Flood protection game plan

City staff has put together a compelling pair of reports about why Cedar Rapids deserves more money for more flood protection than the Army Corps of Engineers' tentative recommendation.

The reports quantified reasons that the Corps should grant a waiver and recommend that Congress approve at least $152 million instead of just $67 million toward the city's plan so that both sides of our river get protection. That's a must.

While such a waiver isn't unprecedented, getting Congress to also buy in will be formidable. The hurdles and distractions keep mounting. Our historic flood - the nation's fifth-worst disaster on record for public facility losses - was nearly in lock step with arrival of the worst national economic recession in decades. Bailouts, stimulus investments and other massive spending by Congress, including ongoing funding for two war fronts in the Middle East, has pushed the national debt past a dizzying $13 trillion.

Not to mention that ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the pace of natural disasters and demands on national resources has been overwhelming.

And now the nation may well face a lengthy, massive cleanup of the largest-ever U.S. oil spill, yet to be contained. What will be the demand on public resources if BP PLC can't cover the environmental and economic damages from its Gulf disaster? How far can our federal government stretch and juggle?

Nonetheless, the city must push on for the best possible outcome. Our residents and businesses need direction on what the future holds as they rebuild. The federal government provides help after disasters so that economies and communities can recover more quickly, or simply recover. And Cedar Rapids, second-largest economic engine in the state, is vital to the well-being of our region and Iowa.

Tuesday night, the City Council considered two reports from staff: “Other Social Effects: and “Regional Economic Impacts.” They are intended as additions to the Army Corps of Engineers' feasibility study process, which is nearing completion and so far has recommended flood protection on only the river's east side, which meets the Corps' required cost-benefit ratio. The city's reports are aimed at convincing the U.S. assistant secretary of the Army to grant a waiver and recommend Congress provide more funding. Even if the

$152 million is approved,

$83 million more in state/local match is needed to protect both sides of the river. The city's preferred plan actually seeks even more.

Waivers are sometimes allowed if cities can justify protection needs beyond the cost-benefit rule.

Even then, Congress still must be convinced. We expect it will take a full-court press from all our local, state and congressional leaders. As this process advances, they need to present a clear, unified voice.