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

78
Substantially damaged buildings
The Nation’s Responses to Flood Disasters: A Historical Account
The extent of the area inundated by floodwaters affected an estimated 149,000
households, although estimates vary widely. Whole communities were flooded. The
depth and duration of flooding and other factors resulted in substantial damage to several
thousand residences and other structures. As a result several other questions arose.
Should such structures be acquired and relocated or demolished? Should those located in
certain areas (e.g., floodways) be permitted to be repaired or rebuilt? Do farmhouses and
other buildings have to be located in floodprone areas in order to sustain agricultural use
of floodplain lands?
Where repair or rebuilding was permitted, local codes of communities
participating in the NFIP required structures damaged beyond 50 percent of their value to
be rebuilt in compliance with certain minimum standards. These standards required that
the lowest floor must be at or above the level of a 1 percent chance flood. This
requirement was intended to reduce future exposure to flood risk through elevating the
structure in place or relocating it outside the regulatory floodplain. Following a flood,
this often presented an overwhelming economic burden on those who needed to replace
or repair their property.
Because of the widespread nature of the flood and the large number of properties
affected, it was difficult to document what happened to the substantially damaged
structures. No reliable data was gathered, although such information would have been
useful to policy makers. Thousands of structures were elevated, acquired, or relocated
using flood recovery funds. Others, undoubtedly, were brought into compliance with
local codes using owner funds. Still others (perhaps most not using recovery funds) were
reoccupied, circumventing local codes that likely were not rigorously enforced. And
finally, a number of structures were just abandoned.
Alternative mitigation measures
Many individuals and communities affected by the Great Flood of 1993 had
never before had to deal with floods and their consequences. Because of their lack of
experience, they did not know what to do then and in the post-flood recovery phase.
There, however, seemed to be a consensus that rebuilding or restoring to pre-flood
conditions was not an acceptable policy position.
Federal funds for the disaster response and recovery effort were earmarked for
about three dozen programs administered by various agencies. The Administration
established buyouts of flood-damaged properties as the first priority for Midwest flood
mitigation funds. According to FEMA data, 9140 properties in 140 communities were
elevated, acquired, or relocated under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. 173 Projects
173 Soong, Mable, FEMA, personal correspondence, 24 February 2000.