Davis, Stuart A.

Dunning, Mark C.

OpenSIUC

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION UCOWR1Davis and DunningFlood Damage Mitigation Since the Great MidwestFlood of 1993: Issue IntroductionStuart A. Davis and Mark C. DunningInstitute for Water ResourcesUNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONISSUE 130, PAGES 1-4, MARCH 2005It has been slightly more than ten years since theU.S. Interagency Task Force on FloodplainManagement’s report, Sharing the Challenge:Floodplain Management into the 21st Centurywas published.  This report, more commonly knownas the “Galloway Report,” was commissioned todetermine the major causes of the Great MidwesternFlood of 1993 and to make recommendations forpolicy and programmatic improvements to “achieverisk reduction, economic efficiency, andenvironmental enhancement in the floodplain andrelated watersheds” (Glauthier, et al. 1994). Theinteragency committee assembled by General GeraldGalloway (at that time the Dean of Students at theU.S. Military Academy, West Point) extensivelystudied the flood, its impact, and the institutionalapparatuses in place for anticipating, managing, andresponding to the flood.  The committee presenteda series of sweeping recommendations for improvingthe nation’s approach to floodplain management –proposing in the Committee’s words:A better way to manage floodplains [that]beginsby establishing that all levels of government, allbusinesses and all citizens have a stake in properlymanaging the floodplain.  All of those who supportrisky behavior, either directly or indirectly, mustshare in floodplain management and the costs ofreducing that risk… The Review Committeesupports a floodplain management strategy ofsequentially, avoiding inappropriate use of thefloodplain, minimizing vulnerability to damagethrough both structural and nonstructural means,and mitigating flood damages when they dooccur… By controlling runoff, managingecosystems for all their benefits, planning the useof the land and identifying those areas at riskmany hazards can be avoided.  Where the riskcannot be avoided, damage minimizationapproaches, such as elevation and relocation ofbuildings or construction of reservoirs for floodprotection structures, are used only when theycan be integrated into a systems approach to flooddamage reduction in the basin.  When floods occur,impacts on individuals and communities can bemitigated with a flood insurance program that isfunded by those who are protected.  Full disastersupport for those in the floodplain is contingenton their participation in these self-help mitigationprograms… The Review Committee proposeslegislation to develop and fund a nationalFloodplain Management Program… It alsoproposes revitalization of the federal WaterResources Council to better coordinate federalactivities, limited restoration of some basincommissions for basin-wide planning, andissuance of a Presidential Executive Orderrequiring federal agencies to follow floodplainmanagement principles in the execution of theirprograms (Interagency Floodplain ManagementReview Committee 1994).What has happened in the intervening decade?How has the nation responded to the bold blueprintfor change laid out in the Galloway report?  Thesewere the basic questions that generated this issueof the Journal of Contemporary Water Research& Education.  The editors have assembled anumber of papers that approach these questions froma variety of perspectives.  Gerry Galloway, nowFlood Damage Mitigation2JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWRretired from the Army, but still much involved withwater resources, notes in his reflections on the tenyears that changes achieved have been moreevolutionary than revolutionary.  Broad nationallegislation for a national floodplain managementpolicy and National Floodplain Management Act asproposed by the Review Committee has not comeabout.  However, agencies that have theresponsibility for flood damage reduction planningand mitigation have modified their programs in thedirection of the balanced approach to floodplainmanagement advocated in the Galloway report.The Corps of Engineers’ national responsibilitiesin flood damage reduction date from the 1936 FloodControl Act – itself the product of devastating floodsin the Mississippi Basin and the northeastern UnitedStates. Corps specialists author four of the papersin this issue. Two papers focus on the estimation offlood damages. Jim Comiskey focuses on theestimates of flood damages prevented by Corpsstructural flood damage prevention measures – damsand reservoirs, levees, floodwalls –that are widelyquoted in post-flood assessments.  His paper providesa description of the procedures used to develop theestimates, notes issues in the calculation of damageestimates assisting interpretation, and offers ideason how this important estimation procedure couldbe improved.Lauren Cartwright, formerly with the Corps andnow with the Natural Resources ConservationService, points out that gaining a better understandingof flood damage trends is a basic building block indeveloping improved policy responses to flooding.Yet surprisingly, Cartwright points out that there isstill much we do not know about flood damages.  