flood damage reduction(to roads, bridges, public buildings, etc.) damage total for minnesota from...

What Minnesota Has Done andStill Needs To Do...

Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:

Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources

DNR Waters

Flood DamageReduction Program

East Grand Forks, 1997 flood

Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, nationalorigin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation or disabil-ity. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to MN DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4031; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

An electronic copy of this report can be found on the DNR’s World Wide Web home page:www.dnr.state.mn.us

This information is available in an alternative format upon request.

Department of Natural ResourcesWaters500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155-4032(651) 296-4800

web home page: www.dnr.state.mn.us

DNR Information Center phone numbers: Twin Cities: (651) 296-6157MN Toll Free: 1-888-646-6367 (or 888-MINNDNR)Telecommunication Device for the Deaf: (651) 296-5484MN Toll Free: 1-800-657-3929

Printed on recycled paper

© 2001 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources

by DNR Waters HydrologistsSt. Paul, Minnesota

December, 2001

What Minnesota Has Done andStill Needs To Do...

Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:Flood Damage Reduction:

MinnesotaDepartment of Natural ResourcesWaters

“Helping people ensure the future of our water resources”

Kent Lokkesmoe, Director

Preface

The taste of sand in your mouth, the sight of an ocean in your back yard,

and the pain of leaving your home not knowing when you could return.....

Jamie Holmstrom

from 1997 The Red River Valley Flood

Though the flooding in Minnesota in 2001 in some areas was often as serious as or worse than 1997,investments made in flood mitigation by the Legislature through the Waters Division of the MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources greatly reduced the damage. The state was much better prepared forthe historic floods of 2001. For example, the flood mitigation project built for the city of Oslo in 1984 ata cost of $2 million dollars, prevented almost 31 million in damages since construction. This kind ofproject is a powerful testimonial for spending money to protect the safety of citizens and economicstability of their communities in the state.

Since the Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program was established by the State Legislaturein 1987, communities across Minnesota have experienced less damage from floods than they wouldotherwise have expected. Working in partnership with local, state and federal resources, incidents ofrepetitive loss to structures and communities are going down, but numerous mitigation projects remainto be done throughout the state.

PrefaceClimatic Conditions = Flood Recipe.......................................................................................Minnesota Flood Stage History...............................................................................................Existing Floodplain Management...........................................................................................Flood Insurance Reduces State’s Responsibility.....................................................................DNR Flood Damage Reduction Grant Assistance Program............................................Flood Damage Reduction Projects by Grant City...................................................................Partners in Flood Damage Reduction Projects.......................................................................Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management (DEM)........Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED).................................U. S. Army Corps of Engineers...............................................................................................Local Landowners...................................................................................................................Local Units of Government (LUGs).......................................................................................Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.........................................................................DNR Flood Mitigation Projects - Invest now to save later.....................................................Montevideo.............................................................................................................................East Grand Forks.....................................................................................................................Breckenridge...........................................................................................................................Moorhead................................................................................................................................Red River Mediation Projects.................................................................................................Twin Cities Metro Area...........................................................................................................Other Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) Projects....................................................................Cost Share Distributions.........................................................................................................Minnesota Residents Still Need Protection............................................................................Future Program Needs for the FDR Program.........................................................................

We wish to thank everyone who helped to create this publication. Thanks to Ed Fick, Tom Lutgen, andJohn Linc Stine for editorial review and suggestions; Suzann Jiwani and Mike Tronrud for providingassistance with tables and graphics; and Jim Zicopula for overall report and photo layout and design.

Ginger SiscoToby McAdams, editors

1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 91010101111131517192123252626

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

1

In the spring of 2001, flooding ofhistoric proportions occurredagain. This time, 51 counties andtwo tribal governments declaredlocal emergencies. In 20 of thecounties, help was sought for9,100 damaged businesses andprivate homes. Of those buildings,1,096 homes were damaged,including 16 destroyed; 83 busi-nesses were damaged, four de-stroyed. Local initial damageassessments were set at $35million.

Climatic conditions leading up tothe floods of 1997 and 2001 werethe same:

* Significant autumn precipitation - In the fall of 1996, more than six inches of rainsaturated the soil in northwestern Minnesota before winter began. In November 2000,rains exceeded the historical average by two inches in many locations, filling the upperportions of the soil before winter freeze.

* Heavy winter snowfall - In 1996-97 nearly all of Minnesota received more than 50inches of snowfall. Wide swaths of the state got close to 100 inches, far surpassing thehistorical average of 36 in the west and 50 inches in the eastern side of the state. Mid-November 2000 snows blanketed the state, and snow cover lasted into spring. Snowfallpassed the average by two feet in western Minnesota and was more than 18 inches aboveaverage in the southern portion.

