropriations, a better approach would be to make CDBG, EDA, and other funding to acquire supplemental appropriations to the Section 404 Hazard and relocate or take other mitigation actions Mitigation Grant Program. The FEMA should issue where consistent with program objectives. mission assignments to other agencies with expertise in community development and in providing technical The Midwest Flood of 1993 demonstrates a support to states and communities in developing buyout commonality of objectives between mitigation actions to programs. Providing funds to a single agency would protect neighborhoods and businesses from flooding and invoke a single set of policies and procedures. 122 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON-GOING ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION PROGRAMS A number of communities in the nine states affected by the Midwest flood have undertaken systematic programs to acquire or relocate buildings in their floodplains. Two examples are Beatrice, Nebraska and Austin, Minnesota. Beatrice, Nebraska. Over a multi-year period, the City of Beatrice, Nebraska, obtained annual Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) totaling about $3 million to purchase owner occupied floodplain properties from willing sellers. The city usually purchased these properties when they became vacant which minimized acquisition costs. Between 85 and 90 properties were acquired. More recently the city has acquired an additional 20 to 25 properties using their own funds. The lands acquired have been converted to parks. Austin, Minnesota. After a 1978 flood, the city of Austin, Minnesota, consulted with the USACE over construction of a flood damage reduction project but decided that the best alternative was to clear out the floodplain. At that time the city obtained $1.4 million in CDBG money and acquired 44 homes, 16 of which were relocated. In 1983 the city initiated an NFIP Section 1362 project to acquire flood-damaged buildings covered by flood insurance. The city made offers on 11 homes and eventually acquired 6 of them. Others dropped out because they had spent their insurance/disaster assistance and could not afford to move. The city is currently putting together an application for another relocation project for another 40-50 homes that were damaged by the 1993 flood. the missions of federal housing and development Reducing Risks to Insured Buildings programs intended to provide safe and sanitary Substantially or Repetitively Damaged affordable housing and to create and preserve jobs. For example, many of the neighborhoods most severely NFIP minimum criteria require that substantially impacted by the Midwest flood are low-income improved buildings, including those substantially neighborhoods with substandard housing. Often these damaged, meet most requirements for new construction neighborhoods further deteriorate as a result of floods including the requirement that residential structures be or the threat of floods. Similarly, efforts to create or elevated to or above the elevation of the 100-year flood. preserve jobs are made more difficult in communities The substantial damage requirement is an integral part where business expansion is prevented or results in the of the NFIP strategy to reduce future damages to relocation of these businesses to other communities or existing floodprone development. The substantial regions. Agencies administering these programs should damage requirement has been difficult to enforce continue to be active participants in floodplain because property owners often do not have the funds management and to seek out opportunities for reducing necessary to meet it or to obtain replacement housing. flood losses. 123 MI?*JMIZING THE VULNERABELITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPM[ENT PENDING LEGISLATION ON FLOOD INSURANCE Legislative initiatives are pending in the Congress that would provide for increased financial assistance for mitigating flood damages. The National Flood Insurance Reform Act (S 1405) has passed the Senate as Title VI of S 3474, the Community Development, Credit Enhancement, and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. The bill provides for mitigation insurance that would pay for the additional costs of elevating, floodproofing, demolishing or relocating substantially damaged or repetitively damaged buildings (two damages in 5 years averaging 25 percent of the value of the property) as a standard benefit to the policy holder. A mitigation program funded by $20 million from the National Flood Insurance Fund would be established at a 75/25 match for state and community mitigation projects to reduce damages to other insured buildings. A portion of these funds would be available for state and community mitigation planning. The House of Representatives has passed HR 3191, also called the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994, which provides for a study of mitigation insurance and establishes a mitigation fund of more than $30 million per year for state and community mitigation projects and planning. HR 3191 would provide grants from the Mitigation Fund, through an application process, to be available to individuals for floodproofing, demolishing or relocating substantially damaged or repetitively damaged buildings. These projects and activities would be funded through a surcharge on flood insurance policies. Neither bill addresses mitigation for uninsured buildings. For the Midwest flood and for several other recent management as it resulted in fewer buildings being catastrophic disasters, the FEMA has allowed elevated, demolished, or relocated. Persuasive communities to use replacement cost instead of market arguments can be made for using either market value or value for calculating substantial damage except where replacement cost to define substantial damage. The state regulations are more restrictive. The use of FEMA needs to decide on a definition and be replacement cost usually means that far fewer structures consistent. will be substantially damaged. This change has been a source of controversy in the Midwest. Because the A related issue is that of repetitively damaged agency did not communicate the change to communities structures, i.e., those damaged on two or more early enough, some communities, after making occasions since 1978. These buildings currently determinations based on market value, had to account for 35.9 percent of all NFIP losses and 44.2 recalculate based on replacement cost to placate affected percent of all payments.' Unless these buildings are property owners. Because fewer buildings are substantially damaged by one flood, no regulatory considered substantially damaged using replacement requirements apply and flood insurance continues to be cost, some states and communities believed that the available at highly subsidized rates. Significant change was inconsistent with sound floodplain numbers of these repetitive loss buildings, including 124 MINAHZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT buildings that have had as many as eight losses, can be part of the claims adjustment process. Mitigation found in areas in Missouri and Illinois. insurance has a number of advantages: 0 It supports consistent enforcement of the St. Charles County, Missouri, alone has 1,055 of these substantial damage regulatory requirements; repetitively damaged buildings which have sustained a * It more fully indemnifies policyholders total of 3,625 losses.' Other communities in the from flood-related losses; surrounding counties of Missouri and Illinois also have 0 It is funded by flood insurance premiums large numbers of these buildings in areas with chronic and not by appropriated funds; flooding problems. Because repetitive loss buildings 0 It would reduce over time the subsidy for were substantially damaged by the Midwest flood, these pre-FIRM buildings; and, rigorous implementation of the requirement should 0 The flood insurance claims adjustment reduce the numbers of these buildings. procedure is an efficient way to deliver assistance. Action 8.8: The FEMA should continue to The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993 (S enforce substantial damage requirements, but 1405 which has passed the Senate) authorizes the NFIP decide on a definition of substantial damage to provide mitigation insurance. Similar legislation that has passed the House of Representatives (HR 3191) and stick to that definition. provides for a study of mitigation insurance. The NFIP substantial damage requirement is crucial to Action 8.10: Develop a program to reduce reducing flood damages to structures built prior to the losses to repetitively damaged insured adoption of floodplain management regulations in properties through insurance surcharges, participating communities. The FEMA should decide on a definition of substantial damage/substantial increased deductibles, mitigation insurance, improvement and consistently apply that definition in andlor mitigation actions. disaster and non-disaster situations. This will eliminate confusion and improve the overall level of compliance Repetitive loss buildings account for a disproportionate with NFIP regulations. percentage of NFIP losses and represent a significant liability for the program. The FEMA should develop a comprehensive strategy to address these losses, Action 8.9: The Administration should including flood insurance premium surcharges and support insurance coverage for mitigation increased deductibles. Such a strategy should reflect actions necessary to comply with local more accurately the increased risk to these buildings floodplain management regulations. and provide an incentive for protecting the buildings from flooding. Mitigation insurance should cover the Critical to continued enforcement of the substantial cost of mitigation for the most vulnerable structures. damage requirement is providing NFIP flood insurance Buyouts and other mitigation initiatives should place a coverage for the costs of elevating, floodproofing, or high priority on these buildings. When such structures relocating substantially damaged buildings. Currently are substantially damaged, the FEMA should enforce flood insurance pays only for the repair of physical this requirement rigorously. damage to the building. Mitigation insurance would The flood insurance program should include cost-shared provide coverage that pays the costs of bringing insured funding for on-going pro-active planning and mitigation buildings that are substantially damaged by floods into independent of disasters. This element should include compliance with community floodplain management provision for a mitigation fund financed out of NFIP regulations either by elevating, floodproofing, premiums (such as that provided for in S. 1405 and demolishing, or relocating the building. The coverage H.R. 3191 both entitled the National Flood Insurance would be funded by flood insurance premiums and be 125 MINIMIZING THE VULNERABILITY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Table 8.1 NFIP-insured Buildings with Repetitive Losses, Midwest States, 1978-1993. State Buildings with Repetitive Losses Number of Losses for Such Buildings Missouri 3,268 10,038 Illinois 1,351 3,774 Iowa 287 565 Nebraska 247 608 Minnesota 201 627 Kansas 175 441 North Dakota 142 713 Wisconsin 66 177 South Dakota 16 35 TOTAL 5,723 16,978 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, computer printout, Washington, DC, February 7, 1994. Reform Act of 1994) for state and community buildings. Any assistance to uninsured buildings should mitigation projects and planning. Since the source of be incidental and necessary to the success of the these funds is NFIP premiums, projects financed by the project. mitigation fund should mitigate damages to insured ENDINOTES 1. Some estimate the total at approximately 2,200 levees which would mean approximately 2,000 non-federal levees. 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Acquisition/Relocation Program. Project Approval Summary," (Washington, DC; FEMA, April 25, 1994). 3. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Washington, D.C., computer print-outs, July 21, 1993 and unknown date. 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, Washington, DC, computer print-out, February 7, 1994. 126 Chapter 9 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE Keep in mind, we can't hold harmless everybody from every loss ... there are programs to help businesses, farms, communities, and individuals who are out of work and who have no means of support. President Clinton Interview with Larry King, July 20,1993 Despite efforts on the part of the government and marshal their forces to address emergency response and affected individuals to reduce vulnerability, flood recovery issues. At the federal level, the Review disasters will continue to occur. The eventuality of Committee is calling for a streanflining of disaster- flooding carries with it the necessity to have a coherent related activities to avoid duplication of effort or and coordinated disaster response and recovery strategy working at cross purposes. In addition, the Review and effective insurance programs. The National Flood Committee seeks to encourage those who voluntarily Insurance Program indemnifies individual property choose to live in a floodplain to purchase NFIP owners for their losses without requiring costly disaster coverage so that they can bear, to the degree possible, assistance expenditures. The Federal Crop Insurance the costs associated with the risks. Ultimately, flood Corporation provides partial coverage for crop losses insurance will reduce disaster payments by internalizing caused by natural perils. The challenge to the federal the costs of living in the floodplain and by creating an government is to develop a cooperative framework incentive to move out of harm's way. under which federal, state, and local entities can REORGANIZING DISASTER RECOVERY The key to mitigating damages during recovery, several years, the federal government has assigned other especially after a disaster such as the Flood of 1993, is agencies the leadership responsibility for the recovery in organizing the recovery effort to establish leadership portion of disaster response following larger disasters in at the federal level and to involve fully all appropriate an attempt to provide a more responsive system.' federal, state, and local government agencies. These agencies, however, do not have the collective experience in disaster recovery offered by the FEMA, nor do they have an expansive knowledge of federal Integrating Flood Response and Recovery floodplain management goals or existing recovery and under a Single Federal Agency hazard mitigation programs including multiple hazards. The nation needs a single agency to coordinate federal Congress established the FEMA in 1979 to consolidate flood response and recovery because the two are emergency management programs that previously were integrally linked. A single agency also can develop and scattered among multiple agencies. Over the last maintain a core knowledge of the full suite of federal 127 MITIGATING F1,OOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE programs available to help recovery. By decoupling Most federal agencies participated on hazard mitigation flood response from flood recovery, the nation is losing teams for the Midwest flooding. Although activation of opportunities for hazard mitigation and floodplain a 13-agency team is not necessary for each management. Response activities that occur without Presidentially declared disaster, regional coordination is regard to potential recovery alternatives may foreclose desirable to review and determine each agency's opportunities to lessen future damages. This may leave involvement in such disasters. people and property at risk and potentially increase future disaster support. The federal government must While the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management strike a balance between being responsive and adding to Task Force and the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Task the inherent confusion resulting from any disaster. Force provide for interagency exchange of information, neither has successfully created the interagency dynamic and commonality of purpose needed for floodplain Recommendation 9. 1: Integrate federal management activities.' Separation of the two task flood response and recovery under the forces perpetuates a distinction between hazard FEMA. mitigation and floodplain management when, in fact, the former is a key component of the latter. Neither The Review Committee suggests that the FEMA be the has provided a link between emergency response and federal agency coordinating response and recovery to recovery, hazard mitigation including multiple hazards, help achieve floodplain management goals. and floodplain management at large. While both Development of a federal response and recovery plan provide some information transfer, they do not would incorporate national floodplain management goals coordinate federal funding to focus on priority and reflect state floodplain management responsibilities problems, nor do they provide research oversight, by identifying federal and state agency roles and planning advice, or issue resolution. responsibilities and establishing consistent rules and Between emergencies, federal agencies need to improve priorities, thus streamlining both response and recovery their coordination. In the aftermath of an emergency, by the federal government. the priority issues of that emergency soon fade into an agency's daily activities with little resolution. In 1986, Linking Response and Recovery with the USACE and the SCS signed a Memorandum of Agreement to establish engineering standards for levees Floodplain Management and levee repair responsibilities. But when the 1993 flood occurred, the two agencies had not yet set levee In 1980 the Office of Management and Budget standards and did not fully delineate their separate established a FEMA-led Interagency Hazard Mitigation responsibilities until months into the flood recovery, Task Force through a memorandum of agreement creating additional conftision.1 (MOA) to coordinate federal post-disaster recovery and to identify means to mitigate hazards.' Thirteen federal agencies agreed to participate in the task force and on Recommendation 9.2: Enhance the interagency hazard mitigation teams activated for each linkage among response, recovery, and flood disaster.' The USACE, SCS, and NWS have floodplain management. participated regularly on these teams as have state agencies. The FEMA encouraged states to lead these Coordinating the Interagency Hazard Mitigation Task teams and, in the process, to build expertise Force, the Interagency Floodplain Management Task transferable to disasters not needing federal disaster Force, and other groups involved with emergency assistance. Participation by other federal agencies has been limited (see Table 9. 1) by lack of staff and travel response will help link disaster response into a seamless funds, a perception that the teams are tangential to an set of functions. In the intervals between disasters, the agency's mission, and the lack of high level support. increased support and interest by all federal agencies 128 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE Table 9.1 Interagency Hazard Mitigation Tearns, 1992-1993. Teams and Member Agencies National Disasters 1993 Midwest Flood June 1992-July 1993 Interagency Teams 14 6 Member Agencies by Service on Teams Federal Emergency Management Agency 14 6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DOD) 12 6 Soil Conservation Service (USDA) 11 6 National Weather Service (DOC) 10 6 U.S. Geological Survey (DOI) 5 2 Housing and Urban Development 5 5 Small Business Administration 4 2 Environmental Protection Agency 3 3 Department of Energy 2 0 Forest Service (USDA) 2 1 Economic Development Commission (DOC) 1 2 Department of Transportation 1 3 Public Health Service (HHS) 1 1 Bureau of Reclamation (DOI) 1 NA* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI) 1 3 Bureau of Indian Affairs (DOI) 1 1 National Ocean Service (DOC) 1 NA National Park Service (DOI) 0 1 *NA Not Applicable Source: FEMA, Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team reports for disasters between June 1992 and the 1993 Midwest flood, (Washington, DC: FEMA, 1992-1994). would facilitate all facets of floodplain management, hold an interagency strategic planning meeting to including disaster planning, recovery, and hazard review and determine the necessary or desired mitigation. involvement of each agency. At such a meeting, the FEMA could brief each agency on the situation and figure out its involvement. More efficient interagency Action 9. 1: Hold an interagency strategic coordination, early enlistment of agencies, and clear planning meeting for those Presidentially direction regarding agency involvement should result. declared disasters that require a multi-agency recovery effort. Recommendation 9.3: Continue to seek Coincident with deliberations regarding each proposal federal-state co-leadership of an interagency for a Presidential disaster declaration, the FEMA should hazard mitigation team. 129 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE State co-leadership of hazard mitigation teams formed in response to a Presidentially declared disaster participants increases opportunities for hazard mitigation recognizes the responsibility of the states for floodplain in state or locally declared disasters and should decrease management. In addition the experience gained by state federal expenditures for hazard mitigation in the future. REBUILDING MORE EFFICIENTLY As part of flood response and recovery, the federal characteristics it values such as an agricultural base, the government should offer individuals and communities historic or rural nature of the town, affordable housing, that choose to relocate or rebuild opportunities to energy and/or water efficiency, diversity of species, or integrate energy efficient technologies, such as solar natural resources. Communities would incorporate devices and more efficient lighting, into the design and these into planning and construction. Individuals also construction of new structures. For example, the town would use energy efficient technologies to conserve of Valmeyer, Illinois, received assistance from the limited natural resources with resultant cost savings. Department of Energy to integrate more energy efficient Rebuilding also offers an opportunity for reducing standards into building designs. Relocations, in potential damages from hazards other than floods and particular, offer a unique opportunity to start from for increasing awareness of these hazards. As part of scratch in planning and constructing to assure that response and recovery, a team of federal experts would sustainable development becomes an integral part of the work through state agencies to provide communities and entire community. Each community would choose the individuals technical assistance and information on the use of more innovative technologies. MITIGATING LOSSES THROUGH FLOOD INSURANCE The National Flood Insurance Program was created by owners from flood losses and reducing federal Congress in 1968 in response to mounting flood losses expenditures for disaster assistance, a high percentage and escalating costs to the general taxpayer for disaster of property owners must purchase and maintain flood relief in the belief that flood insurance is preferable to insurance coverage. The program depends on the disaster assistance. To encourage participation in the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement NFIP by communities and purchase of flood insurance contained in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 by individuals, the federal government subsidizes the and voluntary purchase by other property owners at premiums for buildings constructed prior to the issuance risk. The 1973 Act requires the purchase of flood of a FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). This insurance by property owners who receive federal subsidy also recognizes that many floodplain buildings grants or loans or loans from a federally supervised, were built or purchased without knowledge of the flood regulated, or insured lender for the acquisition, risk. New construction (post-FIRM) is charged an construction, or improvement of structures located in actuarial premium that reflects the property's risk of identified special flood hazard areas (the 100-year flooding. Currently 59 percent of NFIP policyholders floodplain). In the 9-state region affected by the 1993 pay a full actuarial rate and 41 percent are subsidized.' flood, only about 20 percent of structures in the floodplain carried flood insurance, a rate well below If the NFIP is to be successful in indemnifying property optimal levels. 130 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE FLOOD INSURANCE VS. DISASTER PAYMENTS The federal government should encourage the purchase of flood insurance because it internalizes the risk of locating investments in the floodplain, and it more adequately indemnifies property owners from flood losses. The Midwest flood confinns the Congressional findings in the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which states: ... the Nation cannot afford the tragic losses of life caused annually by flood occurrences, nor the increasing losses of propeny suffered by flood victims, most of whom are still inadequately compensated despite the provisions of costly disaster relief benefits; and it is in the public interest for persons already living in floodprone areas to have both an opportunity to purchase flood insurance and access to more adequate limits of coverage, so that they will be indemnified for their losses in the event offuture flood disasters. NFIP Market Penetration The NFIP has not achieved the public participation 10 percent up to 20 percent. None of the estimates are needed to reach its objectives. This situation is authoritative, since no nationwide inventory of evidenced by the assistance provided to individuals and floodprone structures exists. The Review Committee businesses during the Midwest flood. Although obtained reliable structure counts for a number of 7 policyholders filed 16,167 flood insurance claims, the Midwest communities. Sources of these data included FEMA approved 89,734 applications for the Disaster inventories conducted by state and federal agencies, Housing Program and 38,423 applications for Individual data from community geographic information systems, and Family Grants. The SBA approved 20,285 loans data submitted by communities participating in the for individuals and businesses! Many of these NFIP Community Rating System, and counts obtained applications or loan approvals were for persons outside by Review Committee members on visits to Midwest of identified flood hazard areas or from renters who do communities. Market penetration in these communities not normally purchase flood insurance. Others, ranges from less than 5 percent to more than 50 including many of those who obtained SBA loans, percent. Based on this information, the Review should have had flood insurance either because it was Committee believes that market penetration in small required or because they were at risk. Some of those rural communities is probably less than 10 percent. For who obtained SBA loans may have had flood insurance, most medium to large communities, market penetration but their coverage may not have been sufficient to cover appears to be in the 20 to 30 percent range. For a few their losses. large communities with middle-income floodplain populations and a high degree of flood hazard Estimates of those covered by flood insurance awareness among community officials, lenders, and nationwide range from 20 to 30 percent of the insurable property owners, market penetration can exceed 30 buildings in identified flood hazard areas. Initial percent and, in one instance, 50 percent. estimates in the Midwest flood area ranged from below 131 MITIGATING F1,001) IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE FLOOD INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE MIDWEST Although the nation lacks the structure inventories necessary for a reliable estimate of NFIP market penetration, the Review Committee obtained inventories for individual communities and groups of communities in the Midwest. These data indicate that market penetration is highly variable, depending on the size of the community, the history of flooding, the economic status of floodplain occupants, and the awareness of flood hazards among community officials, lenders, and individual property owners. State or Community Buildings Policies Market Zone A Zone A Penetration Zone A Austin, Minnesota 316 174 55.1% Lincoln, Nebraska (1-4 family) 2,076 475 22.8% 17 Midwest NFIP CRS 14,876 4,467 30.0% Communities North Dakota (1-4 family) 13,907 3,933 28.3% 23 Minnesota Communities 1,095 157 14.3% Source: Building counts provided by states, communities, the USACE, and the FEMA; NFIP policy data are from the NFIP Community Information System. Increasing Flood Insurance Purchase Lender compliance to the requirement for mandatory However, the current dependence on the mandatory flood insurance has been receiving a considerable purchase requirement to drive high levels of market amount of attention during hearings on pending penetration may be unrealistic. According to the 1989 legislation. The concern is that lenders do not require American Housing Survey, 42.4 percent of owner- purchase of flood insurance at closing, nor do they occupied housing in the nation is owned free and clear ensure that property owners maintain flood insurance of mortgages.' An additional percentage of those that coverage for the life of a loan. Despite differences of are mortgaged were financed by sellers, other opinion over how well lenders comply with the individuals, lenders not covered by the mandatory mandatory purchase requirement, most people agree on purchase requirement, or they were financed prior to the need for improvement and for increased implementation of the requirement. For the nation as a compliance to increase NFIP market penetration. whole, it appears that over half of owner-occupied 132 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE properties are not subject to the mandatory purchase Action 9.2: Increase NFIP market requirement. penetration through improved lender Reasons other than lender noncompliance contribute to compliance with the mandatory purchase low levels of NFIP market penetration in the Midwest requirement. flood area. The most striking characteristic about the floodplain sections of communities visited by the The Review Comn-Attee supports current attempts in Review Committee is that they appear to be pending legislation (S 1405 and HR 3191 both entitled, predominantly low-income areas, whose populations The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994) to have higher than usual percentages of renters, elderly, improve the level of lender compliance. This should public assistance recipients, and property owners include establishment of penalties for lenders who do without mortgages. Housing ownership and sales in not require the purchase or maintenance of flood small rural communities differ from those in urban or insurance coverage. suburban communities. Sales in small rural communities occur less frequently, often as cash sales Action 9.3: Provide for the escrow of or as sales financed through land contracts, loans from flood insurance premiums or payment lenders who are not federally insured or regulated, or plans to help make flood insurance loans from family members. These small communities are precisely the areas where the mandatory purchase affordable. requirement would be applied least often and where voluntary purchase of flood insurance is least likely. The escrow of flood insurance premiums in those instances where the lender escrows property taxes and In the view of the Review Committee, other hazard insurance would ensure that coverage is explanations for low market penetration in the upper maintained over the life of a mortgage. Additionally, Midwest include the false sense of security due to those who may not be able to afford a one-time annual levees, particularly agricultural levees along the main payment of a flood insurance premium would be more stems of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, the likely to purchase and maintain flood insurance reluctance of insurance agents to market flood insurance coverage, if it were possible to spread the cost of the in communities with few potential buyers, and a low premium through the escrow of flood insurance level of awareness of the risk to those on the fringes of premiums. The NFIP should provide payment plans for the floodplain. those who do not have mortgages and voluntarily purchase flood insurance. Recommendation 9.4: States should Action 9.4: Develop improved actively encourage flood insurance purchase marketing techniques. by their citizens. States must play an active role in improving market Although improved lender compliance is critical to penetration for flood insurance by working with achieving increased market penetration, it will not by communities and lenders and by assisting in education itself drive insurance purchase to the levels necessary to efforts. Fiscal assistance to states for floodplain achieve program objectives. The program requires management under a Floodplain Management Act additional measures to increase voluntary purchase of should take into account a state's willingness to flood insurance by those property owners not subject to undertake this effort. the mandatory purchase requirement. 133 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE Counteracting Negative Incentives for Insuring Those Behind Levees Insurance Purchase The Midwest flood brought to the forefront issues A perception persists that disaster assistance regarding the residual risk behind levees, the compensates homeowners as fully as flood insurance catastrophic damages that can occur, and the false sense coverage. This may or may not be true depending on of security that develops among floodplain occupants. the value of the property affected and the income of the Most of the levees that were overtopped or failed were owner. A particular concern expressed by communities agricultural levees not credited as providing 100-year and others after the Midwest flood is that disaster flood protection, but some credited 100-year levees victims, particularly those with lower incomes, who were overtopped or failed, such as a local levee at obtain disaster assistance from the Individual and Chesterfield, Missouri, and a federal levee at Elwood, Family Grant Program, the Disaster Housing Program, Kansas. The mandatory NFIP purchase requirement the Red Cross, and other programs may end up as well and floodplain management regulations do not apply off as those who purchase flood insurance and receive behind credited 100-year levees. New structures were payment for claims. Generous disaster assistance not protected from flood damage, and many buildings creates negative incentives for the purchase of flood were not insured. Flooding threatened other credited insurance. The government and the insurance industry levees that protect urban areas, and they too could have must ensure that the public is fully aware of the overtopped or failed had floodwaters been higher. advantages of flood insurance and the limitations of disaster assistance. They must work to ensure that Currently if a levee meets minimum criteria established disaster benefit payments do not approach or exceed by the FEMA, that levee is credited as providing flood flood insurance benefits. Floodplain occupants must be protection, and the application of floodplain aware that disaster assistance is only available during a management requirements and the purchase of flood Presidentially declared disaster while flood insurance insurance are not mandatory. The FEMA criteria claims are paid any time a general condition of flooding require that the levee be at or above the elevation of the occurs. 100-year flood plus three feet of freeboard and meet certain structural requirements. Levees built by the USACE or other federal agencies are certified by the Action 9.5: Reduce the amount of sponsoring agency. post-disaster support to those who could have The Review Committee is concerned that the minimum bought flood insurance but did not, to that level of protection recognized by NFIP levee criteria level needed to provide for immediate health,, and the level of protection that could result from current safety, and welfare; provide a safety net for USACE procedures for selecting the design level for a low-income flood victims. federally constructed levee are not sufficient, given the residual risk to new and existing buildings behind The FEMA should seek authority to limit the amount of levees. The residual risk to a building constructed disaster assistance to individuals in the 100-year behind a levee designed to provide protection from a floodplain who have not purchased flood insurance and 100-year flood is substantially greater than the risk to a investigate approaches that could be used to provide a building elevated to or above the 100-year flood safety net for those not able to afford flood insurance elevation. This difference in residual risk, produced by premiums. the catastrophic damage that would occur if the levee is overtopped or fails, warrants a reevaluation of current federal policies toward levees and levee construction. Residual risk further warrants designating areas behind levees as flood hazard areas subject to the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. 134 MITIGATING F1,OOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE PAYING CLAIMS BEHIND THE MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD LEVEE The Monarch-Chesterfield Levee at Chesterfield, Missouri, is an example of a levee that induced floodplain development and of the residual risks that result from depending on a levee for flood protection. The Monarch Levee was an agricultural levee with an extensive emergency repair history that was upgraded during the 1980s to meet early NFIP standards. Subsequent to the completion of the levee and its being credited by the NFIP as providing 100- year protection, an industrial area developed behind the levee. In 1993 when it became apparent that the levee might overtop or fail, many property owners were able to purchase flood insurance and later to receive claims payments. Other property owners did not have flood insurance or did not meet the 5-day waiting period for coverage. The Review Committee identified at least 67 flood insurance claims payments behind the Monarch Levee that totaled $13.2 million. This represents nearly 5 percent of the total flood insurance payments for the 9- state region. The flooding of this industrial area had severe impacts to the area not only from insured and uninsured damages but also from the temporary or permanent loss of jobs. SOURCE: FEMA Federal Insurance Administration, claims data for 1993, geocoding by the Floodplain Management Review Committee. Action 9.6: Require actuarial-based A mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement flood insurance behind all levees that behind such levees would provide a number of benefits provide protection less than the standard to the public and to property owners: project flood. 0 Property owners would be insured against The FEMA should designate as AL zones those areas the real possibility that a levee will be behind levees designed to meet current minimum NFIP overtopped or will fail, criteria but which do not provide protection from the 0 Federal expenditures for disaster assistance Standard Project Flood (SPF) discharge. The AL zone would decline, 0 Property owners would be more fully aware would include those areas landward of the levee that are of the residual risk in building or locating below the 100-year flood elevation. The mandatory behind a levee, and flood insurance purchase requirement would apply 0 Communities would have an incentive to within this AL zone, and new buildings would pay seek higher levels of protection. flood insurance premiums based on actuarial rates. The FEMA could establish floodplain management Existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps should be revised requirements for these areas, although elevation or where appropriate to reflect AL zones. The FEMA floodproofing to or above the 100-year flood elevation should obtain a legal opinion on whether this should not be mandatory. This recommendation is designation could be made based on residual risk of similar to one in the 1982 National Academy of catastrophic loss, or if it would require legislation. Science's National Research Council report, A Levee Policy for the National Flood Insurance Program. 135 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE Increasing the Waiting Period for Flood qualified, and claims payments would have been $45 Insurance million less (Figure 9. 