Flood Report Analysis - DNR · lished on the Flood of 1993. 1his analysis is noton the flooding. TheAppendix lists some ofthe major reporo about the Flood of1993, for people Wishing

Water Resoun:es Report Number 54

Flood Report Analysis38.6'1993

RECORDCREST 38

37

36

35

34.2'1951OLD

RECORD34

33

32

31

30

29

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATIJRAL RESOURCESDivision of Geology and land Survey

28

Water Resources Report Number 54

Flood Report Analysis

byRichard M Gaffney

1996

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATIJRAL RESOURCESDivision of Geology and Land SurveyP.O. Box 250, RoUa, MO 65402-0250

(573) 368-2100

Missouri Classification Nwnber: MO!r-l"R Ge 9:54

Gaffney, Richard M., 1996, FLCKJD REPORT ANALYSIS, Missouri Department of l\taturaJ Resources' Divisionof Geology and Land Survey, 44 p., 7 figs., 11 this.

As r«ipienl of./Mn"tdfunds, the Missouri I:JqH;IrtmDI1 ofNaluruJ Raoflroe:s alntwl dist:ri1rlirlitk ll&llinst anyone 0tI Ibc baN ofma, color,ruIl'icmaJ on!'·..... se:l", wbandiulp. !Jll~beliaaWsWbtlS breosa.<bjrckd 10 dlst:rimiPllllionforan),of~ rrasons, 1H/sM mayfik a eomplainl wiJb~ dH I:JqH;I't'tmDIl ofNalural RDouroe:s w the Ojfta of£I{uaI qpommi.!>', us. DqJQ~ of~ /nInior,W4!binrm, D.C. 2()240

M' -.TABlE OF CONTENTS

- - _ t"

PageAcknowledgements viii

Foreword 1

Introduction and Background 3

Synopsis 5

Flood Plain Managemenl 7

Hydrology Recorrunendations 11

Post-Flood Disasler AssisIaIlce " 15

Recorrunendations Relating lO Lending and Flood Insurance... . 17

Insurance Behind Levees Recommendation 19

Markel Value Defmition .

Buy-Outs and Hazard Mitigation .

. 21

. 25

Levee Policy . ................................... 29

Open Space and Environmenl Recorrunendations 33

Hazardous Malerials Policy 35

Afterword 39

Defmitions 41

Appenc:lix. Lisl of Reports 43

iv

PageTable 1 Flood Plain Management Recommendations _ 8

Table 2 Hydrology Recommendations 12

Table 3 Missouri River stage gages 14

Table 4 Disaster Aid Recommendations . ........................................ 16

Table 5 Recommendations Related to Lending and Insurance 18

Table 6 Insurance Behind Levees Recommendations 19

Table 7 Market Value and Buy-Out Recommendations ~6

Table 8 Levee Recommendations 30-31

Table 9 Open Space and Environment Recommendations 34

Table 10 Hazardous Materials Recommendations . .... 36

Table 11 AcronYJIlS 39

v

. ...

== » -

Figure 1, Page 135, Galloway Report, Flood Claims .Page

........................................ 20

Figure 2, Page 126, Galloway Report, Repetitive Losses 22

Figure 3. Two FOrlllulae . 23

Figure 4, Rhineland Relocation 24

Figure 5, Principal Sources of Funding for BUyOU15 .......•............................................................... 27

Figure 6, Hisloric Flood Discharges, Boonville 37

Cart<X>n 1. The 500-year Flood 38

Figure 7. Floodway Defmition. IUustrated 42

vii

OJ _ - - - A -

For assistance in the preparation of thisreport, the following individuals and organi­zations deserve recognition: the HonorableErvin Elsenraat. Mayor of Rhineland; SteveEtcher, Executive Director of the BoonslickRegional Planning Commission; Steven G.Lauer, Director, SL Charles County Planningand Zoning Department; GaryDybouse. Chief,Hydrologic EngineeringSection, St. Louis Dis­trict.., U.S. ArmyCorpsofEngineers;]ackBurns,Service Hydrologist, National Weather Ser­vice's St. Louis Weather Forec:asl Office; andHerman C. Skaggs, of the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency's Eastern Missouri FieldOffice.

Early drafts were reviewed by JimAlexander, Scon ToneD, Harold Morton, EdSadler, Doug Edwards, James Hadley Will­iams, ,Mimi Garstang,Jim Macy, Ogle Hopkins,Steve Mdmosh, John Madras, John Drew andCharles Hays of various programs within theDepartment of Natural Resources.

Clerical suppon was provided by NeeoleKoestner; graphics, typeSetting and design bySusan Dunn; editing and production coordina­tion by Dwight Weaver, of the department'sDivision of Geology and Land Survey.

Contributions by these talented andknowledgeable people have made this repo"a unique publication.

Flooding is a natural eventand has beencharacteristic of rivers in Missouri throughoutits history and prehistory.

Flooding becomes a naturaldisasterwhenit is ofsuch magnirude that bothman-made andnatural landforms are destroyed 01" seriouslydamaged. When human development (strUc­DJres and activities) are placed in the way ofsuch floodwaters, the damage becomes over­whelming. Unlike the unpre-dictability oftornadoes, places where floods will occur canbe predicted. Flooding that is not of majorproportions has certain benefits. For example,flooding rejuvenates wetland areas in floodplains.

Over the decades, there have been diver­gent approaches to solving the problem ofoccasional or recurrent flooding. These ap­proaches essentially fit into three categories:(A) to deal with the flood hazard itself(keep the water away from the people),(B) to deal with human development (keepthe people away from the water), and (C)to deal with how the floods and the peoplecome together (flood insurance and disas­ter assistance).

TIllS DOCUMENTThis document is an analysis of four re­

ports which were published by state and fed­eral agencies as policy and planning docu­ments follOWing 1993 flooding in ninemidwestern slates. Therepom conlain recom­mendations for how to reduce flood damagesin the likelyevent thatanother large magnitudeflood should QCcur in the future. The fourreports were also published for the purpose of

influencing public policy in the areas of floodplain management, flood control, flood insur­ance, flood disaster aid, and other flood-relat­ed issues.

1h:ree of the repor1S were commissionedby some authority: The Rerxm and Recom­mendations of tbe Governor's Task Force onFlood Plain Management, on behalf of Gover­nor Carnahan; The Floods of 93 - State ofMissouri, by the Interagency Hazard Mitiga­tion Team set up by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency, under the tenns of theStafford Act of 1988; and Sharing the Chal­lenge: Floodplain Management into the 21 stCentury, the report of the Interagency Flood­plain Management Review Committee to theAdministration (White House) FloodplainManagement Task Force.

The fourth report, National Flood Pol­icy in Review- 1994, by the Associationof State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM),known as the organization "dedicated toreducing flood losses in the nation", wasvoluntarily produced for the guidance ofdecision makers and planners.

Each of the four reportS approached theproblem of flooding from a different perspec­tive. The reports worded their recommenda­tions differently. This analysis of the fourreports sought areas of commonality whichcould be brought to bear on the issue offlooding in Missouri. Sometimes only two orthree repom touched on a given point, al­though all four addressed some aspect of apoint. Where possible, this analysis showswhere common wisdom pOints the way to animproved approach to dealing with flooding.

40

,I _

94

ST. CHARLESCOUNTY

EA OF FLOODING

MILES, I i I

o 1 2 3

I

St. Louis County Swamped After Levee Break

70 I"..l'St. Charles 94

2

From April through October, 1993, verylarge flooding of the Upper Mississippi Riverand Missouri River caused serious damage andsevere dislocations throughOut the state ofMissouri and eight other nearby states. TheFlood of 1993 was a national catastrophe,interrupting transcontinental commerce formany weeks, including rail, highwaY,and bargetraffic. Tremendous outlays of local, state, andfederal dollars to aid recovery of people andproperty created major fmancial hardships.Man-made strucrures can be repaired or re­placed, however. the personal hardships of thepeople affected will remain for years.