Inparticular, lack of standardization of flood damagecategories complicates the effort to reach clearconclusions about flood damage trends.  Cartwrightcalls for improvements in flood damage datacollection standards and categories.While the Corps of Engineers has most often beenassociated with structural flood damage preventionmeasures, Larry Buss points out that the Corps haslong been active in non-structural flood damageprevention as well.  In the period since the 1993flood, non-structural measures have been usedroutinely to address flood problems.  Buss highlightsfour projects that illustrate the balanced approachto flood damage reduction practiced by the Corpstoday.  As Buss points out, this balanced approachconsiders both structural and non-structuralmeasures equally and approaches problem solvingfrom a perspective that emphasizes the concepts ofsustainability and ecosystem restoration.Underscoring Gerry Galloway’s conclusions thatthe greatest movement toward the the ReviewCommittee’s recommendations is being made byagencies as they carry out their authorizedresponsibilities, Rich Astrack, the project managerfor the Upper Mississippi River BasinComprehensive Study, indicates that the mostnoteworthy aspect of this study is that Congress, inits authorization for the study, stipulated that the plandeveloped for flood damage reduction in the basinshould achieve systemic flood damage reductionthrough an integrated approach of structural and non-structural means.Norbert Schwartz describes the FederalEmergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) effortsin the ten years since the Galloway report.  FEMAhas launched new programs and initiatives to reduceflood impacts through prevention, pre- and post-disaster planning and mitigation, and improvementsin floodplain maps.  Additionally, FEMA is activelyworking in partnership with other agencies andcitizens to promote these programs.Dennis Knobloch, former mayor of Valmeyer,Illinois, presents a case study of the relocation ofthe town as a result of the 1993 flood.  His instructivepaper calls attention to the maze of sometimesconflicting federal and state requirements that mustbe negotiated and that the Galloway report notedneeded to be better coordinated and integrated.Mayor Knobloch also calls attention to theimportance of citizen involvement in creating aworkable plan for relocation.Robert Yowell makes similar points in his paperabout a successful flood damage reduction projecton the Susquehanna River. Yowell’s paperunderscores the potential for success when there isa cooperative effort in putting a mitigation plantogether and seeing it through to implementation.The success of the Lock Haven project was evidentin the enormous damage reduction from theremnants of Hurricane Ivan.In discussing floods and flood damage prevention,it is important not to lose sight of the personaldimensions of flooding.  Graham Tobin’s paper showsthat the personal stresses following a flood eventproduce symptoms similar to those of post-traumaticJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION UCOWR3Davis and Dunningstress syndrome.  Since stress symptoms seem tocorelate with socio-economic status, sex, as well assituation variables, intervention strategies need tobe tailored rather than be “one-size fits all.”Marshall Frech’s article calls attention to the usesof public education efforts to affect public behaviorand response to flood risk.  Public education strategiesrepresent an underutilized and inexpensive non-structural flood damage reduction measure.  Frechillustrates how flood hazards are commonlymisunderstood and underestimated, and how educationcan be important in making wiser developmentdecisions and taking action at the time of flooding.These papers illustrate Gerry Galloway’s conclusionthat progress in achieving the more balanced, integratedapproach to floodplain management called for in the1994 Review Committee report has been evolutionary.There have been solid achievements to be sure, butfew home runs.  Stanley Changnon also makes thispoint in his thoughtful commentary on post-flood issues.In Professor Changnon’s view, the presence ofconflicting goals and objectives among the multiplestakeholders affected by floodplain managementpolicies prevents the type of consensus needed forbroad policy changes.  Instead, what might be termeda process of “muddling through”  has been achieved:In the ten years since the flood of 1993, some ofthe lessons have been learned and policieschanged.  Changes were made in 1994 to theNational Flood Insurance Program Act and theFederal Crop Insurance Program, both leading toincreased sales and better coverage, and lessreliance on relief payments.  Considerable fundinghas been spent on restoring damaged levees, butlittle devoted to comprehensive floodplainmanagement practices that had beenrecommended.  The federal program involvingbuyouts of flooded properties has beensuccessfully employed in over 160 projects.Needed equipment for better flood monitoring hasbeen installed and flood prediction modelsimproved (Changnon 2005).It has become clear over the years that Americansrespond most often to threats of natural disaster onlyafter a crisis.  