1). If the waiting period had been 30 days, 3,390 fewer claims would have qualified, The NFIP requires a 5-day waiting period between the and claims payments would have been $82 million less. time of purchase of a flood insurance policy and when If the waiting period had been 60 days, 4,588 fewer coverage becomes effective. At the closing on the sale claims would have qualified, and claims payments of a property, flood insurance can be purchased would have been $105 million less." withcoverage effective immediately. The intent of the Most of these losses were for properties in downstream waiting period is to ensure that property owners cannot areas behind levees in Illinois and Missouri. Owners of wait and purchase flood insurance only when these properties purchased flood insurance after floodwaters threaten their building. watching upstream levees overtop and fail. In at least The Midwest flood demonstrates that a 5-day waiting one instance, a community undertook a gallant period before flood insurance becomes effective is floodfight not in expectation of protecting a school but insufficient for main stem flooding. In the Midwest rather to keep it from flooding until the 5-day waiting flood, 13,310 losses resulted in claims payments period had expired. The 5-day waiting period creates totaling $297 million. Over a third of these claims an incentive to purchase flood insurance coverage were for losses that occurred within 60 days of the onwatching upstream levees overtop and fail. In at purchase of the initial flood insurance policy for the least one instance, a community undertook a gallant property. If a 15-day waiting period had been in effect floodfight not in expectation of protecting a school but for the Midwest flood, 1,828 fewer claims would have rather to keep it from flooding until the 5-day waiting period had expired. The 5-day waiting period creates an incentive to purchase flood insurance coverage on Figure 9.1 NFIP Payments for 1993 Losses that Occured Within 15 Days of the Purchase of the Policy. NFIP Payments Win 15 Days Claims: 1,828 30000000 Total: $45 Nfillion 25000000 D 20000000 0 15000000 a r S 10000000 5000000 0 MO IA IL KS M No NE SD VA s FMRC NFIP Payments, 1993 <= 15 Days Policy Purchase Date 0 $1,000,000to$13,339,556 (11) tee $100,000to $1,000,000 (26) $10,000 to $100,000 (62) El $322 to $10,000 (38) 0 1. 2. Win 136 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS TBROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE main stems only when flooding is imminent. It is also The 5-day waiting period for flood insurance coverage inequitable for those policyholders who have bought and is too short for main stem riverine flooding and should maintained coverage for a period of years. If the be increased to at least 15 days. At the closing on the practice became widespread, it could threaten the fiscal sale of a property, coverage should continue to become soundness of the National Flood Insurance Fund. One effective immediately. A 15-day waiting period would consequence of this flood is that some policyholders in introduce sufficient uncertainty to ensure that property the lower basin may drop their coverage in expectation owners did not purchase flood insurance only when of having time to purchase coverage based on flood flooding was imminent. Data from the Midwest flood forecasts. alone would warrant a 30-day waiting period. FEMA should balance the benefits of a 30-day waiting period against possible impacts on the marketing of flood Action 9.7: Increase the 5-day waiting insurance in other parts of the nation. period for flood insurance coverage to at least 15 days. IMPROVING THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM Multiple Peril Crop Insurance has been available to March 1994 by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act farmers for more than 50 years. There have been contains several features that promise to improve the substantial changes in the program, however, during the crop insurance program as a risk-sharing mechanism. intervening years. The Federal Crop Insurance Act of It also proposes to repeal standing disaster assistance 1980 (PL 96-365) was the last major overhaul of the authority and require that crop insurance coverage be way insurance is offered to farmers. The purpose of linked to obtaining farm program benefits and FmHA the legislation was to create an insurance program that loans. was almost actuarially sound and had limited government financing and to completely replace ad hoc Data on participation in the current program by disaster payments." In the 1970s the existing policy for floodplain farmers are not available. Discussions with agricultural crop disaster assistance was expensive and floodplain residents indicate that few farmers choose to encouraged production in high-risk areas." However, participate in the crop insurance program because they the results of the 1980 reform were disappointing. The consider the 75 percent maximum coverage too low, program suffered from poor actuarial performance and flooding is relatively rare, and disaster assistance is limited participation, and failed to eliminate federal available that almost equals the insurance indemnity. crop disaster assistance. In fact, disaster payments Drought is the primary natural peril for which farmers exceeded $6.9 billion from 1980 to 1989." The current make claims, and floodplain farmers are less at risk for insurance program subsidizes the transfer of risk from the effects of drought than upland farmers. On farmers to the government rather than being an efficient average, floods represent only 2 percent of the FCIC risk-sharing mechanism." insurance payments." The Administration has proposed to reform the Federal Action 9.8: The Administration should Crop Insurance Program as a result of these long continue to support reform of Federal Crop standing problems and as a direct response to problems Insurance that limits crop disaster assistance experienced by farmers in 1993 who had crop insurance payments, increases participation, and makes and were flooded. The Administration's Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act was submitted to Congress in the program more actuarially sound. 137 MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE The Review Committee supports the current initiatives in other USDA programs and will bring more by the Administration to pass the Federal Crop floodplain farmers into the program. The Act also Insurance Reform Act of 1994. It is proposed that attempts to reduce the demand for ad hoc disaster FCIC modify its process to make crop insurance assistance. actuarially sound. Insurance participation will be increased if coverage is a prerequisite for participation ENDNOTES 1. In 1992 after Hurricane Andrew, President Bush tasked the Secretary of Transportation with recovery and in response to the 1993 flooding disasters, the Secretary of Agriculture was tasked. 2. Director of the Office of Management and Budget; memorandum to heads of agencies on non-structural floodplain measures and flood disaster recovery, July 10, 1980. 3. Memorandum of Agreement on Interagency Hazard Mitigation. Signed by 13 federal agencies, December 16, 1980. 4. The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force was established in 1975 within the US Water Resources Council. In 1982, OMB assigned its responsibilities to FEMA, which assumed the role of chair. See Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force, A Unified Nadonal Agenda for Floodplain Management (draft), FEMA Document 248, (Washington, DC: FEMA, April 1994). 5. Memorandum of Agreement between the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and the U.S. Department of the Army, May 20, 1986. 6. Krimm, Richard W., Associate Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, memorandum, May 9, 1994. 7. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, computer print-out SRR1387C, March 16, 1994. 8. "Status of Individual Assistance Activities for Major Disasters in the Midwest," Federal Emergency Management Agency, (Washington, DC: FEMA, April 14, 1994). 9. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "American Housing Survey Data Chart," (Washington, DC: DOC and HUD, 1989). 10. Developed by the committee from computer data provided by the FEMA Federal Insurance Administration, May 1994. 11. Miranda, Mario J., "Area-yield crop insurance reconsidered," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72:233-242 (May 1991), 12. Miranda, Mario J., and Joseph W. Glauber, "Providing crop disaster assistance through a modified deficiency payment program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72:1233-1243 (November 1991), 13. U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Crop Insurance Can Provide Assistance More Effectively Than Other Programs, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO/RCED-89-211 1, (Washington, DC: GAO, September 1989). 14. Nelson, Carl H., and Edna T. Loehman, "Further toward a theory of agricultural insurance," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69:523-531 (August 1987), 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, " 1994 Guide to Crop Insurance Protection: Risk Management for the 90's," Management Support Branch Report (Washington, DC: USDA, 1994). 138 PART 1111 Part III A FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN 139 Chapter 10 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ... we need a comprehensive strategy to substitute for what has been the piece-by-piece building of our levee system in the Upper Mississippi. The River is a single system. Actions in one place to keep water out mean that pressure elsewhere along the system increases, often with adverse effects on other communities... Richard Gephardt Hous@ Majority Leader October, 1993 Earlier chapters of this report have suggested a new perspective and as they apply to the flood-affected nine- approach for floodplain management, including state area. This chapter, in response to the collaborative planning by all stakeholders, i.e., local, Committee's charge, considers the current state of the tribal, state, and federal governments, businesses, and upper Mississippi River Basin, considers improvements the people who occupy floodplains either through choice to the present situation, and suggests ways to apply the or happenstance. The Review Committee has addressed new approach to those improvements. floodplain management issues from both a national DEALING WITH THE RIVER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE The upper Mississippi River Basin is affected by a oversight responsibility for the range of activities within complex of independently managed federal programs the upper Mississippi River basin, or for ensuring that for navigation and flood damage reduction, water funding and performance among programs are quality improvement, natural resources protection and commensurate with national goals. The Review enhancement, and agricultural production. To Committee found no single hydraulic or hydrologic coordinate and sustain water resources development model, and no system-wide flood reduction strategy or consistent with national floodplain management goals, ecosystem management strategy within the basin. these programs need to be integrated using existing or Linkage exists among system components, but separate modified institutional arrangements among federal, federal agencies deal with component problems state, tribal, and local agencies. The federal sector, independently. With the demise of the river basin however, must first set an example by coordinating planning institution embodied in the Water Resources programs across its agencies. Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80), the coordinated basin-scale approach lost prominence in American water Currently no single entity has federal or federal-state resources planning in favor of more generic and site- 141 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN specific solutions.' This state of affairs exists despite Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation the tenets of the P&G and the NEPA that call for Study, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Floodplain direct, indirect, and cumulative impact analyses and Management Assessment, the Missouri River Mitigation integration of regional federal actions. The situation is Project, the Upper Mississippi River Environmental exemplified by the number of separate activities Management Program, and many USACE studies currently underway in the basin, such as the Missouri directed at improving or building individual levee River Master Manual Review and Update Study, the projects in the basin. REDUCING THE VULNERABILITY OF THOSE IN THE FLOODPLAIN Three situations made evident by the 1993 flood point that in the lower basin. From the mouth of the Ohio to the need for reducing the vulnerability of those in the River downstream almost to the Gulf of Mexico, the floodplain of the upper Mississippi River Basin. First nation has an integrated system of federally planned, is the hazard of being in the floodplain. The 1993 designed, constructed, and maintained facilities. The flood was a major natural event but floods of even system includes main stem and tributary levees, greater magnitude or of larger areal extent could occur floodway bypasses, interior drainage pumping stations at any time. USGS staff reported to the Review and flood storage dams. In the upper Mississippi River Committee that only 30 percent of the streamgaging Basin, most flood damage reduction facilities were not stations in the flood-affected area recorded discharges constructed in accordance with any system plan but having greater than a 10-year recurrence interval and were developed on a project-by-project basis by a host less than one in ten recorded flowrates greater than that of individuals, drainage and levee districts, and the of the 100-year flood. Another factor to consider is the federal government. presence of the New Madrid Fault, which has potential to create seismic damage to structures over an area Major tributary and main stem flood storage reservoirs encompassing many of the 1993 flood-affected states. in the Missouri River Basin were developed by the This points to the need for multi-hazard planning in USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation as part of the known hazard zones. Second, the federal government Pick-Sloan Plan (Chapter 2). However, the systematic is being asked to restore much of the pre-flood approach for building main stem levees offered by the structural system on an individual project basis without Pick-Sloan Plan was never fully implemented. Many knowledge of system-wide benefits or costs. levees were constructed by local owners without Structures, lives, and livelihoods will remain vulnerable consideration of the Plan's provision to set levees to damage even with complete restoration of levees and sufficiently back from the riverbank to retain the despite buyouts and relocations, . Third, the flood- floodplain's capacity to convey floods. The result is a related, landscape-shaping processes witnessed in the collection of federal and non-federal facilities of greatly 1993 flood will recur, and these processes will help varying structural integrity, providing widely varying define compatible uses of the floodplain. Some areas levels of protection for similar land uses, and placed, in will remain more inherently risky to occupy or develop some cases, upon the floodplain without full regard to than other areas. their impacts on the river upstream, across or downstream. Some levees were sited without adequate consideration of physiographic features, the forces the Current Approaches To Flood Damage river itself imposes upon them during flood, or their Reduction riparian environment. For most of the past 60 years, construction of structural measures was the primary Development of flood damage reduction strategies in the method chosen for flood damage reduction. Under the upper Mississippi River Basin contrasts sharply with new approach, nonstructural measures, consideration of 142 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN basin-wide hydrologic and river hydraulic processes, levees were built without any substantive understanding and ecosystem ftinctions would weigh heavily in project about impacts on river hydraulics and the riparian planning and design. Structural flood damage reduction environment. Many of the federal levees were built projects have been built throughout the upper prior to the availability of river hydraulic models and Mississippi River Basin. These projects should be geologic maps that could provide such needed reviewed and in-depth consideration given to information. In some cases flows have increased for modifications that will achieve floodplain management the same meteorological conditions because of upstream goals. development. Determination of the level of protection provided by a levee is an important piece of information frequently difficult to obtain. Levees By some counts, over 8,000 miles of levees of various Natural Resources description exist in the upper Mississippi River Basin (Chapter 2). They represent a mix of age, ownership, From the ecosystem perspective, current flood-reduction size, purpose, and quality. Most levees, other than strategies have direct effects on the floodplain resources those connected with the navigation system, have their and functions at locations where they were origins in efforts by communities, individuals, and implemented, and indirect effects elsewhere in the groups to protect their land from flooding. They date system (Chapter 2). The lower Mississippi River back, in many cases, to early settlement. Since passage currently is receiving hydrologic restoration through of the 1936 Flood Control Act, many levees have been installation of water control structures in selected upgraded or replaced by federal construction and are interior areas. The upper Mississippi River is receiving maintained by local owners or sponsors. Others, built ecosystem restoration attention through the and maintained by local owners, are eligible for post- Environmental Management Program. The Missouri flood emergency repair under the USACE PL 84-99 River, however, remains one of the most highly program. Eligibility for inclusion in the USACE impacted and least attended floodplain ecosystems. The program requires that a levee be a primary one that watersheds of these floodplains receive varied attention provides an adequate level of protection, that it be through federal programs. sponsored by a public entity, that the sponsor maintain the levee to a standard established by USACE, and that The assemblage of levees described in the preceding the cost of any levee repair be shared: 20 percent by section may be considered a metaphor for natural the local sponsor and 80 percent by federal government. resource management on these rivers. System-wide, Local sponsors also provide all lands, easements, and coordinated, and integrated management of the rights-of-way needed for repairs. Levees not in the Mississippi River ecosystem is not currently a defined USACE program tend to be smaller, single-owner objective of any agency, nor is such an approach a part structures or those publicly sponsored levees whose of agency operational plans at the regional or local sponsors did not desire to maintain them to USACE levels.' The Review Committee has found this to be standards. the case with the Missouri River as well. Although several federal agencies have complementary goals and These levees, constructed by different agencies and the NEPA establishes a common environmental goal for individuals at various times and under various all federal agencies, no single agency serves as the programs, have very few common characteristics. necessary focal point for ecosystem protection needs in Their physical composition varies by reach of the river. ongoing water management decisions.' Separate Some are on the riverbank while others are setback government programs address land use, nonpoint source appropriately to permit flood flow conveyance. Many pollution, major point sources of pollution, wetlands, of those built in areas subject to swift currents during and a host of other environmental concerns. Failure to floods or over formerly active river channels are integrate such programs makes it difficult for land and destined to fail again and again. Most non-federal water managers to achieve their goals.' 143 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN * A strategic level that will result in System Integration development of comprehensive plans for water and related land resource development. This strategy is It is now recognized that the combination of existing embodied in the authorities of the basin commissions levees requires a systematic hydrologic and hydraulic established under Title II of PL 89-80; analysis to determine flood-damage reduction efficiency. 0 An operational level such as that of the Federal agencies must become partners in conducting a Mississippi River Commission, but with an expanded systemic analysis of basin hydrology, hydraulics, and focus to include stewardship of the ecosystem that overall ecosystem condition. Future decisions regarding supports current and desired levels of development. federal, state, and local investments will require assessment of the following: At the strategic level, utilization of a regional institutional framework for comprehensive planning was Impacts that levees may create as physical exemplified by the Upper Mississippi River Basin factors having hydraulic and ecological consequence, Commission (UMRBC). The UMRBC prepared a 0 Effects of river regulation as a hydraulic Comprehensive Master Plan for the Management of the and hydrologic factor having ecological and flood upper Mississippi River system in response to Section consequences, 101 of the Inland Waterways Authorization Act of 1978 9 Effects of watershed condition as a (PL 95-502). Termination of the UMRBC and five hydrologic factor having ecologic and flood other basin commissions by EO 12319 in 1981 consequences, and complicated implementation of the master plan, which 0 Impacts of physical and hydrologic represented a successfully integrated federal-state-local characteristics on economic productivity and of planning effort with substantial public input. PL 99-88 government policies as incentives or disincentives on and PL 99-662 ultimately authorized implementation of decisions to develop the floodplain. portions of the master plan, one element of which is the Environmental Management Program. This requires Detailed analysis of system hydrology and hydraulics federal and state agency input to the USACE through will result in the means to evaluate levees for a variety the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association of factors, such as current protection level, flood (UMRBA). The UMRBA evolved from the basin insurance rate mapping, habitat restoration, flood commission framework and continues through state storage and/or conveyance, and design modification to commitment to the collaborative planning process. The achieve any combination of objectives. At the same UMRBA is basically a policy research and coordination time, an ecological inventory and analysis of species- forum for the upper Mississippi River basin states. habitat relationships will provide a sound basis for Because the UMRBA is a state initiative, the federal cooperative decisions regarding river regulation, land government has no voice in planning activities. acquisition, watershed planning, flood damage reduction, and mitigation activities. The assessment of economic productivity and effects of goverment Action 10. 1: Establish upper Mississippi policies will determine tradeoffs inherent in watershed and Missouri basin commissions with a planning choices. Many operational and administrative charge to coordinate development and efficiencies should be realized subsequent to completion maintenance of comprehensive water of system-wide analyses. resources management plans to include, among other purposes, ecosystem Administrative Integration management, flood damage reduction, and navigation. To organize ongoing activities, the Review Committee sees the need for two levels of activity: Reestablishment of the basin commissions will help decisionmakers reach fully coordinated floodplain 144 A NEW APPROACH FOR T`IIE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN management decisions within the larger context of Action 10.2: The Administration should basin-level water resources planning and goals. expand the mission of the Mississippi River Through minimal staffing with qualified leadership, the Commission to include the upper Mississippi basin commission format, authority, and funding and Missouri rivers. Further, to recognize mechanisms provided by Pl, 89-80 will stimulate non- federal attention to timely completion, update, and ecosystem management as a co-equal federal implementation of multiple-use plans (Figure 10. 1). interest with flood damage reduction and The Review Committee considers basin commissions to navigation', the Administration should request be a necessary link between federal and state agencies legislative change to expand commission and a coordination forum for implementing national membership to include the DOI. policy. The basin commission structure is described in detail in Appendix I. The Review Committee heard from a number of groups At the operational level, an institutional framework is who expressed a desire for establishment of a currently in place to effect operational modifications of coordinating body. Conversely many groups have flood damage reduction and navigation facilities expressed concern over this recommendation. Both pro throughout the basin. The foundation of this framework and con positions are based on perceptions of the MRC is the technical capability on water resources found and past actions under MRC oversight, primarily the within the USACE. Beyond this technical capability, MR&T project. To many the MRC has been Congress provided for detailed project planning and synonymous with big levees, uniform main stem river implementation oversight on the Mississippi River by protection, and loss of habitat. The MR&T project establishing the Mississippi River Commission (MRQ began its 70-year development with a structural focus in 1879. The MRC Act authorized the Commission to on navigation and a uniform level of flood protection on extend its activities "between the Head of Passes near the main stem Mississippi River. In furtherance of its mouth to its (Mississippi River) headwaters." Until national goals, the MR&T project supported the late 1920s the MRC was based in Saint Louis, development of agriculture. Environmental resources Missouri, and was active in mapping the entire river. and natural floodplain functions were foregone. Over In 1928 the current Mississippi River and Tributaries the last 20 years, in response to a shift in national goals (MR&T) project was authorized for the lower toward environmental quality, the MRC has been Mississippi River basin as a result of the devastating adjusting the MR&T project to provide habitat 1927 flood. Since then the MRC, which relocated to restoration and environmental enhancement. Vicksburg, Mississippi, has focused on the MR&T The expanded commission will provide for detailed project, though it did continue to build levees in the planning and execution oversight of water resources upper Mississippi River basin as far north as Rock development projects, and it will assure appropriate Island, Illinois, until the early 1950s. For more than 60 fiscal attention to programs necessary for achievement years the MRC has focused attention on the MR&T of national floodplain management goals. The USACE project, but its authority still extends to the Mississippi Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Interior will River headwaters. The MRC reports program receive annual commission reports on the performance performance directly to the USACE Chief of Engineers of navigation, flood damage reduction, and ecosystem and the White House. No similar framework or management projects. Because of the direct relationship technical foundation is in place within one agency or between basin hydrology, river hydraulics, and between agencies responsible for natural resource floodplain ecosystem function, expanded membership of protection or management within the upper Mississippi the commission will ensure coordination between River basin. Of major importance, no direct connection multiple-use interests. The principal utility of the MRC exists between natural resource management and management of the river and floodplain for other uses. 145 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Figure 10.1 Proposed Institutional Framework. STRUCTURE ACTIONS WHITE HOUSE FEDERAL AGENCIES WATER RESOURCES FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES COORDINATION SUPPORT OF COORDINATED BASIN DOI FEMA USDA EPA AR14Y LEVEL PROJECTS & PLANNING BASIN COMMISSIONS FOCAL POINT FOR BASIN LEVEL FEDERAL / STATE / TRIBAL WATER RESOURCES MEMBE COORDINATION AND GOAL SETTING DETAILED PLANNING AND SIF 'A USACE MISSISSIPPI STATES EXECUTION OVERSIGHT OF RIVER COMMISSION WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT F --VISOR GROUP ATTEND MEETINGS, PROVIDE ADVICE TO MRC FWS SCS / FS CORPS DISTRICTS STATES EXECUTION LOCAL organizational control VE Coordination model is accountability. It is anticipated that multiple the interrelationship of missions and responsibilities program integration and performance will be assured by involving water resources, transportation, and assigning responsibility to a single entity which answers emergency preparedness, the MRC advisor group directly to the public and the Administration. DOI membership must also include the DOT, FEMA, membership is provided to ensure that its programs for USDA, and EPA. Current and expanded river ecosystem stewardship are fully integrated with other commission function and structure are suggested in activities under MRC oversight. Because of Appendix I. COORDINATION OF LEVEE ACTIVITY At the same time that the Administration is considering and state oversight over non-federally constructed levees long-term floodplain management objectives, the federal is diffuse. Several states regulate construction in government has appropriated funds for the repair of floodplains, but many do not. The situation is further many levees damaged by the 1993 flood. The actions . RE exacerbated by the potential for future flow increases @w T proposed subsequently in this chapter and elsewhere in that could occur if development continues upstream and the report are not directed at stopping ongoing by the uncertainty about changes that may occur in long authorized activities but are presented to provide term weather patterns. Without a systematic approach, necessary integration among federal programs. Federal a variety of levee problems will continue. 146 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Action 10.3: Assign responsibility for the upper Mississippi River Basin by the spring of development of an Upper Mississippi River 1995.' This ongoing activity could, with congressional and Dibutaries (UMR&T) system plan and approval, be redirected in scope to take advantage of for a major maintenance and major information gathered during the post-flood recovery and rehabilitation Program for federally-related reconstruction process. levees to an expanded Mississippi River Commission, operating under the USACE. Action 10.4: Seek approvalfrom the Congress to redirect the USACE Hoodplain The objective of developing the UMR&T system plan is Management Assessment of the upper to determine how best to integrate existing facilities in Mississippi River Basin to development of an the upper Mississippi River Basin into an efficiently UMR&T systems plan. Place this assessment functioning flood damage reduction system that is compatible with floodplain ecosystem function. A under the Mississippi River Commission, component of the plan would incorporate all eligible operating under the USACE. levees in the upper Mississippi River basin into a program to ensure their long-term functional integrity The refocused study would assess the condition of for flood damage reduction and to improve ecosystem presently existing levees and would develop a general function. The functional integrity objective would be plan for basin flood damage reduction, including accomplished through a federal -state-local cost-shared structural and nonstructural measures. Development of program of systematic major maintenance and major a flood damage reduction strategy should be rehabilitation. Routine maintenance and repair would collaborative and conducted using the revised P&G and continue to be a state-local responsibility. The the NEPA process to ensure full participation of ecosystem function restoration objective would be met affected and interested parties in floodplain by such measures as installation of water control management. The systemic approach will necessarily structures in the levees to allow connection of the river involve consideration of the upper Mississippi River with floodplain wetlands and former channels during Basin and the basin of its principal tributary, the non-flood periods. These facilities would also be used Missouri River, as individual and aggregate watersheds to control flooding of areas behind levees when with both unique and common human uses and overtopping is imminent to avoid a levee breach and the ecosystem functions. Representatives of the USDA, consequence of catastrophic flooding. Involvement in FEMA, DOI, and EPA should participate on the study the program by levee sponsors would be voluntary. team because of their agency missions in watershed management, floodplain regulation, natural resources Development of such a plan will require a survey to stewardship, and water quality protection. evaluate and identify all levees on the main stems of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers, for program Action 10.5: Following completion of the eligibility and/or design criteria. The survey will survey, seek authorization from the Congress include tie-back or flank levees on tributaries and those to establish the UMR&Tproject. tributary levees currently in the USACE PL 84-99 program. During this survey, information can be Authorization of the UMR&T project is needed to gathered to form a foundation for systematic analysis of assign responsibility to the USACE to develop and each levee under the objectives of systemic floodplain execute the federal program of major maintenance and management and flood damage reduction. major rehabilitation (MM&MR) of those levees found The USACE is currently engaged in completing repairs to be eligible for inclusion. The UMR&T project to hundreds of levees under its PL 84-99 program. In would be identified as a separate line item in the addition the Congress has charged the USACE with USACE budget and would be funded by annual completion of a Floodplain Management Assessment of appropriation.' Under the MM&MR program, the 147 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN USACE would be responsible for major maintenance sponsored, does not cause adverse river hydraulic and major rehabilitation of levees that are determined conditions elsewhere, and provides an appropriate level by the USACE to be eligible for the federal program. of protection. A levee that subsequently becomes Major maintenance includes such activities as levee eligible for the PL 84-99 program would require surveys and setbacks; repair of levee slides, culverts, congressional authorization to become eligible for and floodwalls; slope paving; and major erosion inclusion in the UMR&T project. Levee sponsors and protection. The FY 94 MRC budget for repair of 1,600 owners who choose not to participate in the PL 84-99 miles of main stem levees in the MR&T project is $4.9 program and those ineligible for participation will not million. Although by comparison the total length of receive federal assistance for repair of damaged levees. levees in the UMR&T project would be greater, they This may not preclude assistance under the USDA are smaller in size and the river depths and velocities Emergency Watershed Program. are lower. Thus the annual cost of major maintenance for the proposed UMR&T project is expected to be the As discussed elsewhere in this report, not all states in same order of magnitude as for the MR&T project. the upper Mississippi River Basin have a permit The cost of major rehabilitation is one of either pay program whereby either proposed or existing levees are now or pay later; money not spent in a systematic way reviewed for compliance with state-established standards to rehabilitate aging levee drainage pumping facilities, for design, construction, maintenance, and repair. Few culverts, gate structures and like facilities will be spent if any control either the decision about where levees are making emergency repairs during and after floods. The placed relative to the river channel or whether a federal cost of repairing levees in the upper Mississippi particular levee should be protected from overtopping River Basin that were damaged during the 1993 flood is (floodfought) during a flood, although such actions can expected to amount to $300 million. have hydraulic and environmental consequence elsewhere. The Review Committee found that some To be eligible for inclusion in the MM&MR program, states have little or no involvement in the processes levees would have to be of such construction as to meet associated with federal levee programs since federal the USACE engineering standards for structural agencies generally deal directly with levee districts. integrity and for proper siting, and they would have to Given these circumstances and the number of levees be in good standing in the current USACE PL 84-99 damaged in the flood of 1993, it is clear that there is program (or be working toward that end under the 1993 need for greater involvement of the states in the design, flood-recovery effort). Local levee sponsors would construction, maintenance, and repair of levees. include the states as co-sponsors, and would have to be part of a community enrolled in the NFIP, agree to obtain structure and crop insurance (in the amended Recommendation 10. 1: Where they do not program), limit floodfighting, and participate in already do so, states should assume environmental enhancement activities. For details of responsibility for regulating levee-related the MM&MR program, see Appendix H. activities such as levee location, alignment, design, construction, upgrade, maintenance, Role of the States repair, andfloodfighting. Levees not currently eligible for emergency repair This is not a call for levee construction but for state under the PL 84-99 program, and thus not eligible for oversight of levees to assure their structural integrity the UMR&T project, should be regulated by the states and that actions in one location along the river do not when changes are made for either repair, rehabilitation, create adverse impacts elsewhere. realignment, or improvement. Future inclusion of a levee in the PL 84-99 program would require, in Using current technology the states have the capability addition to meeting current USACE eligibility criteria, to assure that existing levees are properly located and acknowledgment by the state that the levee is publicly aligned to avoid or minimize hydraulic impacts and to 148 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN avoid high energy, damage-prone locations on rivers. of protection afforded is commensurate with land use, Using a levee permit program, states could also assure that maintenance and repair are performed to assure that the embankment and foundation conditions meet structural integrity, and that floodfighting is limited to engineering and environmental standards, that the level areas deemed critical by the state. ECOSYSTEM NEEDS Although federal and state agencies recently have Action 10. 6: DOI should complete an articulated general policies regarding pursuit of ecological needs investigation of the upper ecosystem management, they need a coordinated, multi- Mississippi River Basin and provide a report agency, ecosystem-based plan upon which to base water to the Administration within 30 months. resource and floodplain management decisions. Pursuit of watershed planning requires a single hydrologic/ hydraulic model. It also requires development of a natural resource baseline against which agencies can The ecological needs investigation would be develop and implement appropriate maintenance or collaborative between government agencies and private restoration plans within their areas of jurisdiction or groups. It would incorporate information from the expertise. NBS, under the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program, the USACE, the USDA National Resource Ecosystem planning strives to protect or restore the Inventory, and the Review Committee's Scientific function, structure, and species composition of an Assessment and Strategy Team. An interim report will ecosystem, recognizing that all components are be necessary to assist activities described subsequently interrelated. The Review Committee recognizes that for Action 10.9. This interim report should be agriculture is the dominant land use in the upper completed prior to August, 1995. The final report Mississippi River Basin. Ecosystem planning, would provide the necessary focal point from which therefore, will necessarily include agriculture and government agencies could develop coordinated forestry as vital contributing elements to ecosystem management strategies that reflect true resource needs, function and values. The FWS recognizes that the measure response to those strategies, and refine further initial step to ecosystem planning is the identification of research needs. natural resource needs.' Information on the distribution, abundance, and ecological relationships of Ecosystem components have value for national trust species and a comprehensive inventory and resources such as migratory birds, wetlands, and classification of ecosystems are fundamental nationwide interjurisdictional fisheries. It is anticipated that the needs.' Such information is largely incomplete for the investigation will identify missing components and upper Mississippi River Basin', and the Review contribute to understanding the mechanisms that move Committee found that funding and support for the effort organisms toward endangered species candidacy. It have been lacking. Ecosystem information is critical also will assist avoidance of development conflicts for setting resource objectives, examining alternatives resulting ftom endangered species listing. within multiple-use planning, and implementing solutions. Additional uses of this information include Action 10.7: Provide an early report in the scientifically sound input to ongoing flood damage USACE Upper Mississippi River - Illinois reduction, navigation, private lands, water quality, and Waterway Navigation Study of environmental watershed programs of other agencies. enhancement opportunities in the upper Mississippi River. 