In November, subsequent to the Flood of1993, additional heavy rains caused flash flood·ing in the southeast portion of the state, part ofwhich had been spared earlier flooding. Byyear's end, nearly every county in Missouri hadbeen declared a Presidential Disaster Area atleast once. In the three 1993 PresidentialDisaster Declarations for Missouri, some coun·ties were declared all three times.

Flood stage records were broken at near·Iy every Missouri recording location along theUpper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. Inmany places, the magnitude of flooding waswhat had been predicted as a "once-in-five­hundred-year" flood. (See defmition, page41.) The historic flood (before the period ofrecording gages) nearest to the magnitude ofthe 1993 flooding was the flood of 1844.

But the Upper Mississippi River andMissouri River of 1993 were not the samerivers they were in 1844; the U.S. Anny Corpsof Engineers had changed them by the con-

3

suuction of "river training works.· These nav­igation improvements narrowed and deep­ened their channels to improve waterbornecommerce.

In 1993, a major portion of the rainfalloccurred downslream of the large dams on theMissouri River. 1bus, there was little to slowthe torrents of runoff from the intense rains,especially in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa andnorthern Missouri

GOAlS OF THIS ANALYSISThis analysis is intended for elected offi·

cials and key decision makers, and shouldprovide guidance for future flood-policy deci·sions. An effort was made to identify commonthreads of wisdom in the four reports applica­ble to Missouri. Since the reports approach thetopic differently, and the recommendationsare worded differently, the reports cannot becompared line-for-line. However, there aremany recurrent themes and these areas ofcommonality are shown in tables accompany­ing the text.

There have been numerous reports pub­lished on the Flood of 1993. 1his analysis isnot on the flooding. The Appendix lists someof the major reporo about the Flood of 1993,for people Wishing for greater detail about theflooding itself.

This analysis is the result of a review ofthe four major reporo which made post-floodrecommendations for averting such a nationaldisaster in future years. There have been otherposl·flood reconunendations, but this review

deals only with the following four publishedreports:

1. The Report QruJ Recommendations oftbe Governor's Task Force em Flood PlainManagemerl1, or, simply, the Governor's TaskForce Report, July, 1994.

2. Sbaring the Challenge: FloodplainManagement into the21 Sf century, the Reportof the Interagency Floodplain ManagementReviewCommittee to the Administration Flc)(xl·plain Management TaskForce; "ABlueprint forChange", June, 1994. Also called the "WhiteHouse Task Force Report". it is also known bythe name of the comminee chairman, Brig.Gen. Gerald Galloway, U.S.A, Dean of the u.s.Miliwy Academy, West Point, 1\.Y. (the Gallo­way Report). The Scientific Assessment andStrategyTeam (SASD Repon, ScienceforFlood­plain Management in the 21 Sf Century, is Part

v of "A Blueprinl for Change". Part of theAppendix of lhe Galloway Report, it is notreviewed, here.

3. NationalFloodPoIicyinReview-1994,by the Association of Slate Floodplain Manag­ers, or, simply, the ASFPM Report.

4. 7beFloodsof93 -State ofMissouri, thefederal Interagency Hazard Mitigation TeamReport for the three Presidential Disaster Dec­larations in l\fissouri, or, simply, lhe OiMTReport, April, 1994.

This volume is one of three Slate WaterPlan publications initiated in 1995. The othertwo are the Fi,uzl Report of the Ruml WaterSystems Project (in conjunction with theMissouri Deparunent of Economic DeveJop­menl) and the Drought Response Plan, bothpublished in 1995.

4

Post-flood recommendations made bythe Governor's Task Force on Flood PlainManagement and three other documents havebeen analyzed to provide this report. Thissynopsis outlines the gist of the several areasin which common wisdom could be distilled.

• -All four post-flood reports rec­ommend that the State should takeanactive role infloodplainmanage·ment, detetmine state flood plainmanagement policy, andimplem.entit. (Table l)

• -The reports generallyagreed thatthe hydrology of the Missouri andthe Mississippi rivers should be re­viewed, with the possible result thatbase flood elevations should berecalculated, and new flood mapsissued. (Table 2)

• -The encouragement ofparticipa­tion in the NationalFlood InsuranceProgram, both by communities andindividual property owners, wasstressed to the point that recom­mendations stated that post-flOOddisaster assistance to those not in­suredshould be limited, reduced, orwithheld. The problems of mort­gage lenders and borrowers were

5

addressed, andescrow ofprem.iwnsfor flood insurancewas emphaslzed.(Tables 4 & 5)

• _Maintaining flood insurance pur­chase requirements behind leveeprotection works was recommend­ed, along with legislating a staledefinition ofmarketvalue, to assurecompliance with flood insurancereguJations dealing with substantialdamages. (Tables 6 & 7)

• -Levees, levee districts, levee pro­tection systems, state levee pennits,levee construction criteria, leveerepairs, and levee heights were ad­dressed by the four reports as aresult of the levee failures in the1993 flooding. More state involve­ment in the whole topic area wasuniversallyrecommended, especial­lylnoverslght and penults. (Table 8)

• -Greater envirorunental sensitivi­ty, and increased state governmentinvolvement in flood plain matterswas stressed in the post-flood re·ports. Public health and salety duroing flood events was also stressed,especially in regard to hazardousmaterials. (Tables 9 & 10)

•

Missouri's state caPitol, JejJersorl City, during tbe flood of1993. Photo by Steve Mc/mosh.

6

The four post-flood reports stressed thatmajor flooding is not a once·in·a-lifetime evenl.It will happen again, Areas flooded severelyin lhe flood disasters of 1973, 1979, 1982,1984, and 1986, and even in 1844, were thesame areas devaslated in 1993. The repetitivenaNre of flooding has been made dear.

The reports higbJightlhe values of floodplains in slOWing floodwater velocities andreducing peak flood volumes. They also notethat lack of adequate controls on design, con­struction, and maintenance has contributed tolevee failures with resultant increased flooddamages.

The analysis of the post-flood reports ispresented on a lOpical basis, with flood plainmanagement as the nrst topic, A matrix of therecommendations of the four reports is includ­ed in the topical sections, These are lables thatallow the reader to quickly compare the fourreports to detennine if it would be worth whileto consult the original for greater delail.

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT

Both the Governor's office and the Pres·idenl's office issued Executive Orders (EOs) onFlood Plain Management (FPM) many yearsbefore the Flood of '93. These policy state­menlS were binding on state and federal agen­cies. The four reports stressed the importanceof the policies. Two of the reports noted thatgovernment agencies should inventory theirproperry to detennine their vulnerability to

13 US.C. 702a, et. seq. (Or 45 Stal.534).

7

future flooding. The recommendations wereas shown in Table 1.

SoME BACKGROUND

The first real move to flood plain man­agement, as a nonstructural alternative to floodcontrol, was embodied in the National FloodInsurance Act of 1968. This was 40 years afterthe Flood Control Act of 1928, which autho­rized the Corps of Engineers to control theMississippi River with darns, levees, and diver­sion channels.

Like 1993, the year 1927 was pivolal in

regard to national policy on flooding. In thalyear, a major flood occurred on the LowerMississippiRiver, causinggreat hardship amongthe tenant farmers and other residents of theMississippi flood plain. One of the great pho­tographic records of the 1927 flood was pub­lished in the National GeographicMagazineinSeptember, 1927.

In passing the Mississippi River FloodControl Actof 1928'", Congress directed the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers to undenake thestructural approacb to reducing flood damag­es, (keeping the water away from the people.)This was in the affluent period following WorldWar I, preceding the Great Depression. Con­fidence in human ability to control naturalforces was expressed in this and other publicworks projects.

Forty years later, after numerous floodand hurricane disasters in the 1950sand 1960s,and spending billions of dollars on both flood

..

Table 1

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Report Titles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GALLOWAY ASFPM IHMT

Position on P.2. New Gav's EO on PPM ACtiOH 5. 4, New V.3, Prests EO is powerful Rec.1, EstablishExecutive Orders needed (expanded), Pres1s EO on PPM PPM policy; needs stale PPM policy(EO) preViously Slate agencies report to needed to rcamero enforcement and guidelines.issued by Gov. annually on federal commilment mechanism.GovernorlPresident compliance with EO on PPM. (paraphrased) (paraphrased)

Position on P.2, Identify slale Aaion5.5. Fed. NOl addressed Not addressedagencies making strucrures vulnerable to agencies conductinventory of flooding. Prepare vulnerabilily (0

vulnerability. emergency response and flooding analysis.evacuation plans. Ensurestructures are insured andmeet NFIP standards.

