University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation

Home , Hurricane Charley, Hurricane Charlie (1951), Hurricane Gilbert, Hurricane King

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO MANAGE FLOODING: CASE STUDY ON THE HOOVER DIKE

MATTHEW KALAP

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2019

To future generations

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to make sure I thank all my professors, teachers, and mentors for helping me to achieve my goals and realize this work. I could not have written this thesis without the distinguished members of this thesis committee, I thank you Dr. Silver and Dr. Steiner for chairing and co-chairing and I thank you Dr.Noll for being a committee member. The knowledge and expertise you have shared with me during my education at the University of Florida is something I will always carry with me. I thank my mom and entire extended family for supporting me and the goals I have set for myself. I would not have been able to write this without you all. Finally, I thank you the reader.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 9

ABSTRACT ...... 10

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 11

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 13

Flooding ...... 13 Hurricanes ...... 18 Adaptation ...... 20

3 LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND THE HOOVER DIKE ...... 24

The Lake ...... 25 The Plan ...... 28 1926 and 1928 Hurricanes ...... 29 The Second Plan ...... 34 More Hurricanes, More Plans ...... 35 Current Plans ...... 37

4 METHODOLOGY ...... 39

Study Area ...... 40 Theoretical Framework ...... 41

5 ANALYSIS...... 43

Hurricane King 1950 ...... 44 Hurricane Charley 2004 ...... 46 Hurricane Frances 2004 ...... 48 Hurricane Jeanne 2004 ...... 50 Hurricane Wilma 2005 ...... 52

6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 58

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 60

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

5-1 Hurricane King Data ...... 45

5-2 Hurricane Charley Data ...... 47

5-3 Hurricane Frances Data...... 49

5-4 Hurricane Jeanne Data ...... 51

5-5 Hurricane Wilma Data ...... 53

6-1 All Hurricane Data ...... 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Image of the Los Angeles River ...... 16

2-2 Graphic depicting a storm surge created by a hurricane as it approaches land ...... 18

2-3 Hurricane impacts ...... 20

2-4 Graphic depicting the cyclical relationship between planning and adaptive capacity ...... 22

3-1 Map of Florida showing Lake Okeechobee in red letters ...... 25

3-2 Map of Lake Okeechobee showing outflow through the canal systems ...... 26

3-3 Shows the track of the 1926 Hurricane ...... 30

3-4 Shown in green is the 1928 Hurricane, shown in red is the 1926 Hurricane ...... 32

3-5 Outlined in blue are the areas flooded by the 1928 Hurricane ...... 33

3-6 Erosion on lakeside of the Hoover Dike after the 1947 Hurricane ...... 36

3-7 This image shows the existing conditions within the Hoover Dike ...... 37

3-8 This image shows the proposed repair to the Hoover Dike ...... 38

4-1 This figure shows the case study study area divided into six different basins ...... 41

4-2 Theoretical framework ...... 42

5-1 89 storms that have passed within 65 miles of Lake Okeechobee ...... 43

5-2 This map shows the 9 storms selected from the 89 storms ...... 44

5-3 Hurricane King’s track across Florida ...... 45

5-4 Hurricane Charley wind swath map ...... 47

5-5 Wind swath map for Hurricane Frances ...... 49

5-6 Wind swath map for Hurricane Jeanne ...... 51

5-7 Hurricane Wilma wind swath map ...... 53

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

HHD Herbert Hoover Dike

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District.

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban and Regional Planning

ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO MANAGE FLOODING:

CASE STUDY ON THE HOOVER DIKE

Matthew Kalap

December 2019

Chair: Christopher Silver Cochair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning

Floods can be a catastrophic event. One specific adaptation strategy to manage flooding in South Florida is the Herbert Hoover Dike (Hoover Dike). The aim of this thesis is to investigate and determine whether the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation to manage flooding in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. The literature reviewed initially suggests that the

Hoover Dike has prevented floods from reoccurring in the region and thus, successful. In the analysis however, hurricanes that have affected the Lake Okeechobee watershed have been analyzed and compared to a previous catastrophic flood that occurred in 1928 and proves that the current situation is much more complex.This thesis adds to the existing information concerning the Hoover Dike’s history, implementation and current rehabilitation in addition to its status as a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Floods can oftentimes be a catastrophic problem for people and cities. Personal consequences like loss of life and property, and other risks associated with living in areas vulnerable to catastrophic flooding can be reduced through various interventions and adaptation strategies. The problem of how best to adapt to flooding is one that people living in vulnerable areas must face. One such adaptation strategy, The Hoover Dike was initially built in response to catastrophic floods in 1926 and 1928 and has since undergone a series of improvements and rebuilding.

Therefore, the main objective of this study is to determine whether the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to catastrophic flooding within the Lake Okeechobee

Watershed. Additionally, this study will establish a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of adaptation strategies to flooding.

Has the Hoover Dike been a successful adaptation strategy to catastrophic flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed?

To answer this question this research will utilize a retrospective case study analysis.

Through this approach we can examine the impacts of extreme weather events. Furthermore, the following sub questions have been developed, each as a component to answer the main question.

1. What are the current threats from flooding?

2. How was the adaptation strategy implemented?

3. What if any major failures have occurred?

4. What if any major successes have occurred?

5. How many catastrophic floods have occurred since implementation of the adaptation strategy?

The answers to these questions should reveal the purpose of the specific adaptation strategy and whether or not it has been successful at providing a solution for the specific type of flooding that is occurring. This case study looks at the Hoover Dike as an adaptation strategy to manage flooding from, specifically, hurricane induced storm surge and fluctuating lake levels.

Before this analysis can begin it is important to understand the background and major themes as comprehensively as possible. Therefore, Chapter 2 will provide a literature review on flooding, adaptation and hurricanes. Then Chapter 3 will focus on the historical development of

Lake Okeechobee and the Hoover Dike, and, the legislative actions associated with the dike’s implementation. Chapter 4 introduces the study area, conceptual framework and research design before we begin the analysis in Chapter 5 which will compare the flooding from the 1928

Hurricane with similar hurricanes specifically, King 1950, Charley 2004, Frances 2004, Jeanne

2004, and Wilma 2005. Lastly, Chapter 6 summarizes the results and draws some conclusions on whether the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Flooding

In Chapter 7 of Living with Earth: An Introduction to Environmental Geology by Travis

Hudson the author illustrates what a watershed is, how scientists describe and measure rivers, how rivers erode, carry and deposit sediment, the causes of floods, how floods are measured and forecasted and how people try to mitigate flooding. These seven ideas are very important in understanding floods that occur within a watershed and what can/should be done about flooding.

As previously mentioned floods can be catastrophic, the author of Living with Earth: An

Introduction to Environmental Geology writes,

Measured by lives lost and property damaged, floods were the leading natural disasters in the United States during the 20th century. They can happen in any part of the country, at any time of the year. Floods are part of the natural and necessary behavior of rivers, and people encounter these hazards because they live on flood-prone lands. Periodic floods are a price we pay for the benefits of living near rivers. (Hudson, 2011, pp.189)

Hudson then illustrates that a watershed (idea one) is an area where runoff water flows toward lower areas connecting into larger and larger channels that form streams, tributaries and rivers which eventually lead into a lake or ocean. This interconnected system of streams is similar to veins and arteries that run through our bodies. These water bodies all share a flowing characteristic. This water flow is called discharge and is measured (idea two) by multiplying the velocity of the water (in meters per second) by the rivers cross section area. The amount of water a river or stream discharges depend on two main factors; the watershed area and level of precipitation. Rivers and streams erode (idea three), they either erode down creating a deeper channel at a lower level or it can erode laterally creating a wider channel. Rivers also carry and deposit sediment (idea four) this material carried by rivers is typically referred to as its load. This load can include material of various sizes, gravel, sand, silt, and mud. Rivers that have greater

velocity can transport larger rocks. The maximum load that can be carried by a stream or river is referred to as its capacity. Similarly, rivers that have greater velocity have greater capacity. In areas where the velocity of discharge decreases sediment deposition is more likely to occur. In other words, rivers and stream pick up material as its velocity increases and in areas where the water slows down, the sediment settles. Flooding from a river typically occurs within a defined area surrounding the river. This area is typically referred to as a floodplain. These areas are relatively level and form when rivers flood, erode and deposit sediment into a relatively level plain. It is important to recognize the floodplain when examining the causes of a flood (idea five). Hudson defines flooding as an event that occurs “when the discharge of a river is so great that the water rises and overtops the river’s natural or artificial banks.” (Page 200. Hudson, 2016) in most cases the surplus discharge that causes floods comes from precipitation. Hydrographs are plots that show discharge at different intervals of time. These hydrographs are kept and monitored in real time using river gauges that record the water level. This water level is referred to as the river’s stage. When the level is at bank-full stage that means the river is at capacity and any increase will overflow the bank causing a flood. The river stages are closely monitored by water management districts who keep records and notify the public when a flood is likely to occur. Hydrographs allow us to measure and forecast when a flood might reoccur (idea six). This is referred to as a flood recurrence interval in which; the number of times a flood level is reached historically divided by the number of years in the record. A 100-year flood is an estimation of the size of a flood having a recurrence interval of one-hundred years this 100-year flood level is used by FEMA and other state and federal agencies to create a 100-year flood area map that highlights the most vulnerable areas.

