ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱ
ȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱśǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŘŖŗȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Floods remain a significant hazard in the United States. Developing and investing in flood-prone
areas represents a tradeoff between the location’s economic and other benefits and the exposure to
a flood hazard. In the United States, flood mitigation, protection, emergency response, and
recovery roles and responsibilities are shared. Local governments are responsible for land use and
zoning decisions that shape floodplain and coastal development. State and federal programs,
policies, and investments influence community and individual decisions on managing flood risk.
The federal government constructs some of the nation’s dams and levees, offers flood insurance,
supports nonstructural risk reduction actions (known as hazard mitigation), and provides
emergency response and disaster aid.
In June 2008, a series of storms in several midwestern states caused $15 billion in damages. The
2008 flooding drew comparisons to the devastating 1993 Midwest flood and raised questions
about whether the lessons from the 1993 flood were heeded. In 1993, hundreds of levees
throughout much of the basin were breached in the Midwest causing $30 billion in damages;
much of the damage was agricultural and occurred in soaked upland areas. In contrast, the
majority of the 2008 damages were concentrated along a few Mississippi River tributaries and in
population centers with breached levees. The magnitude of the two floods simply overwhelmed
the region’s levees and dams, illustrating that some residual risk remains to people and
investment behind these protective structures. Since 1993, emergency response and hazard
mitigation programs have reduced risks in some Midwest communities; however, the region’s
flood risk continues to increase as more investments and people are located in flood-prone areas.
Since 1993, Congress, federal agencies, state, and local governments have taken steps aimed at
reducing the nation’s flood risk; at the same time, climate, population, and investment trends have
increased the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of flooding. For example, Congress
authorized using federal disaster assistance to cover more of the costs to acquire, relocate or
elevate flood-prone homes and businesses. However, broader efforts to adopt a comprehensive
flood policy and management strategy have not been pursued. The fundamental direction and
approach of the national policies and programs remain largely unchanged since 1993. A
comprehensive strategy would require regulation of floodplain use, significant changes to federal
programs, and increased investment in flood risk reduction by all levels of government. Although
they would reduce flood risk, these changes face significant opposition.
The 2008 Midwest flooding, Hurricane Ike in 2008, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 have renewed
interest in the suite of tools available to improve flood resiliency. The issue for Congress is
deciding on whether and how to enact and implement feasible and affordable flood policies and
programs to reduce flood risk. The challenge is how to structure federal actions and programs so
they provide incentives to reduce flood risk without unduly infringing on private property rights
or usurping local decision making. Tackling this challenge would require adjustments in the flood
insurance program, disaster aid policies and practices, and programs for structural and
nonstructural flood risk reduction measures and actions.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
U.S. Flood Challenge: A Federal Primer ......................................................................................... 1
Recent Interest and Developments............................................................................................ 2
Flood Policy in a Federalist System: Shared Responsibilities .................................................. 2
CRS Flood-Related Reports................................................................................................ 3
Limits to Levees and Dams....................................................................................................... 4
2008 Midwest Flood: What Happened and How Does it Compare to 1993?.................................. 5
Intense Precipitation in Tributary Watersheds in June 2008 ..................................................... 5
Storms in 2008 Were Quick, Which Caused Primarily Tributary Flooding; Extended
Storms in 1993 Inundated the Region.................................................................................... 6
2008 Flood Damages Were Concentrated in Duration and Extent; 1993 Damages
Created a Regional Economic Disaster.................................................................................. 8
Lessons from the 2008 Midwest Flood ........................................................................................... 9
Post-1993 Investments Paid Off, but More Development at Risk ............................................ 9
Better Forecasting Data Needed to Improve Emergency Response........................................ 10
Gains in Managing Levee Repairs, but Levee Deficiencies and Improvements
Remain Challenges ...............................................................................................................11
No Comprehensive Midwest Flood Management Strategy in Place....................................... 12
Upper Mississippi Flood Management.......................................................................................... 13
Post-1993 Flood Proposals and Recommendations ................................................................ 13
Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan........................................................................ 14
Federal Flood Policy Since 1993: Tough Challenges Remain ...................................................... 15
Unfinished Business on Many Post-1993 Recommendations................................................. 15
Flood and Floodplain Management Policy ............................................................................. 16
Federal Flood Insurance and Mapping.................................................................................... 17
Flood Map Accuracy......................................................................................................... 18
Trends Affecting Flood Risk ................................................................................................... 19
Climate, Demographic, and Development Trends ............................................................ 19
Coastal Vulnerability ........................................................................................................ 19
Recent Congressional Steps to Address the Flood Challenge ....................................................... 20
Steps Toward a Flood Policy Reorientation ............................................................................ 20
Levee Reliability ..................................................................................................................... 21
Reducing Flood Risk ..................................................................................................................... 23
Resilient Recovery .................................................................................................................. 24
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 26
ȱ
Figure 1. 1993 Midwest Flood: Major and Record Flooding on the Mississippi River and
Its Tributaries................................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2. Multiple Tools Available To Reduce Flood Risk ........................................................... 23
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Table A-1. Selected Congressional Direction on Corps Flood Damage Reduction Efforts ......... 27
Table A-2. Flood-Focused Congressional Hearings from Summer 1993 through 2008 ............... 30
Table A-3.Flood-Focused GAO Reports from Summer 1993 through 2008................................. 34
¡ȱ
Appendix A. Congressional Flood Direction and Oversight ......................................................... 27
Appendix B. Analysis of the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan................................ 36
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 39
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱȱDZȱȱȱȱ
In late May and early June 2008, several midwestern states were hit with a series of storms that
produced flooding along many Mississippi River tributaries and nearby segments of the
Mississippi River. This flooding raised concerns about both the risk of another disaster like the
devastating 1993 Midwest flood and the state of the nation’s flood policies, programs, and
infrastructure. Although emergency response has improved since 1993 and hazard mitigation
programs have reduced some risks, the region’s flood risk continues to increase as more
investments and people are concentrated in flood-prone areas affected by extreme precipitation.
Riverine and coastal flooding remain serious risks to the nation’s population and economy. The
principal causes of floods in eastern states and the Gulf Coast are hurricanes and storms. Coastal
counties are 17% of the land area, and home to roughly 50% of the country’s population and jobs.
Flooding in the Midwest and western states is primarily from snowmelt and rainstorms. At least 9
million homes and $390 billion in property are at risk from a flood with a 1% annual probability
of occurring.1
Increasing flood hazards are putting existing developments at risk.2 New development is
occurring in flood-prone areas, often behind aging levees constructed to reduce agricultural
damages rather than protect urban populations. National flood damages, which averaged $3.9
billion annually in the 1980s, nearly doubled in the decade 1995 through 2004. Total disaster
assistance for emergency flood response operations, and subsequent long-term recovery efforts,
increased from an average of $444 million during the 1980s to $3.75 billion from 1995 to 2004.
Congress and federal agencies have taken steps to address selected flood challenges; at the same
time, climate, population, and investment trends have increased the threat, vulnerability, and
consequences of flooding. In response to the 1993 flood, Congress shifted federal programs to
increase support for a wider range of activities that reduce damage and prevent loss of life, such
as moving flood-prone structures and developing evacuation plans; this broader set of activities is
known as hazard mitigation. This shift has prompted wider use of nonstructural mitigation,
particularly for new development and repairing damaged property. Traditional structural
approaches, such as levees, floodwalls, and dams, continue to dominate much of the national
investment in flood damage reduction. Often structural measures are the most readily available
and locally acceptable tools to reduce flood risk for existing population, economic, and
infrastructure hubs.
Since 2005, Congress has considered legislation and enacted other measures to address some
flood issues; broader efforts to adopt a comprehensive flood policy and management strategy,
however, have not been pursued. Hurricane Katrina’s devastation in 2005 and the 2008 Midwest
flood have again prompted attention to the suite of tools available to create a more flood-resilient
1 These estimates are a lower bound from the January 1997 FEMA report, FEMA’s Multi-Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment (MHIRA), available at: [http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2214]. The magnitude of
flood events traditionally has been measured by recurrence intervals, or the likelihood that a flood of a particular size
occurring during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period. Respectively, these events have a 10%, 2%, 1%, and 0.2%
chance of being equaled or exceeded during any year.
2 Information in this paragraph is from U.S. Army, Fiscal Year 2008 United States Army Annual U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers - Civil Works Financial Statement, available at http://www.asafm.army.mil/fo/fod/cfo/afr/currentyr/
fy08cwf.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
nation. Many of these tools would require action by local governments, regulation of floodplain
use, significant changes to federal programs, and substantially increased investment in flood
damage reduction. Achieving these actions and implementing improved floodplain management
is likely to confront opposition from those benefitting from the status quo and those opposed to
land use regulation. And it likely would require broader congressional action than the incremental
policy alterations that have been typical following recent floods.
This report first provides a primer on recent developments, the federal role in flood policy, and
the limitations of levees and dams. The report then discusses lessons from the 2008 Midwest
flood and contrasts the 2008 flood with the 1993 flood. It then discusses the evolution of U.S.
flood policy, with particular attention to the role of Congress and federal agencies and programs,
and the available tools for addressing the nation’s flood challenge.
ȱ ȱȱȱ
The 2008 Midwest flood and the extensive damage and loss of life caused by Hurricane Katrina
have raised awareness of flood risk, and levee construction and maintenance in particular. These
disasters raised many flood policy questions, including whether to change the division of the roles
and responsibilities between the federal, state, and local government; whether to have more
federal leadership on floodplain management; and whether to increase coordination of federal
flood-related actions.
Since Hurricane Katrina, Congress has conducted hearings and considered legislation on
numerous aspects of federal flood programs and policies (see Appendix A for a list of flood-
focused hearings since 1993). In the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (P.L.
110-114), Congress enacted flood policy provisions aimed largely at improving the planning and
safety of levees. Few other changes have been enacted, and the legislation considered has largely
addressed individual programs or agencies, rather than attempting a comprehensive realignment
of federal flood actions.
Two recent developments may garner congressional attention. In January 2009, the National
Committee on Levee Safety (created by WRDA 2007) released its draft recommendations for a
national levee safety program. On January 15, 2009, Congress received a report on the Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (UMRCP) study; the report identifies the costs and
benefits of significantly increasing the level of flood damage reduction along the mainstems of
the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Both developments are discussed later in this CRS report.
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢DZȱȱȱ
In the United States, flood-related roles and responsibilities are shared; local governments are
responsible for land use and zoning decisions that shape floodplain and coastal development, but
state and federal governments also influence community and individual decisions on managing
flood risk. State and local governments largely are responsible for making decisions (e.g., zoning
decisions) that allow or prohibit development in flood prone areas. Local and some state entities
construct, operate, and maintain most levees and have initial flood-fighting responsibilities.
Levees are embankments built alongside a river to prevent high water from flooding bordering
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
land.3 The federal government constructs some of the nation’s levees and dams in partnership
with local project sponsors, but turns over operation and maintenance responsibility for most of
these levees to local entities. The federal government also supports hazard mitigation, offers flood
insurance, and provides emergency response and disaster aid for significant floods.
Federal flood programs and investments consist primarily of:
• Construction investments in select dams, levees, seawalls, and beach
improvements;
• Nonstructural hazard mitigation assistance;
• Flood and crop insurance; and
• Disaster preparedness, response, and recovery assistance.
The principal federal agency involved in levee construction and repair is the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). (See Appendix A for a table of selected congressional direction to guide the
Corps’ efforts in flood damage reduction.) Other federal agencies also are involved with flood-
related activities, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibilities for
federal hazard mitigation, flood insurance, and disaster assistance. FEMA and the Corps require
levee inspection and certification for participation in the Corps’ Repair and Inspection Program
(RIP, also known as the P.L. 84-99 program which is discussed on p. 12) and FEMA’s National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Crop insurance is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
ȱȬȱȱ
This report largely leaves the discussion of insurance and disaster assistance to other CRS reports,
including:
• CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential
Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea;
• CRS Report RS22945, Flood Insurance Requirements for Stafford Act
Assistance, by Edward C. Liu;
• CRS Report R40073, FEMA Funding for Flood Map Modernization, by Wayne
A. Morrissey.
• CRS Report RL32825, Hurricanes and Disaster Risk Financing Through
Insurance: Challenges and Policy Options, by Rawle O. King;
• CRS Report RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance in the 2008 Farm
Bill, by Ralph M. Chite and Randy Schnepf; and
• CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by Ralph M. Chite.