I)osition on role Rec.l, Create :l Ree. 5. 2, Slale role V. J, Federal Rec. I, Consider

of the st.He in multHurisdictional body in PPM activities policy needs to legislation to

flood plain to reconunend PPM policy; should increase. support stale implement state

management and, empower a and local PPM policy.designated state agency capability in PPM.to implement slate PPM policy.

Designation! Not addressed Action 6. 6, Map all I. C, 2. Areas Not addressed

mapping of flood communities with nooded should

plains flood hazards. be designaledflood plains (A-Zones).

- .,,==c=c-c=,.'=-c. - - ._._.- - ..="--------

control works and disaster aid, Congress wasconvinced that another approach to reducingflood losses was needed. It did not meanabandoning the Stn.lcrural approach, but add­ing elements of a n011-szruaural approachwim me adoption of the National Flood Insur­ance Act of 1968--.

One aspea of the National Flood Insur~

ance Program (l\If1P) is that local goVernmentsmust adopt regulations governing new devel­opment activities in identified (mapped) floodplains in order to be eligible fonhesale offloodinsurance within their jurisdictions. 1his cou­ples the availability of fUlancial protection forvulnerable properties with community actionto limit new vulnerability.

All reponsagree thatnewdevelopmem inflood plains should still be pennined; howev­er, design and construction in recognition ofthe hazard must be an absolute mandate. Inflood plain management, all reports agree thatthe NF1P is a critical element, but eligibility andrequirement of panicipation must be weD de­fUled and carried OUL 1his includes the facithat eligibility for federal disaster assislance inthe event ofa flood is tied to participation in theNFIP.

NEW MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The new approach (Galloway Report)seeks to achieve the follOWing.

• -Avoid the risks of the flood plain.• -Minimize the impacts of those risks

when they cannot be avoided.• -Mitigate the impacts of damages

when they occur; and• -Accomplish the above in a manner

that concurrently protects and en­hances the natural environment(page 68).

-PL 90448, since amended.

9

According to the Galloway Report, thecitizens of me nation bear a responsibility to

exercise good judgment in their use of theflood plain and to share in the costs of theirjudgments. Under this approach, the federalgovernment provides suppon for Slate andlocal flood plain management, eSlablishesbroad national goals, and, by its own actions,leads (page 68).

Recommendation 2 of the Governor's TaskForce Repo11 is for the Slate government to lead(Page 12).

State agencies in Missouri have alreadybegun to respond. The State Emergency Man­agement Agency (SEMA) and the Deparunentof Economic Development (DED), in adminis­tering grants ofaid after the Flood of '93, havehelped purchase flood-damaged propertiesand get buildings removed from the floodplain. Deed restrictions assure that those prop­erties will remain without structures in thefurore.

"HPJtDPftIA'TE USEM'

0'1 SU;PF' AC:r~l1W'ITH ~E RISi( TO NA

saURCi;S 1NA7URA.L AN,P

CfAL USES OF npoo~at.fAN A£SOO.RC£S h.»Jes

PROPERTY} AAOM OCCASiONAL -OR

Ftu:~U£HT"n:oOOlfl,(G.

SQuR,CE: ADAPTED .FRO",~

GALLOWAY RE:PORT. PAGE XXt,.,

10

r!!!!!.S;"=:""1ia.··=·"~;!-!!!·!ii5=~al:j;iDF~B===~;:!'1!!!!!!~!ii·~=a!1iiiiii1FRECO===£;!8!!!!ii:w=a.i:i_iiiRFND::;;;;;:'!t."TIO==""N"'S""''' i:!!!!!ii1:;@'iii~~'iS

-- . ~ . - - - . ~ -

Hydrology, in its simplest defInition, isthe "science afwater'". More to the point of thisdocument, it has to do \Vim. the distribution ofwater on the earth's surface; specifically, howwater flows in the rivers as a result of rain,snow, and melcwater runoff, and how it isreleased from reservoirs. While hydrology ismuch more than flood forcasting, hydrologistsare engaged in that work, and employ com­puters and other technology.

Anomer pOint ofcommonalityamong thefour major post-flood reports has to do withthe hydrology of the Upper Mississippi andMissouri riVers, especially as i( relates to com­puting the relationships among quantity offlow (discharge), flood heighlS (slage), andfrequency of recurrence.

Several federal agencies are involved inhydrology studies. Among these are the Na­tional Weather Service (NWS), the U.S. Geo­logical Survey (USGS), the Corps of Engineers(COE), the Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS), and the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA). Many yearsago, several federal agencies agreed uponmethods to do hydrologic studies, and thiseffort bore fruit in the form of publications.One of the publications was Guidelines forDetermining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin17B, March, 1982, published by the Office ofWater Coordination, US. Department of theInterior,

Bulletin 17B was wrinen for use in fed­eral planning "'involving water and relatedland resources," Many agency planners and

II

contractors still use this document in lheirhydrology srudies. "Slate, local and privateorganizations are encouraged to use theseguidelines also, .. ".

AI the state level, the Department ofNaturaJ Resources also conductS hydrologicstudies and makes recommendations relativeto federal hydrologic reports. Various univer·sities do hydrologic studies in terms of engi­neering as well as the science of hydrology.

The hydrology recommendations in thefour repons are shown in Table 2.

In addition to the recommendations giv­en in Table 2, me reports made omer points inlhis field, mostly aimed. at the federal agen­cies.

The ASFPM Report noted that historical­ly, the most reliable data source has been thestream gage network of the U.S. GeologicalSurvey. ~Unfortunately, thisnerwork has beenshrinking and we are lacking the basic dataneeded from which to develop hydrologicand flood estimates," the report states (Page12). As the ASFPM Report points out, riverstage forecasts should help the public takeappropriate actions (paraphrased). (Refer to"How to help the public," page 13.)

The Galloway Report, at Recomrnenda­tion 11.2, calls upon federal agencies to "col­laborate on an assessment of the effectivenessof the stream gaging network and flood fore­casting during the 1993 Midwest floods."

The ASFPM Reporta.sserts, (VII, 4,) matengineering models must be developed totake into account unsteady-state conditions,

Table 2

HYDROLOGY RECOMMENDATIONSrr======,;===-c=====.c=-='==============)J

Report Titles

­N

TOPIC

Hydrologyrecommendationsregarding dver stagereadings

Hydrologyrecommendationsregarding mapping

GOVERNOR'S

p.7. Encourage federalgovenunent to recalculatethe BFE and make thatinfolmation available to stateand local governments.

Not addressed

Not addressed

GAlLOWAY

Rec. JJ . J. Fed. Wateragencies should reviewand update dlscharge­frequency relationshipsfor gages in the upperMississippi River Basinto reflect the 1993 flooddata. The adequacy ofthe existing gage net­work should also bereviewed.

Action 6.8, Usetechnology to improveflood plain mapping

Action 6. 7, Improvedelivery of FIRMs.

ASFPM

VII. 1. Expandstream gage

networkj cooperatewith other agenciesfor data.(paraphrased)

VII. 5, Maps should bebe based on futurecondition hydrology.

VII. 5. More funding formap programs is crucial.

IHMT

7. ReviewMississlppVMissouriRiverhydrology,

Not addressed

Not addressed

I-------I--------+-------+-------~---_._--

Not addressed Not addressed WI. 5, Qualified statesshould administermapping programsforFEMA.

Not addressed

l!======!===-0-0=',=,_..",--~ -='co-!=.=======!====-'"7. =._-.-" ._=_ ''-=-. ._ -_- -~-

levee breaches, and other flood situations.Since then, the Corps of Engineers has pro·duced a draft repon titled Flood Plain Man­agement Assessment of tbe Upper Mississippiand LowerMissouri Rivers and tbeir Tributar­ies (FPMA). This assessment was based on theanalyses of a wide array ofahemative policies,programs, and measures.