149 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION AND RECREATIONAL USE OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER The upper Mississippi River 9-foot depth navigation project provides a wide range of recreational uses (from hunting, fishing, boating, and swimming, to sightseeing). Such recreational use supported over $1.2 billion in national economic benefits in 1990(1990 price levels) and over 18, 000 jobs. Boating Q 3.2 %), fishing (28.8 %), and sightseeing (15.8 %) were the most popular activities. Visits included 62.7 % to developed areas, 26.3 % to marina slips, 7. 0 % to sightseeing areas, and 4.0% to permitted docks. Management of the project for commercial navigation produces some impacts on the river's natural and recreational resources, including conflicts between recreational and commercial use of the locks. Using information generated during the DOI ecological Action 10.8: Provide a report on the needs investigation, the USACE should develop a report ecological effects of relocating navigation detailing the relationship of its ongoing operation and pool control points under the USACE maintenance activities as well as those of new Navigation Study. navigation construction alternatives to ecological needs identified by the DOI. Because the Review Committee A complete evaluation of navigation dam operations recognizes the value of identifying and acting on environmental enhancement opportunities as soon as should be conducted under the ongoing USACE possible, it is imperative that the USACE establish this Navigation Study to determine if moving navigation report as a milestone in the overall schedule for the pool control points from mid-pool to the dam is feasible Navigation Study. The milestone will be based on the and would produce significant benefits. Currently a DOI investigation. The Review Committee recognizes similar interagency investigation is underway for Lock that the DOI investigation will be collaborative with the and Dam 25 on the upper Mississippi River. The USACE and that establishment of the milestone will not Review Committee endorses this effort and would affect the overall schedule for the Navigation Study. support expansion of the investigation, as necessary, to other facilities. If feasible from the standpoints of A potential opportunity to enhance upper Mississippi navigation and the acquisition of needed lands, and if River resources exists through alteration of dam- benefits are significant, modification of water control regulation operations (at-dam vs. mid-pool hinge control plans should be implemented. points) on some headwater pools at the USACE The Environmental Management Program (EMP) on the navigation dams." With little or no impact to upper Mississippi River includes a major habitat navigation, habitat benefits may be gained by alternately rehabilitation component. Land acquisition, however, drying and inundating areas adjacent to the main has not been utilized in alternative development, as a channel between a navigation pool midpoint and the dam. 150 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN point of Administration policy.- This has hampered Action 10.9: The Administration habitat rehabilitation efforts along the Illinois and Interagency Ecosystem Management Task middle Mississippi rivers, where few federal lands Force should select an Ecosystem occur, even though these are the reaches in most need of rehabilitation. Management Demonstration Project within the upper Mississippi River Basin, and Recommendation 10.2: The USACE establish a cross-agency ecosystem should consider land acquisition as an management team under DOI to develop alternative during planning and design of plans and budgets for the project. habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects under the Upper Mississippi River Cross-agency partnerships have already been forged on Environmental Management Program. the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers through a variety of coordination mechanisms. Given the existence of these coordination groups, attainment of the This change would improve the effectiveness of the NPR goal of August 1995 for completion of initial program, and could help to meet both environmental ecosystem management plans is possible. Expanding and flood flow attenuation needs. The Review existing partnerships to develop measurable objectives Committee supports the efforts of state and federal for protection of existing resources and restoration of EMP partner agencies in their pursuit of additional missing system components will require selection of one appropriations to support EMP land acquisition. federal agency to serve in a lead capacity. While agency priority and budget adjustments will be The upper Mississippi River Basin should be used as a necessary, this action is seen largely as a focused demonstration ecosystem study area under the current coordination effort and is not intended to represent a National Performance Review's (NPR) "Reinventing significant impact to the federal budget. Over time this Environmental Management" action item (Env 02 coordination should result in elimination of duplicative Develop Cross-Agency Ecosystem Planning and efforts and their costs. DOI representation on the MRC Management)." The study should be undertaken by the will assure integration of the Demonstration Project FWS to take advantage of other ongoing initiatives in with other MRC activities. the Missouri and Mississippi river basins, as well as the information obtained through Action 10.6. ENDNOTES 1. Executive Order 12319 -- River Basin Commissions, September 9, 1981, 46 FR 45591, 3 CFR, 1981. p. 175: and, PL 89-80, 22 July 1965, (1965 Water Resources Planning Act - 79 Stat. 244,42 USC 1962); Platt, Rutherford H., "Geographers and Water Resource Policy" in Water Resources Administration in the UnitedStates: Policy, Practice andEmerging Issues. (East Lansing, MI: American Water Resources Association/Michigan State University Press, 1993). 2. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Facing The Threat. An Ecosystem Management Strategy for the Upper Mississippi River, (Rock Island, IL: UMRCC, 1993). 3. Section 101 (a) of the NEPA of 1969, as amended. (PL 91-190, 42 USC 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by PL 94-52, July 3, 1975 and PL 94-83, August 9, 1975); Long's Peak Working Group on National Water Policy, America's Waters: A New Era of Sustainability, (Boulder, CO: Natural Resources Law Center, December 1992). 4. Council on Environmental Quality, " Linking ecosystems and biodiversity, " in Environmental Quality- Twenty-first Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, (Washington, DC: CEQ, 1990). 6. 1994 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, U.S. Congress, HR 2445 and House Resolution (Docket 2423, November 3,1993). 151 A NEW APPROACH FOR THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN 6. Some federal government reviewers of the draft report expressed concern for increasing USACE responsibility without providing commensurate budget increases. 7. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, "An Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife Conservation," (Washington, DC: FWS, 1994). 8. Ibid. 9. Facing the Threat. 10. Sparks,R.E., "Can We Change the Future by Predicting It?" Acquadc Ecology Technical Report 93119, (Havana, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey, 1993). 11. National Performance Review. Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, Reinventing Environmental Management, Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, September 1993). 152 PART IV Part IV INTO THE 21st CENTURY 153 @ Al' ail AN& "A I 154 Chapter 11 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO GATHER AND DISSEMINATE CRITICAL WATER RESOURCES INFORMATION Policy decisions are being made in a data vacuum. Yet we are now in an era when the ability to collect and usefield data has been greatly augmented by satellite and computer based technologies. There is an immediate need to provide a comprehensive inventory of damaged buildings, damaged infrastructure, impacted lands, and natural areas for conservation and restoration. Association of State Floodplain Managers Testimony before Congress, October 27, 1993 Science and technology can be utilized to improve the gathering and dissemination of information critical to Recommendations to improve basic knowledge and water resources management. Floodplain managers provide technical services required for floodplain need easy access to information about natural and management were made in 1966 in House Document manmade physical features, cultural resources, living 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood resources, climatology and hydrology of the basins in Losses.' At that time, some of the recommendations which they operate. In some flood-related areas, were unrealistic. In 1994, however, advances in however, the social and physical sciences have science and technology now make many of them knowledge gaps that require research. possible. A COMMON DATABASE Vice President Gore's National Performance Review for different purposes. Moreover different entities are (NPR) contains recommendations regarding the use of often unaware that much needed data have already been information technology to create a government that acquired by another party. Even when specific spatial works better and costs less. The NPR advocates data are known to exist, non-standardized collection creation of a national spatial data infrastructure that procedures and lack of easy access often restrict their would establish standards for data collection and use. "2 cataloging and create a clearinghouse for finding, accessing, and sharing spatial data, in addition to The most difficult task for the Review Committee was addressing related issues. compiling useful data regarding the upper Mississippi River Basin. Basic information such as the amount of As indicated in the NPR report, "Data collection is damages ftom the 1993 floods and the amount of duplicated at the federal, state, local, and private levels expenditures related to disaster response and recovery 155 USING SC11ENCE AND TECHNOLOGY were not readily available, nor easily obtainable. Data assembled from a variety of sources were difficult to an interest in the upper Mississippi River Basin and to use because they were neither spatially referenced nor develop this database as a prototype for other future were they in compatible formats or structures. Precise regional efforts. The USGS would be an appropriate answers to many questions were difficult, if not lead agency to achieve this. impossible, to obtain. For example: How many structures are in 100-year floodplains along the Action 11. 1: The USGS should establish a Mississippi and Missouri rivers? How many structures federal clearinghouse for data gathered were affected by the flood? Where were levees located during preparation of the Review Committee and what level of protection did they provide? How report. many people applied for assistance in a given county or community? Where is critical infrastructure located To manage floodplains, mitigate flood damages, and with respect to the floodplains? What is the expected respond to and recover from a disaster, analysts and flood crest, given a certain flow in the river? During a decisionmakers require easy access to basic data to floodfight, the availability of such information is key to audit disaster expenditures, identify loss concentrations, decisionmaking. Other data, such as the boundaries of and formulate new preparedness and mitigation the 100-year floodplain, were not in digital format and strategies. The USGS in coordination with the Federal had to be digitized. Neither the public nor the Geographic Data Committee, should take the lead in nonprofit sectors uniformly apply Federal Information establishing a federal clearinghouse consistent with that Processing Standards (FIPS) in collecting pre-disaster, outlined in the NPR for accessing and updating data response, or recovery data. acquired and developed for the flood-affected 9-state The SAST gathered information and geographically region in the Midwest. The SAST effort demonstrates referenced data regarding the physical and the benefits of leveraging science and technology. The environmental characteristics of the basin. The team nation should share its findings with states, collected several hundred gigabytes of information with communities, and all interests in the upper Mississippi the help of states, local communities, and federal River Basin. Consideration should be given to the agencies. The nation needs to continue maintaining and establishment of a multiagency committee to assist sharing the results of this effort with all entities having present and future users of the data. BUILDING ON THE DATABASE Advances in science and technology enable structures existed. Nationwide there is no authoritative improvements to be made in data acquisition, estimate of the number of structures exposed to floods hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, flood forecasting, and other natural hazards. As a result floodplain and and mapping. emergency management decisions are often made based on inadequate information. This results in inappropriate allocation of resources. National Inventory of Structures The Review Committee was unable to obtain definitive Action 11.2 FEAM should investigate the numbers on how many structures were impacted in the costs and feasibility of completing a national Midwest Flood of 1993. Estimates ranged from 55,000 inventory of floodprone structures. to 100,000 structures. It was also difficult to estimate the level of NFIP market penetration without time and A national inventory of floodprone structures should be labor-intensive studies. These are two tasks that could performed by FEMA through the states and tribes to easily be accomplished if a national inventory of determine the number, location, building type, and 156 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY functional uses of structures in floodplains. Technology could be used for coordinated ecosystem modeling, and certainly makes such an inventory feasible. These data for floodplain management decisions. Further, and the risk analysis that would become possible for the advanced hydrologic and hydraulic models can be first time could allow the nation to focus mitigation and combined with meteorologic observations and forecasts pre-disaster planning at specific areas of high risk. At to provide information to enable better floodplain and the same time, funding for these activities could be water resources management. targeted and adjusted in relation to the degree of exposure to the relative risk. In the event of a disaster, Action 11.3: The USACE, NWS, and an immediate assessment of response needs would be USGS, with other collaborators, should available in summary format. This information would continue development of basin-wide also enable targeting specific addresses to inform hydrologic, hydraulic, and hydrometeorologic residents of the flood risk and the availability of insurance. Other potential users of such a database are models for the upper Mississippi River communities, lenders, planners, citizen groups, and system. underwriters. This database would serve as a cornerstone in the national spatial data infrastructure Federal, state, tribal, and local agencies should develop recommended in the NPR. coordinated estimates of floodflow frequency curves, flood elevation profiles, and floodplain maps. Overall improvement in the modelling of complex river systems Hydrologic, Hydraulic, and will lead to advances in hydrologic prediction Hydrometeorologic Analysis capabilities for both real-time forecasts of flood events and for water-resources planning. Floodplain managers The Review Committee originally wanted to answer should consider one- and two-dimensional models for some questions about flow characteristics for the entire modeling complex areas. reach of the Mississippi River from Cairo to St. Paul and for the Missouri River from its mouth to Gavins Flood Risk Assessment Point. A model to accomplish this task, however, does not exist. Five USACE districts are involved in Models used for determining flood heights require managing these river reaches, and the models used by current estimates of flood discharges. Maintaining up- each differ. Additionally, the availability of to-date estimates of discharge-frequency curves requires topographic data is limited to only certain river reaches. that they be reviewed as the period of hydrologic record increases and whenever new peak flowrates are Current one-dimensional models are unable to recorded. By doing so, the representative sample of the satisfactorily model the complex condition of flow in parent population of hydrologic event data is enlarged large rivers where water moves into large storage areas and the estimate of the frequency of occurrence in the overbank floodplain and where land cover varies associated with a given discharge is improved. The both in the cross section and along the length of the 1993 flood established new peak discharges on many river. The most widely used model for flood elevation tributaries and on major reaches of the main stem determination is HEC-2, a steady-state, one- rivers. Discharge-frequency curves should be dimensional, rigid-boundary model that cannot simulate reevaluated to reflect the new data. levee breaches or take storage effects into account. UNET, a one-dimensional unsteady-flow model used by In addition, the adequacy of the existing strearngaging the Review Committee to model a portion of the basin, network for defining regional flood risk should be has the capability to assess impacts of levee breaches evaluated and the network enhanced if necessary. and associated storage effects. A system-wide, Enhancements could include reactivation of discontinued unsteady-flow model of the main stem rivers in the strearnflow gages or establishment of new gages at upper Mississippi River Basin would help evaluate the critical locations where flood risk is not reliably impacts of proposed structures and floodfighting, and defined. 157 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Recommendation 11. 1: Federal water Frequency curves are generally developed using the agencies, in collaboration with state, tribal, current federal standard distribution function (log- and local entities, should review and update, Pearson Type 111) for annual peak discharges. This as necessary, discharge-frequency methodology should be reviewed. The bases for concluding which method produces the most relationships for streamflo w gages in the representative relationships should include, in addition upper Mississippi River Basin to reflect the to probability theory itself, the end uses of the curves 1993 flood data. The adequacy of the such as selecting the heights of flood protection existing streanigaging network should also be facilities, evaluating the degree of risk of a site or a reviewed. structure, determining regulatory floodplain limits, and establishing flood insurance rates. In 1979 the USACE estimated flood discharges for the upper Mississippi River corresponding to the 5-, 10-, Flood Forecasting 50-, 100-, and 500-year frequency floods. Water surface profiles for the Mississippi River developed State and local authorities need river stage and from these discharge ftequency curves form the basis discharge information for emergency situations, for for FEMA's flood insurance rate maps for the areas local flood relief efforts, and for floodplain along the Mississippi River. This is an example of the management. During the Midwest flood, conflicting use of discharge-frequency curves and indicates the estimates of flood crests created difficulties for local importance of keeping them representative of present emergency response efforts. Especially important for conditions. floodwarning and forecasting are the presence of streamflow gages at locations critical for providing Federal Standards for Determining Flood flood alert for downstream populations centers, and capabilities for remote sensing of gages, data Risk transmission, and communications with other agencies. The NWS, USGS, and USACE should collaborate on a Currently the method of computing the relationship study of the effectiveness of the existing flood between annual flood peak discharge and frequency of monitoring and information distribution system. occurrence is standardized among federal agencies.' Though this method was reviewed less than ten years ago, the magnitude of the 1993 flood and its possible Recommendation 11.2: Federal agencies, effects on discharge-ftequency curves for stations in the coordinated by NWS and USGS, should upper Mississippi River Basin provide the opportunity to ascertain the adequacy of the recommended method collaborate on an assessment of the to reflect the probability distribution of annual peak effectiveness of the streantgaging network discharges. and flood forecasting during the 1993 Midwestfloods. Action 11.4: The Hydrology Subcommittee This assessment should include an evaluation of the o the Federal Interagency Advisory ability of the present strearngaging network to monitor f Committee on Water Data should review the the Mississippi River system and provide the public current standards for computing discharge- with timely and reliable flood warnings. The frequency relationships in light of assessment should identify gaps, inconsistencies and observations from the 1993 flood and other areas of duplication in the present system and make recommendations on improvements. NOAA's Natural recent large floods in the upper Mississippi Disaster Survey Report' identifies the need for River Basin. improvements to real-time hydrologic forecasting and 158 USING SCEENCE AND TECHNOLOGY provides 106 findings and recommendations resulting Action 11. 5: The Administration should from an interagency evaluation of the 1993 Midwest support the USGS in development and flood. acquisition of detailed digital topographic data and other land characteristics for use in Mapping floodplain management and other water resources management activities. Existing Critical to the development of any computer model used DOD technologies should be leveraged to to estimate flood elevations is detailed topographic assist in the acquisition of these data. information. Engineers can use topographic information in a digital format more efficiently in Floodplain managers use detailed topographic data and computer models. Topographic information of the other land characteristics in floodplain areas for many appropriate resolution or accuracy does not exist in a applications, such as floodplain boundary delineation, digital fonnat for many locations in the flood-affected habitat and land cover/land-use mapping, and 9-state region of the Midwest, or in the nation, at a restoration projects. scale useful for floodplain management or for use in engineering models. Floodplain managers generally prefer contour intervals of two feet or less. Technologies are beginning to emerge that will produce accurate, high resolution digital elevation models at reasonable costs. Such models soon will be generall generally available. MAPPING TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INITIATIVES NASA has developed a scanning laser device (LIDAR) that operates from a commercial aircraft and collects fine resolution, digital terrain data used in hydraulic models. The Houston Advanced Research Center, in coordination with NASA, developed an aircraft mounted prototype suitable for a wide range of commercial applications. Concurrent with the LIDAR data, the prototype acquires high resolution color video imagery that can be digitally draped over the terrain data to visualize land use. NASA will conduct a system demonstration for an area downstream of Gavins Point Dam in June 1994. The DOD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), working in conjunction with the USACE Topographic Engineering Center, is sponsoring the use of IFSARE (InterFerometric Synthetic Aperture Radar for Elevation), a radar technology employing a Lear Jet data-collection platform. Fine resolution digital terrain elevations, as well as synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery will be generated by this system. The Environmental Research Institute of Michigan and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are principal contributors to this program. Data have been acquired in the vicinity of Iowa City, Iowa, to provide sample data for applying this technology to the development of hydraulic models. NASA, the USGS, and the USACE have agreed to participate in a test of these technologies along a reach of the Missouri River in the vicinity of Glasgow, Missouri. 159 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH NEEDS The Review Committee investigated some of the Evaluation methods that do not depend on market prices benefits and costs of floodplain occupancy, agriculture are needed to estimate the benefits of such services. uses, and associated floodplain management measures. The non-market value to be estimated is the amount of This investigation considered national productivity, the income an affected person would be willing to give up impacts on natural functions, and the equitable for an environmental service. Where environmental distribution of benefits, costs, incentives, and outputs can be identified and effects can be monetized, disincentives. Federal programs provide for transfer of these monetized environmental effects should be funds that support several types of private floodplain included in benefit-cost analyses. activities; for example, navigation, agriculture, flood control, and transportation. The National Science Significant research exists on non-market evaluation Foundation should consider funding research to examine techniques. Most of this research estimates recreation fully the flood-related impacts on these areas. benefits rather than benefits of passive services such as ecosystem health. Economists use two primary Although the Review Committee devoted a good deal of approaches to estimate the value of non-market goods: its time to floodplain hazards associated with levees, an indirect approach and a direct one.' Indirect other flood hazards warrant study. These include approaches, such as the travel cost method or hedonic alluvial stream channels and storm drainage overflow analyses, are based on the premise that the value people and backup. The National Science Foundation and place on services is revealed by the choices they make interested federal agencies should establish a in consuming them. These techniques depend on the cooperative, jointly funded program to develop methods observation of human behavior in a particular for mapping, regulating and identifying natural circumstance and cannot be used for hypothetical functions in these areas. SAST data would form the situations such as wetland restoration. basis for further investigation. The direct approach uses survey techniques to directly Studies on the epidemiological factors and mental health elicit a person's value or willingness to pay. The most impacts of floods are few in number. Research widely used approach is the contingent valuation regarding the social impacts of floods needs federal method, where respondents are presented with support. Other items warranting further investigation information about the proposed environmental service are the funding of disaster relief and support of (either an improvement or degradation) and asked what floodplain agriculture. With regard to the NFIP, the the change would be worth to diem. The direct reasons for limited flood insurance market penetration approach can also be used to evaluate existence values should be studied. (die satisfaction an individual receives from simply knowing an environmental amenity exists or will Many questions posed by the Review Committee remain continue to exist, even though the individual will never unanswered, because of time or resource constraints or use it) and non-existing or hypothetical situations that a lack of information. Even where available, indirect methods cannot handle. The reliability of information often led to new questions and new areas to estimates from surveys in these situations is often be explored. Listed below are several topics that merit questionable. Experience with the contingent valuation additional study. method indicates it can be successful in estimating values associated with recreation outputs for which the potential user is familiar, for which the product can be Quantifying and Assessing Environmental clearly defined, and for which a plausible market can be lbinpacts defined. Applications become less successful when the respondent lacks familiarity with the product or when Environmental quality and species diversity remain as the amount, quality, or other attributes of the product social services not sold in conventional markets. cannot be clearly defined. This is especially true in 160 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY trying to measure changes in the quality of the old channel and place the levees on a clay core. environmental amenities or other management actions. This suggests that levees should not be reconstructed in such high energy erosion zones, but should be set back to allow high energy zones to remain within a Action 11. 6: The Administration should designated, functioning floodway. A mix of compatible direct that scientific research be conducted to land uses, such as dry-year fanning, open space, identify state-of-the-art techniques or recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, could occur within applications for estimating and assessing high energy floodways. Any such use, however, should not be eligible for future emergency federal disaster environmental and social impacts. assistance. A study is needed immediately to better define, document, and map such high energy zones, at Research should identify practical methods and least along the Missouri River. improved techniques to allow greater consideration of impacts, both positive and negative, for which no market system exists. Such research would assist in Recommendation 11.3: The USACE and evaluating the economic value of an environmental USGS should investigate and better define output or the willingness to pay to avoid an impact. relationships between high energy erosion Research is needed to improve techniques for measuring social or environmental outputs and for establishing zones, other zones in floodprone areas, and criteria to assess the significance of such outputs from a levee failure. regional and national perspective.' Many federal agencies, universities, and private consulting firms are focusing on research in these areas. An organization Hydrologic and Hydraulic Benefits of such as the National Research Council of the National Natural Floodplain Functions Science Foundation could foster this type of research, with federal oversight provided by the Office of The federal government established the Minnesota Environmental Policy. The Administration should Valley National Wildlife Refuge in the lower Minnesota require that research and case studies be completed and River valley near the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan recommendations made concerning appropriate state-of- area, in part, to maintain the floodplain as part of a the-art techniques within three years of initiation. naturally functioning ecosystem and floodwater storage/conveyance mechanism. Although the government did not establish the upper Mississippi Geomorphology River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge as a mechanism for flood damage reduction and control, it Satellite imagery and data analyses provide evidence may have played a significant role in reducing local that some levee failures along the Missouri River flood damages in the upper Mississippi River valley. coincided with historic river channels (See Figure 2.6). Nonstructural flood damage reduction and control Evidence indicates that levees were largely responsible capabilities of floodplain land uses such as green spaces for raising flood water to levels that generated the high and wildlife refuges have not received adequate energies necessary to overpower and blow the levees, evaluation! creating the scour holes and generating the sands that damaged the very farmlands the levees were designed to Environmental groups have identified upland wetland protect. In many areas riparian forests had minimal water-storage capabilities lost to drainage over the past flood erosion or deposition damage. These areas century as contributing factors in the heights of the commonly coincided with levees that did not fail, 1993 floods in the upper Mississippi River Basin.' At indicating some protection was given to levees by the same time, agricultural interests have indicated that riverward forested areas. Evidence also indicates that drainage tiles (underground drains) installed to dry out levees placed in high energy zones would not hold, wetlands and wet soils provided a positive benefit in even if it were possible to excavate all the sand from 161 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY reducing flood heights by voiding the soils of water and bank sloping and riprap protection. Traditional creating a capacity in the soils for water storage. Once approaches typically focus on maximizing flood rains exceed a threshold level, however, and soil conveyance only. Biotechnical engineering techniques surfaces are sealed, the ability of rainwater to infiltrate can be employed in engineering designs and contribute soil is lost and the water runs off.' Drainage tiles may to the natural functions of floodplains. These practices have contributed. to flood heights rather than lessening have not been incorporated into federal government them. standards. Federal agencies responsible for establishing guidelines should test and incorporate these methods Floodplain and upland areas functioning as temporary into their design manuals. storage areas can have impacts on flood peaks. The quantification of these impacts has not been well documented. Use of natural storage areas (wetlands) Recommendation 11.4: Federal agencies for temporary storage of floodwater to decrease should conduct research on biotechnical downstream flood heights has not been utilized in engineering techniques and162 incorporate modem flood control policy. The mathematical them into design manuals. models exist to analyze these impacts, although additional field data may be necessary. The Administration should request completion of these investigations as soon as possible. The functions of Disaster Relief Funding wetlands and their drainage for agricultural purposes need better evaluation. Natural disasters in the United States are costly events in terms of both human lives lost and property The current USACE project in Marshall, Minnesota, damaged. Since FY 1989, over $27.6 billion have been offers the opportunity to further explore the spent on federal disaster assistance programs." The effectiveness of upland treatment in flood damage Review Committee heard concerns expressed about the reduction. Consideration should be given to the use of current system of funding disaster relief through the watershed component of this project as a emergency supplemental appropriations and the demonstration of the capabilities of upland treatment in subsequent effects on the federal deficit. reducing flood damages. A joint USACE-USDA evaluation of the results would add to the information available on this subject. Recommendation 11.5: OMB should review the current system of funding disaster Action 11.7: The USACE and USDA, in relief; consideration should be given to collaboration with the DOI, should evaluate encouraging the National Science Foundation the effect of natural upland storage and to support such a review. floodplain storage in such areas as wetlands and forested wetlands on main stem flooding. Floodplain Agriculture The role of the federal farm programs in influencing Biotechnical Engineering sound floodplain management continues to receive great attention. Other federal policies, however, also affect State, local, and private engineers and planners rely land-use decisions. Data currently exist to support heavily on federal design manuals. Currently these research on the effects of federal incentives and manuals do not address biotechnical engineering -- disincentives on agricultural production in the channel or bank modification techniques that use floodplain. vegetation in innovative ways in contrast to traditional 162 USING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Recommendation 11.6: USDA should Recommendation 11.8: The National evaluate the impact of federal farm programs Science Foundation should considerfunding on agricultural land use decisions in and out research on the following subjects: of the floodplain. * Full accounting of all public and private benefits and costs of floodplain Flood Insurance Market Penetration occupancy and associated floodplain management measures, including both The Review Committee was not able to obtain definitive monetary and non-monetary methods information on NFIP market penetration or on who of accounting, buys flood insurance and who does not and why. Much 0 Mapping and regulating areas with of the information that is currently available is based on movable stream channels and storm inadequate information, personal observation, or drainage overflow and backup, speculation. This knowledge is critical to developing 0 Special impacts of floods, strategies to increase compliance with the mandatory including epidemiological and mental purchase requirements and to increase voluntary health factors, and purchase of flood insurance. 0 The feasibility and effectiveness of the use of meteorologic data and Recommendation 11.7: FEMA should geomorphic and botanical evidence in conduct research on the issue of NFIP conjunction with hydrologic and market penetration to determine who buys hydraulic models to estimate flood flood insurance and who does not and why. frequency. Other Research and Analysis Needs The Review Committee's investigation revealed several other areas in which research is needed, as described in the following recommendation. ENDNOTES 1. 89th Congress, 2nd Session, House Document 465, A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 10, 1966). 2. National Performance Review, Department of the Interior. Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993). 3. Hydrology Subcommittee, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin #17B, (Reston, VA: USGS, March 1982). 4. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Natural Disaster Survey Report: The Great Flood of 1993, (Silver Spring, MD: DOC, NWS, February 1994). S. Smith, V. Kerry, "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, 69(l): 1-26 ( February 1993); Ribando, Marc 0., and Daniel Hellerstein, Estimating Water Quality Benefits: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Technical Bulletin 1808, (Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service, September 1992). 163 USING SCEENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 6. The interagency Economics Advisory Group pointed out that although methods exist for quantifying and monetizing environmental benefits in terms of both direct and indirect uses, these methods have not been applied to all areas for which monetized values are desired. Any application, however, requires a clear definition of the ecological effects that result from alternative actions. This is usually obtainable for impacts of national significance. It becomes difficult for lesser effects and smaller projects where the biological increments of change are small. Without a clear definition, survey responses about the value of hypothetical environmental changes will be unreliable. 7. Leopold, L., "Flood Hydrology and the Floodplain," pages 11-14 in Universities Council on Water Resources Update, (Carbondale, IL: UCOWR, Spring 1994). 8. Hey, D., "Prairie Potholes," pages 505-509 in National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, Water, Science and Technology Board, Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992). 9. Satterlund, D.R., and P.W. Adams, Wildland Watershed Management, (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992). 