3 In this report, the term levees is used broadly to encompass both levees and floodwalls. Levees are broad, earthen
structures, while floodwalls are concrete and steel walls, built atop a levee or in lieu of a levee. Floodwalls are often
used in urban areas because they require less land than levees.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Although hazard mitigation is mentioned in this report, discussions of flood risk through hazard
management are one focus of the following reports :
• CRS Report RL33129, Flood Risk Management and Levees: A Federal Primer,
by Betsy A. Cody and Nicole T. Carter; and
• CRS Report RL34537, FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and
Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy.
Two other CRS reports discuss additional aspects of issues raised by the 2008 Midwest flood.
According to CRS Report RL34610, Midwest Flooding Disaster: Rethinking Federal Flood
Insurance?, by Rawle O. King, a key lesson learned from the 2008 Midwest flood is that many
people believe that the government will provide them with economic assistance despite their lack
of insurance. CRS Report RL34583, Midwest Floods of 2008: Potential Impact on Agriculture,
by Randy Schnepf, addressed the concerns about disruption in agricultural markets.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Hurricanes, other severe weather systems, and rapid snowmelt can cause flooding. Floods are a
vital element of variability in the hydraulic regime of healthy riverine, estuarine, and coastal
ecosystems; however, they can result in immediate human suffering and economic loss. Failure of
levees and dams and inadequate urban drainage also may result in flooding.
Hurricane Katrina focused attention on the performance of levees and floodwalls and the risk
remaining behind these structures. There are over 100,000 miles of levees in the nation, only
14,000 miles of these receive regular inspections by the Corps. These levees do not work in
isolation from the rest of the watershed. Levees restrict the size of the floodplain which constricts
floodwaters to a smaller area, thus raising river crests and often increasing the river’s velocity.
How land is used can have a dramatic impact on the response of streams to flooding (e.g., tile
drains in agricultural areas, impervious areas in urban developments can increase runoff and flood
crests). Land use choices can cause 500-year flood levels to be produced by events of lesser
magnitude. Some land uses can, therefore, result in levees having to hold back higher flows more
frequently.
Generally the Corps no longer refers to levees and dams as “flood control” measures, rather it
calls levee projects “flood damage reduction” measures and discusses them in the context of a
suite of “flood risk management” actions. This language shift reflects an appreciation of the
limitations of these structures. Levees, if constructed properly, should perform up to their design
level of protection (i.e., 100-year level of protection is the design to reduce damages from a flood
with a 1% probability of occurring in a given year); however, when a flood is greater than that
design, the levees are overtopped. Sufficient overtopping often results in levee failure, known as
breaching. Similarly, dam are designed to spill floodwaters when their capacity is exceeded.
Although floodwaters overtopped and breached many Midwest levees and a few dams in 1993
and 2008 causing significant economic damage, the dams and levees worked largely as designed.4
The dams reduced the river crests, and many levees held, thereby preventing floodwaters from
damaging many population centers and agricultural and industrial investments. Nonetheless, the
4 The Corps is performing an after action report on its emergency response to the 2008 floods, but it is not performing
an engineering analysis to confirm whether the levees performed as designed.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
potential role of the basin’s levees in increasing damages because of their encouragement of risky
development and reduction natural flood storage remains debated and part of the active
discussion about the future of the basin’s floodplains.5
The performance of the Midwest levees contrasts to the performance of floodwalls in New
Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Some of the floodwalls protecting urban New Orleans failed
before their design level was reached, and the damage was catastrophic. These floodwalls lost
their integrity, allowing the water level in the city to rise to the level of surrounding water bodies.
Residual risk is the portion of risk that remains after flood damage reduction structures have been
built and other damage-reducing measures have been taken. Risk remains because of the
likelihood that levees and dams will be overwhelmed by severe floods and the risk of structural
failure. The damaging consequences of floods increase as development occurs behind levees and
below dams; ironically, this development may occur because of the flood protection provided.
The nation’s risk in terms of lives lost, economic disruption, and property damage is increased by
overconfidence in the level and reliability of structural flood protection.
The inability of infrastructure to protect against all flooding is fundamental to understanding why
some flood risk always remains and to making decisions of how to prioritize flood risk reduction
investments. Decision-makers are faced with choosing the level of protection to provide for urban
areas, critical infrastructure, rural areas, etc., and making tradeoffs when distributing limited
funds across different projects throughout the nation and across the range of flood damage
reduction measures (e.g., levees, buyouts, insurance).
ŘŖŖŞȱ ȱDZȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱŗşşřǵȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱŘŖŖŞȱ
Intense precipitation in May and early June 2008 led to numerous record and near-record river
crests in the Midwest, particularly on Mississippi River tributaries in eastern Iowa and southern
Wisconsin. The resultant flooding was localized, but extremely severe.6 A few streams,
particularly in eastern Iowa, had discharges that exceeded record levels for ten or more
consecutive days. The 100-year and 500-year flood levels were exceeded in much of eastern
Iowa. These exceptional flood levels overtopped levees and flooded areas that many people
assumed to be safe.
The most affected tributaries were the Cedar, Des Moines, and Iowa Rivers. Record river stages
were set at 47 river gage stations on more than 12 tributary rivers and creeks. In some locations,
5 The then-General Accounting Office (renamed the Government Accountability Office, GAO) found that, according to
three modeling simulations, the levees in the basin increased the height of water in the 1993 flood. For more
information see GAO, Midwest Flood: Information on the Performance, Effects, and Control of Levees (GAO/RCED
95-125, Aug. 1995). Hereafter referred to as 1995 GAO Midwest Flood report.
6 Precipitation from January to June of 2008 exceeded levels for the same period in 1993. After June the severe
precipitation largely subsided for the remaining summer months. In contrast, the major rains in 1993 occurred in June
and July, resulting in the most significant flooding occurring in the later summer months.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
the new record crests were considerably higher than the previous record crests, including 1993
records. Levees in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids were breached. Two significant examples were
the Cedar River at Cedar Rapids (see Box 1) and the Iowa River at Columbus Junction and Iowa
City.7 As the floodwaters from these tributaries entered the mainstem of the Mississippi River,
they set records at Keithsburg and Gladstone, Illinois and Burlington, Iowa, and approached
record stages at other locations.
Box 1. Cedar River Overwhelms Cedar Rapids Levees Causing Extensive Damage
The damage to Cedar Rapids by the 2008 flood was extensive. The river crest rose to more than 31 feet, well above
the estimated 500-year flood level and 12 feet above the 1993 crest. The floodwaters easily overwhelmed the city’s
levees which stood at 22 feet. This crest exceeded the previous record set in the 1850s, when the river reached 20
feet. The flood inundated 9.2 square miles; 1,300 city blocks; 3,894 single family residences; and 818 commercial
properties and government buildings. Because the floodwaters reached locations far outside the 100-year floodplain,
many homes not covered by NFIP policies were inundated. Up to 400,000 cubic yards of trash and debris were
expected to be generated during clean-up, more than the city produces in an entire year.
Source: CRS adapted from Midwest Regional Climate Center, Midwest Weekly Highlights - June 17-23, 2008, available
at http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/0806/080623.htm.
ȱȱŘŖŖŞȱȱǰȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱ
Dzȱ¡ȱȱȱŗşşřȱ ȱȱȱ
The 1993 flood is sometimes described as a “leisurely” disaster because it resulted not from a
single storm but from a weather pattern that remained stationary for months.8 From May through
September of 1993, record or major flooding occurred across North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois. The geographic scale of
the flood was vast, much larger than the 2008 flood. The four-month duration of the 1993
flooding significantly increased the scale of its consequences.
In 1993, extensive reaches of the mainstems of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers experienced
flooding of extended duration (see Figure 1). Lower reaches of the Illinois River and extended
reaches of the Kansas, Des Moines, and Iowa Rivers also recorded record flood crests.
Approximately 600 river forecast points in the Midwest were above flood stage at the same time.
In contrast, the 2008 flooding was shorter and concentrated along select Mississippi River
tributaries and nearby segments of the Mississippi River.
7 On the Iowa River, water flowed over the spillway at the Corps’ Coralville Reservoir for only the third time since the
reservoir began operation in 1958; the other two times were during the Midwest flood of 1993. Unprecedented flooding
occurred in Columbus Junction, Iowa City and Coralville. The flood set the record at Columbus Junction at 32.49 feet.
Flood stage is 19 feet. The flood’s record crest at Iowa City was 31.53 feet. Flood stage is 22 feet. For more
information, see the National Weather Service website at: [http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dvn/downloads/fall08.pdf]
and the U.S. Geological Survey website at: [http://ia.water.usgs.gov/flood08/].
8 The effects of the 1993 storms were exacerbated by preexisting saturated soils in the basin. The fall of 1992 was wet,
saturating soils and raising stream levels. Winter rain and snow contributed to the nearly saturated soil conditions
forcing spring precipitation and snowmelt, normally able to soak into the ground, to run off into streams and rivers.
Heavy rainfall in late March fed directly into the headwaters of the Mississippi River. With the saturated soils, the
precipitation in June, July, and August flowed directly to streams.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. 1993 Midwest Flood: Major and Record Flooding
on the Mississippi River and Its Tributaries
Source: Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management
into the 21st Century (July 1994), available at http://www.floods.org/PDF/Sharing_the_Challenge.pdf.
The 1993 differs from the 2008 flood in its areal extent, magnitude, duration, volume of
floodwater, extent of damage, and time of the year. The rainfall causing the 1993 flood was
uncommonly persistent and covered a huge drainage area encompassing most of nine states. This
scenario caused many tributaries to crest at about the same time and to synchronize with crests on
the mainstem of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ŘŖŖŞȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¡Dzȱȱ
ŗşşřȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Forty-eight deaths and economic damages of $30.2 billion were attributed to the 1993 flood;9
more than 70,000 homes were damaged.10 Roughly150 major rivers and tributaries had flooded,
at least 15 million acres of farmland had been inundated. More than half of the economic losses
were agricultural.11 It is important to note that most agricultural damage resulted from wet fields
in upland areas and a short growing season, rather than inundation by floodwaters.
According to a 1995 analysis of Corps records by the then-General Accounting Office (renamed
the Government Accountability Office, GAO), many mainstem levees withstood the 1993
floodwaters, preventing both flooding of an additional 1 million acres and an additional $19
billion in damages.12 Other levees in the basin were overtopped when floodwaters exceeded their
design. Four levees that were regularly inspected by the Corps were breached or otherwise
allowed water into protected areas before their design capacity was exceeded.
In 1993, transportation impacts were severe and lengthy. Barge traffic on the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers was stopped for nearly 2 months. Bridges were out or not accessible on the
Mississippi River from Davenport, Iowa, downstream to St. Louis, Missouri. On the Missouri
River, bridges were out from Kansas City, Missouri, downstream to St. Charles, Missouri. Major
east-west rail and road transportation routers were severed, causing significant delays and
rerouting. Numerous interstate highways and other roads were closed. Ten commercial airports
flooded. Much of the railroad traffic in the Midwest was halted. Other public infrastructure, such
as sewage treatment and water treatment plants, was damaged or destroyed.
The 2008 floodwaters caused local disaster conditions and significant damages. Property,
agricultural, and other damages are estimated at $15.0 billion, and the weather was attributed to
24 deaths.13 Unlike in 1993, damage in 2008 was from inundation by floodwaters along the
rivers, not in saturated upland areas.
The magnitude and severity of the 1993 flood event was overwhelming. Hundreds of levees were
breached along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers; in contrast, dozens of levees were breached
in 2008. The levees breached on the Mississippi mainstem in 2008 were primarily lower
agricultural levees. In 2008, although some levees overtopped, they worked largely as intended;
that is, they held back floodwaters until the floodwaters exceeded the level of protection the
levees were expected to provide. Many of these overtopped levees were protecting primarily
9 Damage amounts are in normalized 2007 dollars. National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, 1980-2008 Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters, available at:
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/reports/billion/disasters2008.pdf]. Hereafter referred to as NOAA 1980-2008 Billion
Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters.