Breckenridge, 1997

Climatic Conditions = Flood Recipe

The 1997 spring flooding along the upper reaches of the Minnesota River and Red River of the North broke mostexisting flood records in Minnesota. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) public infrastructure(to roads, bridges, public buildings, etc.) damage total for Minnesota from the flood was approximately $300million. Before the water receded, 59 of Minnesota’s 87 counties were declared federal disaster areas. The Ameri-can Red Cross reported that 23,263 families were affected by the massive floods. Total flood damage and associ-ated economic impacts were estimated to be as high as $1.5 billion.

State flood recovery funding in 1997 was $125 million, federal flood recovery funding was $574 million, andprivate funding for recovery was $132 million, totaling over $830 million.

* Less-than-ideal snowmelt scenario - In spring 1997, colder than average winter tempera-tures did not allow much snow melt. Then in April sleet and rain storms dumped another twoto three inches of rain on much of the state before the heavy snow had started to melt. Thewinter of 2000-2001 had very few mid and late-winter melting days. January was mild butnot warm enough to melt snow, February was cold with temperatures four to eight degreesbelow normal, and March temperatures were three degrees below normal. The snow packgradually diminished in depth, but snow water content did not change and melt water stayedon the landscape.

* April weather - In 1997 warm weather in mid-April on top of the early April sleet and rainhastened the snow melt. In 2001, by the end of April, precipitation surpassed the historicalaverage by more than four inches in southwestern, central and east central Minnesota exceed-ing six inches of precipitation from April 1-23. By April 30, some areas set all time records ofprecipitation surpassing seven inches.

2

Breckenridge, 1997

Park shelter in Breckenridge, 1997Red River Valley, 1997

3

Minnesota Flood Stage History

Key

~ 2001 peak flood stage• ReGord flood stage (year).... 10o-year flood slag8

'Ci' City, by year exceeding lOo-year flood stagetr '997<:I 2001*1997 and 2001* neither 1997 nor 2001 excHded

Stillwater<1192.3.94.1 (1965)"'92.5

'''ISt.pa~li» 23.65

,0 (1965)23.4

ankato~692

.3~)993).... 36:28'

"

IGranite Falls

895.3• j.3 (1997),U'

'"'~ NeW_~I~ ~-""oi':'30

• 811 (1900)

~

~.~F "9".::;)':"(1997)

Crookston26.38"28.4il~

27.3 ,-."J'- /

4

Throughout the history of development in this country,communities have grown up near bodies of water tosupport economic development and transportationneeds. People are attracted to the natural beauty ofwater. With climatic conditions of snowfall, rainfalland snowmelt, coupled with the presence of people infloodplains around our 12,000 lakes and 92,000 milesof rivers and streams, statewide floodplain zoningregulations were instituted in 1970.

Existing Floodplain Management

A flood of the magnitude of what is described as the“100-year flood”, that is a flood with a one percentchance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year,occurred on the Mississippi River in 1965 and 1969.100-year floods have since occurred in various parts ofthe state in 1972, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1987, 1993, 1997and most recently in 2001. In addition to snowmeltfloods, severe thunderstorms can occur several times ayear causing flooding and damage to crops and com-munities.

Local government floodplain regulations reflect thebelief that people and their structures should not belocated in high hazard areas. The result is that all newconstruction should not be flooded unless it experi-ences a very severe event, definitely greater than a100-year event.

More than 400 cities and counties in Minnesota enforcefloodplain zoning ordinances that state that no newbuildings shall be placed in the path of floodwaters andthat buildings that are substantially damaged by flood-ing shall not be rebuilt in the floodplain unless thestructure meets the flood protection standard set in thelocal ordinance. In the 100-year floodplain, the numberof flood-prone buildings statewide has been reducedfrom nearly 20,000 in 1970 to approximately 10,000 in2001.

House being moved out of the floodplain inBreckenridge

Townhouse with tuck-under garage that opensduring the flood

House on fill in Bayport

Congress created the National Flood Insurance Pro-gram (NFIP) in 1968 to make flood insurance availableto property owners, at federally subsidized rates,provided the community agreed to regulate and restrictfuture flood plain development. The NFIP encouragesproperty owners to take responsibility for their finan-cial future in the event of a flood, rather than relyingsolely on government disaster assistance.

In Minnesota, state and federal flood damage reductiondollars reach far more communities and residents whenpeople are protected by the National Flood InsuranceProgram. After flooding occurs, those with NFIPinsurance receive payments from that program torebuild and do not depend on mitigation programs ofthe state and federal government. In an acquisition/relocation area of a federally-declared disaster area, anon-insured homeowner could be offered the full pre-flood market value of the home the same as an insured

Flood Insurance Reduces State’s Responsibility

5

homeowner. If a federaldisaster is not declaredfollowing a flood,uninsured home ownersare entirely on theirown.

