Flooding in the Midwest

[UGAalum94]

I just read a story on ajc.com that had been edited to insert that the floods would have been much worse had FEMA not purchased land after the 1993 floods.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I just read a story on ajc.com that had been edited to insert that the floods would have been much worse had FEMA not purchased land after the 1993 floods.

I've never heard anything resembling this - link?

FEMA funds have been so awkward after the '93 floods that the biggest levee breach in Des Moines has been on a FEMA list since then as a "high-priority" failure point according to the ACE, but without any sort of Congressional action to enact the funding.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I've never heard anything resembling this - link?

FEMA funds have been so awkward after the '93 floods that the biggest levee breach in Des Moines has been on a FEMA list since then as a "high-priority" failure point according to the ACE, but without any sort of Congressional action to enact the funding.

It's a front page story on MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25200788/

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I've never heard anything resembling this - link?

FEMA funds have been so awkward after the '93 floods that the biggest levee breach in Des Moines has been on a FEMA list since then as a "high-priority" failure point according to the ACE, but without any sort of Congressional action to enact the funding.

Weirdly, I can't find the story today. I'll try to remember to link in the future.

The Peppy link is pretty close in content, but the story from yesterday in the AJC.com just threw new quotes into an older story.

There's a whole lot more FEMA stuff in all the coverage today, maybe in response to Byrd's comments yesterday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/...sa_flooding_dc

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Weirdly, I can't find the story today. I'll try to remember to link in the future.

The Peppy link is pretty close in content, but the story from yesterday in the AJC.com just threw new quotes into an older story.

There's a whole lot more FEMA stuff in all the coverage today, maybe in response to Byrd's comments yesterday: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/...sa_flooding_dc

All good - thanks for the link (you too, Peppy).

That's interesting, and seems pretty smart - there's nothing like that in my area, so I hadn't even heard about it, but clearing out low-lying areas for park land is a pretty standard city planning move, there's really no reason not to do it in flood plain areas, I'd guess.

[UGAalum94]

I've got to work on how I'm linking stuff.

I was just linking that last one to show the criticism yesterday. I think Peppy's article was the best one about FEMA.

I agree that buying the land most likely to flood and using in for parks is a great idea and when you are rebuilding after a devastating natural disaster is a great time to consider where it makes sense to rebuild. (This does kind of lead to ugly redevelopment on the coasts after hurricanes sometimes, but there's got to be some kind of reality check on what's logically insurable.)

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

I'm sure there could be levee improvements and top notch city planning, but considering the relatively low loss of human life, I'm not throwing in that this one was a governmental failure just yet, which was the tone that Byrd was developing and that I expect to see dominate some coverage.

Has anyone seen any coverage that ties in ethanol production further affecting crop supply? ETA: apparently I was looking at this backwards. I was assuming that maybe there'd be less stored corn grain or whatever because ethanol production was up, but apparently the issue is corn prices are just making ethanol production less profitable. http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1213360..._us_whats_news

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

It wouldn't make sense, at least in most of the cities, for FEMA to buy out the 100- or 500-year plain. That would completely wipe out our downtown and a good chunk of private property. It would also take out half the University of Iowa campus. In those areas, it's better to build up levees and refine emergency plans in the event another flood like this does occur.

As far as farmland goes, it's a hard call. Farmers know there's always risk in their occupation. They at least get some assistance through insurance and the ever-hated subsidies when faced with massive crop loss such as this. With the current demand and price for commodity crops, though, they would be insane to let their land lay fallow. There are some environmental practices they can use to help with drainage, but those are minimal in a catastrophic flood event.

The titles 100-year and 500-year floodplain are somewhat misleading, too (IMO). 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1% potential to flood in any given year. 500-year floodplain is the area that has a .2% chance to flood in any given year. Generally speaking, when given odds such as those, you're not going to let your land sit.

As in 1993, the heavily flooded areas received an extreme amount of precipitation from April-June (really, since January) due to a stagnant Jet stream stuck right over Iowa/Wisconsin and a constant rotation of very moist high/low pressure systems. That created the massive thunderstorms we've had in May and June. The ground was already saturated from a wet spring and streams and rivers were extremely swollen due to snow melts. The combination of all those factors led to the severe flooding.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.