There two different approaches to mitigate flooding (idea seven) described in Living with

Earth: An Introduction to Environmental Geology. The structural approach and the nonstructural approach. The structural approach tries to decrease discharge, increase a channels cross-sectional area or increase velocity. This can be achieved through channel alteration, flood control dams, and detention ponds. Channel alterations typically increase the size of the cross section or increase velocity. The Los Angeles River has appeared in many films and is a notable example exhibiting channel alteration. Flood control dams capture and store floodwaters into a reservoir.

These reservoirs can be used for a myriad of purposes including irrigation, drinking water, hydroelectric generators, recreational lakes, and flood control. There are several notable examples showcasing flood control dams in the United States such as the Hoover Dam and fourteen different dams built in the Columbia River and more than sixty within the Columbia

River Watershed. Detention ponds are reservoirs constructed to collect surface runoff before it enters streams and rivers. This decreases the rate at which water enters a river. The water collected is released slowly into the river or seeps into the ground. The non-structural approach encourages people to make changes in the way they occupy and use the flood plain. the United

States National Flood Insurance Program, relocation and voluntary buyouts, sustainable floodplain management and land-use are all examples of the non-structural approach.

There are many ways to define what a flood is. The United States Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA, 2018) defines a flood or flooding as “a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: The overflow of inland or tidal waters, The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface water from any source, and mudflows” (page 1. FEMA, 2018). FEMA defines several generalized flood types they are, Riverine Flooding, Urban Drainage, Ground Failures, Fluctuating Lake Levels, Coastal

Flooding and Erosion. In addition, each of these generalized flood types described in further detail below, contains subtypes that are more specified.

Surface runoff typically occurs when rainfall meets an impervious surface like a paved road or parking lot. If infiltration into the aquifer and drainage is inadequate surface runoff can create localized flooding. When this surface runoff collects into streams and rivers it can cause those bodies to overflow. This type of flooding is a type of riverine flooding often referred to as overbank flooding. Some other subtypes within riverine flooding include flash floods, alluvial fans, ice jam flooding, moveable bed streams, and, dam and levee failure. Surface runoff is a major factor in flooding and it is important to note that pervious surfaces can reduce surface runoff.

Urban drainage presents a challenge specifically to stormwater management. This type of flooding is the result of a basic philosophy of eliminating excess surface runoff as quickly as possible. The cumulative effects of this development philosophy have been a primary cause of increased frequency of downstream flooding. One notable example of this is the Los Angeles

River which has been almost completely paved with concrete to increase the elimination of surface runoff (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1. Image of the Los Angeles River. (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-study-los- angelesindependence-from-imported-water)

Ground failures include flooding that have resulted from mudflows, liquefaction and subsidence. Mudflows occur when excess surface runoff causes a slope failure especially in steep terrain. This is particularly dangerous as muddy water, large rocks and boulders are carried downhill with great inertia. Subsidence usually occurs when the ground surface is lowered from either natural processes like movement in the Earth’s surface or settling of soils. Anthropogenic causes of subsidence include mining, inadequate construction, and withdrawal of water or other resources from naturally occurring deposits. Liquefaction is typically caused when seismic shocks from an earthquake pass through loose and wet soils. These shockwaves cause relatively stable soils to change into a liquid-like state that can swallow cars and even buildings.

Fluctuating lake level flooding is particularly relevant to the research question presented in this work. Annual snowmelt and more importantly, for this research, periods of heavy rainfall can cause lake levels to rise. Closed basin lakes, like Lake Okeechobee in its current state, are particularly vulnerable to a fluctuating water level since outlets are inadequate to drain said body. Flooding caused by a fluctuating lake level differs from riverine flooding. Riverine flooding is typically short-term lasting from between a few hours to a few weeks. Flooding from fluctuating lake levels can persist for years.

Coastal flooding and erosion typically result from storm surges and waves. Storm surge occurs when the water level becomes elevated due to low pressure, and or, winds pushing a large surface area of water. Storm surges are especially destructive during tropical cyclones (Figure 2-

2). (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)

Figure 2-2. Graphic depicting a storm surge created by a hurricane as it approaches land. (Source:NOAA)

Hurricanes

A hurricane refers to large low pressure storm systems that swirl together to form a cyclone. These cyclones can grow range from 30 miles wide to more than 300 miles wide.

Hurricane season refers to the time of year in which these cyclones are most likely to form, it starts on June first and ends on November thirtieth.

A tropical cyclone becomes a hurricane when its maximum sustained winds reach seventy-four miles per hour. Tropical cyclones are an atmospheric low-pressure agglomeration of thunderstorms with a center of rotation. Typhoons are a type of tropical cyclone that are similar to hurricanes except, typhoons form in the pacific and usually make landfall in the Far-

East. Hurricanes typically form in the Atlantic and make landfall in North America and or

Caribbean. Hurricanes are categorized on a scale from one to five based on maximum sustained winds.

Category one hurricanes are the least intense however, with winds of seventy-four to ninety-five miles per hour. It produces very dangerous winds that can cause some damage.

Expect roof, shingle, vinyl siding and gutter damage. Damage to powerlines can result in loss of

electricity for days, newly planted trees may become uprooted and large branches will likely snap. (NOAA National Hurricane Center, 2018)

Category two hurricanes have winds of ninety-six to one-hundred-ten miles per hour.

These winds are extremely dangerous that will likely cause extensive damage. Expect major roof and siding damage. Near total power loss or outages for several days to weeks is expected. Fallen branches and trees will block major roads. (NOAA National Hurricane Center, 2018)

Category three hurricanes have winds of one-hundred-eleven to one-hundred-twenty-nine miles per hour and is considered a major hurricane. These winds will cause devastating damage.

Well-built framed houses can expect major roof damage like removal of decking and siding damage. Electricity and water infrastructure will be unavailable for several days to weeks and major roads will be blocked by debris. (NOAA National Hurricane Center, 2018)

Category four hurricanes have winds of one-hundred-thirty to one-hundred-fifty-six miles per hour and is considered a major hurricane. Expect catastrophic damage. Well-built frame homes will likely have structural damage, portions of the roof blown off and or walls blown out and will not be suitable for habitation. Fallen trees and electricity poles can isolate entire towns.

Electricity and other critical infrastructure will be unavailable for weeks to months. (NOAA

National Hurricane Center, 2018)

Category five hurricanes are the most intense hurricanes. These catastrophic cyclones have maximum sustained winds greater than one-hundred-fifty-seven miles per hour. Most framed houses will be destroyed, fallen trees, electricity poles and other debris will block roadways and isolate entire cities. Most of the area affected will be uninhabitable for weeks or months. (NOAA National Hurricane Center, 2018)

The scale on which these destructive storms are ranked was developed in the early 1970’s by meteorologist Robert Simpson who adapted it from a scale developed by Herbert Saffir in

1969. (Little, 2017) This is an important development to pre-disaster planning because, the one to five scale allows the general public, leaders and experts to better understand the strength of an approaching storm and to make appropriate preparations for it.

Storm surge is a type of flooding that can be a particularly destructive component of hurricanes. Storm surge is relevant to this study because, the storm surge produced when hurricanes pass over Lake Okeechobee tests the infrastructure that acts as an adaptation strategy to manage flooding (Figure 2-3).