The 1936 Flood Control Act authorizeda nationwide federal program following major floodsthat got the nation’s attention.  Since then, ArmyCorps of Engineer flood damage reduction projectsand FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants have beensparked by the occurrence of more flood disasters.Sharing the Challenge gave some deliberateassessment of how many years America had to facethe challenge of continuing a serious flood risk. AsGeneral Galloway pointed out in the report, some ofthe most serious flood disasters in U.S. history—such as the Red River flooding Grand Forks, NorthDakota and Tropical Storm Allison in Houston,Texas—have occurred since the 1993 flood.  Adeluge of Hurricanes in 2004 brought about aconsiderable amount of coastal and inland flooding.These events are a powerful reminder of the needto face the challenges discussed in the 1994 report.The title of the Galloway report highlighted theneed for a “shared,” coordinated effort to addressthe nation’s flooding problem.  As this issue includesperspects from people working at local, state, federal,academic, and non-governmental organizationsperspectives, there is a need to work together in thefuture to address the flooding challenge.  In 1966,President Johnson’s Task Force on Federal FloodControl Policy issued the report, A Unified NationalProgram for Managing Flood Losses.  While thatreport caught the nation’s attention and lead to thecreation of the National Flood Insurance Program,there is still no unified effort to address the nation’sflood problems.The 9/11 Commission Report gave an extremeexample of the failure from lack of programmaticcoordination.  Failure to share information, programobjectives, and coordinate activities can also becostly in responding to the threat of flooding andother natural disasters.  Mechanisms for achievingthat coordination need to be pursued.  A logical placeto begin would be at the watershed level, where thefull effects of actions to mitigate flood damages canbe balanced with economic development andenvironmental sustainability.  Institutionalmechanisms for cooperation need to be exploredalong with ways of promoting a new culture ofcooperation.Sharing the Challenge offered manyrecommendations, too many to be adequatelydiscussed in this issue.  Since 1994, there have beenincreasing challenges from decaying locally andprivately-maintained flood protection infrastructure,the increasing level of coastal storm damage andflooding, and development that continues in thefloodplain just outside the one-percent flood risk zone.Flood Damage Mitigation4JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWRThis would be an excellent time to convene a forumto assess the progress of implementing therecommendations of the Galloway Commission.Author Bio and Contact InformationSTUART A. DAVIS is an economist and planner at the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources in Alexandria,Virginia. He is the principal investigator for the Flood DamageData Collection Program.  He conducts research and authorsguidance on evaluation of urban flood damage reduction projects. Mr. Davis is a member of the Corps of Engineers NationalNonstructural and Flood Proofing Committee. Mr. Davis canbe contacted at Institute for Water Resources, Casey Building,7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia, 22315-3868.  Phone:(703) 428-7086   Fax: (703) 428-8171MARK C. DUNNING has recently retired from the Corps ofEngineers after a 30 plus year career with the agency. Whilewith the Corps he served as Chief of Future Directions withresponsibilities for the development and implementation of thestrategic plan for the Army’s Civil Works Program, and for thedevelopment of water resources authorizing legislation.Previously he was the Chief of the Program Analysis Division,Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Mark’s specialtiesinclude water resources planning, program and projectevaluation, strategic planning, and public participation andconsensus building.  Dr. Dunning has edited a number of bookson water resources topics including:  Public Involvement andDispute Resolution, Volumes I & II (co-edited with JamesCreighton and Jerome Delli Priscoli); and Water ResourcesPlanning and Management (forthcoming; co-edited with DuaneBaumann and Paul Bourget).  Mark holds a Ph.D. in Sociologyfrom Washington University, St. Louis, MO, and is also agraduate of the Federal Executive Institute.  He was a recipientof the Friends of UCOWR Award in 2003.ReferencesGlauthier, T.J., Kathleen McGinty, and James R. Lyons. 2004.Directive on the Establishment of an Interagency FloodplainManagement Review Committee. Washington, DC: Officeof Management and Budget.Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee.Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management into the21st Century.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice 1994.

Flood Damage Mitigation Since the Great Midwest Flood of 1993: Issue Introduction

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1063&context=jcwre

Flood Damage Mitigation Since the Great Midwest Flood of 1993: Issue Introduction

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC