Discussion Only....New Orleans...
- From: "Amused" <Amused@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:39:06 -0600
I've been all over the map on this one, but I think I've finally reached a
stable position.
I think the federal government should BUY the city of New Orleans...actually
the entire area, (based on assessed tax evalulation prior to the flood), and
then clean it, burn it, bury it and let it go. I think, in the long run,
it'd be cheaper.
Problems abound.
But I think that sinking billions of dollars into the same sinkhole is
pretty close to silly.
It's been done before....
Page 1
Flood Loss Reduction White PaperIn the wake of the Great Flood of 1993,
Congress enacted major flood policy reforms that have significantly reduced
the impact of recent flooding along the Mississippi River and its
tributaries. In particular, Congress authorized the use of disaster relief
to acquire, relocate or elevate more than 12,000 flooded homes and
businesses, retired more than 200,000 acres of frequently flooded farmland,
set aside flood insurance premiums to relocate flood-prone buildings before
disaster strikes again, and tightened flood insurance purchase requirements
to reduce demand for future disaster relief. Taken together, these landmark
federal flood policy reforms reduced the human and financial costs of recent
floods and signaled a dramatic departure from historic flood control
policies, which relied primarily on levees and dams. Like many floodplain
communities, lawmakers recognized that traditional solutions had failed to
reduce flood losses. Despite spending more than $38 billion on federal
levees and dams, national flood losses have continued to increase. Average
annual flood losses have nearly tripled since 1950 from $1.5 billion to more
than $4 billion. In the 1990s alone, average annual flood losses have topped
$7 billion. Over the past 25 years, the federal government has spent $140
billion preparing for and recovering from natural disasters. Between 1995
and 1999 alone, flood damages topped $40 billion. Many lawmakers recognized
the need to chart a new course. In general, however, most federal flood
control policy continues to encourage floodplain development by financing
the construction and repair of levees, underwriting the risk of flooding, or
eliminating incentives for responsible local decision-making. For example,
most federal flood control spending disproportionately supports the
construction of levees and dams, encouraging greater floodplain development.
Federal flood and crop insurance programs continue to subsidize risky
floodplain decision-making. What's more, current demand for relocation,
elevation, and wetland and floodplain restoration is not being met by
available funding. In particular, thousands of farmers who offered to
restore Midwestern wetlands - which store and slowly release floodwaters -
before recent flooding were rejected. In general, funding for both
structural and non-structural approaches is not targeted to protect the
nation's repeatedly-flooded homes, businesses and farms. The cost of
flooding is a serious threat to the nation's economic well-being - nearly 10
million homes are located in flood-prone areas, placing $390 billion in
property at risk. Congress and the Bush Administration should learn the
lessons of recent flooding on the Mississippi and other rivers:
non-structural alternatives like the relocation of frequently flooded homes
and businesses and wetlands restoration will more effectively reduce
long-term flood losses than traditional approaches such as levees and dams.
To support non-structural solutions and eliminate federal incentives for
floodplain development, Congress and the Bush Administration should:
Page 2
Increase funding for pre-disaster and post-disaster relocation programs such
as the Army Corps of Engineers' flood hazard mitigation program; Increasing
funding to restore lost wetlands; Eliminate flood and crop insurance
subsidies that encourage development and farming in repeatedly flooded
areas; Increase the local share of federal flood control projects to restore
incentives for responsible state and local floodplain decision-making; The
reasons why national flood losses continue to rise are clear: at the same
time more people are building their homes in floodplains, farmer and
developers are increasing the rate at which water moves off the landscape,
into feeder streams, and towards our riverside communities. Poor land-use
decisions, subsidized by the federal government, have put more people at
risk by allowing development in harm's way and by eliminating the natural
flood control functions of floodplains and wetlands. Relocation Reduces
Flood Losses Since the Great Flood of 1993, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has acquired, relocated or elevated more than 22,000
structures, sharply reducing future disaster costs by removing many of the
nation's repeatedly flooded homes, businesses and farms from harm's way. In
particular, FEMA relocated approximately 12,800 homes, businesses and farms
in nine states bordering the Mississippi and Missouri rivers - approximately
one-out-of-seven structures damaged by the Great Flood. For the first time,
repeatedly flooded homeowners opted to use federal relief to relocate their
homes to higher ground - ending the cycle of rebuilding their homes in harm's
way and instead launching the largest voluntary relocation in the nation's
history. In Illinois and Missouri alone, 5,100 homes and businesses were
relocated at a cost of $66 million. These structures which had previously
received $191 million in flood insurance payments. When floodwaters returned
in 1995, approximately 2,500 people flooded in 1993 were now on higher
ground; disaster relief for Saint Charles County, Missouri fell from $26
million in 1993 to less than $300,000 in 1995. In the past, flood-weary
residents of bottomland homes had no choice but to return to the floodplain,
repair their homes, and wait for the next disaster to strike. But, the Great
Flood of 1993 shook the nation's faith in traditional solutions such as
levees, dams and unlimited disaster relief. As the floodwaters began to
recede, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and Missouri Representatives Richard
Gephardt and Harold Volkmer responded to growing demand for relocation by
persuading Congress to amend federal disaster laws to set aside 15 percent
of all disaster relief for relocation, land acquisition and other forms of
"hazard mitigation." In some cases, entire communities were relocated to
higher ground - forever reducing the risk of flooding.