10 Corps, Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan: Final Report June 2008, available at
http://www.umimra.org/documents/UMRCPMainReport31Mar08_000.pdf.
11 The flood carried away more than 600 billion tons of top soil and deposited great amounts of sand and silt on
valuable farm land. In large areas inundated by the flood, the harvest of 1993 was a total loss. Although most farmers
recovered and had good harvests in 1994, some farmers were affected through the 1994 harvest.
12 Information in this paragraph is from GAO Midwest Flood Aug. 1995 report, and the Corps’ June 2008 Upper
Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan Final Report, available at http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAffairsOffice/
MidwestFlooding2008/UMRCPFinalReport-17Jun08.pdf; Hereafter referred to as UMRCP final report.
13 Damage amounts are in normalized 2007 dollars. NOAA 1980-2008 Billion Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
agricultural areas and provided the anticipated 5- to 25-year protection. Floodwaters overtopping
levees protecting larger communities, like Cedar Rapids, resulted in considerable and
concentrated damage; these damages contributed to the 2008 damage estimates being half of the
1993 flood damages even though the duration and extent of flooding was less than in 1993.
The lower regional damage estimates in 2008 ($15 billion compared to $30 billion in 1993) fail to
capture the challenge of recovery in severely affected communities. The social and economic
consequences for families and communities can be extreme, and recovery in severely damaged
communities often takes years.
Some roads in eastern Iowa and northwest Illinois sustained severe flood damage in 2008,
resulting in closings, delays, and lengthy detours.14 Major rail lines in Iowa, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Missouri and Illinois were washed out. Navigation locks 13-25 on the Mississippi
River closed, leaving 281 miles of the river closed to barge traffic. In June, the flooding was
predicted to have major impacts on agriculture. CRS Report RL34583, Midwest Floods of 2008:
Potential Impact on Agriculture, found that anticipated crop losses contributed to agricultural
prices for corn and soybeans hitting record highs in late June and early July. After that, however,
most of the “Corn Belt” experienced nearly ideal growing conditions resulting in substantial crop
recovery and lower market prices. Therefore, although the floodwaters caused transportation and
agricultural disruptions, they largely were resolved and repairs were underway once the localized
flooding diminished.
ȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱ
Ȭŗşşřȱ ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Is the Midwest more or less at risk of floods now than in 1993? Some communities in the
Midwest are less at risk than in 1993 due to buyouts, relocation, and floodproofing (i.e.,
adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage) of vulnerable properties.
Relocation of key public infrastructure such as drinking water facilities reduced the consequences
of flooding. The general sense is that flood risk reduction in the Mississippi River basin since
1993 paid off in 2008.15 However, the basin’s aggregate flood risk appears to be increasing.
After the 1993 flood, the GAO found that not only had man-made changes within the basin over
many decades raised the levels of floodwaters in the basin’s rivers, but also the precipitation trend
in the basin appeared to be increasing over the long term.16 Congress reacted to the 1993 flood by
enacting a number of policy and program changes. It authorized using a portion of federal disaster
assistance to cover 75% of the cost to acquire, relocate or elevate flood-prone homes and
14 Flooding forced the closure of I-80, I-380, and US 34. On I-80, flood waters from the Cedar River flowed over the
interstate resulting in its closure between mile markers 265 and 267 (between Davenport and Iowa City) from June 6
through the 12th. The official detour route added 115 miles to the normal east-west route across the state. Flooding
from Coralville Reservoir resulted in the closure of I-380 between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids; the detour route added
272 miles to the normal route.
15 Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Position of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association on Flood
Response and Recovery in the Wake of the 2008 Flooding: An Update to UMRBA’s 1993 Flood Statement, (St. Paul:
Sep. 2008), available at http://www.umrba.org/publications/fp/flood9-17-08.htm.
161995 GAO Midwest Flood report.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
businesses; prior to the change, the federal cost share had been 50%. Buyouts of at-risk properties
using FEMA disaster mitigation funds were more extensive for the 1993 flood than for previous
disasters. In the nine states that flooded, FEMA ultimately moved more than 300 homes, and
bought and demolished nearly 12,000 at a cost of over $150 million. The lands were turned to
flood-friendlier uses such as parks and wildlife habitat. State and federal agencies have also
acquired interest in over 250,000 acres of flood-prone land, principally frequently flooded
farmland. Another 9,140 properties in 140 communities were elevated, acquired or relocated
under hazard mitigation grants. Taken together, these actions signaled a dramatic departure from
historic flood policies, which relied primarily on levees and dams.
Significant redevelopment and new development has occurred in Midwest floodplains since 1993,
including areas flooded in 1993. The population in the 500-year floodplain has increased by 17%;
the population in the area flooded in 1993 has increased by 18%.17 There also has been significant
new commercial and industrial development and highway and interchange development within
the 500-year floodplain.18 New development in the 100-year floodplain would be required to meet
floodplain development regulations if the community participates in the NFIP. Therefore, this
development ought to be more flood resilient than before. Development or redevelopment,
however, may not be more flood resilient if built behind levees that are certified to provide 100-
year protection or if the community does not participate in the NFIP. Therefore, risk from the
100-year flood in the NFIP-participating communities in the Midwest may have decreased since
1993, but the risk in these communities to more intense floods may have increased. Moreover,
risk in the 500-year floodplain has increased substantially due to development.
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ
Rainfall and streamflow data are fundamental to coordinating and managing emergency flood
response activities. In 2008, several Mississippi River tributaries rose quickly. At the most
severely affected locations, rivers rose at a rate of one foot per hour. River crests on some
tributaries eventually exceeded their river gauges ability to record. Limited river gauging
information constrained the National Weather Service and others in developing timely and
accurate river stage forecasts.
In October 2008, the Corps convened a Rainfall-River Forecast Summit of representatives of the
Corps, the National Weather Service, and the USGS; the summit also included a public meeting.19
Federal summit participants concluded that significantly more rainfall fell than was predicted
resulting in record river flood stages that were not forecast with sufficient lead time for
appropriate emergency response preparations. Although the coordination and data exchange
generally went well, according to summit participants, discrepancies of reported data created
forecasting challenges and raised doubts of forecast reliability. River gauges swept away by the
floodwaters resulted in data gaps during critical periods. As a result, some river forecasts were
inaccurate. Better coordination, communication, and collaboration, as well as more and better
data measurements, were recommended by the summit participants.
17 J. D. Hipple et al., “Development in the Upper Mississippi Basin: 10 years after the Great Flood of 1993 ” Landscape
and Urban Planning (72, 2005, pp.313-323).
18 Ibid.
19 Information in this paragraph is from “U.S. Geological Survey—Rainfall-River Forecast Summit” in Interagency
Task Force, Raising the Standard, Oct./Nov. 2008 newsletter, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ILTF/docs/
ILTF_Newsletter_OctNov_08.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
During the 2008 flood, a total of 41 levees overtopped. Of these, only six were constructed by the
Corps; these had been turned over to a local entity for maintenance. Another 19 of the 41 were
constructed by local entities but met participation requirements for the Corps’ Rehabilitation and
Inspection Program, which assists with repairs.20 The other 16 overtopped levees were built and
operated by local entities and had not met RIP participation requirements.21 Their repair is not
eligible for federal assistance through RIP, but may be eligible for some other federal assistance
through the Natural Resources Conservation Service for levees in small watersheds or FEMA,
particularly if there is an immediate threat to life and property.
Repairing levees following the 2008 floods has illustrated some improvements since 1993, as
well as continuing issues with repair and maintenance. Reducing flood risk to conditions prior to
the damaging event can be complicated by choices about whether and how to repair damaged
levees and the availability of assistance from various federal agencies. At the same time these
choices represent opportunities to consider alternative methods of managing flood risk.
In 2008 coordination of near-term alternatives for levee repair showed improvement over 1993.
The Corps is leading a regional Interagency Levee Task Force for the 2008 Midwest flood. This
type of task force has not been used extensively before. The basis for its use is a February 1997
guidance memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on
Environmental Quality. The memo was published as part of the Clinton Administration’s efforts
to improve flood and floodplain management policy after the 1993 floods. The memo instructed
federal agencies to “fully consider relevant options, including non-structural alternatives, during
evaluation and review of levee repair and reconstruction projects…”.22
The 2008 Midwest Interagency Levee Task Force was established to assist in the rapid and
effective recovery of floodplain management systems in the affected communities and areas
before the next flood season. The task force is charged with implementing a collaborative and
integrated regional approach by the federal agencies to the long-term restoration of damaged
floodplain management systems. Its use is viewed by floodplain management advocates as
promising because it is not only looking at rebuilding levees but also considering long-term
mitigation and recovery.
20 Testimony by Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh, Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi Valley Division
Commander, at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on The Midwest Flood of 2008, July 23,
2008.
21 RIP is a Corps program that serves three main functions. It provides for inspections of flood-related works (including
levees and flood control dams); and it provides assistance to repair these works if damaged by a flood or other
damaging events (e.g., earthquake). The program also rehabilitates federally authorized and constructed hurricane or
shore protection projects (including beach nourishment) damaged by an extraordinary storm (i.e., a storm that, due to
length or severity, causes significant damage to a project). Rehabilitation generally is cost shared at 80% federal and
20% nonfederal. The Corps’ Chief of Engineers, when requested by the nonfederal sponsor, is authorized to implement
nonstructural alternatives to repair; the Corps may bear up to 100% of these costs, subject to limitations. RIP assistance
is limited to restoration to pre-disaster conditions and level of protection. Only flood works and hurricane/storm
projects that are active in the program at the time of the damaging event are eligible for assistance. RIP participation
requirements include that the levee have a public sponsor and be deemed through regular inspections to be properly
constructed and maintained. Another participation criterion for levees and floodwalls constructed is provision of at least
a 10-year protection for urban areas or a year level of protection for agricultural areas.
22 The memo is available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ILTF/docs/OMB%20CEQ%20Directive.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
A common issue that arises following a flood is local interest in not only repairing levees but
improving the level of protection provided. Rehabilitation and Inspection Program funds are
expressly restricted to repairing and cannot be used to increase protection. The RIP program is not
designed to evaluate the federal interest in investments to further reduce the local flood risk. If
federal participation is sought in increasing protection, the traditional process is to initiate a Corps
flood damage reduction study. This is separate from repair work.
Interest in increasing the resiliency of levees and their level of protection has become more
salient since the 2005 hurricane season. Since 2005, the levee inspection and certification
programs used by the Corps for the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program and FEMA for the
NFIP have been strengthened to address weaknesses identified in the programs. Consequently,
significant numbers of levees have been identified as deficient since 2005. If the deficiencies are
not addressed, the levee may not be eligible for federal repair assistance if damaged by a flood,
and NFIP floodplain requirements may go into effect (e.g., areas behind the levee may be
required to purchase flood insurance). The local entities that own and maintain the levees are
responsible for making the improvements necessary to pass inspection and obtain certification.
Generally federal funds are not available for these rehabilitations which are considered part of the
local responsibility for levee upkeep. Additionally NFIP hazard map modernization and policy
changes have improved the understanding of current risks, resulting in some areas receiving
higher risk designations and having stricter NFIP requirements apply.23
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ
The dams and levees of the Upper Mississippi River System were largely constructed as separate
projects, not in accordance with a basin flood damage reduction plan. The existing facilities have
varying structural integrity, and provide varying levels of flood risk reduction for similar land
uses.24 The levels of protection range from less than 5 year up to the 500 year, with three-quarters
of the urban systems designed to manage a 500-year flood. Land use and flood management
changes (e.g., levee building that constricts the flow of floodwaters to within the levee banks, or
channel straightening that increases the velocity of floodwaters) in upstream areas can alter the
flood risk in downstream areas. Whether and how to integrate Midwest flood management and
related infrastructure was raised as an issue after the 1993 flood. Nonetheless, the responsibilities
for flood programs in the basin remains largely unchanged, i.e., distributed among local, state,
and federal entities.