I think that's the very reason why no one has suggested doing anything at all with 100- or 500-year floodplains (and really, the reason why we label them as such) - it's unpredictable and sometimes will go completely apeshit. No one is saying to clear out the 500-year floodplain, just the areas that are consistently in danger and would be cost-effective to purchase.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm sure there could be levee improvements and top notch city planning, but considering the relatively low loss of human life, I'm not throwing in that this one was a governmental failure just yet, which was the tone that Byrd was developing and that I expect to see dominate some coverage.

At least from what I've seen and read, anyone who takes that tone is likely being disingenuous based on a preconceived agenda. The WV Representative that blamed this on Bush did so with absolutely no understanding of the situation.

I haven't heard a single person involved claim that governmental agencies did anything wrong, which is the most telling part. Unless further information comes to light, you have to simply think this was a once-in-500-years occurrence, and you can't plan for that sort of thing.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think that's the very reason why no one has suggested doing anything at all with 100- or 500-year floodplains (and really, the reason why we label them as such) - it's unpredictable and sometimes will go completely apeshit. No one is saying to clear out the 500-year floodplain, just the areas that are consistently in danger and would be cost-effective to purchase.



At least from what I've seen and read, anyone who takes that tone is likely being disingenuous based on a preconceived agenda. The WV Representative that blamed this on Bush did so with absolutely no understanding of the situation.

I haven't heard a single person involved claim that governmental agencies did anything wrong, which is the most telling part. Unless further information comes to light, you have to simply think this was a once-in-500-years occurrence, and you can't plan for that sort of thing.

That's completely how I see it, but I'm still expecting spin to emerge that will allow people to advocate for whatever it is that they want to advocate for anyway.

As long as it remains a bad-stuff-even-happens-with-good-government story or a look-at-what-can-be-accomplished-with-relatively-minimal-federal-government-action story, there's not going to be a good agenda and story match-up for many media outlets or so says my little black media hating heart.

On a slightly different note, what's going to happen with the flooding hits the Mississippi outside of New Orleans. Is the river delta down there just so big we can assume it's going to be okay?

[bluefish81]

I vaguely remember some smaller communities in Iowa (under 500) that discussed whether or not they should move their towns periodically in the past 15 years. Chelsea is the one that sticks out in my mind the most. After thinking about it, I came up with one, Elkport, it's this tiny and I mean tiny town in Clayton county that flooded back in 90s and apparently flooded again a few years ago. FEMA did buy it out a few years back. I didn't even realize it was incorporated, but my aunt and uncle used to live just outside of it back in the 80s. I think the links in the bottom of the wiki article mention a few other communities that FEMA bought out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elkport%2C_IA

The flooding seems to be getting a fair amount of coverage, at least here in the border states - I've been asked by a lot of people that I cross paths with on a daily basis about it. Yesterday when I had a lot of windshield time, NPR did two or three different stories on it in the morning - general one about Cedar Rapids, one about Burlington and another about Gladstone, IL.

[UGAalum94]

Coverage is up today versus yesterday and the day before all over as near as I can tell, even in Atlanta.

ETA: I suppose all intervention in terms of government buyouts is easier when you are talking about towns smaller than 100 people. It's still a cultural and personal loss that I'm not trying to diminish, but pragmatically, it's got to be easier to do. One of the stories I read yesterday (I think about a relatively high population area), covered a women in her eighties who had moved back to her family home two or three times in the past but said she wasn't going to do it again. It wasn't really clear if they had lost their house and rebuilt or just had to evacuate and live with the uncertainty, fear, and other loss of farm land in the previous instances.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I've never heard anything resembling this - link?

FEMA funds have been so awkward after the '93 floods that the biggest levee breach in Des Moines has been on a FEMA list since then as a "high-priority" failure point according to the ACE, but without any sort of Congressional action to enact the funding.

I'd never heard that either. I read the article UGA is talking about, and it sounds like the majority of the land FEMA bought up was in eastern IL, NE MO, and SE IA.