Figure 2-3. Hurricane impacts (Source: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_gr pp_sfwmd_wrac/portlet_wrac_archive_reportsdocs/tab772049/hhd_public_presentati on_050106.pdf)

Adaptation

In Adaptation to Climate Change through Water Resource Management by Dominic

Stucker and Elena Lopez Gunn an analysis of evidence from twenty-six countries identifies

various barriers and bridges toward adaptation at the local level. These various case studies are separated into for groups or parts. The first part is titled “Responding to Extremes” and includes case studies on drought and flood in Australia, Mexico, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Part two is titled “Adapting to livelihoods” and it includes case studies on how people change their way of life in the context of climate change in The Limpopo Basin, Benin,

Spain, and the Argentinian Pampas. Part three is titled “Ensuring Equity” and focuses on equity issues in the context of adapting to climate change and water rights in Canada, Ghana and Peru,

Nigeria and Panama, the Jordan River Basin, and Pakistan. Part four is titled “Planning for

Adaptation” it includes case studies on planning in the context of adapting to water issues in

South Florida, Spain, the Netherlands, and Jordan.

Adaptation refers to a behavior where an organism changes its actions to increase chances of survival. More specifically, adjustments in ecological, social or economic systems are made in response to some sort of stimuli, like building a dike in response to a catastrophic flood.

Additionally, adaptation refers to changes in processes, practices, or structures to moderate or offset potential damages or take advantage of opportunities associated with implementing a given adaptation (Bolson & Treuer, 2015).

Adaptive capacity refers to the ability to affectively utilize human capital, networks and scientific information, especially in response to a disaster. The planning process and adaptive capacity have a cyclical relationship (Bolson & Treuer, 2015). The aforementioned drivers of adaptive capacity are influenced by the planning process and, the planning process is strengthened by effective utilization of the aforementioned drivers (Figure 2-4)

Figure 2-4. Graphic depicting the cyclical relationship between planning and adaptive capacity (Source: Bolson and Treuer, 2015)

In the context of flooding, adaptation strategies have historically been structural, more recently the nonstructural approaches have been developed and broadly implemented. In Living with Earth: An Introduction to Environmental Geology (pages 188-221), the pros and cons of flood-control engineering are discussed in the context of the Mississippi River. With levees, dams, dikes and floodwalls in place the overall river level can increase to a level that is much higher than would be possible without human intervention. This engineering technique can leave communities in a constant struggle that would require ever higher dikes impounding greater amounts of water that would be catastrophic if a breach occurred. Instead the author suggest that communities can and should adopt policies that discourage development in low-lying areas, mandate that people in these areas have adequate insurance, or use these lands as public recreation areas or other uses that do not put people in harms way. Additional cons of to the structural approach are the high costs associated with building and maintaining public infrastructure (time and money), levees, dikes, dams and floodwalls can impound water, prolonging the time it takes for water to recede and raise the flood stage to a level that is catastrophic, channelization increases discharge putting people downstream at greater risk,

habitat change and species die-off. Furthermore, Living with Earth: An Introduction to

Environmental Geology notes that implementing flood control infrastructure can be a “double edged sword”- people can occupy and use lands in the floodplain as a result of flood control structures. However, the puts more people and property at risk to flooding. (page 217, Hudson,

2016)

CHAPTER 3 LAKE OKEECHOBEE AND THE HOOVER DIKE

It is important to understand what the lake was like before the implementation of the adaptation strategy, how Lake Okeechobee changed as a result of an overall strategy to drain wetlands and what Lake Okeechobee is like today before we begin to analyze and compare

(retrospectively) the post-adaptation flooding in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. Flooding in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed often occurs as a result of storm surge, precipitation and hightides. This is relevant to the case study because, any adaptation strategy to manage flooding must respond specifically to the type of flooding that occurs within the defined study area. In short, flooding can be broadly defined as too much water where there should not be too much water. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency predicts “Incidents of extreme weather, increased temperatures and flooding will likely impact human health, infrastructure and agriculture.” (page 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016)

The Herbert Hoover Dike’s story as an adaptation strategy to manage flooding began with the 1926 and 1928 Hurricanes. As a result of these two catastrophic storms, the United

States Congress and the State of Florida was pressured by local interests into doing something about the loss of life and property around Lake Okeechobee. After a series of failed attempts to drain the wetlands of South Florida the Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with building and rebuilding the Hoover Dike in response to the request that something be done to prevent the catastrophic floods from reoccurring. The Hoover Dike was an immense engineering achievement and, at the time of completion, represented cutting edge technology and innovation with respect to water management and flood adaptation. Today, this aging infrastructure still presents many challenges.

The Lake

Lake Okeechobee is located in the sub-tropical region of Southern Florida. It is the second largest body of fresh water located entirely within the United States of America (Figure

3-1). At approximately 730 square miles in surface area it is second only to Iliamna Lake in

Alaska which is approximately 1036 square miles. While Lake Okeechobee is large in surface area, she is quite thin. The average depth of this water body ranges from eight to ten feet. In its natural state, water flowed in from the Kissimmee River, Fisheating Creek, and Taylor Creek.

Since the lake had no natural outflows, the water would overflow into the Everglades providing fresh water to the ecosystems south of the lake.

Figure 3-1. Map of Florida showing Lake Okeechobee in red letters (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica)

Today, the water in the lake is controlled through a system of dikes, canals and other waterworks. This complex system is operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers,

and the South Florida Water Management District, an agency directed by the state of Florida

(Figure 3-2).

Figure 3-2. Map of Lake Okeechobee showing outflow through the canal systems. (Source: SFWMD) https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/FLDEP/bulletins/157fe77)

When the first Europeans arrived during the sixteenth century there were Native

Americans living around Lake Okeechobee. They each gave the lake several different names.

Espirito Santo Laguna, Lake Mayaca, Lake Macaco, and Lake Sarrope just to name a few of the names that Europeans assigned to this large body of water (Historical Society of Palm Beach

County, 2009). Little is known about the lake before Anglo-Europeans arrived due to the absence of written history, accurate record keeping, assimilation, the slave trade, and diseases introduced by Europeans, among other reasons. However, State Historians have concluded the following,

Arguably the most complex precontact culture in South Florida existed inland, in the Lake Okeechobee basin. These people not only had a sophisticated political and social organization, but they also grew corn. Striking similarities between their form of maize horticulture and that originating in the savannas of northern South America. This has led some scholars to suggest that ancient people of South

American migrated north to South Florida through the Antilles islands of the Caribbean. (Florida Department of State, 2018, pp.1)

Between the time of first contact with Europeans and the Seminole Wars, the region around Lake Okeechobee was mostly uninhabited. Only the most resourceful and resilient individuals were able to make a home in the hot, wet, and pestilent swamps. Natives and slaves who sought freedom from oppression and violence found safety here during this time period. In

1855 during the Third Seminole War, United States Naval Officer Alexander Webb noted the following about Lake Okeechobee,

1200 miles in surface area, with an average depth at low water of about 12 feet. The surrounding country is but little above its surface, and is mostly submerged during the wet season, when the water in the lake rises, sometimes, three feet above the ordinary level. From Cypress Point around toward the south and southwest, the shore is much less clearly defined. The Everglades form the general boundary, but no distinct line marks the division between this region and the surface of the Lake; the southern portion of the latter being much grown up with grass. (Guest, 2001, pp.650)

Other notable explorers, Buckingham Smith specifically, were awestruck by the natural beauty of Lake Okeechobee and the wetlands surrounding it. However, most of these early explorers and pioneers relayed to the rest of the country that, The Everglades were worthless in its natural state as its value (at the time) was determined by its potential for development, “if it could only be drained” (page 645. Guest, 2001). These descriptions and others like it combined with the United States demand for economic growth, Manifest Destiny, and other political factors prompted congress to pass the Swamp and Overflowed Lands Act of 1850 which conveyed wetlands to the states. The thought was; the states could sell these wetlands conveyed from the federal government to pay for the projects necessary to drain said wetlands for use. The most notable and historic of these transactions were four million acres sold to a group of companies controlled by Hamilton Disston.

The Plan

Hamilton Disston began implementing a plan to drain the everglades and other wetlands around Lake Okeechobee in 1881. He provided funding and management for the blasting that changed the Caloosahatchee River into a drainage ditch for the lake, canals in the everglades and dredging the Kissimmee River. Despite Hamilton Disston’s efforts to drain South Florida’s wetlands, the massive volume of water proved to be too much for the works completed.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that Disston’s projects actually made flooding worse once the rainy season arrived and filled Lake Okeechobee. It was believed that the only way to effectively control the water and flooding caused by Disston’s new waterworks was to construct a system of dikes around the lake and canals.

In 1905, the Florida Legislature created the Everglades Drainage District under direction from Governor Broward. The significance of this action was to set a legislative precedent spawning the creation of drainage boards with “extraordinarily sweeping powers” (page 660.

