[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
                       ï¿½ Reestablishing basin commissions;                         in federal regulations will further the goals of floodplain
                       ï¿½ Reissuing an expanded EO 11988;       and                 management programs.
                       ï¿½ 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