For residents andbusinesses in a commu-nity to be eligible forfederally subsidized flood insurance, their communitymust apply to the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA) to participate in the National FloodInsurance Program. This requires that the communityadopt a floodplain management ordinance commensu-rate with the level of floodplain mapping provided tothe community by the FEMA. In Minnesota, 87 coun-ties and approximately 850 cities are eligible to enrollin the NFIP. Of these, 85 counties and 430 cities haveenrolled. (Note: a city enrolls in the NFIP for incorpo-rated areas and a county enrolls for all unincorporatedareas located outside of cities in a given county.Hennepin and Ramsey counties are almost entirelyincorporated and do not participate in the NFIP.) Inexcess of 90 percent of Minnesota residents live incommunities that participate in the NFIP.

Business in Breckenridge, 1997

If a home or business located in a 100-year floodplainmapped by the NFIP is financed by a federally guaran-teed loan, the lender must require flood insurance as acondition of the loan. Most communities in Minnesotathat need to participate in the program do participate,but historically, less than half of the homes in the 100-year floodplain have flood insurance coverage. Thispercentage increased dramatically in 1997 in the RedRiver and Minnesota River valleys because of earlyflood warnings and media coverage.

Most cities have taken some responsibility for floodmitigation. Homeowners can ensure that their homescan be rebuilt following a climatic disaster. But there ismuch more prevention work that must be undertaken toprepare the state against the inevitable floods. Localunits of government are not able financially to take onmajor flood mitigation projects. They must seekfunding partners.

Breckenridge, 1997

6

The Flood Damage Reduction GrantAssistance Program (FDR) was estab-lished by the 1987 Minnesota Legisla-ture to provide technical and financialassistance to local government units forreducing the extent of flood damages.It is administered by the Waters Divi-sion of the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources. Under this program the state makescost-share grants for up to 50 percent of the cost of floodmitigation projects.

The DNR Flood Damage Reduction GrantAssistance Program

the DNR and presented to the gover-nor and the legislature for consider-ation in a capital bonding bill.

In addition to partnering directly withlocal units of government, FDR grantscan be used to leverage financial andtechnical assistance from other agen-

cies. DNR Waters and local units of government havepartnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers onfederal flood control projects as well as projects in theFederal Section 14, 22, and 205 Programs. FDR fundscan also be used to leverage acquisition and hazardmitigation funding from the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA) through the StateDivision of Emergency Management following adisaster.

The ravages of flooding have disastrous effects on bothpeople’s lives and their communities. Participation inthe FDR program enables communities to break thetremendously expensive and repetitive damage/repaircycle and is extremely cost-effective. An example isHenderson on the Minnesota River, where a leveeconstructed in 1997 at a cost of 1.9 million has averted5.2 million dollars of damages. The FDR program isvery popular with the state’s communities.

A small levee now protects Orchard EstatesOrchard Estates in Dilworth during the 1997 Flood

Currently two classes of grants are available. Smallgrants for projects with a total cost of less than or equalto $300,000 (maximum state share $150,000) are madedirectly by the DNR from general funds appropriatedby the legislature. These are competitive, and arelimited to available funds. Cities, counties, towns,watershed districts and watershed management organi-zations, lake improvement districts, soil and waterconservation districts, and joint powers organizationscomposed of any of these units may apply. Smallprojects and studies are covered through this grantprogram.

Large grant requests for projects with a total costgreater than $300,000 are received and prioritized by

7

•

••

•

•

Flood Damage Reduction ProjectsSince 1987 by Grant City

(some cities have received multiple grants)

Red

Riv

er

River

River

River

St. Croix

Mississippi

Min

n esot

a

Minnesota

Missis sippi

River

Ced

arR

Flood Damage Reduction ProjectsSince 1987

(some communities have received multiple grants)

Revised Map - April 2004

Minnesota Department of Public Safety,Division of

Emergency Management (DEM)

8

Partners in Flood Damage Reduction ProjectsDNR Waters always teams with partners in flood damage reduction projects using both its base level funding fromthe general fund and any bonding monies that have been appropriated. Without these funds, DNR could notprovide the non-federal match dollars that trigger access to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)funds in a presidentially-declared disaster. Here are DNR Waters’ primary partners:

This division convenes the state’s Minne-sota Recovers Disaster Task Force follow-ing a presidentially- declared disaster. Taskforce members include state and federalagencies that provide services in a disaster.DEM also manages the Hazard MitigationGrant Program (HMGP) with funds fromthe Federal Emergency ManagementAgency (FEMA). HMGP funds are avail-able when the president declares a disaster.They are used by communities for damageto infrastructure like sewer, water andelectricity, and damages to individuals. TheHMGP funds up to 75 percent of a project’scost and the other 25 percent must comefrom non-federal sources such as DNRWaters, the Department of Trade andEconomic Development, a city or county, ora home or business owner. As Terri Smith,Hazard Mitigation Administrator at theDivision of Emergency Management,describes it, “We’re effective because of therelationships we have. We play a financialand coordinating role. None of the partici-pating agencies have the tools alone. Aspartners, we figure out the best way to serveour communities.”