Guest, 2001). This district, overseen by the designated Board of Drainage Commissioners (the governor and cabinet) had the authority to establish a system of canals and other waterworks with the purpose of reclaiming wetlands. Additionally, this board also had the authority to create special taxing districts called drainage districts.

With the finances now in order and Governor Broward in charge of the Everglades

Drainage District, the State of Florida began constructing a system of waterworks to drain and control the Everglades. By 1917, dredging work was completed in four major waterways. The

North New River Canal, Miami Canal, Hillsboro Canal, and Palm Beach Canal. However, these projects failed. Heavy rains quickly filled the canals during the wet season, and during droughts the canals drained too much fresh water and would allow saltwater to flow upstream towards

Lake Okeechobee. The disastrous effects of these new waterworks were chronicled by naturalist

John Kunkle Small who took a boat cruise up the New River during the drought of 1917. He wrote,

The natural features of that region are duplicated nowhere else, and unfortunately they are fast being destroyed. After about two years of the progress of civilization, only remnants of the once unique pond apple hammocks and other plant associations are left. Moreover, we found many parts of the country afire. Over a large area, fire had eaten into the "peat," and numerous subterranean fires were revealed by the smoke which came up through craters where the substratum had burned away and the superimposed "peat" and ashes had caved in. (Guest, 2001, pp 661)

As a result of these failed attempts to drain The Everglades, the Everglades Drainage

District (with Governor Broward at the head of its board) decided a levee system could and should be built to manage the water flowing out of Lake Okeechobee. Construction on this first levee or dike began in 1921. This first primitive dike was approximately forty feet wide and forty-seven miles long, built on what was approximated to be the south rim of the lake from approximately, Pahokee to More Haven. Construction materials included muck, sand, clay, loose rocks and shells; materials that were dredged and scraped from surrounding lands and nearby canals, and, not very stable. This dike allowed water levels in the lake to reach twenty-one feet above sea level and its poor construction, design and planning led to catastrophic breaches.

1926 and 1928 Hurricanes

This first water control structure that was built on the south shore of Lake Okeechobee experienced several breaches before the construction of the Hoover Dike was proposed. There were two extreme weather events and subsequent breaches which stand out. The first happened in 1926 when a major hurricane passed dangerously close to the lake (Figure 3-3). Then, just two years later, another tropical cyclone passed directly over the lake in September 1928. This double punch to the region had profound impacts that still affect its residents today.

Figure 3-3. Shows the track of the 1926 Hurricane (Source: page 10. Reese, 1926)

On September twenty-fifth, 1926 approximately three-hundred people drowned when a wall of water came crashing through the small agricultural settlement of Moore Haven. The 1926

Hurricane or “The Great Hurricane” as it came to be known passed over Miami on September eighteenth in the morning, then tracked dangerously close to Lake Okeechobee and eventually moved out into the Gulf of Mexico by the morning of September nineteenth before dissipating over Texas. The Storm made landfall again when it hit Pensacola but was not as catastrophic there (Figure Seven). Most of the damage caused by this storm occurred in Miami, where the storm destroyed approximately $165 million (in 1926 dollars) worth of property and killed one- hundred-fifteen people, and, Moore Haven where it killed many more. (Guest, 2001)

The exact number of people who lost their lives as a result of the breach caused by the hurricane is uncertain. Joe Hugh Reese, who lived in Miami during the storm wrote a personal account of the storm during its aftermath,

So far as reports show the greatest loss of life occurred in Moore Haven, but there was no loss of life north or east of the lake. Many persons scattered through a broad area south of the lake lived in the veriest shacks that could not have withstood a storm of such violence, and it is easy to imagine that scores might have been killed without any record being made of their deaths. . . I have no doubt that the future will reveal that many died thus, and it is possible that there were others, self-effacing beings, intent only upon making a living in some remote place, without friends or relatives, who also were victims of the storm. (Reese, 1926, pp.15)

In addition to people who may have lived remotely, hundreds of fishermen who farmed the waters of Lake Okeechobee and many others who harvested from it in small boats had no warning of the approaching storm. Even those who lived within earshot of the firehouse had little warning of the approaching storm. Joe Hugh Reese wrote,

At two o’clock of the morning of the 18th the fire whistle was sounded. There was a somewhat general response from the residents, and they began reinforcing the dike with sandbags, and raised it about two feet. Probably this was the worst thing that they could have done, because it had the effect of impounding the water, giving it increased force and volume when eventually the dike broke. (Reese, 1926, pp.17)

Many people lost their lives as a result of the breach. One of the most notable accounts was of the deaths of H.H. Howell’s (City Marshall of Moore Haven) two of four children. Joe Hugh

Reese relayed the Marshall’s story,

I was at work. . . A six-foot wall of water came over and I tried to reach my little home not far from the edge of the levee. My wife had prepared for just such an emergency. She had tied an inflated inner tube about each of our four children and two about herself. Using a pair of old silk stockings, she bound them all to her. When the wave came they floated out the front door. For an hour and a half they drifted west before the wind. Then the wind and current changed and they were carried down the bank of the canal. They floated another hour and then were swept through and over a barbed wire fence. The tube that supported my six-year- old boy, George, was punctured and he drowned, but my wife would not then cut him loose. After another hour the baby, little three-year-old Eleanor, died of strangulation. For two hours more my wife swam with the four children, two of them dead. It’s mighty hard to lose almost half of your little family, but I’m mighty proud of that wife of mine. (Reese, 1926, pp.49)

After the 1926 hurricane, a letter was sent to President Coolidge asking him to place control of the lake level under the War Department. The Secretary of War then directed the supervising engineer in the area, Lieut. Col. Mark L. Brooke to make a survey of the

Caloosahatchee River in order to implement further flood control measures. The Citizen’s Relief

Committee and an Emergency Relief Fund were put in place to help rebuild.

Little did these people know, it could and did get worse when in 1928, another major hurricane passed directly over Lake Okeechobee killing 2,500 people who lived near the lake.

This storm was much more destructive to the people living near Lake Okeechobee compared to the 1926 Hurricane. This time the storm passed directly over the lake (Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4. Shown in green is the 1928 Hurricane, shown in red is the 1926 Hurricane (Source: SFWMD)

Two years after the catastrophic 1926 hurricane, on September sixteenth, 1928, West

Palm Beach was struck by a direct hit from a major hurricane. Around 9:30 p.m. the same night, the center of the hurricane moved directly over Lake Okeechobee from the southeast to the north.

A direct hit which breached the dike again. After decimating the region around Lake

Okeechobee, the storm weakened as it moved northward into Georgia, South Carolina and

eventually dissipating over Ontario, Canada. The 1928 Hurricane was more deadly than the 1926

Hurricane primarily due to the eye of the storm passing directly over the lake. This track directly over the lake enabled a massive storm surge to hit both the north and south shores of lake

Okeechobee (Figure 3-5).

Figure 3-5. Outlined in blue are the areas flooded by the 1928 Hurricane (Source: https://www.weather.gov/mfl/okeechobee)

Lawrence Elmer Will wrote a detailed account of the storm and resulting damage shortly after it struck his home in Belle Glade. He called the day after the storm “Black Monday” and wrote,

Dark, ragged clouds drooped low. Water knee deep covered all the land. Projecting dismally above the flood were fragments of roofs and floors, bed posts and trunks, uprooted custard apple trees, wrecked automobiles. From limbs and snags high above the ground hung festoons of hyacinths and rags that had been clothing. The eye searched in vain for familiar buildings. Instead it was confused by strange houses, leaning crazily, where none had been before. . . All factions were in agreement that some means must be adopted to prevent the recurrence of

such disasters as that of 1926 and the ten-times-worse one of 1928. Although some now favored the elimination of any dike around the lake, the prevailing sentiment was favorable to a new and more substantial one. (Will, 1978, pp.47)

Like the 1926 Hurricane, the exact number of people who died as a result of this storm can only be estimated. It is believed many were carried out into the everglades or simply lived in isolation.

However, the original number of 1,800 victims reported was revised to 2,500 in 2005 to account for migrant workers, and other individuals (NOAA, 2007). The damages were estimated to be

$25,000,000 in 1928 dollars and the storm was officially a category four hurricane with estimated winds of one-hundred-fifty-five miles per hour. (US Department of Commerce, &

NOAA, 2016)

The economic impacts of these two storms was so severe that many settlers abandoned their property or simply stopped paying taxes. This meant that there were little to no funds readily available to pay for any new waterworks to be constructed. The only option was to lobby the federal government to pay for the new water management infrastructure. Luckily, the newly elected President Herbert Hoover visited Lake Okeechobee shortly after the destruction. Later, during his tenure in office he used political skill to advance legislation that funded a dike around

Lake Okeechobee.