10. Leuthy, Cameron, Office of Management and Budget, Budget Review and Concepts Division, Washington, DC, personal communication, April 13, 1994. Chapter 12 A FLOODPLAIN ACTION PLAN Any great disaster or problem usually produces a by-product called "opportunity ". This is no less true today as we review the Great Flood of 1993 and our policies for managing floodplains. Jim Edgar Governor of Illinois, June 1994 The Review Committee advocates a new approach to economic planning is essential to maximize efficiency, managing the floodplains and related watersheds of the equitably share burdens, and distribute responsibility. nation. This approach involves a shared challenge. The situation that exists on floodplains today is the The Review Committee calls upon Congress to act on a result of past federal policy decisions that were legislative agenda designed to maximize the efficiency successful in achieving past national goals. Over recent and effectiveness of existing programs, respond to decades as social preferences shifted, national goals identified gaps with new programs, and provide funding changed. In evaluating ongoing and future floodplain to enable existing programs to function as designed. management, the nation must recognize not only that Major legislative actions requested include: these shifts and changes have occurred but that no action taken today should reduce the opportunity for 0 Enactment of a Floodplain Management Act future adjustments in national goals and purposes. The to coordinate federal-state actions, and Review Committee presents a vision for floodplain 0 Amendments to the NFIP to reduce moral management that meets these goals. hazard problems and to decrease federal disaster expenditures. Achi,@ving this vision of floodplain management will require cooperative action by the Congress, the Tlie Review Committee recognizes that these requests Executive branch, and the states. The vision and require analysis and deliberation by the Congress. supporting action plan formulated by the Review Although action is desirable sooner rather than later on Committee are interrelated and interactive. Partial these actions, which are indispensable components of success is possible with piecemeal application, but the new direction in floodplain management, delay in attaining the vision requires complete implementation by enactment will not prevent commencement of the policy all parties in a timely fashion. shift proposed by the Review Committee. The theme developed by the Review Committee is that The Review Committee also asks the Executive branch government at all levels and individuals must share the of the government to make changes. The Executive responsibility of appropriately managing land and water Office of the President can have an immediate impact resources to reduce the nation's vulnerability to flood on floodplain management by promptly implementing disasters. Coordination of envirom-nental, social, and the following changes: 165 A F1,OODPLAIN ACTION PLAN 0 Revitalizing the Water Resources Council to water resource and floodplain issues to convene coordinate and direct federal plans for water interagency task forces to coordinate activities presently management; conducted independently. In addition suggested changes � Reestablishing basin commissions; in federal regulations will further the goals of floodplain � Reissuing an expanded EO 11988; and management programs. � Establishing new objectives for Principles and Guidelines. The need for reform in floodplain management is great and the number of proposed actions considerable. Concurrent with these actions by the President, the Timing, an essential element, is critical. The first step Review Committee asks federal agencies involved with is to get moving and begin the needed changes. ACTION OUTLINE CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS Legislative Actions 906 of the WRDA of 1986 to include federal, state, and non-governmental Floodplain Vision/Resource Planning: contributions (Action 7.7); * Enact a national Floodplain 0 Provide states the option of Management Act (Action 5. 1); receiving FEMA Section 404 Hazard 0 Continue and expand conservation Mitigation Grants as a block grant and voluntary land acquisition (Action 8.5); programs in the Farm Bill focusing on * Provide funds in major disasters critical lands (Action 6.3); and where supplemental appropriations are 0 Support insurance coverage for made for buyouts and hazard mitigation actions necessary to comply mitigation, through FEMA's Section with local floodplain management 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program regulations (Action 8.9). (Action 8.6); 0 Provide authority to reduce the Operations: amount of post-disaster support to 0 Revise Section 1134 of the Water those who could have bought flood Resource Development Act of 1986 to insurance but did not, to that level provide for phase-out of federal leases needed to provide for immediate in the floodplain (Action 5.6); health, safety, and welfare; provide a 0 For communities not in the NFIP, safety net for low-income flood limit public assistance grants victims (Action 9.5); (Action 5.7); 9 Continue to support reform of 9 Provide authority for loans for the Federal Crop Insurance that limits upgrade of infrastructure and other crop disaster assistance payments, public facilities (Action 5.9); increases participation, and makes the 0 Enact legislation allowing cost- program more actuarially sound share participation and eligibility (Action 9.8); and requirements under Sections 1135 and 9 Establish the UMR&T project (Action 10.5). 166 A FLOODPLAIN ACTION PLAN Floodplain Management Funding: disaster declarations (Action 8.7); 0 Provide authority for flexibility in 0 Increase the NFIP market use of programmed funds in penetration through improved lender emergency situations (Action 7.4). compliance with the mandatory purchase requirement (Action 9.2); Planning, Coordination, and Hazard and Mitigation: 0 Provide for the escrow of flood 0 Establish a programmatic buyout insurance premiums or payment plans and hazard mitigation program with to help make flood insurance funding authorities independent of affordable (Action 9.3). EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTIONS Administrative Actions environmental purposes (Action 7. 1); 0 Allocate funds for mitigation lands Leadership, Policy, Planning and in concert with and at same pace as Coordination: project construction (Action 7.8); 0 Establish the USACE as the 0 Revitalize the Water Resources principal federal levee construction Council (Action 5.2); agency (Action 8. 1); 0 Reestablish the basin commissions 0 Establish upper Mississippi and in a revised form reflecting current Missouri basin commissions needs (Action 5.3); (Action 10. 1); * Issue a new Executive Order to 0 Expand the mission of the reaffirm the federal government's Mississippi River Commission to commitment to floodplain management include the upper Mississippi and with an expanded scope (Action 5.4); Missouri Rivers. Expand Commission * Direct all federal agencies to membership to include the DOI conduct an assessment of the (Action 10.2); vulnerability of flooding using a 0 Assign responsibility for scientific sample of federal facilities development of an upper Mississippi and those state and local facilities River and tributary system plan for a constructed wholly or in part with major maintenance and major federal aid (Action 5.5); rehabilitation program for federally- 0 Establish new co-equal objectives related levees to an expanded for planning water resources projects Mississippi River Commission, under the Principles and Guidelines operating under the USACE document to enhance national (Action 10.3); and economic development and enhance 0 Seek approval from the Congress the quality of the environment to redirect the USACE Floodplain (Action 5. 10); Management Assessment of the upper 0 Establish a lead agency for Mississippi River Basin to coordinating acquisition of title and development of the UMR&T system easements to lands acquired for plan. Place this assessment under the 167 A FLOODPLAIN ACTION PLAN expanded Mississippi River Interagency Activities Commission (Action 10.4). Operations Policy, Planning, and Coordination: Propose supplementing, with 0 Establish interdisciplinary 0 interagency review of the P&G appropriated funds, funds obtained for document by affected agency floodplain mapping from NFIP representatives with regard to the policyholders (Action 6.7); potential structural vs. nonstructural. 0 Develop emergency implementation project bias, inclusion of a system of procedures to organize federal accounts, inclusion of collaborative agencies for environinental land planning, and expansion of P&G acquisitions (Action 7.2); application to water and related land 0 Require agencies to co-fund programs, projects, and activities ecosystem management using (Action 5. 11); Operation and Maintenance funds 0 Establish an interagency task force, (Action 7.6); jointly chaired by the USDA and 0 Support the USGS in development EPA, to formulate a coordinated, and acquisition of detailed digital comprehensive approach to multiple topographic data and other land objective watershed management characteristics for use in floodplain (Action 6. 1); management and other water resources 0 Coordinate and support federal management activities (Action 11.5); riverine and riparian area restoration and (Action 6.2); 0 Direct that scientific research be 0 Formalize environmental conducted to identify state-of-the-art considerations in multi-agency techniques or applications for restoration activity through a estimating and assessing environmental coordinated Memorandum of and social impacts (Action 11.6). Agreement (Action 7.3); 0 Restrict support of floodfighting to those levees that have been approved Disaster Relief/Recovery: for floodfighting by the USACE 0 Provide funding for the develop- (Action 8.3); ment of state and community 0 Establish a task force to develop floodplain management and hazard common procedures for federal mitigation plans (Action 6.5); buyouts and mitigation programs 0 Reaffirm support for the USACE (Action 8.4); criteria under the PL 84-99 levee 0 Select an ecosystem management repair program and send a clear demonstration project within the upper message that future exceptions will not Mississippi River Basin and establish a be made (Action 8.2); and cross-agency ecosystem management 0 Hold an interagency strategic team under the DOI to develop plans planning meeting for those and budgets for the project Presidentially declared disasters that (Action 10.9); require a multi-agency recovery effort 0 Continue development of basin- (Action 9. 1). wide hydrologic, hydraulic, and 168 A FLOODPLAIN ACTION PLAN hydrometerologic models for the upper properties through insurance Mississippi River system surcharges, increased deductibles, (Action 11.3); mitigation insurance, and/or mitigation 0 Review the current standards for actions (Action 8.10); computing discharge-frequency 0 Develop improved marketing relationships in light of observations techniques for NFIP (Action 9.4); from the 1993 flood and other recent 0 Require actuarially based flood large floods in the upper Mississippi insurance behind all levees that River Basin (Action 11.4); and provide protection less than the 9 Evaluate the effect of natural standard project flood (Action 9.6); upstream storage and floodplain 0 Increase the 5-day waiting period storage in such areas as wetlands and for flood insurance coverage to at least forested wetlands on main stem 15 days (Action 9.7); and flooding (Action 11.7). 0 Investigate the costs and feasibility of completing a national inventory of floodprone structures (Action 11.2). Individual Agencies U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: Federal Emergency Management 0 Provide an early report in the Agency: Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway 0 Encourage communities to obtain Navigation Study of environmental affordable private insurance for enhancement opportunities in the infrastructure as a prerequisite to upper Mississippi River (Action 10.7); receiving public assistance and (Action 5.8); * Provide a report on the ecological 0 Promote the NFIP Community effects of relocating navigation pool Rating System as a means of control points under the Navigation encouraging communities to develop Rehabilitation Study (Action 10.8) floodplain management and hazard- U. S. Department of the Interior: mitigation plans and incorporate 0 Focus land acquisition efforts on floodplain management concerns into river reaches and areas with significant their ongoing community planning and habitat values or resource impacts decisionmaking (Action 6.4); 0 Map all communities with flood (Action 7.5); and hazard areas that are developed or 0 Complete an ecological needs could be developed (Action 6.6); investigation of the upper Mississippi * Utilize technology to improve River Basin and provide a report to floodplain mapping (Action 6.8); the Administration within 30 months 0 Continue to enforce substantial (Action 10. 6). damage requirements, but decide on a definition of substantial damage and U. S. Geological Survey (DOI): stick to that definition (Action 8.8); 0 Establish a federal clearinghouse 0 Develop a program to reduce for data gathered during preparation of losses to repetitively damaged insured the Review Committee report (Action 11. 1). 169 Chapter 13 COST ANALYSIS Some of the recoinmended actions may result in Table 13.1 attempts to identify where additional costs to increased costs to the federal government as well as to the federal government are likely and where potential states, non-federal sponsors, and individual floodplain savings, to whomsoever they may accrue, may occur. occupants. Many of the costs will be incurred over the This additional cost commitment may take the form of a next few years but will ultimately result in savings to shift in priorities for human resources or a cost of the same parties for many years in the future. Many normal Washington level attention and coordination. also reflect the cost of normal business or operations. These items are annotated with the abbreviations "SIP" Costs have been estimated for certain significant actions for shift in priorities and "CNB" for cost of normal such as the enactment of a national Floodplain business. For some actions, however, increased federal Management Act (Action 5. 1), revitalizing the Water government costs are required and are identified in the Resources Council (Action 5.2), and reestablishing table by the abbreviation "IC" for increased cost. basin commissions (Action 5.3). The cost details for Action 5.1 are found in Appendix D and for Actions Potential savings for each recommended action are 5.2 and 5.3 in Appendix 1. The Review Committee handled similar to the cost column and abbreviations for did not have the time or resources to develop specific the areas of savings are as follows: environmental costs for all of the proposed actions. The details of enhancements (EE); improved customer assistance specific action implementation should be analyzed and (ICA); increased efficiencies (IE); reduced claims the costs estimated by those who will administer these payments (RCP); reduced disaster assistance (RDA); actions. reduced environmental impact (REI); and reduced flood damages (RDA). 171 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee ADDITIONAL COSTS TO POTENTIAL ACTIONS FEDERAL SAVINGS GOVERNMENT Action 5. 1: Enact a national Floodplain Management Act to IC ICA, IE, RDA, REI, define governmental responsibilities, strengthen federal-state RFD coordination and assure accountability. Action 5.2: Revitalize the Water Resources Council. 1C ICA, IE, REI Action 5.3: Reestablish Basin Commissions in a revised form CNB, IC, SIP ICA, IE, REI reflecting current needs. Action 5.4: Issue a new Executive Order to reaffirm the federal CNB, SIP RDA, REI, RFD government's commitment to floodplain management with an expanded scope. Action 5.5: OMB should direct all federal agencies to conduct CNB, SIP RFD an assessment of the vulnerability of flooding using a scientific sample of federal facilities and those state and local facilities constructed wholly or in part with federal aid. Action 5.6: Seek revision of Section 1134 of the Water CNB RDA, REI, RFD Resources Development Act of 1986 to provide for phase-out of federal leases in the floodplain. Action 5.7: For communities not participating in the NFIP, limit CNB RDA public assistance grants. Action 5.8: Encourage communities to obtain affordable private CBE RDA insurance for infrastructure as a prerequisite to receiving public assistance. Action 5.9: Provide loans for the upgrade of infrastructure and CBE RDA other public facilities. 172 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (continued) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 5. 10: Establish as the new, co-equal objectives for planning CNB, SIP EE, ICA, REI water resources projects under Principles and Guidelines: (1) To enhance national economic development by increasing the value of the Nation's output of goods and services and improving national economic efficiency, and (2) To enhance the quality of the environment by the management, conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, or improvement of the quality of natural and cultural resources and ecological systems. Action 5. 11: Establish interdisciplinary, interagency review of the CNB, SIP EE, ICA, P&G by affected agency representatives to address: IE, REI (1) Structural versus non-structural project bias; (2) Inclusion of system of accounts or a similar mechanism for displaying impacts; (3) Inclusion of collaborative planning in an ecosystems context for major studies; and (4) Expansion of the application of the revised P&G to water and land programs, projects, and activities to include: (a) All federally constructed watershed and water and land programs; (b) National parks and recreation areas; (c) Wild, scenic, recreational rivers and wilderness areas; (d) Weiland and estuary projects and coastal zones; and (e) National refuges. Action 6.1: The Administration should establish an interagency task CNB ICA, IE force, jointly chaired by the USDA and EPA, to formulate a coordinated, comprehensive approach to multiple objective watershed management. 173 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (continued) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 6.2: The DOI, USDA, and EPA should coordinate and CNB EE support federal urban and suburban stream and riparian area restoration. Action 6.3: The Administration's legislative proposals for the 1995 IC EE, REI, Farm Bill should support continuation and expansion of conservation RFD and voluntary acquisition programs focused on critical lands within watersheds. Action 6.5: Provide funding for the development of state and IC ICA, IE, community floodplain management and hazard mitigation plans. REI, RDA, RFD Action 6.6: Map all communities with flood hazard areas that are IC ICA, IE, developed or could be developed. RDA,REI, RFD Action 6.7: To improve and accelerate delivery of NFIP map IC ICA, IE, products, the Administration should propose supplementing those RDA, REI, funds obtained for floodplain mapping from NFIP policyholders with RFD appropriated funds. Action 6.8: Utilize technology to improve floodplain mapping. IC ICA, IE, RDA, REI, RFD Action 7. 1: The Administration should establish a lead agency CNB EE, ICA, IE, coordinating acquisition of title and easements to lands acquired for RCP,RDA, environmental purposes. REI, RFD Action 7.2: The Administration should develop emergency CNB IE implementation procedures to organize federal agencies for environmental land acquisitions. Action 7.3: The DOI should formalize environmental considerations CNB EE, IE, REI in multi-agency disaster recovery land restoration activity through a coordinated Memorandum of Agreement. 174 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (continued) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 7.4: Seek legislative authority for flexibility in use of CNB EE, ICA, REI programmed funds in emergency situations. Action 7.5: The DOI should focus land acquisition efforts on river CNB EE, REI reaches and areas with significant habitat values or resource impacts. Action 7.7: Enact legislation allowing cost-share participation and CNB, SIP EE, ICA, REI eligibility requirements under Sections 906 and 1135 of the 1986 WRDA to include federal, state, and non-governmental contributions as well as work in-kind. Action 8.2: The Administration should reaffirm its support for the CNB IE, RDA USACE criteria under the PL 84-99 levee repair program and send a clear message that future exceptions will not be made. Action 8.3: Federal and state officials should restrict support of CNB IE floodfighting to those levees that have been approved for floodfighting by the USACE. Action 8.4: Establish a task force to develop common procedures for CNB, SIP ICA, IE federal buyouts and mitigation programs. Action 8.5: Provide states the option of receiving Section 404 Hazard CNB ICA, IE Mitigation Grants as a block grant. Action 8.6: Provide funds in major disasters where supplemental CNB ICA, IE appropriations are made for buyouts and hazard mitigation, through FEMA's Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Action 8.7: Establish a programmatic buyout and hazard mitigation CNB, SIP IE, RCP, program with funding authorities independent of disaster declarations. RDA,REI Action 8.8: The FEMA should continue to enforce substantial damage CNB RCP,RDA requirement , but decide on a definition of substantial damage and stick to that definition. 175 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (continued) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 8.9: The Administration should support insurance coverage CNB IE, for mitigation actions necessary to comply with local floodplain RCP,RDA, management regulations. RFD Action 8. 10: Develop a program to reduce losses to repetitively CNB, SIP RCP, RDA, damaged insured properties through insurance surcharges, increased REI deductibles, mitigation insurance, and/or mitigation actions. Action 9.3: Provide for the escrow of flood insurance premiums or CNB ICA, IE, payment plans to help make flood insurance affordable. RDA Action 9.4: Develop improved marketing techniques. CNB ICA,RDA Action 9.5: Reduce the amount of post-disaster support to those who CNB IE, RDA could have bought flood insurance but did not to that level needed to provide for immediate health, safety, and welfare; provide a safety net for low-income flood victims. Action 9.6: Require actuarial-based flood insurance behind all levees IC ICA,RDA that provide protection less than the standard project flood. Action 9.7: Increase the 5-day waiting period for flood insurance CNB IE, RCP coverage to at least 15 days. Action 9.8: Administration should continue to support reform of IC ICA, IE Federal Crop Insurance that limits crop disaster assistance payments, increases participation, and makes the program more actuarially sound. Action 10. 1: Establish upper Mississippi and Missouri basin IC ICA, IE, REI commissions with a charge to coordinate development and maintenance of comprehensive water resources management plans to include, among other purposes, ecosystem management, flood damage reduction, and navigation. 176 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (continued) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 10.2: The Administration should expand the mission of the IC, SIP ICA, IE, REI Mississippi River Commission to include the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Further, to recognize ecosystem management as a co-equal federal interest with flood damage reduction and navigation, the Administration should request legislative change to expand commission membership to include the DOI. Action 10.3: Assign responsibility for development of an Upper IC, SIP EE, ICA, IE, Mississippi River and Tributaries (UMR&T) system plan and for a RDA,REI, major maintenance and major rehabilitation program for federally- RFD related levees to an expanded Mississippi River Commission, operating under the USACE. Action 10.4: Seek approval from the Congress to redirect the CNB, SIP ICA, IE USACE Floodplain Management Assessment of the upper Mississippi River Basin to development of an UMR&T systems plan. Place this assessment under the Mississippi River Commission, operating under the USACE. Action 10.5: Following completion of the survey, seek authorization CNB ICA, IE, from the Congress to establish the UMR&T project. RDA, REI, RFD Action 10.6: DOI should complete an ecological needs investigation CNB, SIP ICA, REI of the upper Mississippi River Basin and provide a report to the Administration within 30 months. Action 10.7: Provide an early report in the USACE Upper CNB EE, REI Mississippi River - Illinois Waterway Navigation Study of environmental enhancement opportunities in the upper Mississippi River. Action 10.8 Provide a report on the ecological effects of relocating CNB EE,REI navigation pool control points under the USACE Navigation Rehabilitation Study. 177 COST ANALYSIS Table 13.1 Fiscal Impact of Actions Recommended by the Review Committee (concluded) ADDITIONAL COSTS ACTIONS TO FEDERAL POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SAVINGS Action 10.9: The Administration Interagency Ecosystem CNB, SIP EE, ICA Management Task Force should select an Ecosystem Management Demonstration Project within the upper Mississippi River Basin and establish a cross-agency ecosystem management team under the DOI to develop plans and budgets for the project. Action 11. 1: The USGS should establish a federal clearinghouse for IC ICA, IE, REI data gathered during preparation of the Review Committee report. Action 11.2: FEMA should investigate the costs and feasibility of CNB ICA, completing a national inventory of floodprone structures. IE,RDA, RFD Action 11.6: The Administration should direct that scientific research CNB, SIP EE, ICA, be conducted to identify state-of-the-art techniques or applications for IE, REI estimating and assessing environmental and social impacts. Action 11.7: The USACE and USDA, in collaboration with the DOI, CNB, SIP EE, ICA, should evaluate the effect of natural upstream storage and floodplain RDA, REI, storage in such areas as wetlands and forested wetlands on mainstem RFD flooding. LEGEND: COSTS SAVINGS CBE: Cannot Be Estimated EE: Environmental Enhancement CNB: Cost of Normal Business ICA: Improved Customer Assistance IC: Increased Cost IE: Increased Efficiency SIP: Shift in Priorities RCP: Reduced Claims Payments RDA: Reduced Disaster Assistance REI: Reduced Environmental Impact RFD: Reduced Flood Damages 178 Chapter 14 PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS From the outset of this review, the Floodplain deserve consideration in the on-going debate about the Management Review Committee has benefitted from the management of the nation's resources. Should steps be support of hundreds of individuals and groups, many of taken to reduce or eliminate federal subsidies of which had strong opinions on what should be done to floodplain activities? Have government programs solve the problems of the floodplain. With less than five induced inappropriate floodplain usage by shifting the months to complete its review, the Review Committee consequences of certain actions from individuals to the was unable to address each and every issue raised. federal government? Should the contribution of local Some concerns clearly merited ftirther study, and interests to construction and repair of flood control Chapter 11 describes needed analysis and research. structures be increased? Should disaster funding policies and procedures within the federal budget Other issues were deemed beyond the scope of the process be changed? Review Committee's charge, but nonetheless FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS Throughout the review, some federal economists and that can be earned. Government programs for price many non-federal groups have proposed phasing out and income support, levees, drainage, technical federal subsidies in general and federal farm program assistance, subsidized crop insurance premiums, and payments in particular to floodplain activities, because crop disaster assistance all serve to lower the cost of they represent intrusions into the free market by farming on the floodplain. distorting incentives and thus may encourage floodplain activity. The Review Committee did examine the role Many agricultural levees were constructed and of federal farm programs as they influence individual maintained by local districts with no use of federal or farmer's decisions to farm in bottomlands. The study state funds prior to 1993, so those flood control looked at both program payments and the support structures cannot be considered as part of a past subsidy provided to farmers by federal levee repairs. to floodplain agriculture. If these levees are repaired with federal ftinds, the added benefit would reduce Each agricultural producer in the floodplain makes ftiture production costs for the farmer. Farm programs farming decisions based on a collection of factors, many offer a producer higher profits for growing certain of which differ from location to location. Input prices crops, so the type of bottomland agriculture is also tend to be the same at all locations, but production influenced by government policies. Farmers with lower practices and potential yields depend on the levels of flood protection may switch to alternative characteristics of the land. Cash receipts will depend crops such as growing biomass fuel. The economic on whether the farmer participates in a crop price viability of such choices is currently being studied. Site support program. In addition the level of flood characteristics and government policies will determine a protection will determine whether a given year's yield farmer's choices. Programs offering easements, levee will be realized and what the expected flood damages set-backs, or "green" payments will have to take factors will be. From a farmer's perspective, the viability of affecting farmer decisions into account. farming a particular area depends on the net income 179 PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS Preliminary results from a study funded by EPA and being conducted by the Center for Agricultural and program payments. A substantial portion of Rural Development at Iowa State University and the American farming is in the floodplain. Much of the Center for National Food and Agricultural Policy at agricultural base of Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, University of Missouri - Columbia indicate that in some and Louisiana exists in the floodplain. If the intent of areas participation in federal farm programs and the removing payments or subsidies is to alter behavior that existence of levees will determine whether a crop is is believed to contribute to environmental problems, grown and which crop is chosen. In other areas of the then it might be more productive to remove payments floodplain, agriculture would be profitable even without or offer "green payments" in areas where agriculture participation in any farm or levee program. operates under less than optimal conditions, e.g., highly erodible land, drylands, etc. Elimination of federal farm programs for floodplain farmers might make operations less viable and might While the issue of the merits of federal farm programs influence some to leave the floodplain. It appeared to is important, it merits airing in a context larger than the the Review Cominittee that it would be difficult to floodplain and with a greater recognition of the determine which floodplain farmers should not receive difficulties of selective application of any such policy.' MORAL HAZARD In providing support for a range of floodplain activities, federal provision of hazard insurance is subsidized does government create a "moral hazard?" This phrase through reduced premiums and administrative fees is used in the insurance industry to describe the which lowers an individual's stake in avoiding harm. situation when an insured party has a lower incentive to The availability of supplementary compensation avoid risk because an enhanced level of protection is diminishes the efficiency of insurance to encourage risk provided. sharing. The Review Committee recognizes that through provision of disaster assistance and, in some If an individual or government entity does not bear the cases, enhanced flood protection, the government may financial consequences of an action there is little reason in fact be reducing incentives for local governments and to mitigate the danger; therefore, the insured party is individuals to be more prudent in their actions. The more likely to be at risk (or will expend too little effort subject was discussed frequently in the field and with to avoid risk) than one who has to bear all many of the Review Committee's advisors but without consequences. The insurance provider usually has few resolution. Some older studies have indicated that the ways of observing whether proper care or precautions presence of federal support does not create a are taken. Private insurance companies deal with the disincentive to buy flood insurance. The Review moral-hazard problem by offering less than full Committee has sought to reduce the moral hazard coverage and requiring payments (deductibles) which through recommendations that limit disaster assistance increase the policyholder's incentive to take protective and propose loans rather than grants for infrastructure measures. Another way that insurance providers cope upgrades. The Review Committee notes the potential with moral hazard is to base each period's premiums on for moral hazards to develop and cautions agencies claims from previous periods. This method increases involved in floodplain management to be aware of this the policy holder's level of risk avoidance. Some potential. FEDERAL FISCAL ROLE IN FLOOD CONTROL Some people state that the federal government's role in responsibility for costs associated with regional and funding flood control projects should be limited to local benefits falling to the local sponsor .2 At present, paying costs related to federal benefits, with under the provisions of the Water Resources 180 PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS Development Act of 1986, cost-sharing for flood involvement was based in part on the magnitude of the control projects is set at a local contribution of not less physical threat and potential damages to the nation from than 25 percent and not more than 50 percent, flooding, and in part on recognition that navigable depending on the circumstances. Levee repairs, carried waters are interstate and activities in one area can have out under the provisions of PL 84-99 by the USACE, major effects on other areas. require a 20 percent local contribution, although the requirement for cost-sharing was determined by the The Congress, working with the Administration, has set Administration, not the Congress. cost-sharing rules based on congressional and Administration determinations as to the nature of the The federal interest in flood control was stated most threat and the ability of state and local governments to clearly by the Flood Control Act of 1936, "...the bear the costs of projects rather than on the allocation Federal Government should improve or participate in of net benefits. The Review Committee recognizes that the improvement of navigable waters or their shifts in cost-sharing formulas would alter floodplain tributaries ... for flood control purposes if the benefits to behavior but had neither the time to analyze nor the whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the resources to develop any rationale for changing the estimated costs... " The rationale for this federal existing cost-share arrangements. FUNDING DISASTERS Natural disasters in the United States are costly events that federal relief creates for people to locate in in terms of both human lives lost and property disaster-prone areas, and the potential for elements of damaged. From FY 1989 through FY 1993, over federal, state, and local government to rely on disaster $27.6 billion has been spent on federal disaster relief for infrastructure repair. Others, assuming that a assistance programs. Figure 14.1 shows the number of federal obligation to fund recovery exists, point to Presidential disaster declarations over the past five hazard mitigation as a cost effective alternative to years by disaster type and the dollars per capita that providing disaster assistance. Funding preventive went to disaster relief payments for each state under the measures such as relocating structures out of the FEMA program. Although flood declarations floodplain can decrease the demand for disaster relief. comprised the majority of Presidential disasters declarations, earthquakes (California) and hurricanes Although congressional budgetary reform policies are (South Carolina, Florida) have caused greater per capita outside the scope of this report, the Review Committee damage. All but six states experienced disasters severe frequently heard concerns expressed about the current enough to warrant Presidential declarations. States in system of funding disaster relief through emergency the northeast battled coastal flooding while the south supplemental appropriations, exempting disaster relief recovered from hurricanes and the midwest from from the scrutiny received by other spending, while floods. permitting it to add to the federal deficit. This situation also may create an incentive for federal agencies to The rising frequency and costs of natural disasters have accept backlogs in maintenance for activities in disaster prompted a variety of concerns. Some have questioned prone areas, recognizing that an emergency spending the federal government's role in funding disaster opportunity for catching up may occur. The OMB recovery, citing the potential for rising expenditures in should support study of and attention to the long-term an era of budgetary restraint, the possible incentives implications of the 'above-cap' funding process. 181 PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS Figure 14.1 Presidential Disaster Declarations, 1989-1993 D Presidential Disaster Declarations" e 112 c I too- a r a 50- 15 22 0 9 0 MMM@lllllllllt@ n Earthquake Hurr'@C.re Flooding Winter Storm Tornado Typhoon s Disaster Type N X Disaster Relief Fund ayrnents Dollars* per Copito $200 to $307 (2) FMRC N $100 to $200 (3) 0 $15 to $100 (18) 205 Presidential Disaster Area Declarations EJ $0.61 to $15 (22) $13 Billion in Projected Payments (as of 4/94) El all others (6) * Projected Amounts **23 of 112 Flooding Declarations Included Tornadoes Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 1994. PEOPLE, THE MIEDIA, AND THE FEDERAL FLOOD RESPONSE Compassion plays a major role in the way people decisionmakers were bombarded with calls and they respond to disasters and rush to provide disaster relief. responded by declaring additional counties part of the The speed with which the entire nation learns of disaster area and by promising quick relief. FEMA disasters is almost immediate. For example, because of Disaster Field Offices, set up in many cities and towns, the television coverage of the 1989 World Series, those were themselves flooded with applications for disaster watching had the experience of actually being present relief. The media attention helped agencies get needed during a major earthquake. As for the 1993 floods, the information to citizens, but also may have increased nation can remember pictures carried by CNN of the expectations about the level of assistance that was house being swept away when a levee was breached. available or the speed at which help could be provided. Viewers were left wondering how this could happen rather than why the house was there in the first place. Human compassion and the way news is reported 44 k' influences how Congress and the nation respond to The best media flood-relief stories became those of disasters. A great push arose to replace levees along suffering people and those complaining about the lack the Missouri River, many of which should not be of quick government assistance. Politicians and replaced without careful design and engineering 182 PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS considerations. If federal response to disaster relief is driven by the immediacy of an event, rather than by subsidized some bad decisions and penalized some good rational decisionmaking, the effort to put everything ones, foregoing opportunities for change. A caring, back to the way it was may increase future risk rather supportive approach for disaster victims must never be than reaching long-term solutions to risk reduction. lost; but there must be, in tandem, an effort to ensure In the haste of some disaster relief and under the decisionmaking that reflects long-term as well as short- pressure of the media effect, the nation may have term goals. NON-URBAN LEVEES Congressional and Administration support of the 1993 Before a levee can be repaired, on a cost-shared basis, supplemental appropriations for PL 84-99 clearly under PL 84-99, the USACE or SCS must conduct an indicates strong support for that program. Several economic analysis indicating that the benefits of the groups in and outside the federal government, however, repair outweigh the costs. This requirement mirrors the proposed eliminating all federal support of levee repairs requirements for new construction, but looks only at the under PL 84-99. Lack of federal post-disaster support costs and benefits associated with the emergency probably would result in eventual economic failure for repairs. Sponsors of levees that do not meet the some previously protected land and a gradual benefit-cost test for repairs may not find it profitable to conversion of formerly protected land from agriculture continue to farm, but the action that forced this decision to natural areas, which in turn could provide additional was one based on accepted analysis practices rather than flood storage and reduced future agricultural flood one based on a desire to reallocate the land. Provisions damages. are available under current laws to obtain interest in such land from willing sellers (see Chapter 7). MISSOURI RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AND NAVIGATION Clearly, there is a relationship between the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project and the operations of the Missouri River main stem reservoir decline of habitat and ecosystems along that river. In system and is about to release a draft Environmental recent years the USACE has made efforts to adjust Impact Statement (EIS) covering the program of operation of the system to better accommodate releases from the reservoirs and their relationship to the environmental concerns. Nevertheless during the course ecology of the river, navigation, hydropower, flood of its review, the Review Committee encountered many control, water supply, and recreation. Discussions with individuals and several conservation agencies that believe the USACE indicate that the draft EIS will address the economic and social benefits derived from the project many environmental concerns. The 'Master Manual' do not outweigh the environmental costs associated with review study is being conducted under a full public it. The Review Committee reviewed benefit-cost involvement process in accordance with the NEPA. calculations for the navigation component of the project The Review Comniittee believes it would be appropriate prepared by the USACE Institute for Water Resources for the USACE, after completion of the action on the using the current Principles and Guidelines procedures 'Master Manual,' to conduct an analysis of potential for the reach of the river between Sioux City, Iowa, and modifications to the structural components of the Kansas City. This analysis indicated that, using the navigation system to determine what benefits can be existing procedures, there is a favorable ratio, even when obtained through these actions. The USACE should navigation tonnage involving river operations and bank also, under the recommended procedures for project stabilization benefits are excluded. The Review review (Chapter 5), conduct an analysis, by reach, of Committee recognizes that the USACE is in the process the total benefits and costs of navigation operations on of completing its multi-year study of the water control the Missouri River. 