9

DTED acts as the liaison between the communities andagencies like the Division of Emergency Managementand DNR Waters who take the lead on flood controlstructures. Louie Jambois, DTED community financedirector, says, “We are one of the core members of theMinnesota Recovery Task Force. We aren’t experts inflood control, but we have money and relationshipswith communities so we can act in a coordinating roleas project funding packages are put together fromseveral sources.” While DTED receives federal com-munity development block grant money (CDBG)annually, it also receives recovery block grant fundswith a presidential disaster declaration. CDBG fundsare flexible and can be used for planning, new housingprojects, project administration, waste water treatment -a broad range of flood mitigation strategies.

Minnesota Department of Tradeand Economic Development (DTED)

New pump to keep the city of Breckenridge dry

In 1936, with the Flood Control Act, Congress as-signed the Corps of Engineers to take responsibility forflood control engineering works and later floodplaininformation services. According to Judy DesHarnais,since 1986, the Corps of Engineers has been required touse its federal dollars as a cost-share partner with stateand local sources. Most of the projects are structuralsuch as levees and floodwalls. Federal funding comesthrough three sources: a project authorized by Con-gress, the Continuing Authorities Program, and FloodControl and Coastal Emergency Funding following apresidential disaster declaration. It is not unusual forFEMA to hire the Corps to help in the case of a presi-dential disaster declaration. The Corps has an ongoingrelationship with agencies involved in flood mitigationand sends a project manager to the Minnesota Recov-ery Task Force when it is convened.

U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers

Levees protected Perley in 1997

Winona flood control structure builtin the 1950s with help from the Corps

(shown in 2001)

These are critical players in small projects, like ringdikes, because they see the project’s immediate value.The average cost of a farmstead ring dike is approxi-mately $30,000 (50 percent state share is $15,000).Each ring dike is designed to protect a farmsteadresidence and its related structures for storing crops,cattle, and production equipment. It has been estimatedthat the value of a single grain storage structure, whenfull from a season’s harvest, or the value of a singlecattle-related facility, will often exceed the cost of thering dike construction.

Local Landowners

Local Units of Government(LUGs)

10

Ring dikes in the Red River Valley during the1997 flood

These partners can be city or county government, butthey can also be nonprofits such as Nature Conservancyand Ducks Unlimited.

LUGs know the community and its needs. Every projectmust have a local sponsor. They know their community.They also coordinate all the work done at a local level,pay the bills, and submit documentation to the otherfunding partners.

The Unique Role of theMinnesota Department of

Natural Resourcesin Flood Mitigation

Among all the agencies that play a role inflooding and disasters, the DNR has somedistinct differences from its partners.

DNR money is focused on mitigation - on theprevention of future damages from disastrousevents.

The DNR gets money to communities forflood damage reduction quickly. As comparedto federal programs, the state DNR programswork quickly to get money to communitieswho have a plan to mitigate flood damages.

The DNR does not fund any clean-up work. Itfocuses entirely on reducing the impacts offuture flooding disasters.

A small levee protects homes in the town ofDayton, at the confluence of the Crow and

Mississippi Rivers

Montevideo

11

Many communities have taken initial steps to protect their homes and businesses from flood damage. They havefloodplain ordinances, and some home and business owners have purchased flood insurance. But many communi-ties can look at their own flooding histories and can predict that a catastrophic event will occur unless furtherpreventive steps are taken. One frequently used step is to begin removing structures from harm’s way by remov-ing all structures from the floodplain. Other flood mitigation projects, like levees and floodwalls, are expensive.They often require partnerships, but these projects have a proven record of high value to the communities wherethey are built.

Here are some cities whose recent flood mitigation projects averted million of dollars of catastrophic damage inthe spring floods of 2001. These projects are working to bring communities to at least the point where the 100-year or 1% chance event will cause minimal damages.

DNR Flood Mitigation Projects - Invest now to save later

Montevideo sits at the confluence of the Minnesota andChippewa rivers. When high water comes, theChippewa River floods over its banks and backwaterfrom the Minnesota River affects public, commercialand residential structures within the city ofMontevideo. Historically, Montevideo has had devas-tating floods in 1952, 1969, 1997 and 2001 andsignificant floods dating back to l881. Federal aid hasbeen available to the city in 1952, 1957, 1969, 1993and 1997.