The Second Plan

The first iteration of the Hoover Dike was completed by the Army Corps of Engineers in

1937 after seven years of construction. The River and Harbor Act of 1930 authorized construction of the dike in two sections, a 67.9-mile levee along Lake Okeechobee’s south shore and an additional 15.7 along its north shore, which did not fully encircle the lake. The River and

Harbor Act of 1930 included a long list of projects with the primary goal of improving navigability throughout United States. The section authorizing the construction of the Hoover

Dike follows,

Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee drainage areas, Florida, in accordance with the report submitted in Senate Document Numbered 115, Seventy-first Congress, second session, and subject to the conditions set forth in said document, except that the levees proposed along Lake Okeechobee shall be constructed to an elevation of thirty-one feet instead of thirty-four feet above sea level and shall be so built as to be capable of being raised an additional three feet, and that the United States shall perform the work of constructing all levees: Provided, That the state of Florida or other local interests shall contribute $2,000,000 toward the cost of the above improvements, in lieu of the contributions called for in the aforesaid document: And provided further, that no expense shall be incurred by the United States for the acquirement of any lands necessary for the purpose of this improvement. (United States Congress, 1930, pp.750)

The main goal of these improvements was to primarily, improve navigation, and secondarily to consider flood control. It included improvements to the Caloosahatchee River, Taylor Creek and

St. Lucie Canal. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In November 1930, the large dredging machine named “Congaree” dredged the Caloosahatchee River in order to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment to the worksites on the north and south shores. In total the cost incurred by the United States from construction amounted to $19 million (in 1943 dollars). (Will,

1978)

More Hurricanes, More Plans

Again, in 1947 and 1949 hurricanes passed frighteningly close to Lake Okeechobee. As a result of these two major hurricanes, The Flood Control Act of 1948 authorized an elaborate plan known as the Central and Southern Florida Project. In addition to numerous canals and other water control structures the Central and Southern Florida Project included improvements to the dike and canal system around Lake Okeechobee. This first upgrade to the Hoover Dike raised the top of the dike from +35 feet NGVD to +41 feet NGVD and completely enclosed Lake

Okeechobee. That second iteration was completed in 1960’s and was officially named the

Herbert Hoover Dike.

Figure 3-6. Erosion on lakeside of the Hoover Dike after the 1947 Hurricane (Source: SFWMD)

While no major beaching of the Hoover Dike occurred during the 1947 Hurricane and

1949 Hurricane, there was some considerable erosion (Figure 3-6). Additionally, the volume of water that accumulated in Lake Okeechobee and surrounding wetlands during and after the hurricanes was concerning. Like the first primitive dike that was built before the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes, the structure that was completed in the 1960’s is composed of rock, sand and other materials that were dredged up from the surrounding wetlands. According to Audubon of

Florida,

The C&SF project also transformed water movement patterns in Lake Okeechobee’s watershed by creating more and larger canals, and more efficient drainage. Water control structures were placed on major lakes in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and the larger lakes were lowered (this region is about 40% of Okeechobee’s watershed). The Kissimmee River was channelized to more efficiently drain the river and its watershed. The Istokpoga watershed is about 10% of Okeechobee’s watershed) also had a structure placed upon it to control water movement, and the canals through Indian Prairie were enlarged such that

almost the entire Flathlopopkahatchee Marsh region was drained. Today, Fisheating Creek remains the only free flowing part of Okeechobee’s watershed that has not been altered significantly by public works projects. (Audubon of Florida, 2005, pp.1)

Current Plans

Due to concerns about piping, seepage and stability, a plan was developed again in 1999 by the Army Corps of Engineers to rehabilitate this historic infrastructure (Figures 3-7 and 3-8).

The new plan called for a cement-bentonite partial cutoff wall and relief trench lined with gravel.

This plan also divided the dike into Eight zones called “reaches” ranked based on the level of risk. In Reach One, the Army Corps of Engineers has already installed twenty-two miles of seepage barrier or “cutoff wall” using the “TRD” method and was completed in five years and cost approximately $220 million (in 2005 dollars). Currently, the Army Corp of Engineers is replacing water control structures along the Hoover Dike and expects to complete this phase of the dike rehabilitation in 2021. In 2005 the Hoover Dike was designated from a levee to a dam due to limited level of protection authorized by congress under the “levee” designation. This new designation required further evaluations on the safety of the aging structure that became classified as a “High Hazard Dam” (Bromwell, et. al, 2005). In 2007, the Army Corps of

Engineers ranked the structure as “Urgent and Compelling”.

Figure 3-7. This image shows the existing conditions within the Hoover Dike (Source: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_wrac/portlet_wrac_archive_ reportsdocs/tab772049/hhd_public_presentation_050106.pdf)

Figure 3-8. This image shows the proposed repair to the Hoover Dike (Source: https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_wrac/portlet_wrac_archive_ reportsdocs/tab772049/hhd_public_presentation_050106.pdf)

Lake Okeechobee is currently in an unnatural state as a result of the aforementioned complex history. It is completely surrounded by approximately 143 miles of earthen dam (the

Hoover Dike) and almost all of the water flowing in and out of this water body is controlled by the South Florida Water Management District and Army Corps of Engineers jointly. Using bi- annual predictions, the water level in Lake Okeechobee is adjusted to account for expected increases in water volume. The main drivers of these levels are various stakeholders such as sugar farmers, local municipalities, and environmentalists. According to the Army Corps of

Engineers,

Since the early 1980s, the Corps and independent technical reviewers have studied and documented the potential for catastrophic failure of the HHD during high water stages, particularly in CIZ A. The primary causes for concern are seepage and piping. Seepage occurs when water travels from the lake through the foundation and embankment of the dike. The seepage can carry material (mostly sands) with it, eventually eroding a water flow path through the HHD embankment and foundation. This causes a damaging mechanism of internal erosion or piping through the embankment or foundation. Underground seepage and internal erosion are made possible by the permeable nature of the materials of which the dike is constructed, including sand, gravel, shell, and limestone, and by the variable geology comprising the foundation of the dike system. (Department of Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016, pp.1)

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

The approach chosen for this retrospective case study is based on the assumption that the

Hoover Dike has had a measurable impact on flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed.

It is believed that this single and specific adaptation strategy to manage flooding has greatly reduced or completely eliminated the threat of catastrophic flooding. The main objective of this study is to determine whether the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed and to establish a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of adaptation strategies to flooding. Catastrophic floods in the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed during the early twentieth century prompted the construction of a series of waterworks aimed with the goal to drain wetlands, improve navigability and reduce the chance of catastrophic flooding. The Hoover Dike is one major component of those waterworks.

This leads to the main question and four sub questions of this case study,

Has the Hoover Dike been a successful adaptation strategy to catastrophic flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed?

• What are the current threats from flooding in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed?

• What if any failures have occurred with respect to the Hoover Dike?

• What if any successes have occurred with respect to the Hoover Dike?

• How many catastrophic floods have occurred within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed?

The aim of this study is to answer these questions through a retrospective case study analyzing impacts of major hurricanes similar to the 1928 Hurricane. Moreover, it is important to have a definition on how success is measured in this case study. In Adaptation Metrics:

Perspectives on Measuring, Aggregating and Comparing adaptation results by Lars Christian,

Gerardo Martinez and Prakriti the questions (are we succeeding in making our societies and

economies less vulnerable and more resilient to the impacts of climate change? Are we getting the most out of our investments? How are we actually doing when it comes to reducing vulnerability and strengthening resilience?) are answered through various perspectives on what adaptation metrics are. The main question, How can we measure, aggregate and compare climate adaptation needs and results across activities, Countries and Sectors? In addition, each method is highly specific to a particular context, time, place and people. We must also consider the context in which any given strategy has been implemented in order to understand how to measure its success, we would not grade a fish based on its ability to walk on land. Similarly, we cannot asses adaptation strategies out of context. Since the Hoover Dike was constructed in response to property loss and loss of life, it is important to include metrics on the damage in dollars and number of people who died. Furthermore, this retrospective case study analyzes data on property damage in dollars and number of lives lost to determine whether or not the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed.

Study Area

The study area for analysis purposes in this study will be the Lake Okeechobee

Watershed. This area is shown in Figure Thirteen. The Lake Okeechobee Watershed has been selected for focused analysis due to the specificity of the research question and adaptation strategy. A broader and more comprehensive evaluation of the Hoover Dike would require a broader study area.