Like many other basins, no broad planning authority has guided the Upper Mississippi basin’s
water resource management since the termination of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Commission (UMRBC) at the end of 1981, which had been established in 1972.25 The UMRBC
was a regional entity for comprehensive planning that integrated federal-state-local planning with
public input. The UMRBC prepared a comprehensive master plan for management of the upper
23 For more information , see CRS Report R40073, FEMA Funding for Flood Map Modernization, by Wayne A.
Morrissey.
24 Some concerns also have been raised about the aging of these works. Many levees were privately built between 1880
and 1920, then later upgraded. On average, the last major upgrades occurred nearly 50 years ago.
25 In the early 1980s, President Reagan dissolved most large-scale river basin commissions. The commissions had
received mixed reviews. They raised state concerns about federal planning that could influence water supply allocation,
which historically has been deferred to the states. Some water resource stakeholders have argued that the dissolution of
the commissions has resulted in a planning gap for basin-scale integrated water and related-land resource management.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Mississippi River system’s water and related-land resources. The Commission’s termination
complicated implementation of the master plan. The interstate Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association (UMRBA), which was founded in 1981 remains in operation; its role largely has
been limited to a policy research and coordination forum for the basin states. Because the
UMRBA is a state initiative, unlike the UMRBC, the federal government has no voice.
The long-standing Mississippi River Commission has authority for river improvements from the
Mississippi River’s delta to the headwaters.26 The Commission provides water resources
engineering direction and policy advice to the Administration, Congress, and the Army by
overseeing the planning and reporting on river improvements. Unlike in the lower basin, the
Commission currently does not have the funded authority to implement improvement plans in the
upper Mississippi River. In 1997, the Commission initiated a process of listening, inspecting, and
partnering in the upper basin, but has not pursued significant steps to increase its upper basin role.
ȱȱȱȱ
Ȭŗşşřȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The 1993 flooding engendered some congressional interest in a systemic approach to flood
damage reduction on the upper basin. Following the 1993 flood, numerous reports were produced
recommending changes to various aspects of how floods are managed in the United States and the
Midwest in particular. The most prominent of these reports was the July 1994, Sharing the
Challenge: Floodplain Management into the 21st Century, by the Interagency Floodplain
Management Review Committee, often called the Galloway report after the Committee’s
chairman, Brigadier General Gerald Galloway.27 Box 2 briefly describes the report’s
recommendations for the Upper Mississippi River and a general floodplain management strategy.
In August 1994, S. 2418 (103rd Congress) was introduced. It would have acted on many of the
report’s recommendations. If enacted, it would have represented a significant shift in flood and
floodplain management for the Midwest. The legislation would have required development of
comprehensive river basin management plans for the long-term ecological, economic, and flood
management needs of the Upper Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers and established federal-state
coordinating committees to review and recommend the basin plans. The bill also included
numerous other broad water resources policy provisions that would have emphasized
nonstructural measures for risk reduction. This legislation was not enacted.
26 The Commission’s statutory authority is the 1879 Mississippi River Commission Act (Chap. 42, 21 Stat. 37 (1879)).
27 Hereafter referred to as 1994 Galloway report, available at:
[http://www.floods.org/PDF/Sharing_the_Challenge.pdf].
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Box 2. Recommendations for a Comprehensive Upper Mississippi Strategy
from a Report on the 1993 Flood
The 1994 Galloway report recommended a floodplain management strategy that sequentially supported:
• avoiding inappropriate use of the floodplain,
• minimizing vulnerability to damage through both structural and nonstructural means, and
• mitigating flood damages when they do occur.
It also included a recommendation to reduce the vulnerability of population centers to roughly the 500-year flood.
For the Upper Mississippi basin specifically, the report’s recommendations included:
• Establishing upper Mississippi River and Missouri River basin commissions with a charge to coordinate
development and maintenance of comprehensive water resources management plans to include, among
other purposes, ecosystem management, flood damage reduction, and navigation.
• Expanding the mission of the Mississippi River Commission to include the Upper Mississippi and Missouri
rivers. To recognize ecosystem management as a co-equal federal interest with flood damage reduction and
navigation, Commission membership should be expanded to include the Department of the Interior.
Assigning responsibility for development of an Upper Mississippi River and Tributaries system plan and for a major
maintenance and major rehabilitation program for federally-related levees (including those participating in RIP) to an
expanded Mississippi River Commission, operating under the Corps.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
It was not until the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53) that a new flood
management study for the upper Mississippi River basin was authorized. In Sec. 459 of WRDA
1999, Congress authorized the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (UMRCP). It
directed the Secretary of the Army to “develop a plan to address water resource and related land
resource problems and opportunities in the upper Mississippi and Illinois River basins, from
Cairo, Illinois, to the headwaters of the Mississippi River, in the interest of systemic flood
damage reduction….”. The Corps chose not to perform a comprehensive watershed analysis
encompassing the entire upper Mississippi River basin and its tributaries, citing fiscal and time
constraints. Instead, it limited the study to the mainstem Mississippi River and Illinois River
floodplain. The Missouri River and smaller tributaries, such as the Cedar River and Iowa River,
were excluded. This scope left out the majority of the areas most severely affected in 2008.
The UMRCP final report, which is dated June 2008, was transmitted to Congress on January 15,
2009.28 Congress is faced with deciding how to proceed given the analysis presented in the report.
The UMRCP was conducted as a preliminary study, similar to the level of detail in a Corps
reconnaissance study. The UMRCP final report and supporting documents are not at the level of
detail of a feasibility study, which typically informs decision-making on construction
authorization.
The report states “additional authority to implement the Comprehensive Plan is not being
recommended nor requested at this time based upon the [national economic development]
evaluation of alternative plans.” Although the report does not recommend proceeding with
28 UMRCP final report available at:
[http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/PublicAffairsOffice/MidwestFlooding2008/UMRCPFinalReport-17Jun08.pdf].
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
additional authority to implement the comprehensive plan, the report identified the Corps’
preferred alternative; it would provide 500-year protection at a total cost $4.42 billion.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in his January 2009 transmittal letter to
Congress also did not recommend proceeding with implementation; the letter stated that
“recommendations for implementation of a specific plan based on a reconnaissance level of detail
is premature.”29 Instead the Assistant Secretary recommended some intermediate steps ─
expanding the UMRCP to include Mississippi River tributaries, conducting cost-shared studies of
the reconstruction needs for the basin’s existing flood damage infrastructure (where a federal
interest is identified), and conducting a study of flood protection for critical transportation
infrastructure such as bridge approaches and railroads.
Earlier in August 2008, the Mississippi River Commission in its planning oversight and policy
advice role voted to support implementing the preferred alternative.30 The Commission believed
that the full benefits of implementing the preferred alternative were not adequately measured with
the current Corps project planning guidelines.31 Also in 2008, the then-Governor of Illinois and
the then-Governor of Missouri wrote letters of support for a comprehensive plan; these letters,
however, supported an alternative that was studied but not the preferred alternative.
Congress is faced with deciding how to proceed given the differing recommendations of the
Corps report and the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mississippi River Commission, two state
governors, and the many stakeholder viewpoints in the basin. For example, some stakeholders
prefer emphasizing nonstructural measures to manage flood hazards, and others are concerned
about tributary flood risk. Appendix B provides an analysis of the UMRCP final report and its
limitation, the preferred alternative identified in the report, various stakeholders recommendations
on how to proceed, the debate over the future of the Midwest flood and floodplain management,
and the potential state and federal roles.
ȱȱ¢ȱȱŗşşřDZȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȬŗşşřȱȱȱ
Although Congress did take numerous actions after the 1993 flood to improve flood policy and
programs, numerous recommendations in the Galloway report have not been implemented,
including:
• Enact a national Floodplain Management Act to define government
responsibilities, strengthen federal-state coordination and improve accountability.
It should establish a national model for floodplain management that recognizes
the states as the principal floodplain managers.
29 Ibid.
30 The Mississippi River Commission press release is available at http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/offices/pa/releases/
2008/RelMRC0801.pdf. Half of the Commission’s members are Corps officers.
31 Letter to Hon. James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works, from Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) John Paul Woodley, Jr., transmitting the UMRPC final report, Jan. 15, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
• Reactivate the Water Resources Council to coordinate federal-state-tribal water
resources activities.
• Reestablish a river basin commission, as needed, as forum for coordination of
regional issues.
• Issue a new Executive Order to reaffirm the federal government’s commitment to
floodplain management with a broader scope and more defined federal agency
responsibilities than in the existing floodplain E.O. 11988.
• Limit public grant assistance available to communities not participating in the
NFIP.
• Provide loans for the upgrade of infrastructure and public facilities.
• Reduce the vulnerability of population centers to damages from roughly the
standard project flood (which is roughly the 500-year flood).
Many of the actions that were taken were among the narrower recommendations of the Galloway
report, such as increasing the waiting period for flood insurance policies to become active.
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Over the years, many commissions and reports, like the Galloway report, have called for a
fundamental reorientation in national flood policy that addresses not only the economic but also
the social and environmental welfare tradeoffs of floodplain development.32 These commissions
and reports have urged Congress, relevant agencies, and the public to commit to the broad goal of
reducing the dangers and damages via flood and floodplain management, rather than allowing
development that could be located elsewhere to occur in flood-prone areas. Despite these
recommendations, a fundamental reorientation for floodplain management has not occurred.
Although federal efforts have not been guided by a clearly defined flood policy or floodplain
vision, many incremental changes to improve flood programs and projects have been enacted or
adopted at all levels of government. These actions include supporting nonstructural flood damage
reduction, retiring flood-prone farmland, purchasing repetitive flood loss properties, augmenting
hazard mitigation activities, fostering floodplain regulation, and guiding federal actions in
floodplains.
Notwithstanding these changes, the nation’s flood risk is increasing. Many of these changes have
seen only marginal implementation, enforcement, and funding. The incremental improvements
largely have been overwhelmed by incentives to develop floodplains and coastal areas and by a
growing population, or have never fully implemented or enforced. Other federal actions produce
some indirect flood risk reduction benefits; for example, Congress has supported conservation
efforts on agricultural lands and wetlands protection that may reduce flood damages by slowing
down or temporarily storing flood waters. Whether these benefits are overwhelmed by changes in
flood-prone land use (e.g., conversion of agricultural land behind levees to residential
32 National Water Commission, Water Policies for the Future: Final Report to the President and to the Congress of the
United States (Washington: GPO, 1973); Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, A Unified National
Program for Floodplain Management (FEMA, March 1996), available at http://www.fema.gov/hazard/flood/pubs/
lib100.shtm.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
development) remains largely unknown because regional-scale and multi-agency plans and
evaluations have been rare.
Generally, congressional oversight, administrative implementation, and federal appropriations
have reflected a reactive and fragmented approach to flooding. Earlier institutional arrangements
that provided avenues for more coordinated federal flood efforts have diminished. For example,
the national-level Water Resources Council which was established by the Water Resources
Planning Act (P.L. 89-80), disbanded in 1983; the Federal Interagency Task Force on Floodplain
Management, which had continued some of the Water Resources Council flood-related functions
after 1983, stopped convening in the late 1990s. Federal support and opportunities for local
capacity building decreased with the loss of these institutions.
Flood policy continues to be dominated by separate treatment of structural flood damage
reduction investments (e.g., levee building), the NFIP, and federal disaster aid, rather than a
comprehensive flood risk and floodplain management approach. Current arrangements of aid,
insurance, and water resources projects at times unintentionally provide disincentives to reduce
exposure to flood risks. This is in contrast to recommendations promoting a focused and
coordinated effort to reduce the cost of flooding on the economy, improve public safety, and
promote state and local capacity and responsibility for flood management.
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program as an alternative to disaster
assistance and to manage the escalating cost of repairing flood damage to buildings and their
contents. Under the NFIP, the federal government identifies and maps areas subject to flooding,
provides insurance to property owners in flood-prone areas, and offers incentives for
communities to reduce future flood-related losses through floodplain management measures.
Since 1973, homeowners in 100-year flood-prone areas are required to buy flood insurance if
using a federally backed mortgage. Today, the NFIP provides flood insurance to more than 5
million homeowners, renters, and business owners in over 20,000 participating communities.