183 PERCEPHONS, IDEAS, AND PROPOSALS PROPERTY RIGHTS Two senior members of Congress expressed to the Review Committee a concern felt by many individuals the criteria being used by the USACE to determine who also corresponded with the Review Committee. eligibility for participation in levee repair programs (Action 8.2) and does not see the denial of repairs to be The respect and adherence to the rights of property owners either an entitlement or a property rights issue. as drafted in our Constitution are of central importance to the federal government's role in floodplain management. Similarly, some individuals have complained that any Any acquisition of lands, expansion of wetlands, and the restrictions on an individual's or a group's 'right ' to purchase of easements and rights-of-way should be done floodfight constitutes another possible abridgement of with adequate compensation to the landowner. Likewise, property rights. The Review Committee recognizes the the federal government should refrain from the use of rights of individuals and groups to protect their own condemnation when attempting to move residents out of the floodplain. Any expansion of buyout and relocation property from destruction provided that their actions do initiatives must be carried out on a willing-seller basis. not increase flood damages to other groups or individuals. The law concerning protection against a There has been no suggestion in this report that either common enemy is complex and the rights and land or property be condemned by the federal responsibilities of individuals and groups involved in government. Sound floodplain management will result such actions vary widely by state and locality. The from a strong partnership among federal, state/tribal and Review Committee has recommended that before local governments and the private citizens of the nation. federal and state governments provide fiscal or in-kind Decisions on land acquisitions should result from support to floodfights, they ensure that the actions being consultations within this partnership. The taken will not have adverse impacts on other groups or recommendations of this report tie all federal acquisitions individuals. Individuals and groups retain the ability to of land or property for environmental or relocation 'go it on their own' subject to state and community purposes to a willing seller scenario. floodplain management regulations (including floodway regulations adopted by communities to participate in the The report recognizes that the federal government should NFIP). These individuals and groups are subject to not support fiscally the rebuilding of some flood whatever liability they generate as a result of their damaged structures, to include levees and homes, when actions. Land use controls developed by a community it does not make economic or engineering sense. To as a result of participation in the NFIP represent some, this failure to support rebuilding is seen as an community decisions. abridgement of the rights of the owners of the property. The Review Committee does not see this to be the case. Several individuals discussed with the Review Some individuals have stated that the federal Committee their concern that national environmental government's failure to repair their flood-damaged levees programs have resulted in a shifting of property from even though they were ineligible for participation in one private ownership and that these shifts constituted a of the emergency programs, constitutes an abridgement taking of sorts. Wherever possible, the Review of their entitlement to these repairs and thus a violation Committee investigated the comment and could only of their property rights. The Administration has identify programs in which there had been willing determined the eligibility criteria for each existing levee sellers. repair program. The Review Committee has endorsed 184 PERCEPHONS, EDEAS, AND PROPOSALS ENDNOTES 1. A federal economist notes, in proposing an end to farm program payments, that major institutional changes can be very disruptive and transitions are important in order to minimize disruptions. "People make major investments based on market distortions introduced by subsidies. Eliminating existing subsidies is disruptive and equity requires that beneficiaries be given an opportunity to adjust to the correction of these distortions. However, not eliminating subsidies imposes an unfair burden on the rest of society. Living, working and investing in a floodplain is inherently risky. If people are not confronted with the full cost of such behavior, resources are misallocated and costly inefficiencies result. It is inequitable to ask Federal taxpayers to subsidize and finance such activities" 2. One economist notes, "The Federal Government should not be in the business of financing projects which produce local and/or regional benefits. The Federal Government should establish standards for management of the floodplain. Subject to budgetary constraints, if a proposed project has a benefit-cost ratio greater than one for Federal benefits, the Federal Government should pay for the provision of Federal benefits and locals should pay all other costs." 185 Chapter 15 INTO THE 21st CENTURY The Midwest Flood of 1993 was a significant The Interagency Floodplain Management Review hydrometeorological event. In some areas it Committee proposes a better way to manage the represented an unusual event; in most others, however, nation's floodplains. The report begins with it was just another of the many that have been seen establishing that all levels of government, all before and will be seen again. Flood flows similar to businesses, and all citizens interested in the floodplain those experienced by most of the Midwest will continue should have a stake in properly managing this resource. to occur. All of those who support the risk, either directly or indirectly, must share in the management and the costs Excessive rainfall, which produced standing water, of reducing the risk. The federal government must lead saturated soils, and overland flow, caused major by example; state and local governments must manage damages to upland agriculture and some communities. the floodplains; and individual citizens must adjust their In turn, runoff from this rainfall created, throughout the actions to the risk they face. basin, flood events that became a part of the nation's 1993 TV experience. Damages overall were extensive; The Review Committee supports an approach to $12 - $16 billion that can be counted and a large floodplain management that replaces a focus on amount in the unquantifiable impacts on the health and structural solutions with a sequential strategy of wellbeing of the population of the Midwest. avoidance, minimization and mitigation. In many cases, by controlling runoff, managing ecosystems for Human activities in the floodplains of the Midwest over all their benefits, planning the use of the land, and the last three centuries placed people and property at identifying those areas at risk, the hazard can be risk. Local and federal flood damage-reduction and avoided. Where the risk cannot be avoided, damage floodplain management programs reduced the annual minimization approaches, such as elevation and risk, and, during the 1993 flood, prevented nearly $20 relocation of buildings, and construction of reservoirs billion in potential damages. Some of these programs, or flood protection structures, are carried out only when however, have drawn the population to high risk areas they can be integrated into an overall systems approach and created greater exposure for future damages. In to flood damage reduction in the basin. addition, flood damage-reduction, navigation and agricultural activities have severely reduced available When floods occur, damages to individuals and floodplain habitat and have compromised natural communities can be mitigated with a flood insurance functions on which fish and wildlife rely. program that obtains its support from those who are protected. Full disaster support for those in the Over the last 30 years the nation has learned that floodplain is contingent on participation in these self- effective floodplain management can reduce help mitigation programs. By internalizing these risks, vulnerability to damages and create a balance among the moral hazard associated with full government natural and human uses of floodplains and their related support is reduced. watersheds to meet the social and environmental goals of the nation. The nation, however, has not taken To ensure a long-term, nationwide approach to advantage of this capability. floodplain management, the Review Committee proposes legislation to develop and fund a national 187 EqTO TBE 21ST CENTURy floodplain management program with principal Recognizing that the existing developed condition of the responsibility and accountability at the state level. It upper Mississippi River Basin includes individually also proposes revitalization of the federal Water authorized federal flood control projects and levees built Resources Council to better coordinate federal by local groups and individuals, the Review Committee activities, limited restoration of some basin commissions also proposes a plan to identify and evaluate the needs for basin-wide planning, and reissuance of a of the basin, to ensure the integrity of a flood damage Presidential Executive Order requiring adherence to reduction system that meets the needs of the basin, and floodplain management principles by federal agencies to restore natural floodplain functions on appropriate and their programs. lands. THE 21s'CENTURY FLOODPLAIN The vision of the 21" century floodplain described in through full participation in commercial or federally Chapter 4 can become a reality. supported insurance programs. Human activity in the floodplain will continue, but with The floodplain of the 21" Century will be rich in both the clear understanding that any activity is subject to the agriculture and natural systems. At the upstream end of residual risk of flooding and that the costs of this risk well-maintained levees, federally built water-control are to be borne by the sponsors of the activity. All new structures will permit controlled passage of river waters activity will be evaluated for its economic, social, and to keep sloughs wet throughout the year maint i i g environmental impacts and its effects on other activities and restoring aquatic habitat with resultant benefits for in the floodplain. fisheries, waterfowl, and other wildlife. Levees will be modified to provide for controlled overtopping in the The threat to urban centers whose existence depends on event of high water, eliminating the catastrophic failures the river for commerce or whose locational advantage is that occurred in the past. Participation in a federal crop tied historically to the floodplain will be reduced by a insurance program will protect the agricultural combination of upstream land treatment, floodways, and investments. floodproofing. In some cases, levees and floodwalls will continue to provide part of the vulnerability Some of the lower land will be converted from row reduction. Many sections of these communities, where crops to alternative crops or silviculture or returned to a frequent flooding had been a way of life for the natural state under federal or state easements. Many residents, will become river-focused parks and levees that were frequently destroyed in the past by recreation areas as former occupants relocate to safer flood waters will be removed or relocated to ensure areas on higher ground. Adherence to strict land-use their integrity or provide for a floodway. regulations by the community will stop unwise development. Upland of the floodplain, programs to improve the treatment of lands, control new runoff, and restore Those whose homes were at risk in low lying areas wetlands will reduce the flows during frequent floods outside the urban centers will have moved to higher and shave the peaks off larger events, improving ground. Outside of the urban areas, industry will conditions in the floodplain. Both commercial and protect its own facilities against major floods. The recreational vessels will continue to ply the river's water and wastewater treatment plants, power plants, waters, operating in a navigation system that enhances and major highways and bridges that serve these centers riverine ecosystems through water-level adjustments and will be elevated out of the flood's reach or protected control. against it. Much of this infrastructure, as well as the homes, businesses, and agricultural activities located The floodplain will meet the needs of both human and behind most levees, will be insured against flooding natural systems. 188 INTO THE 21ST CENTURY SHAPdNG THE CHALLENGE The Review Committee has suggested a bold yet past activities in the floodplain make sense, produce realistic and straightforward approach to improving desirable results, and should be continued. Others do floodplain management: not and should be stopped. While many aspects of current programs are in need of modification, the 0 Share responsibility and accountability for problem is not one of lack of understanding of how to accomplishing floodplain management among manage floodplains and their associated watersheds, it is all levels of government and with the citizens a problem of will and organization. There are no silver of the nation. The federal government can not bullets in the floodplain management business, no single go it alone, nor should it take a dominant role actions that will suddenly reduce the vulnerability of in the process. those who are currently at risk or stave off placing others in the same position. 0 Establish, as goals for the future, the reduction of the vulnerability of the nation to the dangers and damages that result from If the nation is to move ahead, it must do so in a floods and the concurrent and integrated manner that recognizes the many stakeholders in the preservation and enhancement of the natural floodplain management effort and appropriately divides resources and functions of floodplains. These the responsibilities among them. Many state and local goals seek to avoid unwise use of the governments have done a great job at floodplain floodplain, mitigate vulnerability when management and the nation can build on that success; floodplains must be used, and mitigate those others need encouragement; all need support. damages that do occur. Operating together with con-unon goals, governments, businesses, and private citizens can make sound 0 Organize the federal government and its floodplain management a reality throughout the nation. programs to provide the support and the tools necessary for all levels to carry out and By giving the states and local governments more participate in effective floodplain management. responsibilities and supporting their efforts, by improving the efficiency of federal efforts, and by The tools, authorities and programs are available at the ensuring that individuals recognize and assume their federal, state, tribal, and local level to move toward personal responsibilities for floodplain activities, the accomplishment of these goals. Many of the nation's federal government can share the challenge of floodplain management and see to its accomplishment. WHAT'S NEXT? The Review Committee has proposed 60 actions and Chapter 12 provided a road map for further action, made recommendations concerning 28 other issues. assigning responsibilities to appropriate agencies for These proposals represent a package whose specific actions. Unless these actions are tracked by the interrelationships will continue to exist even if one or Administration, the cohesion of the disparate actions more of the components fail to be implemented. The could be lost. Review Committee would caution that the strong linkages among the actions and recommendations The United States has a rare opportunity to make a require that, as any one is considered, it needs to be change in floodplain management. It should not be addressed in the context of those to which it relates. missed. 189 PART V Part V REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY TEAM (SAST) To be published separately 191 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ac-ft Acre-feet FCIC Federal Crop Insurance Corporation ACR Acreage Conservation Reserve FCO Federal Coordinating Officer ASCS USDA Agricultural Stabilization and FEMA Federal Emergency Management Conservation Service Agency BIA DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee BOR DOI Bureau of Reclamation FIPS Federal Information Processing CA Cooperative Agreements Standards CDBG Community Development Block Grant FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map CEA EOP Council of Economic Advisors FmHA USDA Farmers Home Administration CEQ EOP Council on Environmental FMRC Interagency Floodplain Management Quality Review Committee CA cubic feet per second FR Federal Register CFR Code of Federal Regulations FS USDA Forest Service CN Curve Number FSA Food Security Act CNN Cable News Network FWS DOI Fish and Wildlife Service CRP Conservation Reserve Program FY Fiscal Year CVM Contingent Valuation Method GIS Geographic Information System CWA Clean Water Act HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act HEL Highly Erodible Land DOC Department of Commerce HOME HUD HOME Investment Partnership DOI Department of the Interior Program DOD Department of Defense HR House of Representatives Bill DOT Department of Transportation HUD Department of Housing and Urban EA NEPA Environmental Assessment Development EDA DOC Economic Development IFSARE InterFerometric Synthetic Aperture Administration Radar for Elevation EEP Environmental Easement Program LAWCON Land and Water Conservation Fund EIS NEPA Environmental Impact LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging Statement LTRMP Long Term Resource Monitoring EMP Environmental Management Program Program EO Executive Order MARC Midwest Area River Coalition EOP Executive Office of the President MLRA Major Land Resource Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency MM&MR Major Maintenance and Major EROS Earth Resources Observation System Rehabilitation ERS Economic Research Service MR&T Mississippi River and Tributaries ESA Endangered Species Act Project EWP Emergency Watershed Protection MOA Memorandum of Agreement Program MOU Memorandum of Understanding EWRP Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program MRC Mississippi River Commission FAA DOT Federal Aviation Administration NASA National Aeronautics and Space FACTA Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Administration Trade Act of 1990 (the 1990 Farm NBS National Biological Survey Bill) NED National Economic Development A&A I ACRONYMS NEPA National Environmental Policy Act SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar NFIP National Flood Insurance Program SBA Small Business Administration NGO Non-Governmental Organization SCS USDA Soil Conservation Service NHPA National Historic Preservation Act SPF Standard Project Flood NOAA DOC National Oceanic and TIGER Topologically Integrated Atmospheric Administration Geographically Encoded Reference NPR National Performance Review TVA Tennessee Valley Authority NPS DOI National Park Service UCOWR Universities Council on Water NRI National Resource Inventory Resources NWS DOC National Weather Service UMRBA Upper Mississippi River Basin Association OMB EOP Office of Management and UMRBC Upper Mississippi River Basin Budget Commission P&G Economic and Environmental UMRCC Upper Mississippi River Conservation Principles and Guidelines for Water Council and Related Land Resources UMR&T Upper Mississippi River and P&S Principles and Standards for Planning Tributaries Project Water and Related Land Resources USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers PL Public Law USC United States Code RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Act USGS DOI U.S. Geological Survey RDA Rural Development Administration WRC Water Resources Council RRSA Refuge Revenue Sharing Act WRDA Water Resources Development Act (of S Senate Bill any year) SAST Scientific Assessment and Strategy WRP Wetland Reserve Program Team (of the FMRQ A&A 2 GLOSSARY 100-year flood: A term commonly used to refer to the one percent annual chance flood. The 100-year flood is the flood that is equaled or exceeded once in 100 years on the average, but the term should not be taken literally as there is no guarantee that the 100-year flood will occur at all within a 100-year period or that it will not recur several times. Acre-foot: A unit measure of volume equal to one acre covered to a depth of one foot; often used to describe reservoir capacity or the amount of water flowing past a point in a river over a specified time period. One acre-foot equals 43,560 cubic feet, or 326,700 gallons. Actuarial rates: Insurance rates determined on the basis of a statistical calculation of the probability that a certain event will occur. Actuarial rates, also called risk premium rates, are established by the Federal Insurance Administration pursuant to individual community Flood Insurance Studies and investigations undertaken to provide flood insurance in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act and with accepted actuarial principles, including provisions for operating costs and allowances. Aggradation: The process of filling and raising the level of a streambed by deposition of sediment. Agricultural levee: A levee for which the majority of benefits are derived from protection of agricultural lands. Backwater lake: A lake connected to a river at its downstream end that fills principally from the rise of the river rather than from inflow from the lake's drainage area. Backwater: a) A rise in upstream water level caused by an increase in flow downstream. b) An upstream water level rise caused by obstructions downstream, such as ice jams or debris. Bank stabilization: Use of structural measures such as rock, concrete, or other material to stabilize channel banks against movement and erosion. Bankfull stage: At a given location, the maximum elevation to which a river can rise without overflowing its banks. (See Flood stage). Base flood: A flood of specific frequency and used for regulatory purposes. The NFIP has adopted the "100-year" flood as the base flood to indicate the minimum level of flooding to be used by a community in its floodplain management regulations. Basin: A region or area drained by a river system. Also, the total land area that contributes runoff to any given point on a river or stream. Often called a watershed. Biotechnical engineering: Channel or bank modification techniques that use vegetation in innovative ways in contrast to traditional bank sloping and riprap protection. Bluff line: A steep headland or cliff which in some topographical settings defines the edge of a floodplain. Bottomland hardwoods: Tree species that occur on water-saturated or regularly inundated soils. Classified as GI I GLOSSARY wetlands, these areas contain both trees and woody shrubs. cfs: The rate of flow (see Discharge) past a given point, measured in cubic feet per second. One cubic foot of water equals about 7 1/2 gallons. Collaborative approach: A commitment to working collectively to solve complex, inter-related concerns. A collaborative effort requires more than consultation, coordination, and seeking public input. Community Assistance Program (CAP): The program established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and intended to assure that communities participating in the NFIP are carrying out the flood loss reduction objectives of the program. The CAP provides needed technical assistance to NFIP communities and 'attempts to identify and resolve floodplain management issues before they develop into problems requiring enforcement action. Community Rating System (CRS): A program developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to encourage -- by use of flood insurance premium reductions -- community and state activities that go beyond the basic NFIP requirements; the CRS gives communities credit for certain activities to reduce flood losses, facilitate accurate insurance rating, and promote the awareness of flood insurance. Conservation tillage: Practices that reduce cultivation of soil, leave a protective vegetative layer on the surface, and thereby serve to reduce or minimize soil erosion. Crest: The highest water level at a given location during a flood event. Crop rotation: Growing crops in a cropping sequence designed to provide adequate residue for maintaining or improving soil condition. Cumulative impacts: The impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions; cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Dam: A structure built across a waterway to impound water. Dams are used to control water depths for navigation; or to create space to store water for flood control, irrigation, water supply, hydropower or other purposes. Debris: Objects such as logs, trees and other vegetation, building wreckage, vehicles, shopping carts or dead animals carried by water in a flood (or by wind, as in a hurricane or tornado). Degradation: A process of lowering the level of a streambed by scour and erosion. Design flood: The maximum amount of water for which a flood control project will offer protection. Selection is based on engineering, economic and environmental considerations. Dike: In most areas of the U.S., an earthen or rock structure built partway across a river for the purpose of maintaining the depth and location of a navigation channel. In others areas the term is used synonymously with levee. Discharge: Rate of flow in a river or stream measured in volume of water per unit of time. (See cfs). Drainage tiles: Short lengths of perforated pipe made of clay, concrete, or plastic installed in soil to remove free water for the purpose of crop production. GI 2 GLOSSARY Drainage area: Total land area from which water drains to a point on a river. The upper Mississippi River drainage area comprises 23 % of the land area of the 48 contiguous United States. Ecosystem: Biological communities (including humans) and their environment (or watershed) treated together as a functional system of complementary relationships, including transfer and circulation of energy and matter. Ecosystem integrity: Maintenance of the structural and functional attributes characteristic of a particular locale or watershed, including normal variability. Ecosystem management: Management of the biological and physical resources of an ecosystem or watershed in an attempt to maintain the stability of its structural, functional, and economic attributes, including its normal variability. Emergency spillway: See Spillway. Emergency: Any instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and protect property and public health and safety or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster in any part of the United States. Encroachments: Activities or construction within the floodway, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development, that may result in an increase in flood levels. Environmental assessment: An examination of the beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment of a proposed action, such as a water resources project, and alternative solutions. Executive Order 11988: The Floodplain Management Executive Order, issued in 1977, specifying the responsibilities of the federal agencies in floodplain management. EO 11988 directed federal agencies to evaluate and reflect the potential effects of their actions on floodplains and to include the evaluation consideration of flood hazards in agency permitting and licensing procedures. Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force: The Task Force established in 1975 to carry out the responsibility of the President to prepare for the Congress a Unified National Program for Floodplain Management; member agencies are the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Army, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Federal trust resources: As applied in this report, these resources include migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered species and species that are candidates for listing, interjurisdictional fisheries and wetlands. Such resources are protected by international treaty, and/or federal law in recognition of their ecological and/or commercial significance. Held borders: A strip of perennial vegetation established on the edge of a field. It involves plantings of herbaceous vegetation or shrubs. Flash flood: Flood with a very rapid rate of rise that is caused by intense rainfall. During flash floods the time between peak rate of rainfall and peak flow is very short. Flood/flooding: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of river and/or tidal waters and/or the unusual accumulation of waters from any source. Flood control structures: Structures such as dams, dikes, levees, drainage canals, and other structures built to modify GI 3 GLOSSARY flooding and protect areas from flood waters. Flood discharge: The quantity of water flowing in a stream and adjoining overflow areas during times of flood. It is measured by the amount of water passing a point along a stream within a specified period of time and is usually measured in cubic feet of water per second (cfs). Flood frequency: The frequency with which a flood of a given discharge has the probability of recurring. For example, a 100-year frequency flood refers to a flood discharge of a magnitude likely to occur on the average of once every 100 years or, more properly, of a magnitude that has a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any year. Although calculation of possible recurrence is often based on historical records, there is no guarantee that a 100- year flood will occur at all or that it will not recur several times within any 100-year period. Flood hazard: The potential for inundation that involves risk to life, health, property, and natural floodplain values. Flood Hazard Mitigation Teams: Teams consisting of representatives of the 12 federal agencies that signed an interagency agreement to provide technical assistance to states and communities for nonstructural flood damage reduction measures. The teams are typically employed after each major flood disaster declared by the President to provide technical assistance and guidelines to communities and states affected by the disaster. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FUM: An official map of a community on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FIRMs typically identify the elevation of the one-percent annual chance flood and the areas that would be inundated by that level of flooding; they are used to determine flood insurance rates and for floodplain management. Flood insurance: The insurance coverage provided through the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood of record: The highest flood historically recorded at a given location. Flood-pulse advantage: The amount by which fish yield is increased by a natural predictable flood pulse. Floodplain management regulations: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances that cover, for example, floodplains, grading, and erosion control and other regulations to control future development in floodplains and to correct inappropriate development already in floodplains. Floodplain management: A decision-making process whose goal is to achieve appropriate use of the nation's floodplains. Appropriate use is any activity or set of activities that is compatible with the risk to natural resources and human resources. The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to watershed management, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations. Floodplain resources: Natural and cultural resources including wetlands, surface water, groundwater, soils, historic sites, and other resources that may be found in the floodplain and that provide important water resources, living resources (habitat), and culturanistoric values. Floodplain: Low lands adjoining the channel of a river, stream, watercourse, lake, or ocean, that have been or may be inundated by floodwater and other areas subject to flooding. Floodproofing: The modification of individual structures and facilities, their sites, and their contents to protect against GI 4 GLOSSARY structural failure, to keep water out, or to reduce the damaging effects of water entry. Flood stage: A site-specific river level at which flood damage may start to occur; usually at or above the top of the riverbank. Flood heights are often measured relative to the flood stage elevation. (See Stage). Flood storage pool: A volume of space in a reservoir reserved for storage of flood water. Floodwall: Reinforced concrete walls that act as barriers against floodwaters thereby helping to protect floodprone areas. Floodwalls are usually built in lieu of levees where the space between developed land and the floodway is limited. Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated amount. The floodway is intended to carry deep and fast-moving water. Flowrate: Rate of flow (discharge) at a specific location in a river or floodplain. Freeboard: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of designing flood protection facilities and for floodplain management. Freeboard tends to compensate for the many uncertain factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge obstructions, and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed. Gated outlets: Conduits, such as pipes or box culverts, in which mechanical gates are placed for the purpose of controlling the discharge. Geographic Information System (GIS): A computerized system designed to collect, manage, and analyze large volumes of spatially referenced and associated attribute data. Greenway: A protected linear open-space area that is either landscaped or left in its natural condition. it may follow a natural feature of the landscape, such as a river or stream, or it may occur along an unused railway line or some other right of way. High energy erosion zones: Areas on the floodplain, such as the location of a former channel, that are subject to extensive scour and sediment transport during overbank flows. Hinge-control points: Points in slackwater navigation pools where the water level is used as an index to establish gate settings at navigation dams for maintaining navigable depths. Hydraulics: The science dealing with the mechanical properties of liquids that describes the specific pattern and rate of water movement in the environment. Hydrology: The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below the surface of the land and in the atmosphere. Interjurisdictional Fisheries: Fish and shellfish resources whose habitat includes waters shared by two or more states. Land treatment measures: Measures used to reduce runoff of water to streams or other areas; techniques include maintenance of trees, shrubbery, and vegetative cover; terracing; slope stabilization; grass waterways; contour plowing; GI 5 GLOSSARY and strip farming. Levee: A linear earth embankment used to protect low-lying lands from flooding. A levee extends from high ground adjacent to a floodprone area along one side of a river to another point of high ground on the same side of the river. Lock: A structure adjacent to a dam or in a canal to allow passage of vessels from one water level to another. The lock consist of a chamber with gates at either end, in which water is raised or lowered. Navigation lock and dams normally do not store flood water. Lower Mississippi River Basin: The portion of the Mississippi River Basin that drains into the Mississippi River from its confluence with the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico. Lower Mississippi River: The reach of the Mississippi River from the confluence of the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois, to the Gulf of Mexico. Major disaster: Any natural catastrophe or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion in any part of the United States which, in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Middle Mississippi River: The reach of the Mississippi River between its confluence with the Missouri River at St. Louis, Missouri, and its confluence with the Ohio River at Cairo, Illinois. Mitigation: Any action taken to permanently eliminate or reduce the long-term risk to human life and property and the negative impacts on natural and cultural resources that can be caused by natural and technological hazards. Mitigation lands: Lands acquired to offset adverse impacts of water resource (or other) projects National Wetlands Inventory Project: Wetlands mapping on a national basis performed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide scientific information on the extent and characteristics of the nation's wetlands and consisting of detailed maps and status and trends reports. Natural resources and functions of floodplains: Include, but are not limited to, the following: natural flood and sediment storage and conveyance, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat, harvest of natural and agricultural products, recreation opportunities, and areas for scientific study and outdoor education. Navigation channel: The channel maintained in a body of water for the purpose of assuring a depth adequate for commercial vessels. Nonstructural measures: A term originally devised to distinguish techniques that modify susceptibility to flooding (such as watershed management, land use planning, regulation, floodplain acquisition, floodproofing techniques and other construction practices, and flood warning) from the more traditional structural methods (such as dams, levees, and channels) used to control flooding. One-percent annual chance flood: A flood of a magnitude that has a one-percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. Often referred to as the 100-year flood or base flood, the one-percent annual chance flood is the standard most commonly used for floodplain management and regulatory purposes in the United States. GI 6 GLOSSARY Permanent vegetation: Perennial vegetation such as grasses, shrubs,and trees which provides cover to soil and prevent erosion. Principles and Standards/Principles and Guidelines: "The Principles and Standards for Planning of Water and Related Land Resources" is a Presidential policy statement issued in September 1973 that established a framework for improved planning for the use of water and related land resources based on the objectives of national economic development and environmental quality. The "Principles and Standards" were revised and issued in 1983 as the "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources for Implementation Studies. " Quad Cities: The metropolitan area comprised by Davenport, Iowa; Bettendorf, Iowa; Rock Island, Illinois; and Moline, Illinois. Recurrence interval: The average interval in which a flood of a given size is equaled or exceeded as an annual maximum. Regulatory floodplain: The area adjoining a river, stream, lake, or ocean that is inundated by a regulatory flood. In riverine areas the floodplain usually consists of a regulatory floodway and regulatory flood fringe (also referred to as a floodway fringe). In coastal areas the floodplain may consist of a single regulatory floodplain area or a regulatory high- hazard area and a regulatory low-hazard area. Regulatory floodway: The area regulated by federal, state, or local requirements to provide for the discharge of the base flood so the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is no more than a designated amount (not to exceed one foot as the minimum standard set by the National Flood Insurance Program). Repetitive loss: A flood-caused loss of more than $1,000 to a repetitive loss structure. Repetitive loss structure: A structure for which two or more losses of more than $1,000 (building and contents combined) have been paid since 1978. Riparian ecosystems: Distinct associations of soil, flora, and fauna occurring along a river, stream, or other body of water and dependent for survival on high water tables and occasional flooding. Riparian vegetation: Hydrophytic vegetation growing in the immediate vicinity of a lake or river. Riparian zone: The border or banks of a stream. Although this term is sometimes used interchangeably with floodplain, the riparian zone is generally regarded as relatively narrow compared to a floodplain. The area is typically subject to frequent, short duration flooding. Risk: The probability of being flooded. Rock closing dams: In reaches of rivers where multiple channels are formed by islands, rock dikes that span the side channel, generally where it departs from the main channel, are called rock closing dams. They serve to direct flow to the main channel. Scour hole: Erosional holes developed as a result of breached levees. Locally called blow, blew, or blue holes. Scour: Process of eroding surface soil by flowing water which results in gullies in the landscape. GI 7 GLOSSARY Section 409 Hazard Mitigation Plan: A plan prepared as required by Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 by any jurisdiction that receives federal disaster assistance. Sediment and debris basin: Retention structure constructed on or adjacent to a watercourse to store sediment and debris. Side channel: A stream or channel to the side of the major channel or stream. Slackwater navigation dam: A dam placed across a river for the purpose of creating water depth sufficient for navigation. The term slackwater refers to the relatively low velocity in the navigation pool compared to an open river. Slough: A swamp, march, bog or pond as part of a bayou, inlet or backwater. Spillway: A feature of a dam allowing excess water to pass without overtopping the dam. Usually a spillway functions only in a large flood. Stage: The height of the water surface in a river or other body of water measured above an arbitrary datum, usually at or near the river bottom. Standard project flood: A very large (low frequency) design flood standard applied to the design of major flood control structures and representing the most severe recombination of meteorological and hydrological conditions considered reasonably characteristic of a particular region. Strip cropping; Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands along a contour. Structural measures: Measures such as dams, reservoirs, dikes, levees, floodwalls, channel alterations, high-flow diversions, spillways, and land-treatment measures designed to modify floods. Substantial improvement: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvements of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either before the improvement or repair is started or if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Substantial damage: The amount of damage to a structure caused by flooding that may be sustained before certain regulatory and flood insurance requirements are triggered. As defined in NFIP regulations, a building is considered substantially damaged when the cost of restoring the building would exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure. Tailwater: The reach of stream or river located immediately below a water control structure such as a darn. In contrast, headwater is the term applied to the pool immediately above a dam. Terrace: A raised bank of earth having vertical or sloping sides and a flat top used to control surface runoff. Upper Mississippi River Basin: The portion of the Mississippi River basin that is above the confluence of the Ohio River. It includes the Missouri River Basin. Upper Mississippi River: The reach of the Mississippi River from its confluence with the Missouri River at St. Louis, Missouri, upstream to its headwaters at outlet of Lake Itasca in Minnesota. GI 8 GLOSSARY Watershed: A region or area contributing ultimately to the water supply of a particular watercourse or water body. Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support and, under normal circumstances, does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include bottomland hardwoods, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflow, mud flats, and natural ponds. Wing dikes: Rock wing dikes or dams, closing dams, wood pile dikes, and bendway weirs are types of channel training structures used to divert river flows toward a single main channel used for navigation. Generally constructed perpendicular to flow, and constructed to various submergent of emergent elevations, these structures usually function most effectively at lower flows. GI 9 APPENDIX A CHARTER OF THE FLOODLAIN MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON TO: BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr. FROM: Administration Floodplain Management Task Force -- T.J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Office of Management and Budgetid Kathleen McGinty, Director, VAiite House Office of Environmental Poli James R. Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resourc SUBJECT: Directive on the Establishment of an Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee The purpose of this directive is to establish an Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee and to designate you as Executive Director of the Committee. The Committee will undertake an intensive review to: determine the major causes and consequences of -the Great Flood of '93; evaluate the performance of existing floodplain management and related watershed management programs; and, make recommendations as to what changes in current policies, programs, and activities would most effectively achieve risk reduction, economic efficiency, and environmental enhancement in the floodplain and related watersheds. As appropriate, the Committee should identify legislative initiatives that might be proposed by the Administration. Because floodplain management involves a complex intergovernmental system of Federal, State, tribal, and local responsibilities, you will ensure outreach to and consultation with other levels of government and the public. You should conduct your activities and deliberations in an open environment. The Review Committee will include a multi-disciplinary and interagency group of experts in fields relevant to floodplain management. The individuals listed at Attachment I have been assigned by their agencies to the Committee. As necessary, you are authorized to request additional assistance, on an ad-hoe basis, from those agencies and from activities not currently represented on the Committee. The Council of Economic Advisors staff will assist in coordination of economic analysis support. The Justice Department will provide legal assistance. FENIA will coordinate public affairs and Congressional and intergovernmental relations for the Committee. The Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team, which was established by a VAiite House directive dated November 24, 1993, (Attachment 2), is further assigned to the Review Committee and will operate under the Committee's direction. @c Resources to support the salaries of individuals assigned to the Committee will be provided by parent agencies. You will be provided an appropriate budget to support the travel and other activities of the committee. As coordinated by OEP and OMB, you will be provided a three-person administrative support staff, office space, and supporting equipment. For the period of this study, you will be assigned to the VAlite House and Will report directly to us. You will. serve as the primary representative of the Committee for purposes of public outreach and communications and will have executive responsibility for organizing and executing the work of the Committee. Not later than February 1, 1994, you will submit to us for approval a detailed mission statement for the Committee and a time-phased work plan. The mission statement should reflect coordination with as broad a segment of interested activities as possible. Not later than May 1, 1994, you will provide a preliminary report to us on the results of the review. A fmal report will be issued t the public by June 1, assuming expeditious review by the Administration. Every 3 weeks, or more frequently if required, you will provide us with in- process-reviews of the effort. Attachments (2) -2- APPENDIX B FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ACTIVITIES Washington, DC-based Members Sioux FaRs, SD-based Members Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team US Military Academy BG Gerald E. Galloway - Executive Director US Geological Survey Dr. John Kelmelis, Reston, VA, Team Leader US Department of Agriculture Dr. Margriet Caswell, Economic Research US Department of Agriculture Service, Washington, DC David Buland, Soil Conservation Service, Thomas Wehri, Soil Conservation Service, Huron, SD Washington, DC Dr. Maurice Mausback, Soil Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE US Department of Army (Army Corps of Engineers) James Reel, Soil Conservation Service, Des Richard DiBuono, Washington, DC Moines, IA Arnold Robbins, Vicksburg, MS Harry Shoudy, Washington, DC US Department of Army (Corps of Engineers) Dr. Gary Freeman, Vicksburg, MS US Department of the Interior S. K. Nanda, Rock Island, IL Robert Clevenstine, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tim Peterson, Omaha, NE Rock Island, IL Jerry Rasmussen, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior Columbia, MO Dr. John Dohrenwend, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA Environmental Protection Agency Ron Erikson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Shannon Cunniff, Washington, DC Cities, MN Joseph Ferrante, Washington, DC John Evans, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Lewis Rosenbluth, Washington, DC VA Dr. David Galat, National Biological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency Columbia, MO Mary Jean Pajak, Washington, DC Dr. William Kirby, U.S. Geological Survey, Michael Robinson, Washington, DC Reston, VA Mark Laustrup, National Biological Survey, Onalaska, WI Tim Liebermann, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson City, NV APPENDIX B Thomas Owens, National Biological Survey, US Department of Justice Onalaska, WI Ted Bolling Wayne Rohde, U.S. Geological Survey, Sioux Falls, SD Environmental Protection Agency Charlynne Boddie Environmental Protection Agency Milo Anderson, Chicago, IL Federal Emergency Management Agency Cathy Tortorici, Kansas City, KS Daniel Cotter Paige Darden Federal Emergency Management Agency Mary Jo Vrern Mark Whitney, Washington, DC Mark Whitney Tennessee Valley Authority Additional Support Provided to the FMRC Curt Goff by: Additional Support Provided to the SAST Council on Environmental Quality by: Kathleen Gallagher Patty Leppert-Slack Federal Emergency Management Agency Daniel Cotter, Washington, DC US Department of Agriculture Valerie Parich U.S. Geological Survey Tammy Short Byron Stone, Reston, VA Charles Trautwein, Sioux Falls, SD US Department of Commerce Alma Ripps Hughes STX Corporation Norman Bliss, Sioux Falls, SD US Department of the Interior Ron Risty, Sioux Falls, SD Yvette Pryor INFORMATION GATHERING ACTIVITIES Meetings with Federal Agencies Department of Commerce - National Weather Service Department of Health and Human Services Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Stabilization Department of Housing and Urban Development and Conservation Service Department of the Interior - Bureau of Indian Affairs Department of Agriculture - Farmers Home Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation Administration Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Agriculture - Federal Crop Insurance Department of the Interior - U.S. Geological Survey Corporation Department of the Interior - National Biological Survey Department of Agriculture - Rural Development Department of the Interior - National Park Service Administration Department of Transportation Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service Environmental Protection Agency Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers Federal Emergency Management Agency Department of the Army - Institute for Water Resources General Accounting Office Department of Commerce - Economic Development Office of Management and Budget Administration Small Business Administration B-2 APPENDIX B Meetings with National and Regional National Association of Conservation Districts Organizations National Association of Home Builders National Association of Realtors Advisory Council on Historic Preservation National Com Growers Association American Farm Bureau Federation National Fish and Wildlife Foundation American Rivers National Governors Association American Society of Civil Engineers National Trust for Historic Preservation Association of American State Geologists National Wildlife Federation Association of State Flood and Stormwater Managers Natural Disaster Coalition Association of State Floodplain Managers MARC 2000 Association of State Wetland Managers Sierra Club Coalition to Restore Aquatic Ecosystems The Nature Conservancy Coalition to Restore Urban Waterfronts Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Environmental Defense Fund Working Group on Sustainable Redevelopment Interstate Council on Water Policy World Wildlife Fund OUTREACH ACTIVITIES Attendance at Conferences, Meetings and SCS State Conservationist Meeting - Kansas City, MO Workshops State Floodplain Task Force Meeting - Madison, WI State Floodplain Task Force Meeting - Minneapolis, Association of State Floodplain Managers Conference MN Tulsa, OK State Flood Task Force Meeting - Des Moines, IA Fish and Wildlife Interagency Committee Meeting - State Task Force Meeting - Lincoln, NE Rock Island, IL State Task Force Meeting - Pierre, SD Governor's State Floodplain Workshop - Springfield, Technical Workshop - St. Louis, MO IL Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Meeting - Governor's Task Force on Floodplain Management - St. Louis, MO Jefferson City, MO Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee - Illinois Association for Floodplain and Stormwater LaCrosse, WI Management Conference - Lisle, IL USACE Floodplain Management Assessment Public Iowa Flood Recovery Workshop - Davenport, IA Meeting - St. Paul, MN Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee - USACE Floodplain Managers Meeting - Reno, NV Little Rock, AR Upper Mississippi River Flood Control Association - Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association Quincy, IL - Overland, KS World Wildlife Fund Conference - Jefferson City, MO Minnesota Water '94 Conference - Minneapolis, MN World Wildlife Fund Conference - Rock Island, IL World Wildlife Fund Conference - Winona, MN Visits with State, County and City Officials and Other Local Interests Iowa Audubon County, Iowa Governor Terry Brandstad Carter Lake, Iowa Ames, Iowa Cherokee, Iowa Audubon, Iowa Council Bluffs, Iowa B-3 APPENDIX B Des Moines Water Works, Des Moines, Iowa Elwood, Kansas Dickinson County, Iowa Kansas State Legislators Flood Recovery Task Eddyville, Iowa Force Hamburg, Iowa Manhattan, Kansas Iowa Department of Economic Development Topeka, Kansas Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Levee District 16 Minnesota Keokuk, - Iowa Austin, Minnesota Lee County, Iowa Cottonwood County, Minnesota Marshall County, Iowa Mower County, Minnesota Marshalltown, Iowa Windom, Minnesota Ottumwa, Iowa Pottawattamie County, Iowa Missouri Sibley, Iowa Governor Mel Carnahan Spirit Lake, Iowa Jefferson City, Missouri Wappello County, Iowa MARC 2000 - St. Louis, Missouri Missouri Agricultural and Land Management Illinois Resources Institute Governor Jim Edgar Missouri Department of Conservation Alexander County, Illinois Missouri Department of Natural Resources Beardstown County, Illinois Missouri Farm Bureau Brown County, Illinois Missouri Levee Districts Calhoun County, Illinois St. Charles County, Missouri Fults, Illinois St. Louis County, Missouri Grafton, Illinois St. Joseph, Missouri Greene County, Illinois Ste. Genevieve, Missouri Havana, Illinois Hull, Illinois Nebraska Illinois Farm Bureau Beatrice, Nebraska Jackson County, Illinois Lincoln, Nebraska Jeresy County, Illinois Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources Maeystown, Illinois District, Nebraska Mason County, Illinois Sarpy County, Nebraska Monroe County, Illinois Morgan County, Illinois North Dakota Niota, Illinois Fargo, North Dakota Pere Marquette State Park, Illinois State Hazard Mitigation Team, North Dakota Pike County, Illinois Pulaski County, Illinois South Dakota Quincy, Illinois Madison, South Dakota Randolph County, Illinois Montrose, South Dakota Shawnee College, Illinois Southwest Illinois Planning Commission Wisconsin Sny Levee District, Illinois Black River Falls, Wisconsin Springfield, Illinois Darlington, Wisconsin Valmeyer, Illinois Eau Claire, Wisconsin Eau Claire District Office, Wisconsin Kansas Department of Natural Resources Governor Joan Finney B-4 APPENDIX B Options Review Meetings Kansas City, MO Springfield, IL St. Paul, MN CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGS AND MEETINGS US Senate - Members Paul Reinecke/Senator Harkin (D - IA) Senator Bond (R - MO) Proctor Jones/Senator Johnston (D - LA) Senator Simon (D - IL) Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development US Senate Members Represented by Staff Jonathan Wyner/Senator Kerry (D - MA) Kathy Ruffalo/Senator Baucus (D - MT) Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs Steve Knoff/Senator Bond (R - MO) Patrick Westoff/Senator Leahy (D - VT) Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Rocky Kuhn/Senator Bumpers (D - AR) Carrie Apostolou/Senator Mikulski (D - MD) Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Sue Masica/Senator Byrd (D - W) Independent Agencies Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior Maria Petaros/Senator Moseley-Braun (D - IL) and Related Agencies Jean Louver, Dan Delish/Senator Chaffee (R - RI) Sherrie Cooper/Senator Nickles (R - OK) Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Eric Teffel/Senator Daschle (D - SD) Jafar Kardu/Senator Pressler (R - SD) Ira Paull/Senator D'Amato (R - NY) Kriss Waffen/Senator Sarbanes (D - MD) Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs Greg Schnecke/Senator Dole (R - KS) Tricia Haneghan/Senator Simon (D - IL) Jeff Harrison/Senator Durenberger (R - MN) Stephen Kohasi/Senator Gramm (R - TX) US House of Representatives - Members Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Representative Calvert (R - CA) Independent Agencies Representative Costello (D - IL) Representative Danner (D - MO) Doug Stout/Senator Grassley (R - IA) Representative Durbin (D - IL) B-5 APPENDIX B Representative Emerson (R - MO) Darby Becker/Representative Costello (D - IL) Representative Ewing (R - IL) Representative Furse (D - OR) Beth Phillips/Representative Danner (D - MO) Representative Kennedy (D - MA) Dan O'Grady/Representative Durbin (D - IL) Representative Leach (R - IA) Representative Lightfoot (R - IA) Roxanne Smith/Representative Evans (D - IL) Representative Marzullo (R - IL) Representative McKeon (R - CA) Tom Meluis/Representative Fields (R - TX) Representative Mineta (D - CA) Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Representative Minge (D - MN) Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources Representative Nussle (R - IA) Representative Regula (R - OH) Miguel Gonzalez/Representative Glickman (D - KS) Representative Skeen (R - NM) Representative Skelton (D - MO) Sarah Dahlin/Representative Johnson (D - SD) Representative Smith (D - IA) Representative Talent (R - MO) Barry Scanlon, Brian Doherty/Representative Kennedy Representative Vollaner (D - MO) (D - MA) Representative Weldon (R - PA) Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Consumer Credit and Insurance US House of Representatives Members Represented by Staff Frank Purcell/Representative Lightfoot (R - 1A) Ken Kopocis, Scott Slesinger/Representative Applegate Ann Swartz/Representative Marzullo (R. - IL) (D - OH) Bill Warfield/Representative McDade (R - PA) Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Bob Schmidt/Representative Bevill (D - AL) Lara Battles/Representative Skelton (D - MO) Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy Dan Ashe, Barbara Polo/Representative Studds (D - and Water Development MA) Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources B-6 APPENDIX C US, FARM PROGRAM PRODUCTION ADJUSTMENT/PRICE SUPPORT The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of higher of the actual market price per crop unit or the 1990 (The 1990 Farm Bill) continued the market loan rate. The total payment to the farmer is the orientation of its predecessor, the Food Security Act of payment rate multiplied by the eligible production. The 1985. The stated goals of the 1990 Farm Bill were to eligible production is calculated as the payment acres ease financial stress for farmers, reduce government (base acres minus set-aside/ACR acreage minus 15 costs, reduce crop surpluses, maintain export percent normal flex acres) times the program yield competitiveness, and enhance environmental quality. which is a fixed amount based on past production The most widely known features of farm policy are the averages. Production Adjustment/Price Support Programs administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Even in its most simplified form, the program is Conservation Service of the USDA. These programs complex. There are other important factors that are aimed at supporting farm income and keeping determine profitability for an individual farmer. For agricultural production in line with anticipated needs. example, there may be a cost associated with In general, farmers enrolled in the program are given a maintaining a cover crop on the set-aside acres. A price support for growing specified commodities. Not farmer can grow a crop other than com on the normal all agricultural crops are included. If an acreage flex acres (15 percent) which would change the per-acre reduction program is in effect, farms are required to calculations. If land quality and productivity vary on place a specified proportion (set-aside) of their acreage the farm then the average yield per acre may differ based on previous cropping history (base acres) in when the farmer participates in the program. Such conservation uses (acreage conservation reserve - considerations are important to individuals, but make ACR). Two major floodplain crops, wheat and corn, discussions of federal farm programs unnecessarily are in the acreage reduction program, but soybeans are confusing. Therefore, the following example is not. presented to illustrate the importance of farm productivity, market prices, and farm program Price support programs were first authorized in 1933. parameters such as the set-aside rate, target price, and Support can be through loans, purchases, payments, or program yield in determining whether a fanner will a combination of these methods. A deficiency payment participate and the level of government payments. rate is calculated as the difference between the "target" Table C. 1 shows a simplified example of how a corn price which is currently set by the Secretary of fanner would compare his/her income with and without Agriculture at the statutory minimum level, and the participation in the USDA Commodity Program. C-1 APPENDIX C Table C.1 Example of Accounting Method for Evaluating Participation in the Federal Farm Program for Corn. Not Participating Participating in Program in Program Production Calculations Base acres acres 100 100 Set-aside/ACR acres na 10 Permitted acres acres na 90 Maximum pay. acres acres na 75 Planted acres acres 100 90 Actual yield bu/acre 135 135 Total production bushels 13,500 12,150 Market price $/bu 2.10 2.10 Revenue from sale $ 28,350 25,515 Total production cost $175/acre 17,500 15,750 Payment Calculations Program yield bu/ac na 115 Program production bushels na 8,625 Deficiency pay. rate $/bu na .65 Program payment _7$ 7 1 na 5,606.25 Farmer Income Total net income $ 10,850.00 15,371.25 Notes: "na" means not applicable for fanner not enrolled in Commodity Program. Calculations were made using parameters similar to those used in the 1993 Corn Program: Set-Aside rate = 10%; Program Yield = 115 bushels per acre based on a national average; and Target Price = $2.75 per bushel. Program production is [(100*0.85)- (100*0. 10)1*115. The deficiency payment rate is the target price minus the market price (2.75-2. 10 = 0.65). For simplicity, the loan rate is not included in the analysis. Planted acres are equal to the base acres less the set-aside acres. C-2 APPENDIX D FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ACT FUND)"1ENTAL COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION The Interagency Floodplain Management Review a) Multi-hazard mitigation grants to states for planning Committee recommends that the Administration propose and implementation activities. States could pass grants enactment of a law with the following components: along to communities. 1) A national policy on floodplains and b) Research and technical assistance grants for floodplain management which: floodplain management to assist states in carrying out research, including mapping, and training required with a) Encourages actions to avoid or minimize respect to floodplain management. States could pass vulnerability to floods, and to mitigate flood losses; grants along to communities. b) Recognizes that fundamentally, floodplain c) Federal projects would have to be consistent, to the management must be implemented from the bottom up; maximum extent practicable, with state floodplain management plans. c) Promotes comprehensive systems approaches to d) Participation in on-going, non-disaster flood damage floodplain management; reduction and mitigation activities could be withheld d) Encourages participation in the National Flood from those states that do not undertake floodplain Insurance Program; management planning. e) Encourages linkage between state emergency, floodplain, natural resource, and coastal zone managers; 3) Guidelines for states as to what essential elements are required for a state floodplain f) Recognizes and encourages the link between management plan to receive federal management of watersheds, ecosystems, and approval (establishes a 5-year period to floodplains; complete a floodplain management plan). g) Establishes that all federal agencies will address the Essential elements for federal approval of new vision of floodplain management in undertaking state floodplain management plans include: their activities; and a) Use of the standard project flood and one percent h) Recognizes and encourages the link between pre- per annum floodplain to set priorities for planning and disaster planning and hazard mitigation in floodplain decisionmaking; management. b) Consistency with NFIP requirements; 2) Incentives for states to develop a capacity for and commitment to floodplain c) Mechanisms to achieve greater participation in NFIP management including: by individuals; D-1 APPENDIX D d) Definition of what constitutes appropriate land and water uses within the floodplain that have a direct 4) Cost-sharing. Establishes the amount of significant impact on flood stage (level of significance any grant made pursuant to this Act as to be defined by states but not less than NFIP floodway initially not exceeding 80 percent of the requirements); state's cost of undertaking the activity of e) An inventory and designation of areas of particular the grant and will decrease over ten years concern within the floodplain and watersheds (inclusive to a 50 percent share. Establishes greater of aquatic areas) affecting flooding; funding priority given to states with f) Identification of the means by which states propose documented individual participation in to exert control over the land and water uses referred to NFEP in excess of a minimum percentage, above (such as a state permit program); e.g., 50 percent. g) Broad guidelines on priorities of land uses in particular areas, including those uses of lowest priority; and, h) Watershed management plans. ESTIMATED RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS It is estimated that implementation of the Act would require an increase of the FEMA staff by 15 individuals would be used to supplement state efforts and would nationwide to distribute grants and oversee the program. therefore represent a sharing of the costs of building The total annual federal cost of the program, for and implementing floodplain management program staffing and grants, is estimated as $70 million. Grants meeting federal standards. D-2 APPENDIX E FEDERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES Floodplain Management Principles and Guidelines Executive Order 11988, 24 May 1977 requires federal The Principles and Guidelines established by the Water agencies to provide leadership and take action to: (1) Resources Council and approved by the President on avoid development in the base (100-year) floodplain February 3, 1983, prescribe a single federal objective, unless it is the only practicable alternative; (2) reduce national economic development (NED), and do not the hazards and risk associated with floods; (3) specifically characterize other plans that must be in the minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health array of alternatives considered by federal agencies in and welfare; and (4) restore and preserve the natural planning water resources development projects. They and beneficial values of the floodplain. do, however, allow for display of potential impacts in four accounts: NED, environmental quality (EQ), regional economic development (RED) and other social effects (OSE). Alternative plans formulated must include a plan that reasonably maximizes net national economic development benefits, consistent with the Protection of Wetlands federal objective. This plan is identified as the NED plan -nd is the one to be recommended for federal Executive Order 11990, 24 May, 1977 directs federal action, unless the Secretary of a department or head of agencies to provide leadership in minimizing the an independent agency grants an exception to this rule. destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands. Section 2 Exceptions may be made when there are overriding of this order states that, in ftirtherance of the National reasons for recommending another plan, based on other Environmental Policy Act of 1969, agencies shall avoid federal, state, local and international concerns. The undertaking or assisting in new construction located in Principles and Guidelines are applicable to USACE wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative. implementation studies for civil works water project plans and to similar plans of the SCS, TVA, and BOR. They have no standing as Administrative Rules. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Stabilization and encourage them to carry out conservation and Conservation Service environmental practices on agricultural land that result in long-term public benefits. Practices eligible for cost Agricultural Conservation Program: The sharing include: establishment or improvement of Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936 permanent vegetative cover, contour or strip-cropping provides cost sharing to farmers and ranchers to systems, and terrace systems; development of springs, E-1 APPENDIX E seeps and wells; installation of pipelines, storage barley, corn, sorghum, rice and.cotton. Prior to facilities, and other measures intended to provide enactment of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980, erosion control on range or pasture land; installation of the disaster payments program compensated eligible water impoundment reservoirs for erosion control, farmers for losses due to natural disasters. The Act conservation, and environmental and wildlife ended the disaster assistance program for those counties enhancement; planting trees and shrubs and improving in which Federal Crop Insurance was available. timber stands for protection against wind and water However, the Secretary of Agriculture has the erosion and for timber production; and development of discretion to issue disaster type payments to counties if new or rehabilitation of existing shallow water areas to he thinks the situation warrants it. Disaster payments to support food, habitat, and cover for wildlife. Practices an individual under the wheat, feed grains, upland that are primarily production-oriented are not eligible cotton, and rice programs combined cannot exceed for cost-sharing. $100,000. Agricultural Water Quality Protection Emergency Conservation Program: The Program: The Food Security Act of 1990 authorizes Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 provides emergency USDA to enter into 3- to 5-year agreements with farm funds for sharing with farmers and ranchers the cost of owners and operators to develop and implement plans to rehabilitating farmland damaged by wind erosion, protect water quality. These agreements do not floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters, and for preclude crop production on the enrolled acreage. carrying out emergency water conservation measures Eligible lands include wellhead protection areas within during periods of severe drought. The natural disaster 1,000 feet of public wells, areas of karst topography must create new conservation problems, which, if not where sinkholes convey runoff water directly into treated, would (1) impair or endanger the land; (2) groundwater, critical areas having priority problems materially affect the productive capacity of the land; (3) resulting from agricultural non-point sources of represent unusual damage which, except for wind pollution, areas where agricultural non-point source erosion, is not the type likely to recur frequently in the pollution is adversely affecting threatened or endangered same area; and (4) be so costly to repair that federal species habitats, and other environmentally sensitive assistance is or will be required to return the land to areas identified by the USDA, the EPA, DOI, or state productive agricultural use. Conservation problems agencies. existing prior to the disaster involved are not eligible for cost-sharing assistance. Cost-share agreements are Conservation Reserve Program: The Food required, and federal assistance cannot exceed 65 Security Act of 1985, as amended, encourages farmers, percent of the actual, average, or estimated cost of through 10-15 year contracts with USDA, to stop performing the emergency induced work. growing crops on cropland subject to excessive erosion or that contributes to a significant water quality problem Forestry Incentives Program: The and plant it to a protective cover of grass or trees. A Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 conservation plan describing the conservation measures encourages landowners to plant trees on suitable open and maintenance requirements to be carried out by the lands or cut over areas and to perform timber stand owner or operator during the term of the contract must improvement work for production of timber and other be agreed to by the participant and the district related forest resources. Cost-share agreements conservationist. between the landowner and the Secretary of Agriculture are based on forest management plans developed by the Disaster Payments: The Agriculture landowner in cooperation with and approved by the Consumer Protection Act of 1973 authorized disaster State forestry agency. Cost-sharing assistance cannot payments to compensate farmers for prevented plantings exceed 65 percent of the cost of work under approved and unusually low yields due to natural disasters, plans. adverse weather, and other conditions beyond a producer's control. The program covered wheat, E-2 APPENDIX E Price and Income Support Programs: multiplied by a program allocation factor. In Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs years when program expenditures are high, the support and stabilize farm prices and income and Secretary of Agriculture can invoke the maintain stable levels of supply. These goals are program allocation factor in order to reduce accomplished through CCC payments, purchases, and expenditures. The program allocation factor is acreage reduction programs. Price and income support legislated to be between 0.8 and 1.0, but its programs began with the Agricultural Adjustment Act actual value is not known by farmers at sign-up of 1933 which introduced a number of new policies time. including payments to farmers for voluntary acreage reductions, on-farm storage, and marketing agreements. Sodbuster Provision: The Food Security Act All subsequent farm legislation has continued to of 1985, as amended, discourages the conversion of emphasize price and income supports for major crops. highly erodible land to agricultural production. If highly erodible grassland or woodland is used for a) Nonrecourse Commodity Loans: cropland production, producers may lose eligibility for: Congressionally-established loan rates provide price and income supports, crop insurance, FniHA minimum crop prices through nonrecourse loans, CCC storage payments, farm storage facility loans to farmers. A nonrecourse loan is one loans, and other programs under which USDA makes which farmers are not obligated to repay; they payments. Sodbuster applies to highly erodible land can simply forfeit the collateral (the crop). A which was not planted to annually tilled crops from farmer can place the crop in storage and 1981-85. To maintain eligibility for USDA program receive a loan from the government based on benefits, producers must have a conservation plan the established loan rate. If the market price approved by their local conservation district for any rises above the loan rate, the farmer can sell highly erodible land broken out for crop production the crop on the market and repay the loan, after that date. interest, and storage costs. If the market price does not rise above the loan rate, the farmer Supply Restriction Programs: Acreage can default on the loan (without penalty) and reductions, set-asides, paid land diversions, and turn the crop over to the government. payment-in-kind programs have been the primary means Consequently the loan rate places a floor under of restricting supply. The general goal of these policies the commodity price for a participant. is to reduce the number of acres planted and thus reduce crop production. If an acreage reduction or set- b) Deficiency Payments: Congressionally aside is in effect, producers must reduce their plantings established target prices for certain crops by a specified percentage of the acreage base for each enable participating farmers to receive enrolled commodity to be eligible for CCC loans, "deficiency payments" from the CCC for purchases, and payments. eligible program commodities when commodity prices fall below the target price for specified Swampbuster Provision: The Food Security periods of time. The legislative deficiency Act of 1985, as amended, discourages the conversion of payment rate is the target price minus the natural wetlands to cropland use. With certain higher of: (1) the loan rate, or (2) the national exceptions, if producers converted a wetland area to average market price for the first five months cropland after December 23, 1985, they lose eligibility of the marketing year. Deficiency payments for several USDA program benefits (see list above are based on "program yields" rather than under sodbuster provision). actual yields. Program yields are established by the Agricultural Stabilization and Wetlands Reserve Program: The Food Conservation Service (ASCS) county Security Act of 1990 provides financial incentives for committees and are a ftinction of the farm's restoration and protection of wetlands if farmers agree historical yields. Deficiency payments are to long-term (30-year or permanent) easements. E-3 APPENDIX E Farmed or converted wetlands (must have been development. Plans may include management and converted prior to December 23, 1985), adjacent structural measures, or combinations thereof. There are functionally related lands, and riparian areas that link no cost sharing requirements. wetlands are eligible for enrollment. In addition, farmed wetlands and adjoining lands enrolled in the Emergency Watershed Protection Program: conservation reserve may be permitted to be enrolled if Section 216, PL 81-516 and Section 404, Title IV, PL they have high wetland functions and values, were not 95-331 provided the Soil Conservation Service with planted to trees under a Conservation Reserve Program authorization for disaster relief funding in repairing (CRP) contract, and are likely to return to production damages to waterways and watersheds. Work includes after they leave the CRP. The federal government will debris removal and erosion control for waterways, levee provide not less than 75 percent cost-share for repair and relocations. restoration, plus lump sum payment for easement. Emergency Wetland Reserve Program: The Water Bank Program: The Water Bank Act same authority as Emergency Watershed Protection of 1970, as amended, provides for preservation and Program provides for the purchase of easements from improvement of major wetlands as habitat for migratory persons owning cropland who voluntarily agree to waterfowl and other wildlife; conservation of surface restore farmed, converted, or potential wetlands. The waters; reduction of runoff, soil and wind erosion; combined cost of restoring the land and levees must flood control; improved water quality; improved exceed the fair market value of the affected cropland to subsurface moisture; and enhancement of the natural be eligible for the program. The easements are beauty of the landscape. Under this program, wetland purchased to promote wetland values such as hydrology owners enter an agreement with the ASCS promising and vegetation, and protect the functions and values of not to drain, bum, fill, level, or use the wetland for a wetlands for wildlife habitat, water quality 10 year period. The Water Bank Program agreements improvement, flood water retention, floodway extend protection to and require conservation measures enhancement, environmental education, and other values on adjacent upland habitat. In exchange, the landowner determined appropriate by SCS. Use of the easement receives an annual payment designed to reflect local lands for cropland is prohibited. real estate values. If the land is also under a FWS agreement, the annual payment is reduced by 20 Watershed Protection: Section 3, Watershed percent. When accepting an area into the program, Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954; PL 83- ASCS tries to maintain a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of uplands to 566 provides for technical assistance to state and local wetlands. The term "wetlands," for purposes of governments in planning and carrying out works of carrying out the program include: seasonally flooded improvement to protect, develop, and utilize the land basins or flats, fresh meadows, shallow fresh marshes, and water resources in small watersheds under 250,000 deep fresh marshes, open fresh water, shrub swamps, acres in size. Conservation land treatment, and and wooded swamps. Participants in the program enter structural, and nonstructural measures are used to in to 10-year agreements, with provisions for renewal, address problems related to watershed protection, flood and receive payments for approved conservation work. prevention, and agricultural and nonagricultural water management. Nonstructural measures are preferred. Soil Conservation Service Projects must be sponsored by entities legally organized under state law, or any Indian tribe or tribal Cooperative River Basin Program: Section organization, having authority