Emergency levees were constructed protecting portionsof the city after the 1952 flood and were raised andstrengthened during the 1969 and 1997 flood fights.The flood of 1997 was the highest in recorded history,reaching nearly 11 feet above flood stage.

Flood Stage: 14.0 feet

Highest Known Stage: 24.7 feet (1997)

2001 Stage: 22.59 feet

1997 Damages: “We had five feet ofwater in the house - even the ceilinggot soaked,” said DuWayne Larson,resident of Montevideo. “It stunk sobad, there was no way I was goingto live in that. Then we got theanimals swimming in - mice, rats,muskrats, snakes. I decided: That’senough of this. I never realized whatwater could do.”

Smith Addition in 2001. Reddots show houses removed

after the 1997 flood.

After three inches of water drained from the house,Jerry Tilden said it took at least 1,000 hours of work toget the house cleaned up, carpets, a furnace, electricalwiring replaced, costing at least $30,000. “We worked14 to 16 hours a day for seven straight weekends,”Tilden said. “And we must have had 300 SalvationArmy volunteers in this neighborhood.” Star Tribune,June 22, 1997

The flood of 1997 was the highest in recorded history.Damage was extensive as was the flood fighting effort.Approximately $688,000 was expended by the city inflood fighting and clean up costs alone.

The area of greatest devastation was in a housing areacalled Smith Addition in the floodplain along theChippewa River. As the Minnesota River crested, itrushed overland, inundated the neighborhood andeventually mingled with the flood waters of theChippewa River. Only two of the 125 houses in SmithAddition were habitable after flood waters receded.

Cost of Recovery & Remediation: $7.4 million since1997 by all partners.

2001 Situation: Between 1997 and 2001, 80 to 85 ofthe 125 homes in the Smith Addition were acquired,relocated or demolished. “This spring, with only 40homes left in the area, we were able to spend less staffand National Guard time evacuating Smith Additionfamilies,” said Steve Jones, Montevideo City Manager.“That freed up people to work on the dike and otherprojects protecting more of the homes and businessesin our town of 5,000.”

Instead of postponing damage, buyouts preventeddamage because the structures were gone. Open spacewas created, restoring part of the flood plain to thenatural state which allows more floodwater storage.

“The flood mitigation projects made a big difference,”said Jones. “It’s in the millions of dollars. There wasmuch less damage this spring.”

The devastation of the 2001 floods in the Smith Addi-tion area has convinced more families to take thebuyout, and that will require more funding from thecity and its partners. “DNR is one of the best partnerswe’ve had. We will continue to need their dollars andfederal help for Smith Addition buyouts because asmall city like Montevideo can’t afford to do it withouthelp from partners,” said Jones.

In March 2001, a feasibility study was completed bythe US Army Corps of Engineers. The recommendedproject includes improvements to the existing leveesystem with updated internal drainage features. Homeswill be acquired and removed or relocated to accommo-date the improved levee system. The estimated totalcost is $7 million. Federal cost share is about 65percent.

12

Smith Addition, Spring 2001

Corps will improve this levee alongGravel Road

East Grand ForksIn 1997, the city of East Grand Forks was swallowed upby a 230-year flood, 26 feet above its flood stage. Itlooked like a water world; water was everywhere.There was no sewer, no electricity, no clean water.Debris, stench, crushed homes, houses knocked offtheir foundations were everywhere. The water wasfilled with garbage, raw sewage, fuel oil. The smell washorrific.

Starting over seemed like an impossible, painful task.“How do you put it all back together? We have nothingto go home to. We just don’t know. It’s so hard,” said awoman in a church shelter.




13

This billboard is usually 13 feet above ground

1997 Damages: East Grand Forks’story in 1997 was bleak. A recordeight blizzards dumped nearly 100inches of snow on the city. The springthaw left residents battling the risingRed River day and night for 15 daysbefore the dikes gave way April 18. A54.4-foot crest defeated the dikes andoverwhelmed the city, forcing evacua-tion of its residents. Much of the cityescaped to Crookston, where thepopulation doubled in a 72-hourperiod.

Of the 2,301 residential properties in East Grand Forks before theflood, only 27 had no damage - 687 had at least 80 percent damage.The flood wiped out 38 percent, $56.6 million, of the value of thecity’s residential property.

Only two of thetown’s public schoolsweren’t knocked outby the flood, and all1,250 child-carepositions wereeliminated. A conser-vative estimate of theflood’s cost was $400million for a townwhose total annualbudget was just $4million.