Page 3
In Grafton, near the confluence of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers, more
than 100 homes and businesses have been relocated to a 235-acre site on the
bluff and replaced by a park, marina and bike trail to attract recreation
and tourism. When floodwaters returned in 1995, 1996 and 1998, Grafton
residents were high and dry. For the first time, residents had a real choice
between relocation and returning to the river bottoms. Valmeyer, located
south of Grafton in the Mississippi's floodplain, also moved the town's 325
homes to a new site on the Mississippi's bluffs after the Great Flood
covered portions of the town with 16 feet of water and left many parts of
the village submerged for more than two months. Instead of rebuilding,
Valmeyer's 900 residents opted to relocate one-and-a-half mile from the
original town site. Residents recognized that the relying on the farm levee
which had "protected" the town in the past would only lead to more
destruction. Since 1993, nearly 10,000 more homes, businesses and farms have
been voluntarily acquired, relocated or elevated in (six) states. For
example, an entire mobile home park located in the floodplain of the Truckee
River in Nevada was acquired and converted into a recreational area for
nearby neighborhoods. In Fredericksburg, located along the Blue River in
southern Indiana, local officials worked with the Indiana Housing Finance
Authority to acquire 20 properties, including 17 homes. Following record
flooding, city officials in East Grand Forks, North Dakota received approval
to acquire and relocate more than 600 homes and businesses, reducing flood
damages this spring. Unlike levees and dams, non-structural solutions like
voluntary relocation give rising rivers more room to spread out -- reducing
flood heights -- and meet other importantneeds of riverside communities:
improved water quality, opportunities for recreation, and enhance habitat
for river wildlife. Most importantly, voluntary relocation permanently
reduces the risk of flood losses. Many acquisition, relocation and elevation
projects have resulted in immediate benefits. For example: . Arnold,
Missouri -- Residents of Arnold, Missouri - which is located south of Saint
Louis, near the confluence - received $2 million in disaster relief
following the Great Flood of 1993. But, following implementation of a
voluntary relocation plan after the Great Flood, federal assistance was less
than $40,000 when floodwaters returned in 1995. . Trenton Island,
Wisconsin - Following the Great Flood of 1993, 73 repeatedly-flooded homes
and businesses were acquired at a cost of $6 million, including more than $5
million in federal funds. When floodwaters returned in 2001, all of the
island's residents had been relocated to higher ground, eliminating the need
for disaster and insurance payments. . Cedar Falls, Iowa - After floods
caused six federally-declared disasters caused during the 1990s, Cedar Falls
acquired 99 frequently-flooded properties, helping 89 families
Page 4
move to higher ground. Officials originally estimated that spending $4.3
million to relocate the homes would save $6.6 million over the next 30
years. But, the project has already paid dividends - officials estimate that
subsequent floods in 2000 would have caused $5.3 million if the homes were
still in the river's floodplain. . Independence, Iowa -- Between 1968 and
1999, the Wapsipinicon River overflowed its banks 11 times, causing damage
in 1993, 1999 and 2000. But, the extent of the damage has been sharply
reduced by the acquisition and relocation of 28 homes. The $754,000 project
has already helped avoid $2 million in damages, providing twice as many
benefits as the project cost and outstripping official estimates. City
officials hope to move 65 home frequently flooded homes soon. . Albany,
Georgia - Following devastating floods, more than 700 homes and businesses
were moved from the Flint River floodplain in Albany, Georgia. When
floodwaters returned two years later, relief costs fell by nearly $2
million -- a net savings of $500,000. . Fort Collins, Colorado -- Relocating
96 homes and businesses - including a retirement home -- from the Spring
Creek floodplain in Fort Collins, Colorado before a record flood in July
1997 is estimated to have saved nearly 100 lives and $5 million in
damages. . Geneva, Alabama - After the Baptist Bottoms neighborhood in
Geneva was flooded in 1990 and 1994, city officials used federal grants to
begin acquisition and relocation of 54 homes. When floodwater returned in
1998, 30 of the homes had already been evacuated, reducing disaster costs. .