A significant policy reaction to the 1993 flood was passage of the National Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 1994.33 The flooding revealed that most flooded homeowners did not have flood
insurance. And mortgage lenders had been lax in checking if federally backed mortgages were
being granted in flood-prone areas, as required by NFIP. The 1994 legislation aimed to improve
compliance with NFIP’s mandatory flood insurance requirement, and to pressure lenders to
ensure that at-risk owners in a flood zone purchase insurance. The legislation also:
• Created the Increased Cost of Compliance program within the NFIP. This
program gives money to insured owners of substantially damaged properties to
meet the more expensive costs of rebuilding according to a local floodplain
management ordinance.
• Created the Flood Mitigation Assistance program. This program funding is
derived from a surcharge added to all flood insurance policies nationwide. The
funds are distributed as grants to states for flood mitigation.
33 Information in this paragraph is drawn from G. Bucco, Lessons Learned available at http://www.dnr.state.ne.us/
floodplain/PDF_Files/Lessons.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
• Increased emphasis on floodplain mapping.
• Codified the Community Rating System (CRS) into the NFIP. The CRS is an
incentive program to reduce communities’ flood insurance premiums by
exceeding the minimum flood risk reduction requirements of the NFIP.
After the 1993 floods, Congress authorized FEMA to use a portion of federal disaster assistance
to cover 75% of the cost to acquire, relocate or elevate homes and businesses; set aside flood
insurance premiums to relocate flood-prone buildings; and tighten flood insurance purchase
requirements.34 These actions signaled a shift toward hazard reduction away from reliance on
levees and dams. Nonetheless, the potential consequences of floods are increasing as more people
and investments are located in flood-prone areas.
Some of the more significant changes in flood-related policy have consisted of efforts to improve
the NFIP (e.g., improvements to increase participation in the program and better manage
repetitive loss properties) and reorganization of federal emergency response and recovery
following the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans. Considerable
concerns continue to be raised about the degree of subsidization under the NFIP and the financial
foundation of the program. Numerous GAO studies have reviewed various aspects of the NFIP;
some recommendations have been implemented. In 2006, an independent review working group
released its evaluation of the NFIP; the recommendations are among other changes that have been
considered, but not enacted. Reorganization of emergency response, in particular the placement of
FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security, remains a topic of much debate.
ȱȱ¢ȱ
As part of the NFIP, FEMA has implemented a standardized flood mapping program covering a
large fraction of the population at risk. Government agencies use these maps to establish zoning
and building standards and to support transportation, infrastructure, and emergency planning.
Insurance companies, lenders, realtors, and property owners use maps to determine flood
insurance needs and to assess their flood risk.
In January 2009, the National Research Council released Mapping the Zone: Improving Flood
Map Accuracy. The report calls for investments in improving the accuracy of NFIP maps. It cites
maps as central to anticipating, preparing for, and insuring against flooding. It found that current
maps have significant uncertainties and do not necessarily represent current floodplain conditions.
The Council concluded that these investments are needed and economically justified despite
recent investments. From 2003 to 2008 at a cost of more than $1 billion, FEMA and local and
state partners collected new flood data in unmapped areas, updated existing data, and digitized
flood maps that were previously on paper. The Council found that although 92% of the
continental U.S. population now has digital flood maps, only 21% has maps fully satisfying
FEMA’s data quality standards.
To remain accurate, flood maps must require updating to reflect changes in the flood threat (e.g.,
changes in sea level or precipitation patterns) and land use changes that affect flood risk. Future
34 Information in this paragraph is from Environmental Defense Fund, Flood Loss Reduction White Paper, available at:
http://www.edf.org/documents/594_FloodPolicy.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
conditions (e.g., anticipated sea level rise, changes in hydrology due to land use changes)
currently are not considered in developing NFIP maps.
ȱȱȱȱ
ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱ
Growth in total damage from floods in the United States since the early 1930s can be attributed to
both climate factors and societal factors: that is, increased damage associated with increased
precipitation and with growth in population and wealth.35 Much of the flood-related damage in
recent decades is the result of numerous human choices, meaning that society has considerable
potential to reduce flood risk. Without major changes in societal responses to weather and climate
extremes, it is reasonable to predict ever-increasing losses even without any detrimental climate
changes.36 As the former General Counsel of FEMA put it:
The challenge is that more and more development is taking place in flood prone and
hurricane prone areas. People like to live near the seashore. But unless the actual cost of
living by the water is reflected in the cost of ownership ─ including the cost of building
property to resist wind damage, elevating out of floodplains, and insuring at actuarial rates
for the cost of rebuilding after inevitable floods and hurricanes ─ the result will only be more
development in more risk prone areas …37
Climate and population trends are combining in coastal areas so that flood risks of coastal storms
exceed river flooding risks. The top eleven amounts paid for NFIP claims were for coastal storms
(including Hurricane Ike). The 1993 Midwest flood ranks twelfth, and the 2008 Midwest flood is
not in the top 20 NFIP events.
ȱ¢ȱ
Damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and other coastal storms illustrates the vulnerability of the
nation’s coastal developments to storm surge, flooding, erosion, and other hazards. Hurricane-
prone states have increasingly dominated NFIP outlays and disaster losses. The risk facing the
nation’s coastal development, particularly barrier islands and other particularly vulnerable
locations, is great regardless of whether climate change may alter the intensity and frequency of
hurricanes. Severe storms and their surges have plagued coastal communities for centuries,
costing thousands of lives, and damaging communities, businesses, and infrastructure.
Since the mid-1960s, the federal role in coastal hurricane storm protection has become more
prominent; the Corps, with nonfederal sponsors, builds structures and places sand periodically for
beach renourishment to reduce flooding. Congress also has enacted laws aimed at protecting
coastal resources that have some flood risk reduction benefits. Through reauthorizations and
35 R.A. Pielke, Jr. and M.W. Downton, “Precipitation and Damaging Floods: Trends in the United States, 1932-1997”
in Journal of Climate (Oct. 2000, Vol. 13, 20, pp. 3625-3637).
36 For a discussion of this finding for weather hazards, see S.A. Changnon, “Human Factors Explain the Increases
Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Vol. 18, 3, Mar.
2000, pp. 437-442).
37 E. B. Abbott, Floods, “Flood Insurance, Litigation, Politics—and Catastrophe: The National Flood Insurance
Program,” Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal (Vol. 1, 1, Jun. 2008, pp. 129-155).
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532) and the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-348), Congress has tried to improve federal actions that support
coastal resource protection.38 With the passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972,
Congress was responding primarily to widespread public concern about estuarine and oceanfront
degradation; the act provides for federal assistance to state and local coastal zone. The Coastal
Barrier Resources Act prohibits federal spending that would support additional development in
designated relatively-undeveloped coastal barriers and adjacent areas. Notwithstanding these
efforts, both increasing coastal populations and the dominance of NFIP claims and federal
disaster aid to coastal states indicate that significant coastal flood risk remains.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
The 2008 Midwest flood, Hurricane Katrina, and other levee breaches have increased the
congressional debate about how to manage flood and infrastructure risks, what is an acceptable
level of risk — especially for low-probability, high-consequence events — and who should bear
the costs to reduce flood risk (particularly in the case of levee construction and rehabilitation).
Issues to be addressed include protecting concentrated urban populations, reducing risk to the
nation’s public and private economic infrastructure, reducing vulnerability by investing in natural
buffers, and equity in protection for low-income and minority populations. A challenge for
Congress is structuring federal actions and programs so they provide incentives to reduce flood
risk without unduly infringing on private property rights or usurping local decision making.
Tackling this challenge would require significant adjustments in the flood insurance program,
disaster aid policies and practices, and programs for structural and nonstructural measures and
actions.
ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
Since Hurricane Katrina, Congress has conducted hearings (see Appendix A)and considered
legislation on numerous aspects of federal flood programs and policies. Actions by many federal
agencies shape the nation’s flood risk management.39 Legislative efforts since 2005 have largely
proceeded by addressing individual programs or agencies, rather than through a comprehensive
attempt to reorient flood policy. For example, in the 110th Congress, both the House and Senate
38 For more information on federal coastal zone management efforts, see CRS Report RL34339, Coastal Zone
Management: Background and Reauthorization Issues, by Harold F. Upton. In the early 1970s, Congress also
considered general national land use planning legislation to foster state (and local) planning capacity and coordination;
bills were reported by Senate committees in 1970 and 1972 and passed the Senate in 1972 (S. 632 in the 92nd
Congress), but were not enacted. Many in Congress concluded that the challenges that national land use planning
legislation was intended to address were most concentrated in coastal areas and needed immediate attention. The result
was the enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act with a promise by some congressional leaders to continue to
pursue national land use legislation. These leaders stated that they intended to fold coastal management into this more
encompassing legislation at a later date. Comprehensive land use planning legislation was never enacted, and Congress
has not ventured beyond the CZMA with this approach to resource planning and management.
39 Some changes come about by agency action without congressional direction. For example, the Corps established the
National Flood Risk Management Program in May 2006 for the purpose of integrating its flood risk management
programs and activities, both internally and with counterpart activities of the Department of Homeland Security,
FEMA, other Federal agencies, state organizations and regional and local agencies.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
passed a Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act (H.R. 3121 and S. 2284) aimed at
changing the NFIP and FEMA’s programs; this legislation was not enacted. The Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 enacted numerous provisions related to Corps flood projects and
programs. While implementation of WRDA 2007 provisions may shift the Corps’ flood-related
actions, few other changes to federal programs have been enacted.
In WRDA 2007, Section 2032 calls for the Administration to prepare a report by the end of 2009
describing flood risk and comparing regional risks. The report also is to assess the effectiveness
of flood efforts and programs, analyze whether programs encourage development in flood-prone
areas, and provide recommendations. The report’s preparation, however, is delayed; the Corps has
not received appropriations to prepare it.
Another provision in §2031 requires Corps feasibility studies to calculate a proposed flood
damage reduction project’s residual risk of flooding, loss of human life, and human safety. The
benefit-cost calculations of the study also must include upstream and downstream impacts and
give equitable consideration to structural and nonstructural alternatives.
Section 2031 of WRDA 2007 also called for the Secretary of the Army to update water resources
planning guidance; the update would affect how Corps flood damage reduction projects are
planned, evaluated, and selected. Sec. 2031 also stated:
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING POLICY.—It is the policy of the United
States that all water resources projects should reflect national priorities, encourage economic
development, and protect the environment by—
(1) seeking to maximize sustainable economic development;
(2) seeking to avoid the unwise use of floodplains and flood-prone areas and minimizing
adverse impacts and vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain or flood-prone area
must be used; and
(3) protecting and restoring the functions of natural systems and mitigating any unavoidable
damage to natural systems.
How this planning update and implementation of this policy statement may alter flood damage
reduction and other water resources planning by federal agencies remains unknown.
ȱ¢ȱ
Hurricane Katrina also brought national attention to the issue of levee and floodwall reliability
and different levels of protection provided by flood damage reduction structures. Floodwall
failures contributed to roughly half of the flood damages in New Orleans. A large percentage of
locally built levees are poorly designed and maintained.
Section 9004 of WRDA 2007 required the Corps by 2009 to establish and maintain a national
levee database. The database structure was completed; the process of populating the database
with information on levees is ongoing. Section 9004 also requires the Corps to establish an
inventory and inspect all federally owned and federally constructed levees. The provision also
requires the Corps to establish an inventory of levees participating in the Corps’ Repair and
Inspection Program; the Corps may inspect these levees if requested by the owner. The Corps has
completed an initial survey identifying 14,000 miles of Corps-owned, Corps-constructed, and RIP
participating levees.
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
No federal program specifically regulates the design, placement, construction, or maintenance of
nonfederal levees built by private individuals or by public entities such as levee districts. Section
9003 of WRDA 2007 created a National Committee on Levee Safety to make recommendations
to Congress for a national levee safety program. WRDA 2007 also requires Corps planning to
consider the risk that remains behind levees and floodwalls, evaluate upstream and downstream
impacts, and equitably analyze structural and nonstructural alternatives. This provision put in
statute requirements similar to direction in agency planning guidance.