Floodwall in place

Building invisiblefloodwall, 1998

Levee broke, 1997

Every home in the Sherlock Parkneighborhood was flooded

Work done: The Minnesota Recovers Disaster TaskForce partners bought more than 600 structures;rehabilitated commercial and residential properties;rebuilt and restored municipal drinking water treatmentand distribution systems; rebuilt and restored sanitarytreatment and collection systems; and rebuilt andrestored municipal electricity distribution systems.

Cost of Recovery & Remediation: More than $100million coordinated by the Minnesota RecoversDisaster Task Force.

2001 Situation: In 2001, the fight was easier becauseso many homes had been cleared from low-lying areas.

14

Moving damaged homes out f the floodplain

And instead of calling out armies of volunteers to raisedikes with sandbags, the city deployed heavy equip-ment to shape stronger clay barriers earlier. (Past floodfighting experience had shown that packed clay holdsup better than sandbags.) Topographic mapping of thearea and painful experience had taught the city whichareas needed specific kinds of defenses.

East Grand Forks Mayor Lynn Stauss said, “ In ’97, wewere fighting right along with the level of the river. In2001 we stayed two feet ahead of it, so we didn’t haveto panic.”

Sherlock Park neighborhood will become theRed River State Recreation Area

Large levee in front of Sunshine Terrace

When Governor Ventura visited East Grand Forks inspring 2001, he said, “You can see the results of good,solid investment in permanent dikes and the invisiblewall that protects East Grand Forks’ new downtown.You all are very well prepared....I like the permanentprotection, because then you don’t have to face it yearin and year out. In the long run, this is cheaper andsafer.” (Star Tribune, April 14, 2001)

At this time, there is a US Army Corps of Engineersproject in progress. The city will be protected by hugelevees. The invisible floodwall and the levees on eitherside of the wall are only the first phase of the project.The total cost is expected to be $137 million; $61.5million will be the non-federal share of which $25million has already been spent. (The total cost for thefederal project authorized in the 1998 Omnibus Bill(federal legislation) for both Grand Forks, ND and EastGrand Forks, MN is $410 million.)

15

This Minnesota community on the NorthDakota/Minnesota border sits on three riverbanks. Significant flooding has occurred in theBreckenridge area in 1952, 1969, 1978, 1979,1986, 1989, twice in 1997 and 2001.

Breckenridge




1997 Damages: The Red River and its tributariesspilled over their banks and flowed freely overlandthrough much of Wilkin County, in western Minnesotaon the North Dakota border. Breckenridge is the countyseat. The first 1997 flood came when a higher-than-predicted crest overran the emergency levees on theOttertail River, and the second flood came whenoverland flooding washed in from south of town, whereno levees existed. These two floods caused $20-25million in damages to Breckenridge; 90 percent of itsstructures were damaged.

A flooded out business in 1997

Work done: Since the catastrophic flooding of 1997,Breckenridge has completed major flood mitigationprojects. It has been buying out and demolishing homesin the flood plain. It put in 14 interior pump structures,3 1/2 miles of dike , a couple of miles of floodwall,relocated the sanitary sewer lift station, and protectedthe water treatment plant.

Stan Thurlow, director of the Housing and FloodRecovery Office for Breckenridge is considered themoving force behind the city’s new 130 units ofhousing, which replaced the 132 that were destroyed inthe flood. He has also put together aid packages of allkinds to allow families to afford to move into newhouses and stay in Breckenridge.

Access to the city in 1997

Overland flooding in the Red River Valley

16

Cost of Recovery & Remediation: $21 million since1993 from all partners

2001 Situation: When the floods of 2001 came thisspring with the third or fourth highest water depth inthe city’s history, not one resident was flooded. With-out the mitigation work done following the floods of1997, the damage would have been $5-10 million. Thecity knew where to fight it, how to fight it, and whatthe more difficult problems would be.

A small invisible floodwall protectsdowntown Breckenridge

Monument at the headwatersto the Red River

New housing units constructed after the 1997 flood

“After 1997 our flood mitigation problems wereinsurmountable. This town owes a huge debt to itspartners,” said Thurlow. “It was impossible to find themillions of dollars needed on our own. The DNR wasthe key to matching funds from the Corps of Engineers.It helped with upfront costs because its money is soflexible.”

In order to stop the chronic flooding problems thathave plagued this community for years, Breckenridgecompleted a feasibility study in September 2000 usingUS Army Corps of Engineers funding. The city, withassistance from the State of Minnesota had alreadyconstructed a section of floodwall along MinnesotaAvenue and levees from the Red River to Main Streetalong Highway 75, and improved the southside leveesystem to North 8th Street. But more is needed.

Today, the city is enrolled in the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers specifically authorized Flood ControlProjects program which requires financial participationfrom DNR and the city. The completed project willinclude the construction of a diversion channel, levees

and floodwall. Four combination interior drainage andpump stations along with closures at Minnesota Av-enue, Nebraska Avenue, the Main Street bridge on thenorth and south ends would be required as part of thisproject. Construction of this project will stop a chronicflooding problem. A project cooperation agreement andconstruction are scheduled for 2002 but are dependenton obtaining Congressional appropriations for thisspecific project.