The Lake Okeechobee Watershed in divided into 6 regions. The Northernmost of these regions is called the Upper Kissimee River Basins and is not adjacent to Lake Okeechobee. The only other watershed region that is not adjacent to the lake is the Lake Istokpoga Basins region and, it is directly South of and adjacent to the Upper Kissimee River Basins region. There are four additional regions that are each adjacent to Lake Okeechobee. They are, the Northern Lake

Okeechobee, Eastern Lake Okeechobee, Southern Lake Okeechobee and Western Lake

Okeechobee Basins.

Figure 4-1. This figure shows the case study study area divided into six different basins (Source: https://www.sfwmd.gov/sites/default/files/documents/lopp_regions_ 4pb_cerp_8_final_web.jpg)

Theoretical Framework

The simplified theoretical framework introduced in, Adaptation to Climate Change through Water Resource Management was a valuable resource in conceptualizing how this research ought to be conducted. In this framework according to Stucker et. al.,

Stocks and flows are connected in loops, often meaning that X influences Y, but that Y also influences X. There are two kinds of feedback loops: reinforcing and balancing. The reinforcing loops drive change in a system, for better or worse. . . the other kind of loop is balancing, a process that seeks stasis in the system. (Stucker, et. al., 2015, pp.6)

This study is based on this series of interconnected loops with a focus on the effectiveness of strategies sown below in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2. Theoretical framework (Source: page 5. Stucker, Et al., 2015)

CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS

Since its completion in 1936, the Hoover Dike has had its fair share of both successes and failures. However, in order to answer, whether or not the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation to flooding, weather events similar to the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes will be analyzed and compared to the flooding that occurred in 1928. It is also important to discuss the costs and benefits associated with the Hoover Dike in order to make policy recommendations. Through this analysis it can be determined whether or not flooding in the Lake Okeechobee Drainage

Basin was more catastrophic than in 1928.

The hurricanes analyzed have been selected based on maximum wind contours and data availability. If the Lake Okeechobee Watershed is within the wind swath greater than a tropical storm it is selected for comparison. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has an online ArcGIS archive where a list of all recorded storms have been mapped. By using a search distance of 65 miles we can select the storms which have tracked near or over Lake

Okeechobee for analysis. A total of eighty-nine recorded storms were shown to pass within sixty-five miles of lake Okeechobee since 1859 (Figure 5-1).

Figure 5-1. 89 storms that have passed within 65 miles of Lake Okeechobee (Source:https://www.coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/)

From these eighty-nine storms, nine were a tropical storm or greater including the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes (Figure 5-2). These nine storms were further narrowed based on wind speeds over the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. Based on data availability and the aforementioned criteria, five hurricanes have been selected for comparison with the 1928 Hurricane. The storms are Hurricane King 1950 (Figure 5-3), Hurricane Charley 2004 (Figure 5-4), Hurricane Frances

2004 (Figure 5-5), Hurricane Jeanne 2004 (Figure 5-6), and Hurricane Wilma 2005 (figure 5-7).

Figure 5-2. This map shows the 9 storms selected from the 89 storms (Source: Source:https://www.coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/)

Hurricane King 1950

Hurricane King formed west of Jamaica on October fifteenth, 1950. It then moved over

Cuba near Camaguey during the night of the Sixteenth. The highest wind speed reported in

Camaguey, Cuba was Sixty-five miles per hour. Hurricane King then moved Northward toward

Miami and around midnight it’s eye (about five miles in diameter) passed directly over the city.

The storm continued to track over Florida and crossed directly over Lake Okeechobee as a category two hurricane. Wind gusts of ninety-three miles per hour and sustained winds of Sixty-

Five miles per hour were reported in Clewiston, Florida. Damage from the storm was estimated

at $15 million in the city of Miami and $27.75 million state-wide. Three people were killed in

Florida with an additional sixteen serious injuries. (Norton, 1950)

In comparison to the 1928 Hurricane and the catastrophic damage it cased within the

Lake Okeechobee watershed, Hurricane King was much less catastrophic. The majority of the damage was confined to the City of Miami and nearby areas. After subtracting the damage that occurred in Miami from the total damage in Florida there could have been no more that $12.75 million in damages to the Lake Okeechobee watershed (in 1950 dollars). These damages were mostly due to agricultural losses. Furthermore, approximately 13,000 acres of vegetable farms were flooded around Lake Okeechobee (Reading Eagle, 1950). The following table compares the damage from Hurricane King within the Lake Okeechobee watershed to the 1928 Hurricane.

Table 5-1. Hurricane King Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 King 3 $132,846,000 No 2

Figure 5-3. Hurricane King’s track across Florida (Source: https://fcit.usf.edu/florida/maps/pages/12300/f12369/f12369.htm)

Hurricane Charley 2004

Hurricane Charley formed on the eleventh of August 2004 when it was upgraded from a tropical storm to a category one hurricane, just south of Jamaica. On the twelfth Hurricane

Charley passed within forty miles of the southwest coast of Jamaica before being upgraded to a category two hurricane. Hurricane Charlie continued north-northwest gaining strength and reaching category three hurricane status with winds of one-hundred-twenty miles per hour before making landfall in western Cuba on the twelfth of August 2004. The storm then began to rapidly intensify as it approached the southwest coast of Florida and heading in a north-northeast direction. Around 5:00 p.m. on the thirteenth of August Hurricane Charley was upgrades from a category three hurricane to a category four when its maximum sustained winds reached approximately one-hundred-forty-three miles per hour. The storm continued to move north- northeast at approximately twenty miles per hour making landfall near Cayo Costa State Park.

Hurricane Charlie then tracked across Orlando, Florida with maximum sustained winds of seventy-five miles per hour, before re-entering the Atlantic Ocean near Daytona, Florida. The storm made landfall a second time near North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina with maximum sustained winds of seventy-five miles per hour and soon weakened. On the fifteenth of August

2004 the remnants of charley became indistinct as it merged with a front near southeastern

Massachusetts (Pasch, 2004).

While Hurricane Frances did not place Lake Okeechobee within the wind contours of a tropical storm or greater, the watershed was affected by such winds (Figure 5-4). Therefore, it has been selected for comparison with the 1928 Hurricane. This storm s also included because it was the first of three major hurricanes to make landfall in Florida during the 2004 hurricane season all of which affected the Lake Okeechobee Watershed.

In comparison to the 1928 Hurricane and the damage it caused within the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed, Hurricane Charley was not as catastrophic. In Charlotte County a husband and wife were killed when their mobile home was destroyed, and two people died after being hit by flying debris in Lee County. One died when a tree fell on the structure being occupied. In total, thirty-three people died in Florida either directly of indirectly as a result of

Hurricane Charley, less than fifteen within the study area. In total, approximately 6.7 billion dollars of insured damages were reported statewide by the Property Claims Service (Pasch,

2004). Approximately 1.4 million persons were evacuated from the path of the storm, 2 million residents lost power. A Federal “state of emergency” was declared in twenty-five Counties enabling 6,500 National Guard members to be activated (FEMA Mitigation Division, 2013). No major damage to the Dike or catastrophic flooding within the study area occurred. The Table below compares the damage from Hurricane Charley within the Lake Okeechobee watershed to the 1928 Hurricane.

Table 5-2. Hurricane Charley Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 Charley 4 $8,906,383,000 No 1

Figure 5-4. Hurricane Charley wind swath map (Source:https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/CHARLEY_graphics.shtml)

Hurricane Frances 2004

Hurricane Frances formed approximately 1000 miles east of the Lesser Antilles when it was was upgraded from a tropical storm to a category one hurricane on the twenty-sixth of

August 2004. It continued to move west at approximately seventeen miles per hour. When the system was located about 800 miles East of the Leeward Islands it was upgraded to a category three hurricane on August twenty-seventh, 2004. On the twenty-eighth Hurricane Frances was approximately 690 miles East of the leeward Islands and heading nine miles per hour in a

Northwesterly direction when it was upgraded to a category four hurricane with maximum sustained winds of one-hundred-thirty-five miles per hour (Figure 5-5). On the first of September

Hurricane Frances tracked through the Turks and Caicos. The following day, Thursday

September second, 2004 approximately 2.8 million Floridians in thirty-two counties were asked to evacuate to safety. The 5:00 p.m. advisory from the National Hurricane Center in Miami placed the storm about 375 miles East-Southeast of Florida and maximum sustained winds of one-hundred-fifteen miles per hour. On Friday evening Hurricane Frances began to slow its

Westerly track to six miles per hour. The system was downgraded to a category two hurricane with sustained winds of one-hundred-five miles per hour. The 1:00 a.m. advisory from the

National Hurricane Center in Miami on the morning of Sunday September fifth, 2004 reported the eye making landfall at Sewall’s Point with maximum sustained winds of one-hundred-thirty- five miles per hour. By 5:00 a.m. ninety mph gusts were being reported at Lake Okeechobee.