How WRDA 2007 provisions and previous congressional direction (see Appendix A) are
implemented and enforced, and whether the recommendations by the National Committee on
Levee Safety (see Box 3) are pursued may influence the nature of federal and local levee
investments. However, levees represent only a portion of the nation’s efforts at flood risk
management.
Box 3. Selected Recommendations in the
2009 Draft National Levee Safety Committee Report
On January 15, 2009, the National Levee Safety Committee, established by WRDA 2007, released a draft of its
report, Recommendation for a National Levee Safety Program.40 The report set out 20 principal recommendations,
including:
Building and Sustaining Levee Safety Program in All States
• Design a levee safety program and delegate program responsibilities to states.
• Provide grants to assist in implementing the program.
• Establish a national levee rehabilitation, improvement, and flood mitigation fund to aid in improvement
or removal of aging or deficient levees.
Aligning Existing Federal Programs
• Align federal programs to provide incentives for good levee behavior.
• Mandate purchase of risk-based flood insurance in areas behind levees.
Comprehensive and Consistent National Leadership
• Establish a National Levee Safety Commission.
• Expand and maintain the National Levee Database.
• Develop and adopt national levee safety standards.
• Address growing concerns regarding liability of engineering firms and government agencies for damages
resulting from levee failures.41
• Develop a national levee safety training program.
• Develop a national public involvement and awareness campaign to communicate risk behind levees.
40 The report is available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ncls/docs/NCLS-Recommendation-
Report_012009_DRAFT.pdf.
41 For an analysis of federal flood liability, see CRS Report RL34131, Federal Liability for Flood Damage Related to
Army Corps of Engineers Projects, by Cynthia Brougher.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
Recommendations for how to improve flood policy abound. Figure 2 illustrates how different
tools can combine to lower risk, but that some risk will always remain. Often following a
significant flood or hurricane, changes are made to implement some tools and improve existing
programs, but other tools and changes are not pursued. A comprehensive strategy to realign
floodplain management would confront many challenges and require dramatic changes in how
local, state, and federal government agencies and programs operate. One proposal for a national
strategy was the 1986 Unified National Program for Floodplain Management by the Interagency
Task Force on Floodplain Management. It laid out a four-part strategy for a balanced approach to
floodplain management (see Box 4). Implementing the risk reduction tools in this strategy would
realign government programs to reward behaviors that decrease flood risk. Use of these tools also
would represent a policy choice to shift more of the long-term costs of staying or locating in
flood-prone areas from the federal government to local communities and individuals.
Figure 2. Multiple Tools Available To Reduce Flood Risk
Source: Adapted from materials by D. Bollman, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raising the Standard: Post Flood
Restoration Opportunities, available at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/iltf/docs/Dorie_Final_DU_Presentation.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Box 4. Floodplain Management Strategy and Tools
Proposed in the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
Modify Susceptibility to Flood Damage and Disruption
1. Floodplain regulations
2. Development and redevelopment policies
3. Disaster preparedness
4. Disaster assistance
5. Floodproofing
6. Flood forecasting and waning systems and emergency
Modify Flooding
1. Dams and reservoirs
2. Levees, floodwalls, and dikes
3. Channel alterations
4. High flow diversions
5. Land treatment measures
Modify the Impact of Flooding on Individuals and the Community
1. Information and Education
2. Flood Insurance
3. Tax adjustments
4. Flood emergency measures
5. Post-flood recovery
Restore and Preserve the Natural and Cultural Resources of Floodplains
1. Floodplain, wetland, coastal barrier resources regulations
2. Development and redevelopment policies
3. Information and education
4. Tax adjustments
Source: Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management, A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
(FEMA, March 1986).
ȱ¢ȱ
The 2008 Midwest flood and Hurricane Ike will not be the last riverine flood or coastal storm to
affect these areas and devastate communities. See Box 5 for a discussion of Hurricane Ike’s
impact on coastal communities and the challenge of recovery. To assist communities to rebuild in
a more resilient manner, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) requires that each
state and community must have a mitigation plan to be eligible for certain disaster assistance.
This planning requirement represents an initial step in improving the identification of risks;
however, these plans have not translated into mitigation actions and assessment being
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
incorporated into community comprehensive plans. There is no requirement for catastrophic
recovery planning in communities that face significant risk, such as Galveston.42 Such planning
could assist recovery by vetting, prior to the disaster, preliminary needs, priorities, and plans for
rebuilding. New Orleans after 2005 and the Texas coast, Cedar Rapids, and other severely
affected Midwest communities after 2008 illustrate the challenge of undertaking an extensive
recovery effort. It can be difficult to balance minimizing the disaster’s disruption to the
community and its economy and reestablishing a more resilient community.
Box 5. The Challenge of Disaster Recovery:
The Case of Texas Coastal Communities after Hurricane Ike
In September 2008, Hurricane Ike produced a damaging, destructive and deadly storm surge across the Gulf, affecting
the eastern Texas and southwest Louisiana coasts most severely. At $27 billion and more than 100 deaths, Hurricane
Ike is costlier and more deadly than the 2008 Midwest flood ($15.0 billion and 24 deaths). While more deadly,
Hurricane Ike is closer to the 1993 Midwest flood ($30.2 billion and 48 deaths) in its economic impact. Hurricane
Ike’s disaster damages include not only coastal flood losses but also the effects of the storm’s wind and other damage
incurred as it tracked across Texas and the Midwest.
Many of the coastal communities damaged during Hurricane Ike face years of recovery. Much of the coastal residential
damage was from storm surge, not wind. The storm generated storm surges between 10 and 13 feet in most of the
area around Galveston, Texas; the surge in some areas reached 15 to 20 feet. Individuals, neighborhoods, and
communities have many important surge-related rebuilding decisions. The threat of these communities being affected
by another hurricane is significant; in less than 60 days during the summer of 2008, Hurricanes Dolly, Gustav, Ike and
Tropical Storm Eduardo hit Texas.
Thousands of families remain challenged to find affordable accommodations near their jobs and children’s schools.
After the storm, only 14 of 3,400 homes in the Texas town of Bridge City remained inhabitable. In Gilchrist, TX, only
one home was left standing. Only 39% of flood damages were insured. Residents face difficult financial challenges and
decisions regarding whether and how to rebuild. For instance, new floodplain management maps that dictate how high
to elevate structures for NFIP-participating communities will not be available before the second half of 2009. Until
then, communities and individual reinvestment decisions are based on best available information and assumptions.
Business owners are faced with reinvestment decisions that depend on the collective decisions of property owners,
their customer base, and municipalities. The City of Galveston’s downtown historic strand was significantly damaged;
up to 85% of the city’s business base is gone. In the near-term, saltwater intrusion from the storm surge hurts
agricultural production, and disruption to bay and coastal ecology hurts fishing and tourism. Nonetheless, the long-
term regional economic development is likely to rebound. The petrochemical, fishing, and shipping industries remain
tied to the Gulf of Mexico navigation infrastructure and fishery and oil resources.
Each municipality is confronted with questions regarding development regulations, zoning ordinances, building codes,
city planning, and utility and public safety service delivery. Local officials are faced with both recovery costs and a
smaller base. Much of the storm damage was to public infrastructure further taxing local municipalities; repairs to
most public infrastructure is eligible for some FEMA reimbursement.
Source: CRS compiled primarily from FEMA’s report, Hurricane Ike Impact report, December 2008, available at
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/hurricane/2008/ike/impact_report.pdf.
42 For another discussion of the challenges of recovering from a disaster, see CRS Report RL34087, FEMA Disaster
Housing and Hurricane Katrina: Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
The 2008 Midwest flood, Hurricane Ike, and Hurricane Katrina have been recent reminders of the
nation’s flood risk. These events have raised both concerns about the state of the nation’s flood
policies, programs, and infrastructure, and awareness of the tradeoff between the benefits and
risks of developing flood-prone areas.
After the 1993 Midwest flood, Congress took several actions that departed from historic flood
policies which relied heavily on structural solutions by providing more incentives and assistance
for hazard mitigation. Nonetheless, many fundamental issues identified in reports following the
1993 flood remain today. Many federal, state, and local policies and programs continue to
encourage floodplain development and use. Local-state-federal tensions over proper and
respective roles and responsibilities continue to cloud resolution of difficult water resource issues
and can slow recovery in disaster-affected communities. Flood damage reduction and mitigation
projects are still largely authorized and implemented in piecemeal fashion, and water and related
land use decisions and programs are rarely coordinated. Federal legislation enacted since 1993
generally has addressed individual programs or agencies, rather comprehensively dealing with the
disparate federal policies, programs, and agencies influencing the nation’s flood risk. In summary,
although federal programs have improved through congressional and agency action since 1993,
the fundamental direction and approach of national flood policies and programs remain largely
unchanged.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
Congress shapes how federal agencies implement their missions through authorization,
appropriations, and oversight. To illustrate how Congress shapes federal agencies flood-related
actions through legislative direction, Table A-1 provides a list of the direction that Congress has
given to the Corps on how the agency should implement its flood damage reduction mission and
conduct its flood studies and projects. How to use this direction in guiding implementation can be
challenging when one provision of law may conflict with another. Table A-2 is a listing of flood-
focused congressional hearings between the 1993 Midwest flood and 2008; the table illustrates
the role and focus of congressional oversight. Table A-3 is a list of flood-focused reports by the
GAO from 1993 through 2008; GAO reports investigate how the federal government spends
taxpayer dollars in order to assist Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government.
Table A-1. Selected Congressional Direction on
Corps Flood Damage Reduction Efforts
Topic
Section of Law
Summary of Effect
U.S. Code
Federal Involvement in Flood Damage Reduction Projects
Flood
§1 of Flood Control Act Declared flood control a proper federal activity
33 USC 701a
of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570) and that the federal government should
participate in the flood control improvements of
navigable waters or their tributaries if the benefits
are in excess of the costs and if the lives and
social security of people are otherwise adversely
affected.
Shore Protection §2018 of WRDA 2007
Established that it is the policy of the United
33 USC 426e-1
States to promote beach nourishment for flood
and storm damage reduction and related research,
including beach restoration and periodic
nourishment for 20 years on a comprehensive and
coordinated basis by federal, state, local, and
private entities.
Nonstructural Measures in Corps Flood Damage Reduction Projects
Flood Risk,
§2033 of WRDA 2007
Required that a feasibility study ensure equitable
33 USC 2282a
Adjacent
analysis of structural and nonstructural
Impacts, and
alternatives.
Nonstructural
Alternatives
Nonstructural
§219 of WRDA 1999
Directed that benefits of nonstructural
33 USC 2318
Flood
alternatives be calculated using methods similar to
Alternatives
those for structural projects, and that double
counting of benefits should be avoided.
Nonstructural
§905 of WRDA 1986
Required feasibility reports to describe a
33 USC 2282
Alternatives
nonstructural alternative to the recommended
plan when it does not include significant
nonstructural features.
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Topic
Section of Law
Summary of Effect
U.S. Code
Nonstructural
§73 of WRDA 1974
Required consideration of nonstructural
33 USC 701b-
Flood
(P.L. 93-251)
alternatives for flood damage prevention or
11
Alternatives
reduction during planning.
Evacuation in
§3 of Flood Control Act Allowed the Chief of Engineers to modify the plan 33 USC 701i
Lieu of Levees
of 1938 (52 Stat. 1216) of any authorized flood control project if
construction costs can be substantially reduced by
the evacuation of a portion or all of the area
proposed to be protected and to use the amount
saved toward the evacuation costs, including
rehabilitation of the persons evacuated.
Analysis of Corps Flood Projects
Flood Risk,
§2033 of WRDA 2007
Required that a feasibility report include as part of 33 USC 2282a
Adjacent Impacts
the calculation of benefits and costs the residual
risk of flooding, residual risk of loss of life and
human safety, and upstream or downstream
impacts.
Flood Control
§216 of WRDA 1999
Required the Secretary of the Army to coordinate 33 USC 709a
Integration
(P.L. 106-53)
with FEMA and other federal agencies to ensure
that flood control projects and plans are
complementary and integrated.