Kampsville, Illinois - A small village near the confluence of the Illinois
and Mississippi rivers, Kampsville relocated 34 homes after the major
flooding in 1973 -one of the first relocation projects funded by FEMA. When
flood waters returned in 1993, few of the town's homes were flooded and
Kampsville Mayor worked with neighboing communities to promote relocation
projects. The benefits of other acquisition, relocation and elevation
projects may take longer to accrue. But, FEMA officials estimate that
taxpayers generally save $2 in foregone disaster costs for every $1 invested
in a non-structural project. For example, FEMA estimates that the
acquisition of 163 homes along the Cedar River in Austin, Minnesota has
avoided more than $3.9 million in disaster costs - following an investment
of just $1.7 million.Federal Spending Focused on Traditional Solutions
Despite the recent success of non-structural measures like relocation,
federal flood policy continues to encourage floodplain development by
subsidizing the construction and repair of levees, repeatedly providing
disaster relief with no strings attached, and by subsidizing flood and crop
insurance. In particular, federal policies discourage strong state and local
decision-making. A Congressional task force concluded that "state and local
governments believe that the federal government will meet their needs in
every disaster," creating "less incentive [for local officials] to spend
scarce state and local dollars on disaster
Page 5
preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery." Floodplain residents are
"encouraged to take risks they think they will not have to pay for." While
spending on post-flood relocation and elevation reached record levels in
recent years, 85 percent of post-disaster relief is used to rebuild in
flood-prone areas and 90 percent of pre-disaster spending continues is used
to support the construction of levees. Although levees can reduce the
frequency of floods, structural solutions also create a false sense of
security that encourages floodplain development, resulting in catastrophic
costs when the levee in inevitably overtopped. Because home and business
owners "protected" by a 100-year levee are no longer legally required to buy
flood insurance, development sequestered behind levees is often repaired
with disaster relief. During the same period many dams and levees were
constructed, floodplain development was growing by nearly 3 percent annually
and, by the late 1970s, more than 5 million acres of floodplain land had
been developed for urban use. Annual population growth in these areas was
between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent during the 1970s, roughly twice that of
the country as a whole. Even so, new publicly and privately funded flood
control projects have been proposed for the floodplains of the Mississippi
and Missouri Rivers near Saint Louis, reducing the amount of flood storage
provided by those floodplains and increasing the likelihood that the
floodwall protecting Saint Louis will be overtopped. Federal flood and crop
insurance programs also encourage floodplain development and farming on
repeatedly flooded land. For example, the rates charged many floodplain
property owners by the National Flood Insurance Program are not actuarially
sound - that is, the premiums paid by the owners of older homes do not
reflect the amount necessary to cover anticipated losses. More than 1
million homes and businesses receive subsidized rates. Consequently,
payments to policyholders for the years 1993, 1995 and 1996 exceeded
premiums by $1.7 billion, forcing the program's administrators to borrow
more than $800 million from the federal treasury. Rather than reducing the
nation's dependence on flood relief, the flood insurance program has acted
as a financial safety net for riskier floodplain development - often in
high-hazard coastal areas. Approximately 70 percent of the nation's
flood-prone homes and business remain uninsured and more than 8 million
uninsured structures remain at risk of flooding. No federal funding has been
appropriated for a new non-structural, pre-disaster Army Corps mitigation
program authorized by Congress in 1999. Although Congress authorized the
Corps to spend $30 million on the new "Challenge 21" program in the next
fiscal year, the Bush Administration has not requested any funding for the
program. The Corps has also resisted efforts to eliminate internal biases to
build large, structural projects - even though two National Academy of
Sciences panels and the Army's own Inspector General have concluded that the
Corp's planning model is flawed and requires reform. Funding has also failed
to keep pace with farmer demand for the Wetlands Reserve Program, a U.S.
