The Nation's Responses To Flood Disasters: A Historical Account

76
The Nation’s Responses to Flood Disasters: A Historical Account
came under the Corps’ emergency flood control repair program 168 . Eligibility for
inclusion in the Corps program required: that a levee be a primary one providing an
adequate amount of protection, that the levee be sponsored by a public entity, that the
levee’s sponsor maintain the levee to a standard established by the Corps, and that the
cost of any levee repair be shared 20 percent by the local sponsor and 80 percent by the
federal government.
The levee repair/reconstruction debate involved a number of significant land use
issues. Some of the most productive farmland in the nation was flooded, and in some
instances, heavily damaged by deposition of sand and other sediment or by erosion from
water flow over the land. Several questions were posed. What were the potential
opportunities and possible future uses of land no longer suitable for agricultural
purposes? If flood protection were not available for agriculturally suitable land, would
farmers (and lenders) be willing to take the risk in continuing to farm? Should flood risk
of highly productive farm land be considered a cost of doing business to be borne by the
individual? Many contended past practices (particularly subsidies) resulted in land uses
that were not sustainable, and as a matter of public policy, only sustainable uses should
be allowed or supported. Thus, strong support emerged for restoring lost or impaired
wetlands that could serve as natural flood storage areas, provide distinctive habitat,
improve water quality, and conserve other important and beneficial natural resources.
Many felt that both agricultural and conservation goals could be accommodated while
restoring or improving the natural flood conveyance and storage functions of floodplain
lands.
Those involved in the permitting and/or funding reconstruction or repair of the
levees had difficulty striking a balance between the need to restore flood protection
quickly and the need for long-term planning for alternative flood protection that
incorporated broader concerns, such as protecting the natural floodplain environment.
The challenge was to not develop short-term “fixes” that foreclosed more comprehensive
long-term solutions. Myers and White suggested a variety of ways to buy time, such as
providing interim insurance protection rather than rapid levee repair. 169
To study the whole levee issue and to facilitate the search for appropriate
alternatives, the OMB issued guidance in late August 1993 that established an
unprecedented review procedure to assess strategies for levee reconstruction. Comprised
of representatives from five federal agencies, state and local governments, and other
interested organizations, participants considered alternatives to levee repair that would
provide flood control benefits and natural resource protection. The review committee
affected decisions not to rebuild a few levees, but its overall impact was not felt until
later in other post-flood recovery situations such as occurred in California in 1995. 170
168 P.L. 84-99.
169 Myers, Mary Fran and Gilbert F. White, “The Challenge of the Mississippi Flood,” Environment, 35(December 1993), p. 32.
170 Zwickl, Kenneth, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, personal correspondence, 8 December 1999.