Quoting from the Executive Summary ofthe FPMA: uThese impact analyses were basedon results of systemic hydraulic computermodeling that represents an advancement inthe state-of-art in flood analysis. 1his model­ing work was initiated by the Corps of Engi­neers prior to the FPMA, but funds budgetedunder the FPMA and work perfonned for theAssessment contributed to the achievement ofthe frrst hydraulic modeling capable of pre­dicting impacts of random changes in storageparameters (such as when a levee break oc­curs)." This appears to accomplish what theASFPM recommended.

lhe Galloway Report, at Action 11.3,says, "lhe USACE,l\TWS, and USGS, with othercollaborators, should continue developmentof basin-wide hydrologic, hydraulic, andhydrometeorologic models for the upper Mis­sissippi River system." This will help inmaking flood-risk predictions.

How 10 HElP 1HE PlBUC-

Each local government can beJp residentsby relating the nearest n'ver gage to the localtopograj:hy, since etuh river gage has its own"zero" level and each local site bas its ownelevation. The data are available. The accom­panying Table 3 ofMissouri Riwr gages.fromyankton, SOUlb Dakota, to St. OJarles, Missouri,provides river mile "zero" on tbe gage, andfloodstage (bcmkfuUJ OtZ tbegage. Similar tables existfor theMississitfJi Riverandothers. Localgovern­ment officials can help citizens by using thesedata and NFIP Flood Insurance Study data tohelp tbe public take approprlale actions uhenjIooding is forecast.

For the pUblic, there remains some confu­sion, since river gage readings are usually givenin feet ofstage on the gage, nOl in feet above sealevel. National Flood Insurance Program (NFlP)maps and studies provide base flood elevations(BPEs) in feet above mean sea level (MSL), ratherthan gage readings.

lhe last re-study of the Upper MississippiRiver hydrology was perfonned after the 1973Flood, and was published in 1979. Any newflood modeling of the hydrology of the UpperMississippi and J\1issouri rivers will not onlychange the accompanying lable, but is likely tochange all the NF1P Flood lnsurance Studies andFIRMs, as well. Because of the cost, this willrequire Congressional direction.

13

Table 3

MISSOURI RIVER STAGE GAGESU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division

COY Mll.E GAGEZERO

CRPREADING

FWODSTAGE

1916183217172219221722201825212322212025

12363519

7.57.59.4

24.410.710.212.7

8.76.17.3

14.211.58.1

12.210.39.89.38.24.6

13.5

23.824.46.2

958.2938.8905.4860.0837.2788.2786.2742.2715.8702.0663.5645.5621.4586.1565.0519.7485.9481.44572413.6

1159.81057.01010.0987.3

805.8732.3691.1648.2627.5615.9590.5561.8535.2498.4448.2422.6396.7366.1328.7317.3293.4262.6226.3197.1143.9104.8

97.967.028.2

0.0

YanktonSioux CityDecaturBlaIrBoatyardOmahaPlattsmouthNebraska CityBrownvH1eRuloSt.JosephAtchisonLeavenwonhKansas CityNapoleonLexingtonWaverlyMiamiGlasgowBoonvilleJefferson CityGasconadeHeImannWashingtonSt. CharlesMouth

l!============--=",--=c.====="'-~.'~'==C···-··''='-'''_--=-_-Please refer also to Figure S, Historic Flood Discharges at BoonvHle Gage, Missouri.

POST-FLOOD DISASTER ASSISTANCEm _ . ... . - '"' - . -

Flash flooding creates instant and cam·suophic endangennent of public safety. Evengeneral flooding, as seen in the 1993 flcxx1,creates major public safety risks. Propertydestruction becomes a state and national bur·den, not to mention the traumaticeffecrs on theproperty owners. Every level of governmentmust respond when rivers and streams go overtheir banks in major flash and general floodingevents. For example, most flooding casualtiesinvolve motor vehicles driving on flO<Xiedroads. Anempts to wade or boat in swift floodwaters also causes loss of life.

Prevention, preparedness, response andrecovery are sequential elemems in compre·hensive emergency management. Becausepublic health, public safety, and general wel­fare are involved, me public expects everystate and local governmem agency to be ableto deal with flooding and oilier emergencies.Chapter 44, RSMo, calls upon every local jurisdic­tion to be organized to handle emergencies, andtheState EmergencyManagementAgency(SEMA)provides planning assistance, training, and othersupport for local goverrunents.

The Department of Naroral Resourcesresponds to a variety of needs, varying fromdisposal of flood debris to assisting with watersupplies. The Depanmenl of Agriculrore pro­vides broad areas ofsuppon to the agricultural

IS

community. The Highway and Transpona­tion Department has a major task relative tohighway safety during flooding, as do countyhighway departments.

Table 4 shows the recommendations ofthe four reports on disaster preparedness,post-flood assistance priorities, and the limit­ing of disaster assistance. County govern­ments have been given the opportunity 10

enter the l\Tf1P by means of Chapter 49, Sec­tion 600, RSMo. Municipalities of all classeshave the power to join the NFIP. Participationin the NFIP makes flood insurance availablewithin the jurisdiction, and the jurisdictionenters by application and by providing evi­dence that it regulates new developmem inflood hazard areas. The linkage betweenflood insurance and disaster assistance wasclearly made in the reports.

The Governor's Task Force Report, inRecommendation 3 (page 13) says, "As aresult of the Flood of '93, Governor Carnahandecided that the highest recovery prioritygoes to assisting indiViduals to return theirlives to norntal, or as normal as possible,given the circumstances." Helping peoplemove from the flood plains, using ConununityDevelopment Block Grants, FE.JI,1A section404 funds, and other fmancial assistance, wasa priority follOWing the 1993 flO<Xiing.

-'"

Table 4

DlSASTERRECOMMENDATIONS

Report Titles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GAllOWAY ASFPM IHlIIT

Position on 4. The State should Action5.6. II. A, 2. Disaster... Not addressedpriortizing affirm that in nln.lfe Limit public assistance should beor limiting flood incidents... assistance withheld from flood plain

who is to communities...in the for non- communities not in thereceive NFIP will recieve participating NFIP.post-flood priority in block communities.disaster grant and disasterassistance assistance funding.

Posltionon 3. Assist people to Action9. 5. I. E,l. Withhold disaster Not addressedassistance move from flood Reduce post- relief from those whopriorities plains. disaster willingly drop (NFIP)

assistance to coverage.those not /1. A,l. Total assistanceflood- should be reduced toinsured.... reflect what could have

been covered by floodinsurance.

Position on 1. Develop and Rec.6.l. /1. A. Encourage pre- 13. Organize a

Disaster implement an Enhance pre- disaster mitigation and grot! p to prepare

Preparedness effective overall disaster FPM. and present

strategy for FPM. plann..ing and seminars and/ortraining. pamphlets on

flood preparedness.. . . . . .-. - _.

As seen from the Galloway Reportrecom­mendations and the ASFPMReport, both localgovernments and private individuals are ex­pected to take action to make flood insuranceavailable and to purchase flood insurance.(See Table 5.)

Repetitive losses sbow how repeat floodinsurance claims are very costly to the NFIP.('The :NFIP is backed by the taxpayers of theUnited States.) Missouri ranks first amongnon-coastal states in repetitive losses.

For years, state and federal officials haveheard reports ofborTowers having been unin­formed of the flood hazard at properties theyhave purchased. Sections 407.010 and 407.020,RSMo., explicitly state that pertinent facts con­cerning real estate being sold must not beconcealed from the buyer. The existence offlood hazards, as shown on NFlP maps, mustbe revealed, by law.

Officials have also received reports ofborrowers not being required to purchaseflood insurance coverage, or who bOUght oneyear of coverage and then did not renew thepolicy, for various reasons.