Department of Agriculture program that compensates farmers who
Page 6
restore lost wetlands. Although wetland restoration will not eliminate the
largest floods, federal experts have concluded that targeted wetland
restoration can help reduce the height of smaller, more frequent floods. The
flood control benefits of wetlands will vary greatly from river basin to
river basin. But, studies have shown conclusively that wetlands restoration
can be a helpful flood loss reduction tool. For example, federal studies of
two rivers in Iowa and Minnesota found that wetlands restoration could
reduce flood heights by 10 percent. Other state and privately-financed
studies have also found that streams which drain basins with more wetlands
featured lower flood heights. For example, one study of Wisconsin rivers
found that rivers draining landscapes with significant wetlands - 15 percent
of the land was wetland - had flood heights that are 60 percent lower than
those river basins with few wetlands. Another study by the Illinois State
Water Survey found that limited wetland loss significantly reduced flood
heights - destroying just 1 percent of the wetlands in a certain drainage
basin increased total flood volume by 7 percent. By contrast, restoring 1
percent of the wetlands in that drainage basin could reduce flood heights by
nearly 4 percent. Nationally, 45 percent of the nation's wetlands have been
lost, and approximately 58,500 acres of wetlands continue to be drained
annually. Historic wetland loss has been especially dramatic in the
Midwest - 57 percent of the region's wetlands have been lost, and losses are
even higher in Iowa and Illinois. Fortunately, many farmers, especially
Midwestern farmers, are willing to restore lost wetlands. More than 2,700
farmers haveoffered to enroll more than 560,000 acres of wetlands into the
program nationally, including more than 800 farmers in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Missouri, Illinois and Iowa who have offered to restore more than 100,000
acres of wetlands. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration requested no
funding to reward farmers who restore these lost wetlands. Federal Efforts
Lack Prioritization Historically, little effort had been made by federal
officials to target repeatedly-flooded homes and businesses for relocation
for disaster strikes. Consequently, many flood-prone structures are
repeatedly repaired at federal expense or with flood insurance premiums. In
fact, "repetitive-loss" structures - homes and businesses which have
sustained two or more flood losses of at least $1,000 in any ten-year
period - accounted for 34 percent of the claims paid and 41 percent of flood
insurance funds disbursed between 1978 and 1994. Many homes have been
flooded three or more times in the last 18 years -- including one home which
has been flooded 31 times -- and nearly 10 percent of these homes have
received flood insurance payments which cumulatively exceed the home's
value. Overall, less than 2 percent of the nation's most repeatedly flooded
communities receive almost 50 percent of all flood insurance payments, and
most are located in a handful ofstates: Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey,
Illinois, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Mississippi, California,
Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Over half of the nation's repetitive
Page 7
loss property insurance payments have been made in Louisiana and Texas.