The storm moved in a northwesterly direction through the state tracking North of Okeechobee and crossing the Kissimmee River. Hurricane Francis continued across the Gulf of Mexico and making landfall in Florida a second time near the St. Marks River. It is worth noting that as

Tropical Depression Frances moved through Georgia and the Carolinas it spawned numerous

tornadoes. (Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource

Management, 2004)

In comparison to the 1928 Hurricane and the damage it caused within the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed, Hurricane Frances was not nearly as catastrophic. Most of the catastrophic damage was confined to coastal inlets and barrier islands in Eastern Palm Beach

County. Within the Lake Okeechobee drainage basin no catastrophic flooding was reported, the most notable damages were $70 million worth of damage to agriculture. Statewide damages in

Florida totaled $7,1 billion (Franklin, 2004). It is important to note that approximately 17,000 persons found refuge in public shelters in Palm Beach county alone. 6 people died in Palm Beach

County after the storm from either drowning or car accidents. One Person Died in Collier county while clearing debris. The following table compares the damage from Hurricane Frances within the Lake Okeechobee watershed to the 1928 Hurricane.

Table 5-3. Hurricane Frances Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 Frances 5 $9,305,176,000 No 2

Figure 5-5. Wind swath map for Hurricane Frances (Source:https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/FRANCES_graphics.shtml)

Hurricane Jeanne 2004

Hurricane Jeanne was upgraded from a tropical storm to a category 1 hurricane on the sixteenth of September 2004 becoming the Eighth Hurricane of the 2004 Season, near the north coast of the Dominican Republic. It then weakened to a tropical storm and then to a tropical depression as it interacted with the island of Hispanola on September seventeenth. The storm then tracked in a northwest direction and passed over the Turks and Caicos Islands. On the twentieth of September Hurricane Jeanne regained category one status as in began to intensify about 370 miles east-northeast of Great Abaco Island, Bahamas. The storm then made a clockwise loop in the Atlantic Ocean on the twenty-first and twenty-second. On the twenty-third

Hurricane Jeanne moved west towards the Bahamas and hurricane warnings were issued for the east coast of Florida by the afternoon of the twenty-third. Saturday morning, the twenty-fifth of

September 2004, Hurricane Jeanne was upgraded to a category three hurricane with maximum sustained windspeeds of one-hundred-fifteen miles per hour. Saturday afternoon and evening the hurricane passed over Abaco Island and Grand Bahama Island and wind gusts of sixty-three miles per hour were reported in Vero Beach. Hurricane Jeanne then intensified as it passed over the Gulf Stream growing in size to approximately the same size as Frances which, tracked over

Florida identically to Jeanne. Around midnight on the twenty-fifth, the center of Hurricane

Jeanne made landfall near southern Hutchinson Island as a category three with maximum sustained winds of one-hundred-twenty miles per hour. the storm then tracked west, similarly to

Frances, across Florida just north of Lake Okeechobee. Wind gusts of one-hundred-four miles per hour and a storm surge (on the south shore) measuring three feet were reported in Lake

Okeechobee on the twenty-sixth of September 2004. Through same night, the storm tracked north and passed forty miles east of Tallahassee as a tropical storm (Florida Department of

Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource Management, 2004)

In comparison to the 1928 Hurricane and the damage it caused within the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed, Hurricane Frances was not as catastrophic. Like Hurricane Frances, most of the catastrophic damage occurred along the coasts and in areas that were directly in the path of the strongest winds. A three foot storm surge was reported along the south shore of Lake

Okeechobee however, no catastrophic breaches occurred. Damages within the entire united states was estimated at $7.5 billion and 3 people died in Florida (Franklin, 2004). The following table compares the damage from Hurricane Frances within the Lake Okeechobee watershed to the

1928 Hurricane.

Table 5-4. Hurricane Jeanne Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 Jeanne 3 $9,969,831,000 No 2

Figure 5-6. Wind swath map for Hurricane Jeanne (Source:https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2004/JEANNE_graphics.shtml)

Hurricane Wilma 2005

Hurricane Wilma Became a hurricane on the eighteenth of October 2005 before breaking the record for the most intense Atlantic Basin hurricane by pressure on record with recorded low of 882mb. The third category five storm of the 2005 season started out as tropical depression twenty-four. Hurricane Wilma was upgraded to a category one hurricane on the eighteenth of

October 2005 as it moved westward approximately 150 miles south of Jamaica. By that evening a small eye had formed, the pressure was dropping and windspeeds of one-hundred-ten miles per hour were recorded. Around 11:00 p.m. on the eighteenth Hurricane Wilma was upgraded to a category two hurricane. By 1:00 a.m. the following morning (two hours later) windspeeds were reported at one-hundred-fifteen miles per hour and Hurricane Wilma was upgraded to a category four hurricane and by 5:00 a.m. Wilma intensified into a category five hurricane. An eyewall replacement cycle weakened the hurricane to a category four as the winds reduced in speed.

Hurricane Wilma then tracked westward and made landfall on the twenty-first over northeastern

Cozumel, Mexico with peak winds of one-hundred-eighty miles per hour. (NOAA, 2005).

Hurricane Wilma then began to turn northward and crossed the northeastern tip of the Yucatan

Peninsula and weakened to a category two hurricane on the twenty-second of October 2005. On the twenty-third Hurricane Wilma began to move in a northeast direction towards Florida and intensified into a category three hurricane with winds of one-hundred-twenty-five miles per hour before making landfall near Naples, Florida around 7:00 a.m. of the twenty-fourth. The storm crossed Florida and entered the Atlantic Ocean in just four hours, near Palm Beach (Figure 5-7).

It is worth noting that Hurricane Wilma maintained a defined eye while crossing over Florida.

The storm continued to strengthen over the Atlantic Ocean and tracked north toward Nova

Scotia where it became extratropical on the twenty-fifth (NOAA, 2005)According to the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

At the official 5am advisory on the19th, Wilma had become the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic Basin. With a minimum pressure of 882mb, it surpassed Hurricane Gilbert (September, 1988 -888mb) for the record. The eye was a mere 2-4 miles in diameter and windspeeds were near 175 mph (150 kts). (NOAA, 2005, pp.5)

In comparison to the 1928 Hurricane and the damage it caused within the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed, Hurricane Wilma was not as catastrophic. At least twenty-five people died in Florida due to the storm and approximately 6 million persons were without power in

Florida including all of the Florida Keys (NOAA, 2005). Most regained electricity after 8-10 days and caused approximately $21 billon ; in 2005 dollars (Pasch, 2006). The following table compares the damage from Hurricane Wilma within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed to the

1928 Hurricane.

Table 5-5. Hurricane Wilma Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 Wilma 5 $27,915,529,000 No 3

Figure 5-7. Hurricane Wilma wind swath map (Source: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/WILMA_graphics.shtml)

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this retrospective case study, the impact of selected major hurricanes on the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed have been analyzed and compared with the 1928 Hurricane. The question, Has the Hoover Dike been a successful adaptation strategy to catastrophic flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed was investigated. The issue of Flooding and its impacts to human settlements cannot be ignored. A comparison of five selected major hurricanes impacts on the Lake Okeechobee Watershed, post-adaptation, has been conducted. The preliminary answer to the question was yes, the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. However, this hypothesis that the

Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding within the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed was not fully supported by the research completed in this case study. It appears that more damage in dollars occurs after the implementation of the adaptation strategy when compared with 1928. Things like land use changes and improvements to flood infrastructure allows more people to live within the study area putting more property at risk.

While the damage in dollars indicates a failure as defined in the methodology section, the loss of life indicates a success. Again, similarly to the externalities related to damages there have been tremendous technological advancements and innovations that allow people to be more resilient in the face of any given flood hazard. Warning systems, electronic communications, satellites and weather forecasting help communities stay informed and get the word out when it is time to shutter and/or evacuate. Other improvements in transportation and infrastructure allow families to evacuate quickly. Further innovations in off grid technology and architecture increase resilience to storms and independence after a hurricane.