Another is the idea that federal disasterassistance will cover flood losses. But not allfloods are followed by a Presidential DisasterDeclaration, which is necessary to make fed-

17

eral loans and grants available. Federal loansmust be repaid, with interest. Federal grantsare available only to those who do not qualifyto receive a loan, and have a maximum level.For the Flood of 1993, the maximum grant was$11,900, which was nOt enough to replacemost homes.

Bank loan officers generally say that es­crow for flood insurance is not authorized.The report's recommendations are intended toclarify that escrow is authorized, as well as torequire escrow for me coming year's premi­um, so that policies will not lapse.

If an uninsured property has a mortgage,a flood can Wipe out the collateral, and thelender may be left with nothing to show but apiece of paper. Forcing borrowers to beinsured protects the borrower, the lender, andthe taxpayer.

Since the National Flood Insurance Actprovides the onlyfmancial protection for thoseexposed to the risk offlooding, it is no wonderthat the reports included several flood insur­ance recorrunendations. The federal Inter­agency Hazard Mitigation Team, set up byFEMA, spent less time on that topic, sinceFEMA oversees the l\TFIP, and they felt othersshould make the recorrunendations.

Table 5

Report Tides

-m

TOPIC

Recommen­dationsrelated tolendingandnoodinsurance

GOVERNOR'S

7, 1. Encourage Fed. gov't. to setpenalties for lenders that failto notify... mortgagees of floodhazards, or fail to require floodinsurance coverage for the lifeof the loanj

7,2. Require escrow for noodinsurance premiums, and authorizelender to purchase the insuranceon behalf of the borrower.

P. 4, Encourage maximumcommunity participation in theNFIP, to allow all MissourIans thatlive in flood plains the OppOltl.I1Uty

to purchase flood insurance.

GAllOWAY

Action 9. 2.Improve NFIPlender compliance.

Aclion9.3.Provide for escrowofOood insurancepremiums.

Rec. 9. 4., Statesshould activelyencourage floodinsurance purchase.

ASFPM

I. B, 1. Authorizecivil actions againstlenders that failloenforce insurancepurchase requirements.Impose penalties onlenders for non­compliance.

1. B, 1. Provide forescrow offloodinsurance premiums.

Not addressed

UIMT

Not addressed

Not addressed

Not addressed

l!======'~=========!:=====O=---"-""C7_==_=_======-_,,=

By the rules of the NFIP, if a levee pro­vides base flood protection plus three feet offreeboard, FEMA can remove a flood hazardarea designation, (upon request of the localjurisdiction) by either a lener of map revision(LOMR) or by printing a new map. Removingthe designation removes the mandatory floodinsurance purchase provision in the NFIP.Three of the four reports said that this is not agood idea.

NFIP rules were written to allow for theprotection of flood plain land from majorflooding. Since the base flood (hundred-year­flood, or one percent chance flood) is thecriterion for flood insurance rates and buildingcodes in flood plains, NFIP rules stated that if

a piece of property is protected from the baseflood (with freeboard), the flood hazard des­ignation can be removed.

The reason for these recommendations isthat there were flood damages in protectedareas during the flood of 1993 that might havebeen covered by flood insurance, had theinsurance requirement not been lifted. Insur­ance should be purchased behind levees toprotect citizens against future flood losses.

The "protected" areas were flooded byevents ranging from vandalism to levee fail­ures as a result of OVerlOpping or saturation,and internal strength loss caused by the floodmagnitude and duration. In some places, highvelocity flows eroded levees to cause failure.

Table 6

Report Titles i!"

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GAllOWAY ASFPM IHMT

Position on Not addressed Action9.6. V. 5. There 6. The FIArequirement Require is a need to shouldof actuarial- maintain specify aninsurance based flood flood plain A-zonebehind insurance management designationlevees behind all practices... behind

levees.... behind flood levees.controlworks.

19

Figure 1.MITIGATING FLOOD IMPACTS

THROUGH RECOVERY AND INSURANCE

PAYING CLAIMS BElDND THE MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD LEVEE

The Monarch-Chesterfield Levee at Chesterfield, Missouri, is an example of alevee that induced floodplain development and of the residual risks that result fromdepending on a levee for flood protection. The Monarch Levee was an agriculturallevee with an extensive emergency repair history that was upgraded during the 19805to meet early NFIP standards. Subsequent to the completion of the levee and its beingcredited by the NFIP as providing lOO-year protection, an industrial area developedbehind the levee. In 1993 when it became apparent that the levee might overtop orfail, many property owners were able to purchase flood insurance and later to receiveclaims payments. Other property owners did not have flood insurance or did not meetthe 5-day waiting period for coverage. The Review Committee identified at least 67flood 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 9­state region. The flooding of this industrial area had severe impacts to the area notonly from insured and uninsured damages but also from the temporary or permanentloss of jobs.

SOURCE: FEMA Federal Insurance Administration, claims data for 1993, geocoding by the Flood·plain Management Review Committee.

Action 9.6: Require actuarial-based floodinsurance behind all levees that provideprotection less than the standard project flood.

The FEMA should designate as AL zones those areasbehind levees designed to meet current minimum NFIPcriteria but which do not provide protection from theStandard Project Flood (SPF) discharge. The AL zonewould include those areas landward of the levee thatare below the IDO-year flood elevation. The mandatoryflood insurance purchase requirement would applywithin this AI.. zone, and new buildings would pay floodinsurance premiums based on actuarial rates. TheFEMA could establish floodplain management require­ments for these areas, although elevation orfioodproofing to or above the lOO·year flood elevationshould DOt be mandalory. This recommendation issimilar to one in the 1982 National Academy ofScience's Nalional Research Council repan, A LeveePolicy for the Notional Flood Insurance Program.

SOURCE: Galloway Repon

20

A mandatory flood insurance purchase requirementbehind such levees would provide a number of benefitsto the public and to property owners:

• Property owners would be insured against thereal possibility that a levee will be overtoppedor will fail,

• Federal eltpenditures for disaster assistancewould decline,

• Property owners would be more fully aware ofthe residual risk in building or locating behinda levee, and

• Communities would have an incentive to seekhigher levels of protection.

Existing Flood Insurance Rate Maps should be revisedwhere appropriate to reflect AL zones. The FEMAshould obtain a legal opinion on whether this designa­lion could be made based on residual risk of catastroph­ic loss, or ifit would require legislation.

The deIUlition ofMarket Value ofproper­ty is an issue addressed in all four reportsbecause of the NFIP regulations in regard to"substantial damages." Substantial is defUledas fifty percent of the pre-damage or pre­improvement value of a building. Substan­tially improved buildings must meet the NFIPcode as if they were new buildings; or, theimprovement (if an addition) must meet thecode. Substantially damaged buildings mustbe made to meet the code (elevated, if theirlowest floor is too low). The value of abuilding is critical to the defUlition of substan­tial damages and substantial improvements.

Substantially damaged buildings will berated as "new" buildings for flood insurancepurposes, and if not built correctly Oowestfloor high enough), will be rated such thatpremiums would be unaffordable. So, -what isa building's "market value"?

A real estate appraiseruses the defmitionof "market value" as an appraisal figure. Somecounty asses:son-, in rating a building for realproperty taxes, do not use an appraisal figure.In such a case, a "replacement value" is used,together with the age of the building, to deter­mine a value for assessment purposes. Thelaner method does not take into considerationother factors 'Which may affect the sale of aproperty, including location. There is nouniversal agreement.

Figure 3 illustrates the difference be­tween using an appraised market value (For­mula Dto determine if there has been substan­tial damage, and using a replacement value(Formula 2) to determine if substantial dam-

21

age has been done to a flooded building. Ineach of the two cases shown, the damage tothe building (cost to repair) is the same. Afterthe Flood of 1993, either defUlition could beused in Missouri because the state had notdefmed market value and FEMA had not de­fUled market value in the NFIP rules.

Reconunendations relative to the defUli­tion of fair market value are shown in Table 7.

HISTORY OF PROBLEMThe issue of needing a state defUlition of

market value was raised in all four reportsbecause of two things: (1) The .r-.TfIP rules donOl provide a deIUlition of market value, and(2) FE.1\1A has not always abided by its defini­tion of substantial damage. Following Hurri­cane Andrew in Florida, adminislrators inWashington, D.C., issued "partial waivers,"and did not require damaged buildings to beelevated according to regulations.

