Searching for Simple

It's a natural instinct to assume government is going overboard. Healthy even.

So I clearly understand how some folks think the city's flood protection plan is too much, too elaborate. Surely there are easier alternatives.

The three I hear most often are dredging the Cedar River downtown, letting flood insurance be our security blanket and clearing everybody out of the flood zone. It's simple, common sense stuff.

But upon further review, simple gets less appealing.

Dredging comes up often. It seems obvious that if you dig the channel deeper, flood risk drops.

But to professional engineers, like the ones who work for the Army Corps of Engineers, it makes little sense. Dredging the river downtown would take at least a decade and cost at least $26 million. And it would drop the city's flood risk by only 2 percent. In a flood like 2008, the Corps says dredging would drop the crest by four-tenths of a foot.

Dredging has limits. You can only dig so deep before you risk bank collapse and erosion. And because of lousy land-use practices and increased river flows, sediment removed makes a fast comeback. Larry Weber, co-founder of the Iowa Flood Center, says a dredging project on one section of a large river system like the Cedar won't have much impact. “It will fill back in the very near future,” he said.

What about flood insurance? If everyone in the flood zone is insured, why build protection? And it's more fiscally responsible because the National Flood Insurance Program is paid for with premiums, not taxes.

Flood insurance is vital, and in many cases required. But according to the Government Accountability Office, the NFIP owes the federal treasury $18.5 billion because claims exceeded premiums. Its premiums don't reflect real risks, according to the GAO, and a quarter of its claims are paid on properties repeatedly flooded. Too often, insurance takes the place of protection.

The GAO lists NFIP as a “high risk” federal program. So ditching protection to rely on insurance may not be so fiscally responsible.

An excerpt from the GAO report:

The potential losses generated by NFIP create substantial financial exposure for the federal government and U.S. taxpayers. While Congress and FEMA intended that NFIP be funded with premiums collected from policyholders rather than with tax dollars, the program is, by design, not actuarially sound. NFIP cannot do some of the things that private insurers do to manage risks.NFIP is not structured to build a capital surplus, is likely unable to purchase reinsurance to cover catastrophic losses, cannot reject high-risk applicants, and is subject to statutory limits on rate increases.Its premium rates do not reflect actual flood risk. For example, nearly one in four property owners pay subsidized rates, “full-risk” rates may not reflect the full risk of flooding, and NFIP allows “grandfathered” rates that allow some property owners to continue paying rates that do not reflect reassessments of their properties' flood risk.NFIP cannot deny insurance on the basis of frequent losses and, thus, provides policies for repetitive loss properties, which represent only 1 percent of policies but account for 25 percent to 30 percent of claims.NFIP's financial condition has improved slightly due to an increase in the number of policyholders and moderate flood losses, and since March 2009, FEMA has taken some encouraging steps toward improving its financial position, including reducing its debt to Treasury by almost $850 million since August 2009. However, FEMA will likely not be able to repay the $18.5 billion owed to Treasury as of November 30, 2010, especially if it faces catastrophic loss years or increased borrowing rates.

NFIP is not structured to build a capital surplus, is likely unable to purchase reinsurance to cover catastrophic losses, cannot reject high-risk applicants, and is subject to statutory limits on rate increases.

Its premium rates do not reflect actual flood risk. For example, nearly one in four property owners pay subsidized rates, “full-risk” rates may not reflect the full risk of flooding, and NFIP allows “grandfathered” rates that allow some property owners to continue paying rates that do not reflect reassessments of their properties' flood risk.

NFIP cannot deny insurance on the basis of frequent losses and, thus, provides policies for repetitive loss properties, which represent only 1 percent of policies but account for 25 percent to 30 percent of claims.

NFIP's financial condition has improved slightly due to an increase in the number of policyholders and moderate flood losses, and since March 2009, FEMA has taken some encouraging steps toward improving its financial position, including reducing its debt to Treasury by almost $850 million since August 2009. However, FEMA will likely not be able to repay the $18.5 billion owed to Treasury as of November 30, 2010, especially if it faces catastrophic loss years or increased borrowing rates.

To put that debt in perspective, the "historic" budget deal that averted a government shutdown last week cuts $38 billion.

And back in September 2008, the city floated the idea of clearing out 700 acres along the river. It was called “breathing room,” and it carried an estimated cost of roughly $1 billion. It was one of three flood protection options presented at a series of public open houses.

Here's how The Gazette described it after its unveiling at a Sept. 11, 2008 open house:

Option 3, 700 acres and up to $1.2 billion. Most of the money would be federal money.Sasaki Associates of Watertown, Mass., has worked as the city's lead consultant on the River Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Gina Ford, a Sasaki partner, said Thursday that Option 3, the greenway option, envisions a levee as far as eight to 10 blocks away from the river in parts of the northwest Time Check Neighborhood and four to six blocks elsewhere. She estimated it would necessitate the purchase of 1,500 homes and commercial properties."That's a tremendous downside of this scheme," she said.Even (Chuck) Wieneke, whose council district includes the Time Check neighborhood and who favors a robust buyout program, said Option 3 goes too far. He said it would take too many homes, too much land and would take the Czech Village commercial area, which he said he wouldn't agree to.

Sasaki Associates of Watertown, Mass., has worked as the city's lead consultant on the River Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Gina Ford, a Sasaki partner, said Thursday that Option 3, the greenway option, envisions a levee as far as eight to 10 blocks away from the river in parts of the northwest Time Check Neighborhood and four to six blocks elsewhere. She estimated it would necessitate the purchase of 1,500 homes and commercial properties.

"That's a tremendous downside of this scheme," she said.

Even (Chuck) Wieneke, whose council district includes the Time Check neighborhood and who favors a robust buyout program, said Option 3 goes too far. He said it would take too many homes, too much land and would take the Czech Village commercial area, which he said he wouldn't agree to.

I actually liked its radical land-use changes, but wiping out the Czech Village commercial district, etc., didn't sit well with many. A second "hybrid" plan that cleared out 200-plus acres but kept historic areas largely intact had more support. That's the plan the city approved in November 2008 and is pushing now.

It's elaborate, complex and, as some of us may have to grudgingly admit, necessary.