to carry out, operate, and 6, PL 83-566, provides for technical assistance to maintain works of improvement. Cost-sharing Federal, State, regional, and local governments in requirements are variable, depending on the nature of formulating and carrying out plans for conservation use the project. treatment measures, nonstructural measures, and E-4 APPENDIX E Farmers Home Administration FmHA loans are not to be allowed for activities that would directly or indirectly affect wetlands, unless there Debt Cancellation Conservation Easements: is "no practical alternative. " In addition, FmHA will FnfflA can forgive debt in exchange for conservation soon publish regulations implementing the farm debt easements on environmentally sensitive portions of a restructure and conservation set-aside provisions of the borrower's property. A conservation easement may be Food Security Act of 1985 (section 1318). This obtained for a period of not less than 50 years. A program will allow a farmer who is unable to repay his perpetual easement will usually be recommended. Both loan to have a portion of his FmHA loan cancelled in current and delinquent FmHA borrowers are eligible to exchange for a conservation easement of at least 50 participate in the debt restructuring conservation years. The percentage of the debt forgiven will be easement program. The borrowers must have loans equal to the percentage of the farm acreage (secured by secured by real estate. The easements can be the loan) which is placed under easement. established for conservation, recreational, and wildlife purposes on farm property that is wetland, wildlife Transfers of Inventory Farm Properties to habitat, upland, or highly erodible land. Non-program Federal and State Agencies for Conservation borrowers are not eligible to participate. There is no Purposes: Under the Consolidated Farm and Rural cost sharing. Development Act, FmHA can transfer certain inventory farm properties to Federal and State agencies. The Loans: Below market rate ownership and transfer must be for conservation purposes. The operating loans are available directly to farmers through property must have marginal value for agricultural the FmHA. The relatively low rates reduce the cost of production, be classified as environmentally sensitive, capital and may encourage farmers to expand the size of or be of special management importance. Properties their operations. The loans are made primarily to containing important resources such as wetlands, family farmers who cannot obtain private credit to floodplains, riparian zones, historical sites or finance operations or make farm improvements. In endangered species may qualify. Inventory farm addition the FmHA increasingly has been providing properties that are inholding, lie adjacent to, or occur in disaster emergency loans that can reduce the risk of proximity to, federally- or state-owned lands may farming in flood prone areas. The FmHA issued qualify. There is no cost share involved. regulations in 1983 (7 CFR Part 1940.301) stating that DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY CORI'S OF ENGINEERS (USACE) FIsh and Wildlife Enhancement: Section Pl, 93-252 and Pl, 95-51. It provides for flood fighting 906, Water Resources Development Act of 1986, PL99- and rescue operations; post flood response; emergency 662 provides that for any project measures repair and restoration of flood-damaged or destroyed recommended to enhance fish and wildlife, costs will be flood-control works such as levees; emergency entirely federal when the benefits have a national protection of federally authorized hurricane and shore character and, where they do not, non-federal interests protection works being threatened; the repair or shall reimburse 25 percent of the costs. The non- restoration of federal hurricane or shore protection federal share of operations, maintenance and structures damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or rehabilitation costs will, in all cases, be 25 percent. water action of other than an ordinary nature; emergency supplies of clean water to any locality Flood Emergency Operations and Disaster confronted with a source of contaminated water causing Assistance: PL 84-99 covers emergency activities or likely to cause a substantial threat to the public pursuant to PL 99-84, as amended by the Flood Control health and welfare of the inhabitants of the locality; and the Flood Control Act of 1962 and ftirther amended by emergency water supplies for human and livestock use in areas determined to be drought distressed. Provision E-5 APPENDIX E of advance flood damage-reduction measures by the Flood Plain Management Services Program: USACE is supplemental to individual and local Section 206, Flood Control Act of 1960, as amended, community efforts, rather than a replacement for them. provides for the USACE to furnish floodplain USACE protective and preventive measures are information and technical assistance to states, counties, generally of a temporary nature designed to meet an and cities for prudent use of land subject to flooding imminent flood threat. Permanent rehabilitation work from streams, lakes, and oceans. Services include: to protect against. the threat of future disasters is developing and interpreting flood and floodplain data considered separately from advance measures. A such as flood hazard mapping; providing a broad declaration of a state of emergency or written request assessment of the impact of structural and nonstructural by the governor of a state is a prerequisite to ftirnishing flood damage-reduction measures; providing technical advance measures under PL 84-99. Local interests are assistance on floodproofing systems and techniques; and required to remove temporary works provided as assessing the possible impacts of land-use changes on advanced measures. the physical, socio-economic, and environmental conditions of the floodplain. It is USACE policy to obtain local assurances for assistance. Local cooperation for accomplishment of Planning Assistance to States: Section 22, advance measures and rehabilitation works require local Water Resources Development Act of 1974, PL 93-251 assurances to: (1) provide without cost to the United authorizes cooperation with states and federally States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary recognized Indian Tribes in the preparation of for the authorized emergency work; (2) hold and save comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, the United States free from damage due to the and conservation of the water and related resources of authorized emergency work; and (3) maintain and drainage basins located within the boundaries of the operate all the rehabilitation work after its completion. state and submitting to Congress reports and Under PL 84-99, emergency funds may be expended recommendations with respect to appropriate federal directly by the USACE for authorized purposes. PL participation in carrying out the plan. Typical activities 84-99 does not authorize reimbursement of local studied under this program are flood damage reduction, interests for any of their costs for emergency operations water supply, water conservation, water quality, accomplished on their behalf. Also, PL 84-99 authority hydropower, erosion, navigation, and methodologies to and funds are not used in lieu of other USACE evaluate wetlands or other resources. Expenditures in authorities. The Corps may perform emergency work any one state cannot exceed $300,000 in any one year, on public and private lands and waters for a period of as amended by Section 921 of the Water Resources ten days following a governor's request for assistance. Development Act of 1986. Federal input to the state This work must be essential for the preservation of life planning program is on an effort- or service- sharing and property, including, but not limited to, channel basis in lieu of an outright grant. The non-federal share clearance, emergency shore protection, clearance and of costs is 50 percent; in-kind services are not accepted. removal of debris and wreckage endangering health and safety, and temporary restoration of essential public Project Modifications to Improve facilities and services. In the event of a Presidential Environment: Section 1135, Water Resources declaration of a major disaster or emergency declared Development Act of 1986; PL 99-662 provides for by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management modifications of the operation of completed USACE Agency, the USACE can provide assistance to state and projects for the purpose of improving environmental local governments in essential recovery operations when quality. The program can be used to protect, restore, and as directed by the President through FEMA under or create wetlands, provided the work involves provisions of PL 93-288. The Corps fully responds to modification of a water resources project constructed by all requests from the FEMA director or regional the USACE. Types of projects that could be considered director. include: installation of gaged culverts in USACE levees; opening oxbows cut off by USACE levees or navigation features; or realignment of a levee to allow areas E-6 APPENDIX E between the levee and the channel to revert to historic exceptions, require specific authorization by Congress. floodplain habitat. The non-federal sponsor is Examples of exceptions include small, single-purpose responsible for 25 percent of the cost of study and projects for flood control or navigation which can be implementation, which includes any necessary lands, carried out under several continuing authorities such as easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as areas. No work-in-kind is creditable. The non-federal amended, and Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors sponsor is also responsible for 100 percent of Act of 1960, as amended. For flood control projects, incremental operation and maintenance costs. the minimum local cost-share is 25 percent. The value of any lands, easements, and rights-of-way count as Regulation of Dredged or Fill Material into part of the 25 percent, but a minimum cash contribution U.S. Waters: Section 404, Clean Water Act of 1977 must be made for structural flood control projects and requires a USACE permit for discharges of dredged or must be equal to five percent of the construction cost. fill materials into the waters of the United States. Such Since all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary discharges, to qualify for a permit, must be in for the construction of a project are the non-federal compliance with the guidelines published by the sponsor's responsibility, it is possible for the non- Environmental Protection Agency to implement Section federal share of a structural flood control project to 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Section 404(c) of exceed 25 percent; however, the non-federal share the Act authorizes the Administrator of EPA to prohibit cannot exceed 50 percent. The non-federal cost-share or restrict the use of a disposal site whenever it is for navigation projects varies, depending upon project determined that the discharge of such materials will depth. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water (PL99-662), which established current cost sharing for supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or Federal water resources development projects, also recreational areas. requires 50-50 sharing of costs of feasibility studies conducted by the USACE which lead to the Regulation of Navigable Waters: Section development of water projects, and makes the non- 10, River and Harbor Act of 3 March 1899 prohibits federal sponsor responsible for all operations and the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any maintenance costs of flood control projects authorized navigable water of the United States. A USACE permit in and after the 1986 Act. Reconnaissance studies is required for the construction of any structure in or leading to feasibility studies are conducted at full over any navigable water of the United States or the federal expense. Under the Pick-Sloan Missouri River accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, Basin Program (authorized by the Flood Control Act of location, condition, or physical capacity of such waters. 1944), the USACE constructed five large dams and reservoirs along the main stem Missouri River during Water Resources Development Projects: The the 1950's and 1960's. Four of these are in South USACE is the principal Federal agency with Dakota, while Garrison is in North Dakota. The responsibility for flood control and navigation projects, USACE operates these main stem dams and reservoirs which in some cases include other purposes such as for multiple purposes: flood control, irrigation, water supply, recreation, hydroelectric power, and fish navigation, recreation, wildlife, municipal and industrial and wildlife enhancement. Such projects, with certain water supplies, and hydroelectric power. Tributary projects are constructed and operated by both the USACE and the Bureau of Reclamation. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (EDA) The EDA flood relief program provides for grant awards to assist communities, industries, and firms E-7 APPENDIX E adversely impacted by the flood of 1993 and other agencies. The 1993 Supplemental Appropriation disasters to assist in the long-term economic recovery of provided $200 million to EDA through September 30, the affected area. Grant awards can be used to respond 1995, to carry out this effort. Non-federal cost sharing to emergency infrastructure needs as well as unmet requirements are 25 percent for economic adjustment needs for public infrastructure improvements that are and technical assistance grants, and 20 percent for not adequately addressed by FEMA or other federal public works direct grants. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EVA I JL L-Xf Control of Non-point Pollution: Section 319, Wetland Protection: State development grants Clean Water Act provides for grants to state agencies to provide for grants to states and federally recognized implement restoration activities that control non-point Indian tribes to develop new or refine existing state and pollution. There is a 40 percent state match. tribal wetlands protection programs. Only state agencies and federally recognized Indian tribes are Wastewater Treatment Plants: Capitalization eligible. Some funds can be passed through by state grants for state revolving funds provide for loans to and other entities, but the state must have a major role local municipalities to repair, replace, or relocate waste in the project. Funds cannot be used for relocation of water treatment plants damaged by the floods of 1993. farm or urban structures or to support construction There are no cost sharing requirements. The activities. The project sponsor must provide 25 percent municipalities receive loans against state revolving of total cost. funds and repay 100 percent plus interest. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (FCIC) Federal crop insurance was established by the Federal below the yield guarantee level, an insurance adjuster Crop Insurance Act of 1938, but essentially operated as will visit the farm and determine the indemnity which a pilot program for four decades. The Federal Crop the farmer is entitled to receive. Crop insurance Insurance Corporation Act of 1980 greatly expanded the reduces the risks involved in agricultural production, program to make it the major policy for protection from protecting farmers against yield losses from a variety of crop failure. The federal government subsidizes the natural causes, including flooding, which is likely to premiums and administrative costs of the insurance occur on cleared bottom land areas. Under program. A variety of coverage levels are available. Swarnpbuster farmers who plant on newly converted The higher the yield guarantee level and the higher the wetlands are ineligible for crop insurance coverage on price election, the higher will be the premium the all planted acreage. farmer will pay. If at harvest time, farm yields are FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY knju=jVMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Section include: structural hazard control, such as debris basins; 404, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency retro-fitting, such as elevation or flood proofing to Assistance Act, as amended, provides for grants to state protect structures from future damage; acquisition and and local governments, certain private non-profit relocation of structures from hazard-prone areas; and organizations or institutions, and Indian tribes for development of state or local standards to protect new hazard mitigation actions after a Presidentially declared and substantially improved structures from disaster disaster. Funds can be used for projects to protect darnage. The non-federal sponsor is required to pay 25 either public or private property. Examples of projects percent of the project's total eligible costs. E-8 APPENDIX E National Flood Insurance Program (NFW): The National Flood Insurance, Act of 1968, as amended, Purchase of Floodplain Property: Section makes flood insurance available to protect the individual 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 in participating communities from financial loss in the provides for federal acquisition of previously flood- event of a flood. Under the NFIP insurance is damaged property located in flood risk areas to give subsidized, up to an amount specified, for existing property owners the opportunity to relocate to buildings in areas designated as flood hazard areas by non-flood-prone areas. To be eligible, the property FEMA. New buildings pay the full actuarial cost of owner must have a flood insurance policy in force when flood insurance. The land-use control measures the damage occurs, and at least one of the following required of communities to gain and maintain eligibility criteria must be met: (1) the currently damaged for flood insurance are complementary to other structure must have been damaged by at least three floodplain management efforts. Section 202 of PL 93- previous floods over a 5-year period, with an average 234 states that no federal officer or agency shall damage of 25 percent or more of the value of the approve any financial assistance for acquisition or structure; (2) a single flood has damaged the structure construction purposes after July 1, 1975, for use in any 50 percent or more of its value or beyond repair to its area identified by FEMA as an area having special pre-flood condition; and (3) any single event has left the flood hazards unless the community in which such area structure damaged and irreparable, either due to local is situated is then participating in the National Flood ordinance limitations or significantly increased building Insurance Program. Section 402 of WRDA 1986 costs. Communities participating in the program must expands the prohibition against federal participation in agree to accept title to purchased property and manage flood hazard areas by including federal participation in it for open space or other non-development purposes. construction of local flood control projects. The property owner may retain ownership of buildings by moving them to another location. U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT MUD) Community Development Block Grant Funds can be used for acquisition, new construction, Program: This program provides for formula grants to rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance. metropolitan cities and urban counties and to States for use in non-entitlement areas which do not receive Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program: This entitlement grants. All funded activities must meet one program provides for loan guarantee assistance to states of three broad national objectives, to benefit low and to finance: acquisition of real property; relocation of moderate income persons; to eliminate slums and blight, property, homes, and businesses; rehabilitation of or to meet urgent community development needs. publicly owned real property, including repair and reconstruction of public utilities, such as water and HOME Program: This program provides for sewer systems; housing rehabilitation, including formula grants to states and larger cities and urban elevation of properties; and economic development. counties for permanent housing for low-income persons. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Reclamation irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, and municipal and industrial water supply. Projects also Established by the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau provide flood control and recreational benefits, but constructs, operates, and maintains multipurpose water these are generally not primary project purposes. The projects in the 17 western States primarily for Bureau also manages any water distribution facilities associated with the USACE projects constructed under E-9 APPENDIX E the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program. As with purchase wetlands and surrounding upland areas the USACE projects, the non-federal cost burden has outright or enter into a perpetual easement agreement increased recently for Bureau projects. On new which places restrictions on the wetlands. In the case projects the Bureau requires the non-federal sponsors to of an outright fee purchase, the FWS buys the land at contribute 50 percent of feasibility study costs and the current market value. This valuation is performed finance up-front a portion of the construction costs for by examining recent land sales where land sold the project (as opposed to delaying reimbursement until contained wetlands. When purchasing a wetlands after construction is completed and the project is area,the FWS seeks to obtain a ratio of 2:1 upland to operating, as was the historical practice. Further the wetland. In the case of an easement purchase, the Bureau's approach to any new hydroelectric projects landowner gives up rights and responsibilities to drain, has been tightened significantly: the entire construction fill, bum, or level the wetlands. All other ownership cost must be paid by the non-federal sponsor during the rights and responsibilities remain. Uplands are not construction period. restricted with a FWS lease as in the purchase. Easement payments are made on a one-time, lump sum Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) basis, with the payment varying according to land values in the immediate area and the development North American Wetlands Conservation potential of the wetlands. Fund: Provides for Federal cost-share funding on a 50-50 basis to states, local governments, businesses, and individuals to protect, restore, and manage a National Park Service (NPS) diversity of wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Federal Land Transfer, Federal Land-to- Parks Program: This program provides for technical Partners for Wildlife: This program provides assistance and transfer of available surplus federal real for grants and technical assistance to private landowners property to states and local governments for the purpose interested in restoring wetlands and riparian habitats on of establishing state and local parks for recreation and their land. Landowners enter into a binding agreement open space. Properties must be made available by the with the FWS to restore and protect the site. General Services Administration. Agreements are for a minimum 10-year period, but landowners are given a higher priority for funding if Rivers and Trails Conservation Program: they intend to protect the area perpetually. Cost This program provides for NPS staff assistance to sharing is negotiated. The FWS can cost share with the communities for river and trail corridor planning and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, open space preservation efforts. Cost-sharing is State agencies, conservation organizations, and others. variable, usually in the form of in-kind services. Small Wetlands Acquisition Program (SWAP): Under this program the FWS can either SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA) SBA makes disaster loans to non-farm, private sector to help fund acquisition of a replacement property at a owners of disaster damaged property for uninsured different site. In cases of forced relocation or losses, including homeowners and renters, businesses of substantial damage (as defined by the National Flood all sizes, and nonprofit organizations. Loans can be Insurance Program administered by the Federal used by a property owner to restore any property Emergency Management Agency) in a special flood including wetlands damaged by flooding. Owners of hazard area, the damaged property may be treated as a non-farm, flood damaged properties may use loan funds total loss, making the property owner eligible for ftill E-10 APPENDIX E replacement value. Loans generally have an interest nonprofit organizations are limited to a statutory rate of 4 percent and terms up to 30 years, depending maximum of $1.5 million, except that SBA has on borrowers ability to repay. Borrowers, such as authority to grant a waiver for businesses that are major businesses, able to use their own resources to meet sources of employment. Loans to homeowners are disaster needs without hardship pay a higher interest limited to $100,000 for real estate, $20,000 for rate (generally 8 percent) and their loans are limited to personal property, $100,000 for refinancing of prior a three-year term. Business loans and those to liens, and $24,000 for additional mitigation devices not required by code. RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Water and Water Disposal Loans and Grants: This program provides for loans and grants be made in any area outside the boundary of a city of (75 percent of project costs) to public entities such as 50,000 or more and its immediate adjacent urbanized municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Indian areas with population density of no more than 100 tribes, and non-profit corporations to develop water and persons per square mile. Priority is given to waste disposal systems in rural areas and towns with a applications for projects in open country, rural population less than 10,000. It also provides for communities, and towns of 25,000 and smaller. Any technical assistance and training grants, solid waste legal entity, including individuals, public and private management grants, and emergency community water organizations, and federally recognized Indian tribal assistance grants. The emergency community water groups, may borrow. Additional funds are available to assistance grants can be made in rural areas and cities guarantee loans made by private lenders to cover costs or towns with a population not in excess of 5,000 and a arising from the consequences of Presidential declared median household income not in excess of 100 percent disasters. The maximum loan amount that can be of a state's non-metropolitan median household income. guaranteed is $10 million. Additional ftinds are available through June 30, 1994, to assist rural areas and cities and towns, with a Community Facility Loans: This program population not in excess of 15,000, to cover costs that provides for loans to public entities such as are a consequence of the Midwest floods or other municipalities, counties, special purpose districts, Presidential declared disasters that occurred in 1993. nonprofit corporations, and Indian Tribes to construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health Business and Industrial Guaranteed care, public safety and public services. Loans: Business and industrial guaranteed loans may TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) Among other objectives, the 1933 TVA Act charged the multipurpose reservoir operations. TVA develops and agency with controlling destructive floodwaters along provides flood risk data which includes flood flows, the Tennessee River and its tributaries. TVA has a flood elevations, and flood risk mapping. It conducts unique dual approach to flood risk reduction that engineering analyses to determine impacts of proposed combines a system of dams and reservoirs with floodplain development and evaluate the effectiveness of proactive floodplain management. TVA's Flood Risk proposed flood damage reduction alternatives. Where Reduction Program reduces flood damage potential in appropriate, TVA designs and implements flood damage the Tennessee River Watershed in a manner which reduction projects. It supports state and local floodplain reduces property damage and the threat to loss of life, management efforts through educational and technology supports appropriate economic development, preserves transfer activities. natural floodplain values, and enhances effective E-1 I APPENDIX F STATE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS The text and table in this appendix are taken from a Managers, Inc., entitled Floodplain Management, 1992, special report by the Association of State Floodplain State and Local Programs, and were reprinted by permission. The Nature of State Floodplain Management State governments derive their authority to plan and Most states have floodplain management programs that implement floodplain management actions from the are a composite of varied activities undertaken by police power that is vested in them by the U. S. different agencies and other entities within the state. Constitution. The principal roles played by states in The central office is usually the one that coordinates the floodplain management today include coordination of NFIP for that state. In 33 states that function is housed the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the in a department for natural resources, water resources, activities within their jurisdictions; planning and or environmental protection. In nine states it is within implementing programs and projects for managing their an emergency preparedness agency, in six with a own floodplains, including state-level regulations; department of community affairs, and in two states with providing technical expertise of all kinds to individuals a state planning office. Two states manage their and to other levels of governments, especially localities; floodplains principally out of a transportation coordinating local and regional programs within their department. Sometimes most or all of the activities jurisdictions; entering into agreements with other states related to floodplain management are organized into one to cope with multi-jurisdictional flood problems; and office or department, and sometimes they are scattered acting as liaisons with the federal government. throughout state government, necessitating careful Sometimes states compensate for the inability or coordination. unwillingness of local governments to take certain actions to reduce their flood risk or preserve the natural The myriad of programs that affect floodplain functions of their floodplains. Direct state regulation of management -- emergency preparedness and response, some aspects of land use, of selected types of lands, natural resources protection, environmental quality, and of certain kinds of activities is becoming more structural control measures, planning, and economic typical. development -- along with the wide variety in local and regional efforts, makes the floodplain management picture of each state unique. F-1 APPENDIX F Table F.1: Summaries of State Floodplain Management Activities, 1991 (Source: Adapted from Association of State Floodplain Managers, 1992) Riverine Budget: Programs for Regulatory Programs for State Mapping Standards Regulations for Acquisition & Cooperative Projects to Contribudon/Total Floodplain exceeding NFIP Areas Behind Relocation Program Protect Floodplain (in $10DO) Areas Minimums Levees Fundng Resources Alabama 30/95 M,F,W,B,Q,O Alaska --- A/L M'B'Q Arizona 60/152 X X L B,Q Arkansas 21.3/85.3 M'Q California --- X Colorado 150/200 X H W,B Connecticut --- X Delaware 250/300 X District of Columbia 25/25 Florida 63.9/246.9 X X X P/S,L M Georgia 28/112 m7FVTT- Guam --- Hawaii 145/354 X Idaho 19.3/77.3 Illinois > 150 X X H/L Indiana --- X X H W'B Iowa 300/300 X X Kansas 588n69 X W Kentucky 950/1034 X M,W,B Louisiana 44.1/176.4 P/S,L M,B,Q Maine 31.7/136.7 -y- X H M Maryland --- X X H,P/S,L M Massachusetts 17.3/147.3 X P,A W'O Michigan 546.8/957.4 X X X H,P,AIL M,F,W,B,Q,O Minnesota 615/2400 X X H,P/L M,F,W,B,Q.0 Mississippi 20.6/82.6 X H,P W Missouri 34.4/137.4 W'Q Montana 50/100 X X M Nebraska 97/157 X X X Nevada 16/64.8 New Hampshire --- X New Jersey 97/546 X X M New Mexico --- New York 620/780 X M North Carolina --- North Dakota 30/90 X X Ohio 80/190 M Oklahoma 30.7/122.9 X M'W'O Oregon --- X X Pennsylvania 200/260 X M Puerto Rico --- X X X Rhode Island 26.6/45.9 P/L South Carolina 16.8/62 South Dakota 0 Tennessee --- Texas 54/216 M,W,B,Q,O Utah 20/80 X X M,F,W,B,Q Vermont 20/75 Virgin Islands --- X Virginia 200/320 P,A M Washington 2100/2190 X M West Virginia 0 Wisconsin 1000/1108 X X X A M'Q'O Wyoming 0 L - Data not available Other acquisition program (erosion-prone structures, etc.) B Fish and Wildlife F Forestry 0 Other M Multi-objective management of watersheds P = Give priority to floodplains in acquisition H = Help localities obtain 1362 funds Q Water quality L = Loans or grants for local purchase S = Direct state purchase W = Wetlands F-2 APPENDIX G EXECUTIVE ORDER ON FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Executive Order 11988, issued in 1977, represented an management, financial and technical assistance, and effort by the executive branch to coordinate federal permits and licenses for federally regulated activities activities to reduce the impact which federal activities must be consistent with the goals of floodplain have on the nation's floodplains. In the course of its management: reducing the vulnerability to damage and work, the Review Committee determined that the protecting and enhancing the environment. Executive Order brought about a significant and beneficial change in federal floodplain activities. It also In addition to minimizing danger to humans in determined that certain weaknesses had become floodplains and maintaining and enhancing natural apparent which require a revised order to be issued. A resources, sound floodplain management protects the new Executive Order would reaffirm the basic federal investment and represents responsible business principles of the former order and address newly practice. It seeks to avoid the potential loss of human uncovered issues. and other natural resources and reduce the risk of flood damage to properties benefiting from federal assistance. Content of the Revised Executive Order Because unwise floodplain development can lead to the loss of human and natural resources, it is simply a bad The floodplains which adjoin the nation's inland and federal policy and should be avoided. In order to coastal waters have long been recognized as having avoid, to the greatest extent possible, the adverse special values to U.S. citizens. They have provided impacts associated with the occupancy and modification wildlife habitat, agricultural and forest products, vital of floodplains, and to avoid direct or indirect support of ecosystem functions, and park and recreation areas. floodplain development wherever there is a practicable Unwise use and development of our riverine, coastal, alternative, a revised Executive Order on floodplain and other floodplains, however, not only destroys many management is necessary. The Review Committee of the special qualities of these areas but can pose a recommends that the Administration should direct that: severe threat to human life, health and safety. Each agency provide leadership and take action to Since the adoption of a national flood control policy in reduce the risk of flood loss; to minimize the impact of 1936, the federal government has invested billions of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and to dollars in structural protection from floods. The restore and preserve the natural and beneficial functions vulnerability of floodplain inhabitants and their property of floodplains in carrying out, in a manner which persist, federal expenditures for disaster relief and furthers national economic and environmental goals, its recovery do not diminish, river dependent ecosystems responsibilities for: decline, and environmental deterioration continues. (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of The problem arises mainly from unwise land use federal lands and facilities; practices. The federal government must acknowledge its influence over floodplain development and set the (2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or example for floodplain management. Federally ftinded assisted construction and improvements; or assisted construction and improvements, property G-1 APPENDIX G (3) conducting federal activities and programs Executive Order. affecting land use and water resources planning; and Each agency should send a notice, not to exceed three pages in length including a location map, to the state (4) permitting and licensing federally regulated and appropriate area-wide clearinghouses for the activities. geographic areas affected. The notice should include: (i) the reasons why the action is proposed to be located Each agency would have a responsibility to prescribe in a floodplain; (ii) a statement indicating whether the procedures to implement the policies and requirements action conforms to applicable state or local floodplain of the revised Order. These policies and procedures protection standards; and (iii) a list of the alternatives should evaluate the potential economic, social and considered. Agencies should endeavor to allow a brief environmental effects of any actions the agency may comment period prior to taking any action. take in a floodplain and ensure that its planning programs and budget requests reflect consideration of Agencies should provide FEMA with a notice that flood hazards and the principles of sound floodplain includes: (i) the reasons why the action is proposed to management. be located in a floodplain; (ii) a statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable state or local Each agency should determine whether a proposed floodplain protection standards; and (iii) a list of the action will occur in a floodplain. This determination alternatives considered. Whenever practicable, agencies should be made according to floodplain maps issued by should provide this notice concurrent with a brief the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or a more comment period prior to taking any action. If FEMA detailed map of an area, if available. If such maps are determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with not available, the agency should develop the appropriate the revised Executive Order, then FEMA can refer the information to make the determination of the location of issue to the Water Resources Council. the floodplain and obtain FEMA's concurrence. For major federal actions significantly affecting the quality Each agency should also provide opportunity for early of the human environment, the evaluation will be public review of any plans or proposals for actions in included in any statement prepared under Section the floodplain in accordance with Section 2(b) of 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act Executive Order No. 11514, as amended, including the (NEPA). development of procedures to accomplish this objective for federal actions whose impact is not significant Prior to undertaking or assisting in the repair, enough to require the preparation of an environmental maintenance, improvement, or rehabilitation of any impact statement under Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA structure or facility in the floodplain, the agency should of 1969, as amended. conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of that structure to flooding and the feasibility of lessening Any requests for new authorizations or appropriations such impact through mitigation techniques. transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget should indicate, if the action proposed is located in a The agency should consider all alternatives to avoid floodplain, that the proposed action has been reviewed development in the floodplain for any activity the for alternatives and minimization of adverse impact in agency has determined to, or proposes to, conduct, accord with the revised Executive Order. support, or allow in a floodplain. If the head of the agency finds that the only practicable alternative Each agency should require that: (1) all of its water consistent with the law and the Executive Order and land use plans comply with the terms of this order; requires development in a floodplain, the agency (2) its regulations and operating procedures require an should, prior to taking action, design or modify the evaluation and consideration of potential flood hazard action to reduce to the maximum extent practicable, the prior to the issuance of licenses, permits, loans, or potential harm to or within the floodplain consistent grants-in-aid for programs that they administer; and (3) with regulations issued in response to a revised its regulations provide appropriate guidance so that G-2 "PENDIX G applicants for federal licenses, permits, loans, or grants If property used by the general public has can incorporate, in their applications, the evaluation suffered flood damage or is located in an required above. identified flood hazard area, the responsible agency should provide on such structures, and Each agency should issue or amend existing regulations other places where appropriate, conspicuous and procedures within one year to comply with the delineation of past and probable future flood revised Executive Order. These procedures should height in order to enhance public awareness of explain the means that the agency will employ to pursue and knowledge about flood hazards. risk reduction and environmental enhancement in connection with its activities in the floodplain. To the When property in the floodplain is proposed extent possible, existing processes, such as NEPA, for lease, easement, right-of-way, or disposal should be utilized to fulfill the requirements of the to non-federal public or private parties, the revised Executive Order. Agencies should prepare their agency should (1) reference in the conveyance procedures in consultation with the Water Resources those uses that are restricted under identified Council, FEMA, and Office of Environmental Policy federal, state, tribal, or local floodplain and should update such procedures as necessary. regulations; and (2) attach other appropriate restrictions to the uses of properties by the All federal agencies with responsibilities for grantee or purchaser and any successors, construction or operation of federal real property and except where prohibited by law; or (3) facilities, or licensing or permitting of federally withhold such properties from conveyance. regulated facilities, should take the following measures: Comply to the maximum extent practicable The regulations and procedures established by with state, tribal, or local rules or regulations the Executive Order should, at a minimum, for development in floodplains of each require the construction of federal structures jurisdiction within which a federal facility is and facilities be in accordance with the located or proposed to be located if such rules standards and criteria of the National Flood or regulations provide for more stringent levels Insurance Program, except that all facilities or of flood protection or require mitigation infrastructure which can be reasonably measures more extensive than those required considered as critical to the health and safety of by the National Flood Insurance Program. the public and the environment should be required to have protection capable of Agencies which guarantee, approve, regulate, withstanding the standard project flood. They or insure any financial transaction which is should deviate only to the extent that the related to an area located in a floodplain standards of the National Flood Insurance should, prior to completing action on such Program are demonstrably inappropriate for a transaction, inform any private parties given type of structure or facility, or its participating in the transaction of the hazards location. of locating structures in the floodplain. If, after compliance with requirements of the The Water Resources Council should develop Executive Order, it is determined that there is guidance for implementing the provisions of no practicable alternative to placing new the revised Executive Order within six months construction or rehabilitating structures or of its being signed. The head of each agency facilities in a floodplain, at a minimum the should submit a report to the Office of requirements of the National Flood Insurance Environmental Policy and the Water Resources Program should be applied. To achieve flood Council regarding the status of their procedures protection, agencies should, wherever and the impact of the Executive Order on the practicable, elevate structures above the base agency's operations. Thereafter, the Water flood level rather than filling in land. Resources Council should periodically evaluate G-3 APPENDIX G agency procedures and their effectiveness. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (88 Stat. 640, 42 USC The proposed Executive Order should not 5304(h)), the responsibilities under those apply to assistance provided for emergency provisions may be assumed by the appropriate work essential to save lives and protect applicant, if the applicant has also assumed, property and public health and safety, with respect to such projects, all of the performed pursuant to Sections 402 and 403 of responsibilities for environmental review, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and decisionmaking, and action pursuant to the Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (PL NEPA of 1969, as amended. 93-288). To the extent the provisions of the Executive Order would be applicable to The executive order should apply to all federal projects covered by Section 104(h) of the agencies and federally owned corporations. G-4 APPENDIX H PROPOSED FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR MAJOR MAINTENANCE AND MAJOR REHABILITATION OF LEVEES The concept of and the actions necessary for establishing a federal program to ensure the integrity of levees in the upper Mississippi River Basin are presented in Chapter 10 and in the Action Plan. Specific elements of the proposed program as it pertains to both federally built/locally maintained levees and locally built/locally maintained levees are presented here. DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM Levee districts/owners desiring to participate in the USACE major maintenance and major rehabilitation (MM&MR) program would submit requests, through their state, to the USACE within a three-month period following initiation of the program by the Administration. The USACE would then group these requests into a project that would be submitted to the Congress for authorization. Levees would be placed in an Upper Mississippi River and Tributaries (UMR&T) project, which includes the Missouri River Basin, to be established as a line item in the USACE program. Federally Built, Locally Maintained Uvees Currently in the USACE PL 84-99 Emergency Repair Program Eligibility. On approval by the Congress, the USACE would become responsible for major maintenance and major rehabilitation (MM&MR) of levees. To become eligible for participation in these programs, states and local sponsors would agree to: a. Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). b. Continue responsibility for routine maintenance and control of the levees. C. If the levee affords less than one percent annual chance (100-year) flood protection, require all development behind the levee to comply with provisions of the NFIP. d. If levee provides less than standard project flood (SPF) level protection, require all structures and crops behind the levees be insured. e. Not raise the height of the levee during floods without the agreement of the USACE. f. In the event of any required repair, renewal, or realignment, pay 25 percent of the cost and provide the necessary borrow material and any required lands, easements, and rights-of-way. The non-federal share shall not exceed 50 percent of the total project cost. 9. In coordination with the appropriate federal and state agencies, assist in developing, at minimal cost to the land owners or the local sponsors, appropriate environmental enhancements to the land behind the levees. H-1 APPENDIX H Major Rehabilitation Survey. The USACE would conduct a review of all levees in the program to determine long-term rehabilitation requirements and potential for upgrade. The primary determinant of eligibility for major rehabilitation and/or upgrade would be the results of an expanded benefit-cost analysis under revised Principles and Guidelines which includes, in addition to economic factors, the social and environm ntal benefits and costs. The review would also include an assessment of the impacts of any rehabilitation on the hydraulics of the river. State and local sponsors would agree to: a. Pay 25 percent of the expense of any major rehabilitation, renewal, or upgrade. b. Include appropriate environmental enhancements or operating measures in any major rehabilitation or renewal projects. The costs of these enhancements would be shared by the non-federal sponsor only in so far as the benefits could be assessed as local. For enhancements that are of regional or national significance, the non-federal share would be provided by the state, private organizations, or other authorized federal agency. Locally Built, Locally Maintained Levees Currently in the USACE PL 84-99 Emergency Repair Program or Designated by Either the SCS or the EDA for Inclusion Initial Eligibility. Since locally built levees may not have been constructed in accordance with sound engineering practices and at hydraulically appropriate locations, the USACE initially would screen all levees proposed for inclusion in the MM&MR program to determine any potential problems. Levee sponsors, whose levees failed to meet the USACE engineering standards, would be required to bring those structures up to standards at sponsor expense prior to inclusion in the federal MM&MR program. Those located at hydraulically inappropriate locations would not be eligible. To become eligible, states and local sponsors would agree to: a. Participate in the NFIP. b. Continue responsibility for routine maintenance and control of the levees . C. If the levee is determined by the USACE to provide protection against less than the one percent annual chance (100-year) flood, require all development to comply with the NFIP. d. Require that all structures and crops behind the levees be insured. e. Not raise the height of the levee during floods without the agreement of the USACE . f. In the event of any required repair, renewal, or realignment, pay 25 percent of the cost and provide the necessary borrow material and any required lands, easements, and rights-of-way. The non-federal share shall not exceed 50 percent of the total project cost. 9. In the event of levee failure, share the cost (25 percent) and provide the lands, easements, and rights- of-way necessary to ensure the future stability of the levee. h. In coordination with the appropriate federal and state agencies, assist in developing, at minimal cost to the land owners or the local sponsors, appropriate environm ntal enhancements to the land behind the levees. Major Maintenance and Major Rehabilitation: On approval by the Congress, the USACE would become responsible for future major maintenance and major rehabilitation of those levees accepted into the federal MM&MR program. Major Rehabilitation Survey. The USACE would conduct a review of all levees accepted into the program to determine long term rehabilitation requirements and potential for renewal. The primary determinant of eligibility for major rehabilitation would be the results of an expanded benefit-cost analysis under revised Principles and Guidelines H-2 APPENDIX H which include, in addition to economic factors, the social and environmental benefits and costs. The review would also include an assessment of the impacts of any rehabilitation on the hydraulics of the river. State and local sponsors would agree to: a. Pay 25 percent of the expenses of any major rehabilitation, renewal, or upgrade. b. Include appropriate environmental enhancements or operating measures in any upgrade or renewal projects. The costs of these enhancements would be shared by the non-federal sponsor only in so far as the benefits could be assessed as local. For enhancements that are of regional or national significance, the non-federal share should be provided by the state, private organization, or other authorized federal agency. H-3 Appendix I COORDINATION MECHANISMS WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Purpose include administration of the NFIP and flood recovery, they both merit a role in the Council. Therefore, the The revitalized Water Resources Council should launch Secretary of the Interior should request that the and promote cooperation among the federal agencies Administrator of EPA and the Director of FEMA and the states. It should exist as a mechanism to bring become full-time participants on the Council. In together appropriate policyinakers to address key water addition to the Secretary of the Interior, EPA and resources issues. The WRC should align federal FEMA, membership of the Council should be the floodplain management goals with other broad national Secretaries of Army; Agriculture; Commerce; Housing goals; provide a single point of focus to assist and Urban Development; Health and Human Services coordination and resolution of interstate water resource and the Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory management issues; serve as an innovative planning and Commission. Other agency heads may be called upon technology center (including intergovernmental data by the Chair when matters affecting their gathering and dissemination activities); and resolve responsibilities are considered by the Council. federal agency disputes. The WRC should operate under a clarified set of responsibilities compatible with Title I of the 1965 Act and capitalize on the experience Staffing of the previous Council. Should the WRC prove an ineffective organization for accomplishing these The Secretary of the Interior, as Chair of the Water activities, it should be abandoned. Resources Council, should restaff the Council. A small staff to support the Council's mandate is suggested. A Director, five professionals and one administrative Membership support/secretary is suggested as the minimum desirable staffing level. Two professionals are envisioned for a Participation in the Council, currently chaired by the Floodplain Management Division. Secretary of the Interior, needs to be broadened to include the Administrator of the EPA and the Director of FEMA -- two agencies that did not exist at the time Budgeting the WRC was first conceived. The participation of these agencies is critical for addressing floodplain As authorized in the Act, the Council shall request a management issues. Because EPA's program budget for professional and support staff and necessary responsibilities include restoration and enhancement of office space, equipment, travel, and contract fund. A the nation's water quality, and FEMA's responsibilities budget of $950,000 is envisioned for this purpose. APPENDIX I BASIN COMMISSIONS Designation of a state governor. To clearly advance state leadership The President should establish basin commissions as a in floodplain management, the voting role of federal forum for coordinated federal and state planning across agencies should be limited. The Governor of each basin(s) and within sub-basins (as determined basin state shall appoint a member that serves at the appropriate). The WRC should, in coordination with pleasure of the Governor. states, define the geographic reach of the commissions. Section 201 of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80) describes how basin commissions can Staffing and Budgeting be requested by either the Water Resources Council or states and then declared by the President. Organization of the basin commissions using existing federal and state programs and budgets to accomplish tasks will increase coordination, cooperation and Purpose leveraging of limited funding and achieve a comprehensive approach to issue resolution. The basin Each basin cormi-tission should serve as the principal commission would create an environment where agency for the coordination of federal, state, interstate, agencies' activities are orchestrated to achieve multiple local, and non-governmental plans for their designated benefits for the basin. One means of ensuring this areas and operate under a clarified set of responsibilities approach is to keep actual basin commission staffing to compatible with Title H of PL 89-80, but building upon a minimum. A director and a staff of 3 to 4 full-time the lessons learned from the previous commissions. professionals is suggested; these would not be federal The basin commissions will actively lead collaborative employees. Where appropriate, the current basin efforts that focus beyond traditional water management association staffs could assume this responsibility. challenges to undertake integrated examination of Average annual budgets of $400,000 are estimated for ecosystem management, biodiversity conservation, flood the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission and the control, water supply, navigation, water quality, and Missouri River Basin Commission and would be cost- sustainable development issues. The focus of these shared by the federal government. As special projects commissions is on action not on oversight. require additional funding to the federal and state agencies, the river basin commission may request appropriations from Congress and/or the state Membership legislatures. The basin commissions would be co-chaired by a representative of a federal agency and a representative 1-2 APPENDIX I EXPANDED MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION Purpose Membership The current Mississippi River Commission (MRC) The current Commission has, by Presidential provides a necessary connection between the public, a appointment, seven members. There are 3 USACE and construction, operations and maintenance agency, and 3 Civilian members and one member from the NOAA the executive branch of U.S. government, as well as Coast and Geodetic Survey. The President should seek implementation oversight of a range of water resources approval from Congress to add a member from DOI activities. The MRC has established a record of and should nominate a membership which ensures expertise and accomplishment, has a clear charter in the appropriate distribution of decision-making authority basin, and has established processes to make among action agencies, as well as ensuring recommendations to the Administration and Congress, representative authority to follow through on plans and and to have funds appropriated for implementation. projects approved by the Commission and authorized by The purpose for the expansion is to link the entire Congress. A possible membership is provided on the Mississippi River Basin together to provide a system- next page. wide approach. The composition of the Commission should be expanded to include the additional responsibility of program integration between the construction and environmental missions of the USACE and the ecosystem stewardship missions of the DOI. 1-3 APPENDIX I EXPANDED MISSISSIEPPI RIVER COABUSSION Current MRC Expanded MRC Authorities from headwaters to Head-of-Passes, La., In consultation with Congress, include tributaries in the including all tributaries. upper basin. Current focus is MR&T project. Includes UMR&T. Seven Presidentially appointed members - 3 USACE, 3 Add DOI from Assistant Secretary level. NOAA Civilians, I NOAA (C&GS). should be at large. Advisory to the Chief of Engineers. Advisory to both Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Interior. President is a Corps officer who is responsible for Adds UMR&T responsibility. MR&T and reports to the Chief of Engineers. USDA advises. USDA and EPA advise. Duties include: Additional duties: -Recommend policy and work program of MR&T. -Integrate ecosystem and watershed management -Study and report on project modifications. strategies into currently authorized projects for flood -Comment on matters authorized by law. control and navigation. -Conduct inspection trips and hold public hearings. -Study and report on natural resource conditions and improvements realized by integrated river management. Has established processes to recommend administrative Include DOI proposals and programs. approval and/or Congressional authorization of specific proposals, and to have funds budgeted and appropriated for implementation. Uses MRC/LMVD and District staffs to develop plans Include Corps Divisions and Districts in the upper and implement actions. Mississippi River Basin. Also include FWS Regions III, IV, and VI; NBS; GS; BOR; and BLM staff to collaborate and integrate natural resource management plans. Develop recommendations for state application. Activities include general investigations, design, Add oversight of refuge operations, inter-jurisdictional construction, and operations and maintenance. fisheries, Migratory Bird Program, and research. 1-4 Appendix J SUMMARY OF COMMENTS The Review Committee provided a draft copy of its reflective of perceptions of the report based on report to federal agencies, members of Congress from inaccurate summaries of the report by the media or the flood-affected area and leading key committees and some group. subcommittees involved with subjects addressed by the report, the governors of the nine Midwest states, and a The Review Committee reviewed all comments and number of non-governmental organizations that had made corrections, clarifications, and additions where worked with the Review Committee during its fact warranted. The comments led to development of a finding and outreach phases. This review was intended better report and the efforts made by those who to seek feedback from the above parties and was not provided comments were appreciated. Where intended as a substitute for a broad-based public appropriate the Review Committee responses to comment period. Considerable interest, however, was comments appear below, in italics, to guide readers to expressed in the draft document and over 650 copies particular clarifications or changes made in the final were distributed. Despite the very brief comment document. period, nearly 100 comments were received via facsimile, mail, and telephone by June 16, 1994. Five Many individuals and organizations endorsed the of the nine Midwest governors commented to the report's themes and vision for what needs to be done to Review Committee; other Midwest governors assigned implement floodplain management. Many more a lead agency to provide state comments. organizations and individuals endorsed large numbers of the recommendations and actions while raising The nature of comment letters ranged from full questions, concerns and/or objections to others. endorsement to opposition. Many of those who Summarizing the nature of the comments is difficult commented endorsed the report, or a subset of the because the absence of opinion expressed on particular actions and recommendations, or requested clarification. proposals may indicate support. Conversely, some of those who commented opposed the report or a subset of the actions and recommendations. There was nearly universal comment that the Review Others provided their thoughts regarding certain general Committee developed, within a short time frame, a issues and asked that their concerns be considered by comprehensive report addressing a wide variety of the Review Committee. Some comments indicated that improvements needed to enhance the nation's approach the reviewer had misinterpreted the Review to floodplain management. Nearly all commented that Committee's intended message. Many of those who additional time to review the draft report would have commented provided additional data, technical been appreciated. Several indicated a desire to corrections, or pointed out typographical errors. Some comment on the final document. noted that their comments were limited to the Executive Summary or only sections of the report due to the short Nearly all made comments on areas where they believed review period. Some comments were general in nature the report could be strengthened or where they and not reflective of the themes and specific proposals perceived omissions. Many raised concerns regarding contained in the draft report; the Review Committee is, the costs associated with the report as a whole and with therefore, led to believe that the comments are specific recommendations -- many indicating that their support was dependent, at least in part, on the cost trade-offs. J-1 APPENDIX J MAJOR THEMES OF COMMENTS Several areas of the report generated the majority of the feared that the report might further broad interest in a comments; however, not all comments reflected the widespread construction program consisting of large same opinion. levees. Support for change Administrative and organizational structures There was nearly universal support for a need to change the nation's approach to floodplain management; not Many comments reflected concern about the number of surprisingly, there was a divergence of opinion organizations proposed, the designation of leadership regarding the means to achieve flood damage reduction. responsibilities, and the interaction and relationships There was hesitation on the part of some reviewers to among these organizations. These concerns reflected endorse the direction and approach made by the Review uncertainties about the costs of such proposals (which Committee. Nearly all agreed that a systems approach were not characterized in the draft) in comparison to the to floodplain management was needed to replace added value of these organizations. Other concerns uncoordinated ad hoc efforts. reflected hesitation to endorse some or all of these proposals until a dialogue had been opened and charters proposed to further specify responsibilities, functions, Treatment of watersheds and working relationships. While these concerns were expressed, many also recognized the need for better Many made comments regarding the draft report's coordination at the federal and interstate levels. treatment of watersheds. Some found that the report unduly emphasized the role, value, and significance of watershed and ecosystem planning with respect to Streamlining disaster relief and achievement of floodplain management and flood improvement of the NFIP damage reduction goals. Several of those who commented reflected concerns that the draft report did While not every one commenting agreed with all of the not adequately tie together preservation and restoration proposals, support for streamlining disaster relief and of aquatic ecosystems and watersheds with floodplain the actions and recommendations aimed at improving management. Several indicated that watershed the NFIP was widespread. management was not sufficiently integrated into floodplain management and that nonstructural alternatives to flood damage reduction were not given Infringement of property rights enough support. Some of those who commented raised concerns that Structural approaches proposals in the Review Committee draft report would infringe on property rights. Many of those commenting felt that the existing [To clarify its intent and to address these structural approach to flood damage reduction had concerns, the Review Committee added proven its value and not enough credit was given to the additional text in the report emphasizing the predominantly structural approach the nation has, in the voluntary nature of buyouts and clarifying that past, taken to reduce flood damages. Many felt that limits to floodfighting would not prevent nonstructural approaches were experimental and their floodfights consistent with state and local merit uncertain. However, others were concerned that floodplain management regulations.] the report over-emphasized structural solutions; some J-2 APPENDIX J COMMENTS ON ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Many of the comment letters reflected specific unfortunate that the names of these objections or concerns with proposed actions and organizations are so similar -- to try to further recommendations; others focused on proposals that they distinguish them, the final document refers to supported. Summarized, below, are those actions and basin commissions as opposed to river basin recommendations for which at least six of those commissions.] commenting provided definitive statements of either support, concern or objection. Many of those who commented reserved endorsement of basin commissions until ftirther dialogue on their purpose, functions, and methods of operation was Basin Commissions, Upper Mississippi and pursued. Missouri River Basin Commissions (Actions 5.3 and 10.2) Increase the state role in all floodplain No other proposal in the report generated so many management activities (Recommendation specific comments as the basin commissions. Many of 5.2) the comments expressed a desire not to create basin commissions in the same form as those that existed in This recommendation generated a large number of the late 1960s and the 1970s. specific comments with half supporting the recommendation and half against. The general reason [The Review Committee concurs that new basin for not supporting the recommendation reflected a commissions should take on a different function concern that interjecting the states between levee and approach and both learn from and build districts or local communities would increase upon the lessons of the previous basin bureaucracy and slow response. Supporters generally commissions. This was the basis for the expressed that states need to exercise their proposed changes to the previous basin responsibilities and their involvement would add value commissions'jiinction and structure. The to efforts to achieve floodplain management goals. Committee has also altered Figures 5.1 and 10.1 to clarify the relationships between the Water Resources Council, the basin Mississippi River Commission (Action 10.2) commissions, and the Mississippi River Commission.] Many comments were also received regarding the Mississippi River Commission. Overall, most Many of those who commented expressed confusion comments expressed reservations about this proposal, regarding the relationships between the Mississippi but for a variety of reasons. Some comments arose River Commission and the Upper Mississippi River from concerns about the nature of activities of the Basin Commission. Some comments reflect further Commission in the past (prior to the last decade) and confusion in that they were considered the same the Commission's ability or interest in taking on a organization. broader nonstructural approach to floodplain management. Others arose from not wanting to [The Review Committee has made changes to broaden the Commission's membership and charter to Arther clarift the relationships between these address related ecological resource issues or not trusting organizations. Figure 10.1 has been changed the Commission's interest in pursing these issues. to distinguish between lines of "command" or Others objected to extending the geographical extent of oversight and lines of coordination. It is the Mississippi River Commission's authority. J-3 APPENDIX J IThe Review Committee added new text to proposal is intended to reaffirm Administration clarify the legislative authority of the support for floodplain management and to Mississippi River Commission which already clarify certain federal responsibilities to assigns the Commission's authorities to extend undertake a sequence of avoiding floodplain from the river's mouth near the Head of Passes development, minimizing the adverse effects to its headwaters. The Review Committee feels from flooding and to the floodplain, and finally that further dialogue on the relationship mitigating potential flood damages. It does not between basin commissions and the Mississippi represent a departure from congressional policy River Commission and the functions and duties on floodplain management. The Review of the Mississippi River Commission could allay Committee agreed with comments indicating some concerns and develop support for this that FEMA's role should include resolution of action.] disagreements over EO compliance and that FEMA should only refer to the Water Resources Water Resources Council (Action 5.2) Council those issues where significant attempts to reach resolution hadfailed.] The proposal to revitalize the Water Resources Council generated numerous comments. Generally there was Principals & Guidelines (Actions 5.10 and broad support for the WRC or a similar entity to 5.11) provide a mechanism for interagency, policy level coordination. Several were hesitant to support the Many of those specifically commenting on Actions 5.10 proposal until further operational and administrative and 5. 11 reflected support for establishing co-equal issues had been developed. Some questioned the objectives for the P&G. A few expressed concern political desire to renew the Council. regarding the mechanism used to evaluate environmental quality and compare alternative courses of action. Several noted the difficulties inherent in both Floodplain Management Act (Action 5.1) quantifying and monetizing attributes contributing to environmental quality. The establishment of an Several comments specifically indicated support for a interdisciplinary, interagency review of other aspects floodplain management act to define governmental (including application of the P&G) raised objections responsibilities, strengthen federal-state coordination regarding the application of the P&G to specific types and assure accountability and fund state floodplain of actions, including those to which the current P&G management programs. now apply. [The purpose of the interdisciplinary, New Executive Order on Floodplain interagency review is to discuss and address Management (Action 5.4) whether the revised P&G could and should be applied to a broader array of federal decisions Overall comments supported this action. Several and to develop guidelines for application of the comments, however, indicated that the executive order principles.] was an inappropriate Administration action circumventing Congress. Some comments indicated Develop common procedures for buyouts that FEMA oversight of compliance with the EO was (Action 8.4) unnecessary. Most comments registered support for this concept. [The Review Committee notes that the existing Some expressed concerns regarding whether there could Executive Order on Floodplain Management be common procedures for programs with different has been in place since 1977 without objection purposes. from Congress. The Review Committee's J-4 A.PPENDIX J Hazard Mitigation Grants as block grants Some concerns were raised regarding whether DOI had (Action 8.5) the in-house capability to perform this function. Others raised concerns regarding the extent of DOI Most comments regarding this Action reflected support. responsibilities and applicability of this proposal to dual Concern was raised regarding means to ensure that purpose acquisitions. Some pondered the federal states used the funds appropriately. interest in additional land management responsibilities. IThe Review Committee reviewed the language Establishing the USACE as the principal of this and related actions to ensure that DOI's levee construction agency (Action 8.1) function was one of coordination of acquisition. Agreements between agencies would be Of those commenting on this Action, nearly all developed to determine specific procedures and supported it. Concern was raised regarding the applicability of those procedures. The text continued role of the USDA with respect to agricultural already indicates that lands acquired in fee will levees. not necessarily be held or managed by the DOI or the federal government. I IThe Review Committee has added clarifying Limiting public assistance grants for language to better reflect the relationship of the communities not participating in the NFIP USA CE to USDA and other federal agencies considering levee projects.] (Action 5.7). Extend 5-day waiting period for flood Most all of those who commented on this Action insurance coverage (Action 9.7) indicated support. All those commenting on this action supported the Integration of flood response and recovery extension of the time period. Several supported further lengthening the time period beyond the 15 days under FEMA (Recommendation 9.1) recommended by the Review Committee to account for the potential for flood crests moving further Of those commenting, most supported the proposal. downstream on the Mississippi. Concern was noted One suggested that FEMA needed Presidential support that the waiting period should not apply when a home is to achieve cooperation from cabinet-level agencies. being purchased. 17he Review Committee believes that response [Text was added to clarify that there would be and recovery require leadership from a single no waiting period associated with purchase of knowledgeable agency, just as land acquisition flood insurance at closing after purchase of a for environmental purposes and levee home]. construction requires leadership and coordination by knowledgeable agencies. The Expansion of conservation and voluntary Review Committee sees these delineations of acquisition programs in 1995 Farm Bill clear responsibility as critical to providing a (Action 6.3) streamlined, responsive, and efficient program for response, recovery, and overall floodplain There was broad support for continuing these programs. management.] DOI coordinating environmental acquisition (Action 7.1) J-5 APPENDIX J Multi-objective watershed management task force (Action 6.1) There was general support for this proposal although a few thought it was unnecessary. ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS BY ORIGINATORS Congress Levee and drainage districts and individual farmers Congressional reaction to the report was mixed. While all felt the report to be balanced, concern was raised by Several reflected concerns that the Review Committee some members regarding the impact of the draft report was calling for a unilateral buyout of recommendations on their constituents. Some bottomland agriculture to restore wetlands. Many members indicated interest in sponsoring legislation to reflected a concern that the report emphasized implement some of the proposals in the draft report. environmental protection over flood hazard protection to bottomland activities. However, many also expressed support for recommendations and actions contained in Federal Agencies the report. Some were deeply concerned with what they perceived in the report to be a prohibition against Federal agencies provided comments ranging from fall all floodfighting. Some noted that property rights of support to specific technical comments that neither farmers and others needed to be more careftilly indicated specific support nor opposition to the considered. Several noted concerns about the impact of proposals in the draft report. A few comments buyout and acquisition on the local and regional reflected hesitation to alter current policies, approaches, economy and the impact on tax roles. and responsibilities without further dialogue with or guidance from Administration leadership. Environmental non-governmental States organizations Strong support for reestablishment of the Water Comments were received from all but one Midwest Resources Council was noted in all comments made by state and were generally supportive of the report and its these organizations. While some environmental vision. One state from outside the Midwest noted organizations supported the report, many expressed general support for the proposals. Several states serious concerns that the report did not sufficiently indicated their readiness and willingness to take on the emphasize restoration of aquatic ecosystems, watershed challenges and responsibilities articulated in the draft management and nonstructural approaches to floodplain report. Some concerns were raised about organizational management. Many comments also reflected concerns and administrative mechanisms. A few raised concerns about issues that the report failed to address including about the level of funding and technical assistance that the role of federal programs influencing bottomland would be provided to states. A few comments were farming and navigation issues on the Missouri River. received from state legislators. These letters reflected Concerns were raised about the efficacy of the that the report was recommending cessation of levee Mississippi River Commission to pursue new mandates. repair work in their jurisdiction and were concerned Concerns were raised that the report appeared to that the proposals in the report would adversely impact support a new levee construction program on the Upper navigation and farming along the rivers. Mississippi and Missouri rivers. J-6 APPENDIX J Other non-governmental organizations Others A number of non-governmental organizations, including Comments were received from a wide variety of other several professional affiliations, and regional planning organizational entities consisting of state agencies, and coordination organizations commented on the draft. cities, and individuals, including public school teachers; As might be expected, there was considerable academics from across the nation in the fields of water divergence of opinion on specific proposals. The resources, natural hazards, and hydrology; land-owners opinions summarized on the draft report reflect the in the Midwest; and, other interested parties. As with differences of the many non-governmental comments from other sectors, their were a variety of organizations. Several indicated long-standing support viewpoints expressed which ranged from endorsement for several of the recommendations in the report. Some of the report to objections to specific recommendations. commented that the report was "anti-agriculture" and one commented that the report was "anti-city". J-7 Appendix K LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Cover: Missouri River: view from the Missouri state capitol, Jefferson City, Missouri (Source: Missouri Department of Conservation). Page xxiv: Chesterfield Valley, St. Louis County, Missouri (Source: Missouri Department of Conservation). Page 2: Hartsburg Bottoms, Boone County, Missouri (Source: Missouri Department of Conservation). Page 5: Hannibal Missouri (Source: Missouri Department of Conservation). Page 7: Eddyville, Iowa (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 16: Eddyville, Iowa (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 17 (L): Muscatine, Iowa (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 17 (R): Valley Junction, Iowa (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 18: Jefferson City, Missouri (Source: Missouri Department of Conservation). Page 20: Springfield, Minnesota (Source: FMRC). Page 22: St. Louis, Missouri (Source: USACE). Page 36: Des Moines, Iowa (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 43: Upland land treatment, unknown location (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 44: Wetland, unknown location (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 48: Agricultural levee, unknown location (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 92: Festus, Missouri (Source: USACE). Page 96: Watershed, Brown County, Kansas (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 104: Wetland, unknown location (Source: USDA-SCS). Page 154: Scientific activity at Sioux Falls, South Dakota (Source: SAST). K-1 ISBN 0-16-045078-0 11 11111 111111491'Ag 90000 9 780160 low . ..... Li -,A I 41@lp"4 MIke -@!r 8 00000 3444