FollOWing the Flood of 1993, officials inWashington, D.C., again waived the lowestfloor elevation requirement on the rationalethat it would cause a hardship for floodvictims. The waiver allowed many moreproperties to be rebuilt "as were" than wouldhave been the case. (See "Two Formulae" inFigure 3.)

A large number of these were buildingsthat had been flooded before, and would beflooded again. The largest single drain onflood insurance reserve funds are repeti­tive claims. (See page 126 of the GallowayReport, Figure 2.)

MARKET VALUE DEFINEDThe defmilion of market value (also spo­

ken of as "fair market value"), as given onforms used by private appraisers in Missouri,reads as follows:

The most probable price which aproperty should bring in a competitiveand open market under all conditionsrequisite to a fair sale, the buyer and

Figure 2.

seller, each acting prudently, knowl­edgeably atuJ assuming the price is notaffected by undue stimulus.

Source; Pran Appraisal, Inc.,Jefferson City, Mo.

Such a defmition could be adopted by theMissouri General Assembly in response to theTask Force recommendation.

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: fcder1l Emergency Man~ememAgency, Fedc::r211nsurance AdminiStration, cOlnP'J{er prinfout, Washington, DC, February 1, 1994.

SOURCE: Galloway Repon

22

Figure 3.

Using Formula 2, the home above, at 182 Charles Street in WestAlton, was able to rebuild.

Market Value $18,979

Flood Damage $12,621

Percentage 66%

Replacementcost ......... $31,328

Flood Damage $12,621

Percentage 40%

SOURCE: St. Charles County Planning Department

From: St. [,ouis Post-Dispatch, September 4 , 1994, Page 81.

Post-Dispatch Graphic

Figure 4. Rhineland relocation.

This house in the relocated town of Rhineland was moved from the flood plain of the Missouri River to the hill northof the fonner site, This and scores of houses were moved to a 52-acre pial purchased by Rhineland, using state and federalgrants, follOWing the Flood of 1993. photo by Richard M. Gaffney.

24

Hazard Mitigation is a term widely usedin emergency management. Mitigation meansrelief, alleviation, or correction. Its purpose isto make things better than they were. Hazardmitigation may be structural (as in flood pro­tection) or non-struauraI (as in removing build­ings from the flood plains).

Several agencies were involved in post­flood relief in 1993 and 1994. It quicklybecame apparent that some agencies par­celled out funding and undertook projectsquicker than others. The fact that each agencyhad its own fonTIS to flll out, and communitieshad to "shop around," were disadvantages.Table 7 sho'\VS the recommendations for com­mon procedures in this area.

Rhineland, a Montgomery County vil­lage, population of 157, suffered considerableflood damage in October, 1986. This floodingof the Lower Missouri River was a conse­quence of extremely heavy rains in the Osage

2S

River Basin. (In that notable flood, Harry STruman Reservoir, built for flood control andhydroelectric power purposes, did its job ofstoring floodwaters and cutting offthe amountof water that might otherwise have destroyedmany settlements in the Lower Osage Valleyand the Lower Missouri Valley. It was report­ed that the flood crest of 1986 was many feetlower than a similar flood crest in 1943.)

Having acquired about SO acres of landon me river hills above (north of) the village,the Board of Trustees decided in 1993 that thetime had come to move to high ground. Usingpost-disaster help from many sources, Rhine­land moved homes and resettled in the hills.(See Figure 4.) The State Emergency Manage­ment Agency (SEMA) is coordinating hazardmitigation projects such as this, consistentwith the report reconunendations that thestates coordinate such assistance.

Table 7

Report Titles

TOPIC

Market valuerecommendations

Buy~out

recommendations

Recommendationson procedures

GOVERNOR'S

(P. 4). Create astanllOlY definitionof the pre-noodmarket value ofslructtues for thepurpose ofcompliance with NFIPregulations.

(p. 3). Maximize useof federal funds in SUPPOttof disaster mitigation...to fund communitybuy-out requests.FEMA "404" Hazard

3. Assist people tomove from flood plains.

GALLOWAY

Action 8. 8. FEMAshould stick to Itsdefinitionofsubstantial damage.

Rec. 8.6. Statecoordinate buy-outsmitigation.

Action 8. 5. Makequalified states.Mitigation blockgrants an option.

Action 8. 4. Developcommon plOceduresfor buy-outs andmitigation plOgrams.

ASFP~1

I. A, 2. Adjustdefinition ofsubstantialimprovement toinclude cumulativeimprovements.

I. A. 3. Be cansistantin defining substantialdamage.

ll. D,2.Administration ofMitigation GrantProgram should beturned over to qua Iified

1I. C, 1. Coordinatedstrategy for federalagencies is needed;uniform 1l.Iles andapplication [alms.

IHMT

5. Create aState ftmal'ketvaluen

definition.

4. Removesubstantiallydamaged andrepetitivelydamagedst1l.lCUIreSfrom flood plain.

Not addressed

lb===~======'==='=-=='=C=_.='-__--'====---=~===-='J

l1B1ock grantsll are funds made avail­able to the stares by the federal government, tobe spent according to an approved plan. Theydiffer from individual grants, in that they are

Figure 5.

given as a package to a state agency for dis­tribution according to prescribed rules. Thefollowing are federal programs which can pro­vide funding for buy-out5 following a disaster.

PRINCn>AL SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR BUYOlITS

The following federal programs provide funding for buyouts following adisaster such as the Midwest Flood of 1993'

Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Develop­ment Block Grants (CDBG). The 1993 Supplemental Appropriation included 5200million for the CDBG program to assist in acquisition and relocationand inmeeting otherhousing needs. The 1994 Earthquake Supplemental included an additional S250 millionfor a total of S450 million.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Section 404 Hazard MitigationGrants. The Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993, signed into lawon December 7, 1993, revised the fOffilula for determining the amount ofthe Section 404Hazard Mitigation Grant in the Stafford Act and changed the cost share to 75/25. Underthe revised fOInmla the FEMA estimates that Sl34.9 million will be available through theHazard Mitigation Grant Program funds for the Midwest flood.

Economic Development Administration (EDA) Grants. The 1993 Supplemen­tal Appropriation included S200 million for EDAfor grants to states and communities topreserve or create jobs or upgrade infrastructure. The funds can be used to assist in therelocation of businesses or for the infrastructure needed to support those businesses.

National Flood Insnrance Program Section 1362 Flood Damaged PropertyPun:hase Program. Several million dollars are available from the appropriation for theNFIP Section 1362 program for acquisition of insured properties. These funds are paidfrom the National Flood Insurance Fund, using premium dollars.

Other Programs. Funds were available from other programs such as the FEMAPublic Assistance Program to assist in various aspects of buyouts and relocation. SBAloans are available to help individual property owners not eligible for CDBG monies.

Adapted from the Galloway Repon, p. 120.

27

The issue of levee protection, addressedby all four reports, probably has been the mostoften discussed post-flood topic. People whohave properry on the flood plains of the Mis­sissippi and Missouri rivers have a right toreasonably protect their property from flood­ing. However, levees have increased floodheights (stages) in the Mississippi and lowerMissouri river valleys during low level floods.

Presently, the patchwork of Missouri Riv­er levees offers inconsistent levels of floodprotection. During rare, high-level floods,only major protective works, like those at 51.Louis, Hannibal, and Kansas City, offer protec­tion. As in 1993, lower levees "disappear"under such floodwaters. .Manylower levees aredesigned to protect agricu1rurallands from fre­quent minor flooding. lbese levees can suffergreat damages in major floods, especially wherefl<X>dwat.er velocity is high. Even the lowerlevees can cause unnecessary flooding on por­tions of flood plains if there is inconsistency indesign, location, and other factors.

Levees may be built, maintained, en·larged, and changed in Missouri by privatelando'WIlers, levee districts, drainage districts,and local governments. The levee should fitinto a unified levee protection system. Thelevee may not increase flood stages more thanone foot to stay within the bounds of the NFIP.

Levee recommendations were made inall four reports. This highlights the impor­tance, as seen by the report authors, relative toproperty O'WIlers and the significance in rais­ing flood stages (especially in the more fre­quent flood events). The need for a statepermining program for levee-building was

universally recommended. These recommen­dations are summarized in Table 8.

Of more than 1,450 levees in Missouri,only about 110 participate in the Corps ofEngineers' post-disaster levee rehabilitationprogram. The Corps' eligibility requirement is

that the levee be part of a legal entity (such asa duly formed levee district) that has thepower to tax in order to maintain the levee andpay its twenty percent share of post-floodrehabilitation costs.

The Governor's Task Force found that"the current levee situation in Missouri inviteslevee wars-", and "the aggregate result ap­pears to actually increase the flood danger byincreasing the height and velocity of river flowduring floods" (Page 16).

The Governor's Task Force Report alsonoted that "prior to constructing new non­federal levees that protect principally fann­land, that set·back.s be considered" (Page 5).This brings the levee issue squarely into dis­cussion of what are the best uses of floodplains. All uses induding agriculture, landconservation, wetland habitat, industrial de­velopment, and flood-spreading are impor­tant. The repon emphasized that the stateshould "maximize use of federal funds insupport of acquiring easements on landsthrough the Emergency Wetlands Reserve Pro­gram, the Conservation Reserve Program, andany other federal programs~ (Page 3). "TheTask Force encourages all fanners who arewilling to use federal and state programs totake damaged or marginal land out ofproduc­tion~ (Page 14).

Table 8

Report Titles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GALLOWAY ASFPM IHMT

Levee 6. Oversee levees. Action. 8. 1 . VI. 3. Review 3. DevelopRecommen- Enact legislation to Establish COE as levee system: policies anddations make it easier to principal (fed.) Develop program legislation to

fonn levee districts... levee construction to assure farmers provide forso they can be in Corps' agency. of coverage while coordination ofprogram. alternatives are levees (permits,

decided. analyses, etc.)

Affirm that those who ActionB.2. V.5. Flood Not addressedfail to live up to COE Reaffum COE criteria control requires acommitments should be for P.L. 84-99 levee commitment ofdenied furore federal repair - no future resources.repair aid. exceptions.

Review the clInen! Rec. 8. 3. Minimize v: 5. There is a need 2. State shouldlevee system...and impacts of levee for continued FPM... develop a 10ng-make recommendations overtoppings. behind levees. tenn compre-for alternatives. hellsive floodway

plan, c<X>rdinatedwith COE, MHTD,etc.

Encourage legislation to Rec. 8. 4. V. 5. There is a need 6. FIA shouldestablish a pelmit Coordina te on for continued O&M to specify an A·program...for the criteria for prevent failures. Zone designationpurpose of developing... evaluating levee behind levees.

design critelia. repairs.---- - o.~.. -

Toole 8 continued

Report titles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GAllOWAY ASFPM IHMT

Levee P.5, Encourage legislation Rec.l0.1, States should II. C, 2. Flood-fighting 3. Legislationrecommell- to establish a pennit take responsibility for should be plawed, should providedations program for construction levee regulation and with federal oversight forcooldinalion(cont'd) or modification of levees. flood fighting. for implementation and

National Guard presencefor enforcement.

Encourage that existing Not addressed Not addressed Not addressedlevees be repaired tono higher than pre-flood height.

Encourage that new, Not addressed Not addressed Not addressednon~federal levees, builtto protect fannland, shouldnot exceed 25-yearnood protection.

Encourage that levee Not addressed Not addressed Not addresseddistricts be consolidated,where possible.

Assist fatmers by Not addressed Not addressed Not addressedfacilitating repair of levees.

. -_..------- -

32

lhe Governor's Task Force Report alsosays that the State should encourage openspace use of the flood plain. Coupled withtaking damaged or marginal land out of pro­duction (above), the report says, "If floodplain land is willingly offered for conversionto naNral resource benefit, then this also willdecrease the impact of furore floods." In­creased and continuous funding will be need­ed "to help willing fanners cease farming landin flood plain areas" (Page 13).

lhe Natural Resources Conservation Ser­vice (until recently called the Soil Conserva­tion Service) used the Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP), lhe Emergency ConservationReserve Program (ECRP), the Wetland Re­serve Program (WRP) and the Emergency Wet­land Reserve Program (E\VRP) to protect cer­tain flooded lands, in response to property­owners' requests. lhe Missouri Departmentof Conservation also purchased some floodedlands, upon request.

Another outcome of the Flood of '93 is theongoing work of the u.s. Fish and WildlifeService, which is purchasing Missouri River

33

bonom land from landowners willing to sellseverely scoured and sedimented tracts. Aseries of tracts of land along the river fromLafayene County through Saline COUnty,Howard County, and Cooper County to OsageCounty have been designated the "Big MuddyNational Fish and Wildlife Refuge."

lhe properties were so badly damagedby the flood flows that restoring them toproduction would involve very costly landtreaunents. Left as is, with scour holes, leveebreaches, and sand dunes, a varied habitat forfish and wildlife exists. There is also anopporrunicy for recreational public use such asbird watching, and giving the river flood re­tention capacity, thereby lowering flood stag­es. Sale of the damaged property provided thelandomters with capital for reinvesunent intheir farming operations.

Acquisitions by the u.s. Fish and WildlifeService include Lisbon Bonom (Howard Coun­ty) and Jameson Island (Saline County) alongwith four other parcels still being purchased asthis narrative is being wriuen.

Table 9

Report Titles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GALLOWAY ASFPM !HMT

Open spaceandenvironment

From Rec. 3. P.13. Iffloodplain land is wIllinglyoffered for conversion tonatural resource benefit,then this also willdecrease the impact offuture floods.

Action 7.1.Establish a leadagency forenvirorunentallandacqUisition.

Not addressed Not addressed

P. 3, Assist fanners ingetting...EmergencyConsetvatlon PracticesProgram (funds) .•.

Action 7. 2, Developemergencyimplementationprocedures forenvironrnentallandacqUisitions.

V.6. Zel'O floodwayswould be better thanone-foot floodways

2. State shoulddevelop a long­tenn comprehen­sive floodwayplan.

Rec.}, Create amultijurlsdictionalbodyto recommend flood plainmanagement policy.

Actio'l7.5, Focusland acqUisitionefforts on riverreaches withsignificant habitatvalues.

IV. 3. Develop a Not addressednational riparianzone policy,recognizing multiplebenefits.

V. 6. FEMA shouldnot be encouragingfilling riparianareas.

VI. Examineincentives for falmersleaVing flood plainsopen.

Not addressedP.3, Encourage open spaceuse of the flood plain.

~===~=~---_--O_===!=====~=-'----_··=-=.c·_·-

During the epic flooding of 1993, publicsafety officials were called upon to deal withmany instances of volatile, flammable, or toxicsubstances that were dissolving, leaking, or f1oa[~ing in the f100d'W3.ters. Liquified petroleum (LP)gas tanks, gasoline and diesel. fuel tanks, agricul­roral chemicals in paper bags or spray tanks, andeven common household hazardous (cleaning)prodUClS were carried into floodwaters.

In some instances, life-threatening ex­plosions and fIres were reported by the newsmedia. In most inSlances, conscientious com-

35

pany and public safety officials took measuresto mitigate the hazards, contain the hazards, orround up the floating tanks.

The Governor's Task Force Report andthe Interagency Hazard Mitigation Team Re­pott made very specific recommendations.ThisemphasiZed theirconcem aboulthe place­ment and security of hazardous materials onflood plains. The Galloway Report merelyaddressed environmental sensitivity in gener­mt~. These recommendations are SUnun3­riled in Table 10.

Table 10

Report Tilles

TOPIC GOVERNOR'S GALLOWAY ASFPM IHMT

Hazardous Ree.5 (J), Prohibit commercial propane and Not Not Rec 10, Enforcematerials gas storage facilities from location in the addressed addressed hazardousrecommendations flood plainj materials

(2) require all non-commercial propane and containment!gas tanks in the flood plain be securely relocationanchored to the groundj standards(8) prohibit future placement of hazardoussubstances from location in flood plainareas.