Nearly one out of every ten repetitive-loss homes - more than 5,600 homes -
have had cumulative flood insurance loss claims that exceed the value of the
homes. In recent years, FEMA has begun target repeatedly flooded homes and
businesses. In 1995, Congress authorized FEMA to use $20 million in flood
insurance premiums toacquire, relocate and elevate frequently-flooded
structures, and FEMA has launched an initiative to help communities develop
and implement pre-disaster mitigation plans. But, spending on federal flood
control projects largely ignores repeatedly flooded structures. For example,
the Army Corps did not request funding in the next fiscal year to build
structural or non-structural flood control projects in Calhoun County, Saint
Charles County or Saint Louis County - three counties that border the
Mississippi River in Illinois and Missouri and which together have nearly
2,000 "repetitive-loss" structures. In general, the Corps does not
prioritize flood control spending to address the nation's most repeatedly
flooded homes and businesses. Traditional Solutions Harm the Environment
Natural floodplains provide a variety of ecological "services" that are
eliminated by the construction of levees, dams and other traditional
solutions. In particular, natural floodplains temporarily store floodwaters,
improve water quality, provide important habitat for river wildlife, and
create opportunities for recreation. During periods of high water,
floodplains serve as natural sponges, storing and slowly releasing
floodwaters. The floodplain provides additional "storage," reducing the
velocity of the river and increasing the capacity of the river channel to
move floodwaters downstream. When a river is cut off from its floodplain by
levees and dikes, flood heights are often increased. The construction of
levees along the Lower Missouri River, for example, has increased flood
heights by as much as twelve feet. By contrast, protected floodplain
wetlands along the Charles River in Massachusetts store and slowly release
floodwaters - providing as much "storage" as a medium-sized reservoir.
Natural floodplains also help improve water quality. As water courses
through the floodplain, plants serve as natural filters, trapping sediments
and capturing pollutants. Nitrogen and phosphorous that wash off farm
fields, suburban backyards and city streets ignite a chemical chain reaction
which reduces the amount of oxygen in the water, suffocating fish and other
aquatic organisms. But, many floodplain plants will use nitrogen and
phosphorous - nutrients found in fertilizers - before they can reach the
river, improving water quality. The destruction of floodplain wetlands to
produce crops or for urban uses eliminates these natural water filtering
functions. In addition to filtering out pollutants, floodplain trees and
plants also anchor the river's banks, preventing bank erosion, and providing
shade which regulates water temperatures.
Page 8
On small streams and creeks, trees and leaves which fall into the water are
broken down by aquatic insects and other organisms. On large rivers like the
Mississippi River, floods collect leaves, trees and other organic debris. In
both cases, floodplain plants serve as the foundation of the river's food
chain. But, lining a riverbank with rock or constructing levees often
destroys this important food source. Floodplains also provide fish and
wildlife the places they need to feed and reproduce.Nearly 70 percent of all
vertebrate species rely upon the land along the river's edge during their
life cycle. Healthy "riparian" zones create a vegetated transition zone
between rivers and upland habitats, providing shelter, food, and migration
corridors for river wildlife. Riparian areas in the western United States -
where water and wildlife habitat are scarce -- are especially important
sources of food, shelter, water, shade, forage and cover for wildlife.
Levees often destroy these important wildlife habitats. For young salmon and
other migrating fish species, floods aid migration from spawning streams to
the ocean. Other fish species migrate out of the river during spring floods
to spawn in the floodplain, and to feed on decaying vegetation. More than 50
fish speciesfound in the Mississippi River, for example, spawn in the river's
floodplain. Migratory waterfowl and songbirds use forested river corridors
and new wetland plants during their annual migration. Dams block and delay
fish migrations, and levee prevent fish access t floodplain spawning
grounds. Dams and levees also eliminate the habitat-creating force of
floods. Like fire in prairies, flooding plays an important role in the
health of rivers. Floodplain plants and wildlife are specially adapted to
the river's "flood pulse" - the annual advance and retreat of floodwaters
onto the floodplain. For many fish species, floods act as a reproductive
cue, signaling the time for fish to begin their spawning migrations. The
erosive power of floods is also the way by which rivers build side channels,
islands and sloughs - creating a wide variety of places river wildlife need
to feed, spawn and reproduce. On some rivers, high flows import the gravel
salmon and trout need in order to spawn. On others, high flows build the
sandbars birds need in order to nest. Floods also maintain biodiversity by
helping plants and animals migrate to new and existing habitat. As they move
downstream, plants colonize new areas or take advantage of the increased
light that becomes available when old vegetation is cleared away.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Discussion Only....New Orleans...
- From: KS---
- Re: Discussion Only....New Orleans...
- Prev by Date: Re: Arnold says No
- Next by Date: Re: Arnold says No
- Previous by thread: Got any spare time ?
- Next by thread: Re: Discussion Only....New Orleans...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
