Stemming the Tide of Flood Losses: Stories of Success from the History of Missouri Žs Flood Mitigation Program
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Stemming the Tide of Flood Losses Stories of Success from The History of Missouri’s Flood Mitigation Program Missouri State Emergency Management Agency 904522bp C1-C2.p65 1 3/21/00, 1:42 PM This document was produced by the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA). Special Acknowledgement to this report’s primary authors, Timothy and Iris Roberts. Photographs by SEMA, the Mis- souri Department of Transporta- tion, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — Excelsior Springs Photos by Liz Roll, FEMA National. Open space in St. Louis County. State Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 116 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Table of Contents Homepage: Overview of the Missouri Flood Buyout Program ...................... 3 http://www.sema.state.mo.us/ Breaking Missouri’s Repetitive Flood Cycle ............................... 8 semapage.htm Alexandria and Clark County ..................................................... 13 e-mail: [email protected] Arnold ............................................................................................. 16 Buchanan County.......................................................................... 19 Stemming the Tide Cape Girardeau ............................................................................. 21 of Flood Losses: Cedar City ...................................................................................... 24 Stories of Success Commerce ...................................................................................... 27 from the History of Excelsior Springs ........................................................................... 30 Missouri’s Flood Mitigation Program Hannibal ......................................................................................... 32 Mel Carnahan Hartsburg and Boone County ..................................................... 34 Governor, State of Missouri Hermann ........................................................................................ 36 Jefferson County (including Festus and Crystal City) ............. 38 Gary Kempker Lincoln County and Winfield ...................................................... 42 Director, Department of Public Safety Neosho ............................................................................................ 45 MG John D. Havens Pattsonburg.................................................................................... 47 Adjutant General Perry County ................................................................................. 49 Rhineland ....................................................................................... 51 Jerry B. Uhlmann Director, SEMA St. Charles County ........................................................................ 54 Ste. Genevieve ................................................................................ 58 Beaufort “Buck” Katt, St. Louis and St. Louis County .................................................... 63 Assistant Director, SEMA St. Mary .......................................................................................... 68 Wakenda ........................................................................................ 70 Destin Frost State Hazard Mitigation Officer Warren County and Marthasville............................................... 72 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 74 Susie Stonner, Editor 904522bp C1-C2.p65 2 3/21/00, 1:43 PM Overview of the Missouri Flood Buyout Program From April of 1993 to May of 1995, the State of Missouri experienced unprecedented flooding of virtually all areas of the state. This situation resulted in Presidential Declarations on five separate occasions. These declarations became the basis for rather large dollar amounts of assistance for individuals and public entities alike. As provided by the Stafford Act, hazard mitigation grant program funds also became available on a formula basis for declared states. The focus of this report is the process and policies that evolved in Missouri to put these mitigation funds to use in the shortest possible time. Hopefully, this report will be useful as an historic document, but more importantly, it will serve as a “blueprint” for future similar programs should flooding again reach the 1993 and 1995 levels. Page 3 904522bp 03-07.p65 3 3/21/00, 2:54 PM rior to the 1993 major flood ing detail was received. Project scopes since determined and followed a bet- event, the Missouri State ranged from very large structural ter procedure wherein SEMA person- PEmergency Management projects, including levees, storm wa- nel travel to each buyout location to Agency (SEMA) had, for unknown ter drainage systems, and a buyout work the process. Applicants also were reasons, passed the responsibility for project for one dwelling. The total informed that all projects for other than the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program project requests exceeded $300 mil- residential buyouts would be passed on (HMGP) to the Department of Natural lion. The dollar amount and diversity to Missouri’s Department of Economic Resources. With the 1993 flood event, of the projects increased to a signifi- Development for subsequent resolu- that responsibility was returned to cant degree the already difficult task tion in the event that funds should be- SEMA. Arguably, it should always of determining which projects to pur- come available through that channel at remain the responsibility of SEMA. sue. a later date. The position is enhanced by the fact that Missouri has funded a State During late 1993 and early 1994, Beginning in very late December Hazard Mitigation Officer Position FEMA Director James Lee Witt and 1993, and in January and February within the SEMA personnel structure. others began to place emphasis on ac- 1994, meetings were scheduled with With that as an aside, the State was quisition of flood damaged property. the affected communities to review faced with an unprecedented task of projects for possible funding recom- administering a hazard mitigation mendations to FEMA Region VII. program that eventually exceeded Given the fact that These meetings were hosted by a very $100 million. The purpose of this the State only had $30 small select committee empowered by overview is to provide a narrative the Administration to review all project concerning how the various processes million available, and that proposals and make specific recom- and policies were developed and put buyout projections were mendations to the Governor’s Office. into place. exceeding that figure by a Committee members included Mr. three to one margin, the Dick Moore, former Executive Direc- As the individual and public assis- tor of the Missouri Housing Develop- tance efforts during the later summer decision was made to focus ment Commission; Mr. Dick Gross, of 1993 progressed, it became obvious the HMGP effort on per- then Director of the Missouri Housing that the State would have significant manent primary residen- Development Commission; Mr. Terry funding for HMGP activities. An early tial structures. Necessity Martin, Community Development estimate was $10-12 million. At the Block Grant Coordinator; and Mr. same time, the U.S. Congress began to forced the exclusion of Buck Katt, SEMA, and the buyout address various flood assistance issues business properties, vaca- project coordinator for Missouri. This with one of the major efforts being the tion homes, mobile homes, small but effective committee listened enactment of the “Volkmer Bill” which and building elevations. to all proposals and took action in sev- changed the formula for HMGP fund- eral ways on each project. ing. That bill became law in mid-De- cember 1993, and the HMGP fund The committee recommended that forcast was suddenly $30 million. The A review of the projects received re- some projects be forwarded to FEMA awesome HMGP task was now even a vealed that they included requests for for funding without modification. This greater challenge. “buyouts” that would cost $100 mil- recommendation was applied to lion. The “fog factor” was now being projects that were “clean,” meaning Following this realization, the diminished to some degree and a logi- projects that met all necessary criteria State’s first overt act was to send a let- cal approach to project approval including a reasonable cost benefit. (At ter to known eligible applicants inform- emerged. that time, FEMA had no cost benefit ing them of the program with a further model guidance available; the State of comment requesting communities to All the eligible applicants who Missouri created its own to gain at least submit project applications. No further were proposing acquisition were told a basic insight regarding the cost ben- guidance was provided - no standard ap- to revise their applications for residen- efit for specific projects. Since that plication or direction regarding the tial buyouts only and to be prepared to time, FEMA has developed several State’s priorities was given. Conse- travel to Jefferson City to present their computer-based models and continues quently, a “flood of requests” in vary- applications. In hindsight, SEMA has to refine them.) Page 4 904522bp 03-07.p65 4 3/21/00, 2:54 PM In addition, the committee sug- group traveled to Pattonsburg, Mis- FEMA VII officials were invited gested that certain projects be modi- souri, to announce approval of $3.8 to attend these meetings; to their credit, fied. This came about especially for million for acquisition and relocation they did attend