17

In a typical winter, Moorhead residents will have 39inches of snow. In 1997, 117 inches fell setting thestage for the flood of the century.

City officials knew a flood was coming. They cleanedditches for weeks in advance of the flood, in hopes ofkeeping flood waters channeled so they would flowthrough the city. They had surveyed for low spots andbuilt dikes. But when the flood waters rose over the100-year mark and stayed there for days, the city wasclose to a major disaster.

They began to have mechanical failures; storm sewergates leaked and failed. When the water backed upthrough the storm sewer system, they made heavy steelplates to put on the manhole covers and parked heavygarbage trucks on them to hold them in place. Twoweeks before the floodwaters came, a high volumepump arrived which had been purchased weeks beforejust in case they might have need for heavy, fastpumping. They set it up at the waste water plant topump water from the pond to the river.

Moorhead“We came within six inches of going over protectivedikes,” said Bob Martin, Moorhead’s public worksdirector. “We are all flat in this area; we had no highground to escape to.”

Flood Stage: 17.00feet



Work done: Moorhead has acquired 16 homes locatedin the 100-year flood plain. It raised the level of thelevees in Horn Park and Woodlawn Park to protecthomes. It has installed gate valves on storm sewers andsanitary sewer connections to prevent river waterrushing through the storm sewers from infiltrating thesanitary sewers. Sewer backup presented serious healthhazards during the 1997 floods. The city installedrubber seals and isolation valves on homes remainingin the flood plain, and installed a concrete liner toeffectively and safely move flood water through thecity without damage.

Flooded areas around Moorhead in 1997

“We had some real close calls especially in 1997,” saidMartin. “We were close to losing sanitary services tohalf the community. We have since reconstructed ourdikes and done a lot of work on sewer improvementsfor protection.”

Cost of Recovery & Remediation: $3.9 million since1993 from all partners.

2001 Situation: “The flood in the spring of 2001 was asignificant event, one of our top three floods, but therewas no comparison on the strain, the ease with whichwe handled it,” said Martin. “We didn’t have bigsurprises and recurrences of old problems. The stormsewer and sanitary sewer systems had very littledamage. We knew our vulnerable points, and we wereable to prioritize and to give people notice about howto prepare. In 1997, it was very close. We had ourhands full.”

18

The floods both in 2000 and 2001 did verylittle damage to this community which wasdevastated in 1997. Work is ongoing on theconstruction of a $6 million levee to protecta residential neighborhood in the southeastsection of the city from overland floodingfrom agricultural land.

“The partnerships with DTED, DNR, DEMand the Corps make it possible for a city oursize to fund the mitigation projects we need.Those partners are flexible. They work welltogether and are extremely helpful and makethe process easier for us,” said Martin.

Moving a house out of the floodplain

On-going planning to protect Moorhead from floods

19

Though discussion of the flooding in 1997 and 2001often concentrates on the details of what happened inindividual cities along the Red River, many morethousands of people living near rivers, streams, creeksand wetlands in rural areas of northwestern Minnesotawere impacted as the land became saturated with water.The Red River basin has been transformed during thepast 100 years from a prairie community to a renownedagricultural mecca. As land use intensifies, the runofffrom the watershed has increased.

Local watershed districts are responsible for localpolicies and projects. Members of their boards areappointed officials. When the need for flood mitigationprojects arises in a watershed district, the decisionmaking process is complex, involving numerousconflicting - and often long-held - points of viewamong people in a large geographical area. Solutionshave to be long-term and sustainable, both economi-cally and environmentally.

Red River Mediation Projects

A mediation process brought together landowners withfederal, state and local officials. One result has beenagreement and funding for four major projects.

Hay Creek ProjectRestoration of Hay Creek and a 3,000-acre wetland isthe goal of the Hay Creek Project. Hay Creek used tobe a 6 1/2 mile straight deep ditch; it will become a 10mile, shallow meandering channel providing up to 500acres of wildlife habitat bounded by setback levees.The Norland Impoundment will catch its own runoffand that of Hay Creek, creating a 3,000 acre wetlandwith a combination of gate-controlled and ungatedwater storage.

Thief River Storage and Diversion ProjectThe goal of this project is to provide flood damagereduction in the Thief River Basin while protecting andenhancing the natural resources of the basin. It has

Thief River Impoundment

three components: diversion channels, floodwaterstorage and land use changes that increase the qualityand attractiveness of the natural resources.