After analyzing the impacts of the selected five major hurricanes on the Hoover Dike and

Lake Okeechobee Watershed several findings have been made. It is evident that hurricanes are not as deadly in South Florida than they were in 1928 but, hurricanes still cause catastrophic damages especially along Florida’s coasts. Additionally, the Hoover Dike is one of many other adaptation strategies that have been implemented in the region. Technological advancements also cannot be ignored. New technologies and advancements in communications that have become widely available such as the automobile and computer enable proactive actions against an incoming Hurricane. It is worth noting that there have not been any catastrophic floods in the

Lake Okeechobee Watershed comparable to the 1926 and 1928 Hurricanes. It is also worth noting that, the 1926 and 1928 storms were higher category hurricanes, while in the study area, compared to the 5 hurricanes analyzed in this case study. At the same time, the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons were relentless and tested the Hoover Dike. Additionally, the environmental costs associated with the building, rebuilding and maintenance of the Hoover Dike cannot be ignored.

Table 6-1. All Hurricane Data Hurricane Name Number Killed Damage in 2018 Dike Breach Storm Category Dollars Yes/No 1928Hurricane 2,500 $367,115,000 Yes 4 King 3 $132,846,000 No 2 Charley 4 $8,906,383,000 No 1 Frances 5 $9,305,176,000 No 2 Jeanne 3 $9,969,831,000 No 2 Wilma 5 $27,915,529,000 No 3

A total of one breach was recorded in the history of the Hoover Dike after completion in the 1960’s. In May of 1974, a portion of the north shore dike breached as a result of piping however, due to low lake levels water breached into the lake rather than out and was not catastrophic. Other adaptation strategies and innovations that have occurred in the region since

1928 includes but is not limited to, environmental restoration, land-use and zoning regulations, the Florida Building Code, automobile, and hurricane forecasting. More research must be done in order to identify which of these adaptation strategies and innovations are most effective and or successful. Lawrence Will wrote,

For many years after the big blow of 1928, the warning of an imminent hurricane was the signal for the mass migration of nearly every inhabitant of the lake shore. The occasional radio reports were studied and the hurricanes progress plotted. Automobiles were gassed up in preparation for sudden departure. In every town safety committees met at intervals, considered weather reports and debated whether to send for the railway train to evacuate the negroes and others without their own means of transportation. For several years the train was ordered as a matter of course. . . As radio warnings indicated the closer approach of a hurricane the exodus would begin. Lake towns became deserted villages. . . No longer can a hurricane slip up unannounced. Thanks to improved methods. . . Hurricanes have passed over Lake Okeechobee since 1949 and no doubt will do so again. Those who have experienced the fury of one of these tropical blows will always regard them with due respect, but no longer do the farmers of the Everglades flee for their lives when the black and red, square hurricane flags are hoisted. (Will, 1978, pp.46)

It is worth noting the contradiction in the above statement. Lawrence will wrote it many years after the storm and I have found it to be contradictory that he says, “no longer do the farmers of the Everglades flee for their lives” after saying “the warning of an imminent hurricane was the signal for the mass migration of nearly every inhabitant of the lake shore”.

The findings presented in this research reveal that there are a plethora of other factors and variables that come into play during a flood event which determine the level of destruction and death. Most notably, advancement in hurricane predictions allow people to prepare for an incoming storm days before impacts instead of just a few hours as was the case in 1928. Some other notable variable to consider in future research includes other technological and institutional advancements such as communications, better building standards, science, weather forecasting and improvements to infrastructure and other innovations.

A case study on high water events in Lake Okeechobee might be better suited to determine the Hoover Dike’s effectiveness as an adaptation strategy to manage flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. This data should be available through monitoring stations placed in and around Lake Okeechobee. Seepage and piping has been a major issue associated with the Hoover Dike and the Army Corps of Engineers has stockpiled material around the structure just in case it fails. Additionally, the Dike is currently being rehabilitated due to the concerns over a potential structural failure. The rehabilitation of the Dike is scheduled to be completed in 2021 and would provide an opportunity for further study.

This research has been insightful with regards to how adaptation strategies are planned and implemented in Florida. Therefore, several recommendations can be formulated for use by various stakeholders and interest groups like, sugar farmers and environmentalists. I would recommend that some sort of spillway be created to allow water in Lake Okeechobee to flow out during extreme high-water events. One strategy that has proven to be an effective strategy against catastrophic flooding in the Netherlands is the creation of polders. A polder is very similar to a reservoir however these pieces of infrastructure act like a dike, protecting large areas of land that have been reclaimed from the sea. I would recommend that a series of polders be created in the agricultural areas south of Lake Okeechobee and in areas that used to be wetlands.

These polders could potentially act as reservoirs during extreme high-water events. I cannot conclude that the Hoover Dike has been a successful adaptation strategy to manage flooding within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed based solely on the data collected. One must consider the other factors and externalities in addition to extreme weather events when measuring the hoover dike as and adaptation strategy to manage flooding.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Audubon of Florida. (2005). Lake Okeechobee: A Synthesis of Information and Recommendations for its Restoration. Retrieved February, 2019, from http://fl.audubon.org/sites/g/files/amh666/f/audubon_stateofthelake_2006.pdf

Bolson, J., & Treuer, G. (2015). Barriers and Aids to Developing Adaptive Capacity in the Water Sector. In Adaptation to Climate Change through Water Resource Management (pp. 331-352). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bromwell, L., & Dean, B. (2005). Report on Herbert Hoover Dike Independent Technical Review(Presentation)

Department of Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2016). Herbert Hoover Dike Dam Safety Modification Study Final ... Retrieved from https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/Planning/EnvironmentalBranch/EnvironmentalD ocs/Multiple Counties/Herbert_Hoover_Dike_Dam_Safety_Modification Study_FEIS_Main_Report.pdf?ver=2016-05-31-131919-377

FEMA. (2018, March). Flood or Flooding. Retrieved August 2018, from https://www.fema.gov/flood-or- flooding

FEMA Mitigation Division. (2013). Hurricane Charley in Florida. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1445-20490-8403/488_ch1.pdf

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resource Management. (2004, October). Hurricane Frances & Hurricane Jeanne. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/HurricaneFrancesHurricaneJeanne.pdf

Florida Department of State. (2018). 16th Century Settlements. Retrieved September 2018, from https://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/16th-century-settlements/

Franklin, J. (2006). Annual Summary; Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2004. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR3096.1

Guest, D. (2001). This Time For Sure--A Political and Legal History of Water Control Projects in Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades. St. Thomas Law Review.

Historical Society of Palm Beach County. (2009). Lake Okeechobee. Retrieved September 2018, from http://www.pbchistoryonline.org/page/lake-okeechobee

Hudson, T. (2016). Living with Earth: An Introduction to Environmental Geology. New York, NY:Routledge

Little, B. (2017, September 12). Why Are Hurricanes Classified by Category? Retrieved August, 2018, from https://www.history.com/news/why-are-hurricanes-classified-by-category

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2005). Hurricane Wilma. Asheville, North Carolina: NOAA National Climatic Data Center.

NOAA National Hurricane Center. (n.d.). Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Retrieved August, 2018, from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

NOAA. (2007). Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Changes in HURDAT. Retrieved November, 2018, from https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/metadata_master.html

Norton, G. (1950). Hurricanes of the 1950 Season. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1950.pdf

Pasch, R. (2004). Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Charley. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL032004_Charley.pdf

Pasch, R. (2006). Tropical Cyclone Report Hurricane Wilma 15-25 October 2005. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL252005_Wilma.pdf

Reading Eagle (Ed.). (1950). Reports Show Three Dead, Ten Missing. Reading Eagle. Retrieved February, 2019, from https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lMMhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ep0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4115,8 19508&dq=hurricane florida&hl=en

Reese, J. H. (1926). Floridas great hurricane. Miami, FL: Lysle E. Fesler.

Stucker, D., & Lopez-Gunn, E. (Eds.). (2015). Adaptation to Climate Change through Water Resource Management. New York, New York: Routledge.

United States Congress. (1930). River and Harbors Act of 1930.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, December 22). Climate Impacts in the Southeast. Retrieved from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts- southeast_.html

Will, L. E. (1978). Okeechobee hurricane and the Hoover Dike. Belle Glade, FL: Glades Historical Society.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Matthew Kalap was born on 23 November 1992 in the City of South Miami, Florida.

After Graduating high school at Robert Morgan Educational Center he studied history and urban planning at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. He earned his bachelor degree in

2015 and upon completion of this thesis will earn his Master of Urban and Regional Planning in

December 2019.