Ree.5 (2) ReqUire name and address of owner Not Not Rec. 11, ReqUireCof propane and gas tanks) be pennanently addressed addressed that IdentificationatrlXed. of owner, loca-

tion and contentsbe placed on aUhazardousmaterialcontainers.

Household Not addressed Not Not Rec.I2, Develophazardous addressed addressed public aW31'eoesswastes program regard-position. ing household

hazardous wasteand establishhazardous wastedropoffpointsafter major floods.

=--==,~.. .--~- ..-- -- -.-

Figure 6.

Historic Flood Discharges

VJ 800,QQZZ-<0 lOO-year ~ "' "'

~VJu ~ 0 0-

~'" 600 flood 00 0- 0-

OVJ - - - ,:r:~ ~b'" Izo.. 400 I~b

.,.'" ,

~g;I

°u-'~ 200'"'DOl;:;;:~-<u"''"'~O 0VJ 1800 1900 2000

YEAR

Missouri River at Boonville Gage

N.B.- The bars shovm for the 1644 and 1903 floods indicate eStimated flows based on high water marks. Thesemajor flood events took place prior to the period of record at Boonville, Mo.

SOURCE: adapted from Parrett, et af, Flood Discharges in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1993, p. 7.

37

rYE SEEN

A 100-YEAR ' ....DROUGHT... - '-

==

d?:J

\tLIFE IS <. . '?

REAL.LY /'\I~SOMETHIN'AIN'T IT? '

.. AN' I'MONLY

"~!~~,,~==~~\10YEARSOLD!

,ytF=o~!a __~..AN' A

500-YEAR~~ FLOOD...

This Flood Report Analysis has concen­trated on the areas of conunonality among thefour major post-flood reports named. It is notexhaustive in regard to all the points made bythe reports.

Paraphrasing has been used in manyplaces where the wording is not shown inquotation marks. This has also been done inthe tables to save space.

TABLE 11

ACRONYMS

39

Berm- Alevel place, such as alongside the toeof a levee, for stability. (A benn is not anembankment, levee, or mound of earth.)Source- Stonnwater: Glossary, Bi-StateStonnwater Corrunittee Report 5, March,1983.

Five hundred-year flood- Aflood which hasa 0.2 percent chance of occurring in anygiven year, If a person lived for a thou­sand years, one might expect to see [wofloods of this magnitude. (See 100-yearflood.)

Flood- Overbank flows of river water, whentoo much water is present to be confmedto the nonnal channel of the river. Thismay occur from headwater flows, heavyrains, snow melt or backwater, as whena larger river, downstream, is flooding.Lakes also can flood, as when too muchwater accumulates to drain off in theusual amount of time, so that shorelinesare inundated. The FEMAdefinition goesfurther and includes "inundation of nor­mally dry land areas by water from anysource". This would include stonnwaterpuddling/ponding, and rise of ground­water.

Flood Plain- The area on either side of a riverbed or channel, subject to inundation.

Gage- Spelling used for river or stream gaug­es, either staff gages, that measure stage

41

(which see); flow gages, that measuredischarge (volume), or water quality gages.

Hundred-year flood- Aflood which hasa onepercent statistical chance of occurring inany year. Statistically, it is assumed thatfloods are entirely random events. Thisalso is tenned the "base flood" for floodinsurance purposes.

If one lived for a thousand years, onemight expect to experience ten floods ofthis magnitude, but not necessarily ahundred years apm. For example, RockCreek, Independence, Missouri, had ahundred-year flood in 1977, and anotherhundred-year flood in 1982. Also,Hennann, Missouri, had a greater-than­hundred-year flood in 1986, and anothergreater-than-hunrned-year flood in 1993.

Levee- An earthwork controlling water. Leveeis a French word. Missouri gets the wordfrom Louisiana, by way of the MississippiRiver. Basically, it means the same asdike, from the Dutch word "dyke." (InMissouri, the word "dike" is used forwing dikes, usually constructed of stone,extending into the major rivers to divertflows toward center channel to maintaindepth.)

Regulatory Floadway- The area either sideof a stream channel which must be keptclear for the passage of flood flows,without increasing 100-year flood stages

more than one foot (insurance defmi­tion). An administrative tool, the delinea­tion of a floodway on a map helps localpermit-granting authorities determine ifa development proposal will increaseflood stages more than the FEMA maxi­mum limit, without having to do a study.It is presumed that the floodway fringe,the part of the flood plain beyond thefloodway, will evenrually be HUed in orprotected by a levee. (See Figure 6.)

The floodway is intended to carry deepand fast-moving water, hence it is usuallylhe pan of the flood plain that is mostdangerous for any kind of development.

Stage· The elevation of the surface of a river,or a lake or reservoir, or of floodwater ata given location; the height reached by aflood at a given point in time. It may bemeasured by a staff gage or a recordinggage, usually in feet above an historic

-zero" point (known as the datum). Zeroon me gage usually is at or near thebonom of the channel, and is given infeet above mean sea level (MSL).

Watershed- A drainage area, extending fromhigh ground at the edges, to a valley andstream along a central axis. Also called abasin, itmayhave a subwatershedor sub­basin. Rain or snow falling wimin awatershed drains to the centraldrainageway, a brook, creek, stream, orriver. Smaller watersheds are parts oflarger watersheds.

The largest watershed or basin in lheUnited States is that of the MississippiRiver. Sub-watersheds of the Mississippiinclude the i\fissouri (ilS longest), theOhio, the Arkansas, the Tennessee, andthe Illinois. Sub-watersheds of theMissouri include the Osage, the Grand,and the Kansas.

o

Flood Fringe

I I I Iil'lQO-Year' Floodplain II

Flood Fringe Flood Fringer Floodway I

l-_-t::=:t==FFklood~waY-~I--~Flood F~ge

Figure 7. Channel

42

Drew, John D., and DuCharme, Charles B.,The Record Flood of1993, an Open FileReport (OFR-93-95-WR) of the Divisionof Geology and Land Survey (DGLS),Missouri Department of Natural Resourc­es (DNR), 1993.

Faber, Scou, The Real Choices Report: Ameri­ca's Flood ControlPolicy Failures, Amer­ican Rivers, 1994.

Kusler, Jon, and Larson, Larry, "Beyond theArk, A New Approach to U.S. FloodplainManagement," in Environment, June,1993.

Johnston, Larry R., and Monday, Jacquelyn 1.,Floodplain Management in the UnitedStates: An Assessment Report, The Feder­al Interagency Floodplain ManagmentTask Force, 1992.

Myers, Mary Fran, and White, Gilbert F., "TheChallenge of the Mississippi Flood," inEnvironment, December, 1993.

Parren, Charles; Melcher, Nick B., and James,Robert W., Jr., Flood Discharges in theUpper Mississippi River Basin, 1993, u.sGeological Survey Circular 1I20-A, 1993.

Rasch, Kenneth M., Editorial on flooding andflood plain management, in Land andWater, July/August, 1994.

43

Simpich, Frederick, "The Great MississippiFlood of 1927:... ," in The National Ge0­graphic Magazi1w, sept., 1927, Vol. 52,No.3.

TIbbetts, John, "Waterproofmg the Midwest,"in Planning, American Planning Associ­ation, April, 1994.

Williams, Ted, "The River Always Wins," inAudubafl, July-August, 1994.

The Great Flood of 1993, a Natural DisasterSurvey Report of the National Oceanicand AlmOsphericAdministration (NOAA)of the U.S. Department of Commerce,1994.

The Greal Flood oj 1993 Post-Flood Report,North Central Division, Corps of Engi­neers, U.S. Army, September, 1994.

The 1993 MississiPpi RiverFloods, World \Vl1d­life Fund, 1994.

The Response, Recovery and Lessons Learnedfrom the Missouri Floods oj 1993 and1994, tbe Missouri "section 409 Plan",etc., me State Emergency ManagementAgency, January, 1995.

Water Over Road, The Missouri Highway andTransportation Department, 1994.