Exclusion of
§308 of WRDA 1990
Directed that the Secretary, in justifications for
33 USC 2318
Floodplain
new federal projects, cannot consider benefits
Development
from protecting new or substantially improved
structures built in the 100-year floodplain after
July 1991.
Uneconomic
§903 of WRDA 1986
Authorized the Secretary to include flood control Not codified.
Flood Increments
features that do not have national economic
100 Stat. 4184
development benefits greater than costs if the
nonfederal interest pays for the element until the
remaining costs equal the national economic
benefit.
Flood Measures
§914 of WRDA 1986
Allowed the Secretary to consider flood damage
33 USC 2289
reduction measures without regard for flood
frequency, drainage area, or runoff amount, so
long as the federal share is less than $3 million.
Watershed
§3 of Flood Control Act Required surveys for flood control to include a
33 USC 701
Analysis for
of 1917
comprehensive study of the watershed.
Flood Control
(39 Stat. 950)
General Water Policies Affecting Flood Damage Reduction Projects
Water Projects
§2031 of WRDA 2007
Established as U.S. policy that all water resources 42 USC 1962-3
(P.L. 110-114)
projects reflect national priorities, encourage
economic development, and protect the
environment by maximizing sustainable economic
development, avoiding unwise use of flood-prone
areas and minimizing adverse impacts of floods,
protecting and restoring natural system functions,
and mitigating unavoidable natural system damage.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Topic
Section of Law
Summary of Effect
U.S. Code
Water Policy
§2 of Water Resources Declared that congressional policy is to encourage 42 USC 1962
Planning Act of 1965
conservation, development, and utilization of
(P.L. 89-80)
water and related land resources on a
comprehensive and coordinated basis by the
federal government, states, localities, and private
enterprise with the cooperation of all affected and
others.
Water Policy
§1 of Flood Control Act Declared that congressional policy is to recognize 33 USC 701-1
(including state
of 1944 (58 Stat. 887)
rights and interests of the states in water
deference)
resources development, to preserve and protect
potential uses, to facilitate project consideration
on a comprehensive and coordinated basis, and to
limit navigation works to those with substantial
benefit which can be operated consistently with
appropriate and economic water uses.
Source: CRS, compiled from public laws and assisted by Chapter 2 of Corps, Digest of Water Policies and
Authorities (EP 1165-2-1, July 1999).
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table A-2. Flood-Focused Congressional Hearings from Summer 1993 through 2008
Hearing Date
Committee and
by Theme
Hearing Title
Subcommittee
Flood Policy
Oct. 27, 2005
Reducing Hurricane and Flood Risk in the Nation
House Transportation and
Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee
on Water Resources and
Environment
May 26, 1994;
Floodplain Management and Flood Control
Senate Environment and Public
July 20, 1994
Works (EPW)
Levees
May 8, 2007
National Levee Safety and Dam Safety Programs
Joint hearing: House T&I
Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management; and
Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment
April 6, 2006
H.R. 4650, the National Levee Safety Program Act
House T&I Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
April 10, 1997
Flood Control Projects and ESA
House Resources
Hazard Mitigation and Floodplain Management
June 24, 2008
Comprehensive Watershed Management Planning
House T&I Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Flood-Related Disaster Aid and Response
Feb. 16, 2000
Flood Water Rescue
House T&I Subcommittee on
Oversight, Investigations, and
Emergency Management
March 26, 1998
Federal Cost of Disaster Assistance
House T&I Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
July 14, 1993
Agricultural Disaster Relief
House Agriculture
Flood Insurance and Mapping
April 2, 2008
National Flood Plain Remapping
House T&I Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency
Management
July 17, 2007
H.R. 920, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act of 2007
House Financial Services
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
June 12, 2007
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 House Financial Services
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
June 12, 2007
National Flood Insurance Program: Issues Exposed by
Joint Hearing: House Financial
the 2005 Hurricanes
Services Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations and
House Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Management,
Investigations, and Oversight
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Hearing Date
Committee and
by Theme
Hearing Title
Subcommittee
Feb. 28, 2007
Insurance Claims Payment Process in the Gulf Coast
House Financial Services
After the 2005 Hurricanes
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations
Aug. 15, 2006
Look at the National Flood Insurance Program and
House Financial Services
Flood Mitigation Efforts: Is Bucks Country, Pennsylvania
Ready for Another Flood?
May 8, 2006
FEMA’s Floodplain Map Modernization: A State and
House Government Reform
Local Perspective
Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
Oct. 20, 2005
Management and Oversight of the National Flood
House Financial Services
Insurance Program
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
Oct. 2, 2005;
Future of the National Flood Insurance Program
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban
Jan. 25, 2006;
Affairs
and Feb. 2, 2006
Aug. 17, 2005
Look at the National Flood Insurance Program: Is Ohio
House Financial Services
Ready for a Flood?
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
June 12, 2005
Flood Map Modernization and the Future of the National House Financial Services
Flood Insurance Program
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
April 14, 2005
Review and Oversight of the National Flood Insurance
House Financial Services
Program
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
March 25, 2004
National Flood Insurance Repetitive Losses
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic
Policy
April 1, 2003
National Flood Insurance Program: Review and
House Financial Services
Reauthorization
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
July 19, 2001
National Flood Insurance Program and Repetitive Loss
House Financial Services
Properties
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
Oct. 27, 1999
National Flood Insurance Program
House Banking and Financial Services
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity
June 24, 1993
Status of the National Flood Insurance Program
House Banking, Finance, and Urban
Affairs Subcommittee on Consumer
Credit and Insurance
May 27, 1993
Insurance Availability in Communities at Risk of Natural House Banking, Finance, and Urban
Disaster
Affairs Subcommittee on Consumer
Credit and Insurance
Hurricane Katrina & Coastal Louisiana
April 18, 2006
Field Hearing: Oversee the Ongoing Rebuilding and
Senate EPW
Restoration Efforts of Hurricane and Flood Protection
by the Army Corps of Engineers
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Hearing Date
Committee and
by Theme
Hearing Title
Subcommittee
Dec. 15, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Who’s in Charge of the New
Senate Homeland Security and
Orleans Levees?
Government Affairs Committee
Nov. 17, 2005
Evaluate the Degree to Which the Preliminary Findings
Senate EPW
on the Failure of the Levees Are Being Incorporated into
the Restoration of Hurricane Protection
Nov. 9, 2005
Comprehensive and Integrated Approach to meet the
Senate EPW
Water Resources Needs in the Wake of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita
Nov. 9, 2005
Coastal Louisiana Hurricane Protection Project
Senate EPW
Nov. 2, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Why Did the Levees Fail?
Senate Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee
Nov. 2, 2005
Second in a Series of Two Hearings to Discuss the
Senate EPW
Response to Hurricane Katrina
Oct. 20, 2005
Expert Views on Hurricane and Flood Protection and
House T&I Subcommittee on Water
Water Resources Planning for a Rebuilt Gulf Coast
Resources and Environment
Oct. 6, 2005
Roles of the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Senate EPW
Federal Highway Administration and the Army Corps of
Engineers as they Relate to Katrina and the Ongoing
Recovery (First in a Series of Two)
Sept. 29, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the Present Environmental House Energy and Commerce
Status
Subcommittee On Environment and
hazardous Materials
Midwest Floods
July 23, 2008
The Midwest Floods: What Happened and What Might
Senate EPW
Be Improved for Managing Risk and Responses in the
Future
Feb. 22-24, 1994 Condition of Agricultural Land Damaged by the Midwest House Agriculture Subcommittee On
Flood
General Farm Commodities and
Subcommittee On Environment,
Credit, and Rural Development
Nov. 19, 1993
SBA Disaster Assistance Programs
House Small Business
Nov. 9, 1993
Federal Response to the Midwest Floods of 1993
Senate EPW
Oct. 28, 1993
Federal Response to Midwest Flooding
House Public Works and
Transportation Subcommittee. On
Investigations and Oversight
Oct. 27, 1993
Midwest Floods of 1993: Flood Control and Floodplain
House Public Works and
Policy and Proposals
Transportation Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment
Sept. 23, 1993
Effect of Midwest Flooding on Rail Transportation
House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Transportation
and Hazardous Materials
Sept. 14-15,
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1993: S. 1405
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban
1993
Affairs Subcommittee on Housing
and Urban Affairs
July 16, 1993
Flood and Disaster Relief in the Midwest
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Hearing Date
Committee and
by Theme
Hearing Title
Subcommittee
Other Geographically Specific Flood Issues
Aug. 23, 2008
Hearing on the Small Business Administration’s
House Small Business Subcommittee
Response to the July 5 Floods in Beaver County,
on Investigations and Oversight
Pennsylvania
Nov. 1, 2007
Impact of the Flood Control Act of 1944 on Indian
Senate Indian Affairs
Tribes Along the Missouri River
Nov.28, 2006
FEMA’s Response to the Rockford Flood
House Small Business
Sept. 22, 1998
Coastal Barrier Resources System: Pumpkin Key, Florida Senate EPW
May 27, 1998
Field Hearing on Proposed Modifications of Folsom Dam House Resources/Subcommittee on
Water and Power
Oct. 23, 1997
Flood Control at Devils Lake, North Dakota
Senate EPW
March 19, 1997
Recent Flooding in California
House T&I Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment
Source: Information compiled by Lynn J. Cunningham, Information Research Specialist, CRS Knowledge Services
Group.
Notes: CRS identified these hearings using flood-related keywords in the hearing title; flood issues may have
been discussed during other congressional hearings during this period.
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table A-3.Flood-Focused GAO Reports from Summer 1993 through 2008
Report Date
by Theme
GAO Report Title
Flood Policy
Jan. 1, 2003
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Federal Emergency Management Agency,
GAO-03-113
Levees
None
identified.
Hazard Mitigation and Floodplain Management
Aug. 22, 2007
Natural Hazard Mitigation: Various Mitigation Efforts Exist, but Federal Efforts Do Not
Provide a Comprehensive Strategic Framework, GAO-07-403
March 19, 2007
Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of Development That Has Occurred and Financial
Assistance Provided by Federal Agencies, GAO-07-356
April 21, 2003
Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible
Cropland and Wetlands, GAO-03-418
Dec. 20, 2002
Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Border Control,
Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management, GAO-03-321 (also
listed under Flood Insurance and Mapping)
Aug. 4, 1999
Disaster Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Cost-Effectiveness Determinations for
Mitigation Grants, RCED-99-236
Flood-Related Disaster Aid and Response
Aug. 4, 1999
Disaster Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Cost-Effectiveness Determinations for
Mitigation Grants, RCED-99-236
(also listed under Hazard Mitigation and Floodplain Management)
Flood Insurance and Mapping
June 16, 2008
National Flood Insurance Program: Financial Challenges Underscore Need for Improved
Oversight of Mitigation Programs and Key Contracts, GAO-08-437
April 25, 2008
Natural Catastrophe Insurance: Analysis of a Proposed Combined Federal Flood and Wind
Insurance Program, GAO-08-504
Dec. 28, 2007
National Flood Insurance Program: Greater Transparency and Oversight of Wind and Flood
Damage Determinations Are Needed, GAO-08-28
Nov. 26, 2007
Natural Disasters: Public Policy Options for Changing the Federal Role in Natural
Catastrophe Insurance, GAO-08-7
Sept. 5, 2007
National Flood Insurance Program: FEMA's Management and Oversight of Payments for
Insurance Company Services Should Be Improved, GAO-07-1078
March 16, 2007
Climate Change: Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades Are
Potentially Significant, GAO-07-285
Dec. 15, 2006
National Flood Insurance Program: New Processes Aided Hurricane Katrina Claims Handling,
but FEMA's Oversight Should Be Improved, GAO-07-169
Oct. 18, 2005
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Improvements Needed to Enhance Oversight and
Management of the National Flood Insurance Program, GAO-06-119
March 31, 2004
Flood Map Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but Challenges Remain, GAO-
04-417
Dec. 20, 2002
Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Border Control,
Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management, GAO-03-321 (also
listed under Hazard Mitigation and Floodplain Management)
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
Report Date
by Theme
GAO Report Title
June 21, 2002
Flood Insurance: Extent of Noncompliance with Purchase Requirements Is Unknown, GAO-
02-396
Hurricane Katrina & Coastal Louisiana
Dec. 31, 2007
Army Corps of Engineers: Known Performance Issues with New Orleans Drainage Canal
Pumps Have Been Addressed, but Guidance on Future Contracts Is Needed, GAO-08-288
Dec. 14, 2007
Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future
Restoration and Protection, GAO-08-130
June 29, 2007
Preliminary Information on Rebuilding Efforts in the Gulf Coast, GAO-07-809R,
June 25, 2007
Hurricane Katrina: EPA's Current and Future Environmental Protection Efforts Could Be
Enhanced by Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on the Gulf Coast, GAO-07-651
May 23, 2007
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Procurement of Pumping Systems for the New Orleans
Drainage Canals, GAO-07-908R
Sept. 6, 2006
Hurricane Katrina: Strategic Planning Needed to Guide Future Enhancements Beyond Interim
Levee Repairs, GAO-06-934
Midwest Floods
Aug. 7, 1995
Midwest Flood: Information on the Performance, Effects, and Control of Levees, RCED-95-
125
Other Geographically Specific Flood Issues
April 16, 2007
IRS Emergency Planning: Headquarters Plans Supported Response to 2006 Flooding, but
Additional Guidance Could Improve All Hazard Preparedness, GAO-07-579
Dec. 12, 2003
Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for
Federal Assistance, GAO-04-142
Oct. 27, 2003
Corps Of Engineers: Improved Analysis of Costs and Benefits Needed for Sacramento Flood
Protection Project, GAO-04-30
Dec. 15, 1999
Food and Drug Administration Facility: Requirements for Building on a Floodplain Met, GGD-
00-17
Oct. 2, 1996
Bureau of Reclamation: An Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement on the
Operations of the Glen Canyon Dam, RCED-97-12
Other
June 8, 2007
Weather Forecasting: National Weather Service's Operations Prototype Needs More
Rigorous Planning, GAO-07-650
May 15, 2002
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Scientific Panel's Assessment of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
Guidance, GAO-02-574
July 9, 2001
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing
Major Management Challenges, GAO-01-832
April 2, 1996
Lands Managed by the Corps of Engineers, RCED-96-101R
Aug. 12, 1993
Water Resources: Factors That Lead to Successful Cost Sharing in Corps Projects, RCED-93-
114
Source: Information compiled by the Wayne A. Morrissey, Information Research Specialist, CRS Knowledge
Services Group.
Notes: CRS identified these reports using flood-related keywords; flood issues may have been discussed in
other GAO reports not listed in the table.
ȱȱȱ
řśȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
¡ȱǯ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
WRDA 1999 authorized the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan (UMRCP). The
UMRCP final report, which is dated June 2008, was transmitted to Congress on January 15, 2009.
The UMRCP was conducted as a preliminary study, similar to the level of detail in a Corps
reconnaissance study. The UMRCP final report and supporting documents are not at the level of
detail of a feasibility study, which typically informs decision-making on construction
authorization.
ȱȱȱǻȱȱǼȱȱ
The UMRCP final report states “additional authority to implement the Comprehensive Plan is not
being recommended nor requested at this time based upon the [national economic development]
evaluation of alternative plans.” Nonetheless, the UMRCP final report did identify a preferred
alternative from among the fourteen analyzed; the alternatives were evaluated on multiple
criteria, including environmental, social, and regional benefits. The report presented one “no
action” alternative and thirteen other alternatives that would provide 500-year urban protection.
These thirteen varied primarily on the level of protection and type of flood damage reduction
actions taken in agricultural areas; the alternatives ranged from increase in existing protection to
500-year protection for agricultural areas.
The preferred alternative, known as Plan H, would provide a 500-year level of flood protection
along the length of the mainstem of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers (but not other tributaries)
and ecosystem restoration benefits. The preferred plan would protect urban areas and towns with
500-year levees; for agricultural areas it would provide 500-year levees except where buyouts
would be more cost effective.43 The UMRCP final report indicates that up to 39 levee districts
would be bought out while 144 would have levees raised to 500-year protection. If buyouts of
districts are implemented, there would be opportunities to pursue ecosystem restoration actions.
The total initial cost for Plan H would be $4.42 billion ─ $3.97 billion for flood damage reduction
construction, and $460 million for ecosystem restoration; these costs do not include operation,
maintenance, and rehabilitation.
¡ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
The UMRCP final report indicates that none of the alternatives studied would meet the current
economic test for federal participation of the plan’s national benefits exceeding costs. Current
guidelines exclude regional benefits from these calculations because regional benefits are viewed
as transfers from one region to another, and do not produce national gains.
The thirteen UMRCP alternatives analyzed (excluding the no action alternative) had costs from
$3 billion to $9 billion and benefit-cost ratios ranging from 0.03 to 0.07 for the national economic
development benefits. For Corps projects, other than ecosystem restoration projects, a national
43 UMRCP final report.
ȱȱȱ
řŜȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
benefit-cost ratio greater than 1.0 generally is used in gauging the economic attractiveness of the
federal investment, consistent with the direction in the Flood Control Act of 1936.
Congress is faced with deciding how to proceed given differing recommendations. Consistent
with the UMRBC final report, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in his January
2009 transmittal letter to Congress stated that “recommendations for implementation of a specific
plan based on a reconnaissance level of detail is premature.”44 The Assistant Secretary instead
recommended intermediate steps ─ expanding the UMRCP to include Mississippi River
tributaries, conducting cost-shared studies of the reconstruction needs for the basin’s existing
flood damage infrastructure (where a federal interest is identified), and conducting a study of
flood protection for critical transportation infrastructure such as bridge approaches and railroads.
Earlier in August 2008, the Mississippi River Commission voted to support implementing the
preferred alternative.45 The Commission believed that the full benefits of implementing the
preferred alternative were not adequately measured with the current Corps project planning
guidelines.46
In 2008, the then-Governor of Illinois and the then-Governor of Missouri wrote letters of support
for Plan M. Plan M at a total cost of $6.88 billion would provide 500-year protection without the
option for agricultural district buyouts and without trying to minimize the impacts in the lower
basin (i.e., Plan M would increase the height of floodwaters below St. Louis). Plan M would
provide less ecosystem restoration opportunities than Plan H.
ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
Although the study authorization was labeled as comprehensive and inclusive of some navigation
maintenance and habitat management considerations, the authorized flood study did not fully
integrate navigation, flood, and ecosystem management as recommended in the 1994 Galloway
report. Instead, the Corps studied and obtained construction authorization for navigation and
ecosystem restoration actions (in Title VIII of WRDA 2007, P.L. 110-114) separately from the
flood plan.
Due to the large study area for the flood plan, the Corps chose not to perform a comprehensive
watershed analysis encompassing the entire 185,000 square miles, instead it limited the study to
the Mississippi and Illinois River floodplain encompassing 4,000 square miles, and the only
tributary that was included was the Illinois River. The Missouri River and smaller tributaries were
excluded.
For the comprehensive flood plan, the Corps identified preliminary alternatives and scoped out
the federal interest in the effort; the level of detail of the plan is compared to a Corps
reconnaissance study. Therefore, the UMRCP final report and supporting documentation are not
at the level of detail typically used to inform congressional decision-making regarding
construction authorization.
44 Ibid.
45 The Mississippi River Commission press release is available at http://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/offices/pa/releases/
2008/RelMRC0801.pdf.
46 Letter to Hon. James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works, from Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) John Paul Woodley, Jr., transmitting the UMRPC final report, Jan. 15, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
řŝȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
The analyses used to support the UMRCP (e.g., counting as benefits the increased development
opportunities behind levees47), the scoping of the study and the selection of alternatives studied,
and whether nonstructural alternatives and enhanced floodplains were given equal consideration
are some of the items that may be scrutinized as the final report is discussed. For example, the
hydrology and hydraulics analysis supporting the UMRCP final report did not account for the
effects on precipitation, runoff, and river crests from future changes in land use, population, and
climate.48 Moreover, the scope of the UMRCP final report leaves out much of the areas most
severely affected in 2008.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Whether Plan H, particularly the raising of most agricultural levees to a significantly higher level
of protection than currently available, contrasts with the vision of the future floodplain described
in the Galloway report likely will be debated. The Galloway report stated:
Urban centers whose existence depends on a river for commerce or whose locational
advantage is tied historically to a floodplain would be protected from the ravages of
devastating floods by means of levees, floodwalls, upstream reservoirs, or floodwater storage
in managed upland and floodplain natural areas. Sections of communities with frequently
flooded businesses or homes would become river-focused parks and recreation areas as
former occupants relocated to safer areas on higher ground. In areas outside of these highly
protected communities, where land elevation provided natural protection from floods, state
and local officials would control new construction by requiring it to be at elevation well out
of harm’s way. Those who were at risk in low-lying areas would be relocated, over time, to
other areas. … Outside of the urban areas, industry would protect its own facilities against
major floods. Critical infrastructure, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, power
plants, and major highways and bridges would be either, elevated out of the flood’s reach or
protected against its ravages. Much of the infrastructure, as well as the homes, businesses,
and agricultural activities located behind lower levees, would be insured against flooding
through participation in commercial or federally supported insurance programs.49
The potential role of higher mainstem levees in increasing risk because of their encouragement of
floodplain development and reduction in flood storage is an active part of the debate over the
future of the basin’s floodplains. The experience of extreme floodwaters along Mississippi River
tributaries in the 2008 flood and differing visions for the future of the upper Mississippi River
basin floodplains may be central to the debate about how to proceed with reducing flood risk in
the Midwest and the UMRCP.
47 The Tennessee Valley Authority prepared for the Corps, An Economic Evaluation of Proposed Flood Protection
Plans on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway (Oct. 2004), available at:
[http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/UMRCP/Reports.cfm]. The report states “As flood risks are reduced in floodplains,
the likelihood of economic activity may increase … Portions of land previously zoned to prohibit development could
become usable.” (p. 2)
48 Appendix B of the May 2006 draft of the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan May 2006, available at:
[http://www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/UMRCP/Reports.cfm]. (It is unclear whether updated appendices accompany the
June 2008 UMRPC final report.) UMRCP final report stated “for the purposes of this study, it is assumed that whatever
climate changes occur within the 50-year planning timeframe will have little effect on the types of vegetation, cropping
patterns or flood frequencies as currently determined.” (p. 51)
49 1994 Galloway report, pp. 67-68.
ȱȱȱ
řŞȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱDZȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
According to the economic analysis used for the development of the UMRCP final report, the
regional economic benefit of an alternative similar to Plan H would be $27.1 billion. The majority
of regional benefits (79%) cluster in Illinois, with Iowa and Missouri receiving most of the
remaining benefits. Therefore, regional stakeholders, particularly in Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri,
may view plans, like Plan H and Plan M, as attractive investments. The majority of those regional
economic benefits ($20.5 billion) are due to the increase in economic development behind the
higher levees. Plan H potentially would open to development up to 215,775 acres. This potential
for expanded economic development behind levees raises concerns regarding the residual risk
behind levees and the evaluation of that risk in selecting Plan H as the preferred alternative. That
is, it remains unclear the extent to which the flood risk reduction benefits of Plan H may be offset
by the residual risk of more development behind levees. The methodology used in developing the
study appears to be more similar to the traditional Corps flood damage reduction study, than a
flood risk reduction study.
As well as noting that Plan H has not been thoroughly vetted with the public and stakeholders, the
UMRCP final report stated:
There is likely to be limited Federal interest, based upon current guidance, in plan
implementation by Federal agencies.… Regional or national oversight (e.g., the Mississippi
River Commission) would be required to ensure the plan functions as a system over the
implementation and operation phases of the project and project priorities are established to
reflect the changing systemic needs.… The States of Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri need to
agree on the plan and plan implementation to insure the plan is acceptable. The Corps could
provide facilitation and technical support to this effort.50
In effect, the UMRBC final report is identifying that the states could choose to further develop
then implement one of the alternatives studied without significant federal leadership or funding.
ȱȱ ȱ
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
50 UMRCP final report, p. ES-13.
ȱȱȱ
řşȱ