Agassiz Valley Water Management ProjectThis project covers 2,560 acres in Marshall and Polkcounties. It combines flood flow reduction, while at thesame time, providing environmental enhancementfeatures.

North Ottawa Impoundment ProjectFlood damage reduction is the primary purpose of theimpoundment. It will reduce damage throughout theRabbit River Watershed to agricultural land and to thecities of Wahpeton and Breckenridge. The impound-ment will provide feeding and resting areas for migrat-ing birds, will improve water quality, and will helpmaintain stream flow.

The mediator for the four projects is Jody Horntvedt,University of Minnesota Extension Educator. “It is ahuge effort, a new way of working for many of thepeople involved,” said Horntvedt. “We spent a lot oftime building trust. People are very postured with long-held points of view. We have flood damage reductionpeople, agricultural people, environmental people,local landowners. We have to find common ground andget it out on the table for discussion.”

Cost that resulted from the mediation process: $34.3million is expected to be spent on these 4 projects in afive to six year period.

20

In addition to finding common ground and agreementon the flood mitigation projects, Horntvedt says one ofthe greatest rewards from this process for everyoneinvolved is the development of best managementpractices for project teams for the future to addressproblems. “In the future, we will start differently. Therewill be guidelines for who will be at the meeting andwhat is expected of them. We will set goals. There willbe criteria for what we will consider and how we willweight the proposals. We will build a different level oftrust. We need this kind of discipline because it can takeyears to work through these projects.”

Site of Future North Ottawa Impoundment

21

The highest flood waters in the Twin Cities occurred in1965 and 1969 when the Mississippi River rose to26.01 feet and to 24.52 feet respectively. Though thirdhighest, the floods of 2001 were significant both intheir crest numbers and in the fact that the river crestedtwice. Late in April it was 23.6 feet, and earlier in themonth it had reached 23.5 feet. Flood stage is 14 feet.

Places like Holman Field in downtown St. Paul, locatedalongside the Mississippi River, were closed for weeksafter the swollen river rolled over the runways. Neigh-boring Harriet Island was one of four St. Paul cityparks closed due to flooding. Dikes were built in lowlying areas along Interstate Hwy. 35W at Burnsville.Roads and bridges along the Minnesota River wereclosed.




Twin Cities Metro Area

October, 2001

May 1, 2001

May 1, 2001 May 30, 2001

Holman Field, St. Paul

Upper Landing, St. Paul

Minneapolis - 60th and 1st and43rd and Park flood basinsThis $10-12 million project includesstorm sewer improvement, acquisitionof 71 properties, design and construc-tion of two flood control ponds, anddesign and construction of the DiamondLake outlet to Legion Lake.

St. AnthonyFloodproofing of residences, acquisi-tion of flood-prone structures and thecreation of storm water retention areasand conveyance systems has beenunderway for projects expected to cost$9 million (the state’s contribution is$4.5 million).

Samples of projects around theTwin Cities metropolitan area include:

St. Paul - Hoyt Ave.A total of 33 structures have been acquired and re-moved in addition to creating a multi-purpose floodwater storage pond at a cost of nearly $2 million instate funding. Total project cost is more than $4 mil-lion.

Inver Grove HeightsInver Grove Heights is using FDR grants along withother development funds to acquire houses and busi-nesses located in the floodplain. Structures will beremoved and the land purchased will be kept in perma-nent open space and the city intends to develop a parkin this area.

Columbia Heights - Tyler Place andPrestemon ParkA $864,000 stormwater management system has beenconstructed. DNR paid half of the cost.

Other Minneapolis ProjectsProjects are proposed for the City of Minneapolis toalleviate chronic flooding problems. The acquisitionand removal of 24 homes and the construction of astorm water retention basin is expected to cost $13million.

Dry storage pond after an hour of heavy rain

22

Wet storage pond at 60th & 1st Ave. in Minneapolis

DNR’s FDR funds have also been used to leverageprojects planned and constructed by the federalgovernment, to protect property in cities such asChaska, Stillwater, Marshall, Houston, Henderson,Oslo, and others. In other cities such as Chokio,Crookston, Warren, Breckenridge, and Dawson,permanent facilities are being planned to protect thesecities from frequent flooding. FDR funding cost shareson a 50/50 basis with the Army Corps of Engineers todo the planning studies for small projects (Section205). The Corps share of constructing these projectsranges from 50 to 65% of the total project’s cost. Briefdescriptions of some of the projects still to be built areas follows:

23

Other Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) Projects

In Crookston, the recommended plan consists of twodownstream high-flow channels, levees providingprotection from the 100-year flood events for theneighborhoods of Woods Addition, Thorndale andRiverside/Downtown and flood plain managementtechniques for areas not protected by permanent levees.Other phases to protect floodplain areas not coveredunder present federal programs will be studied and, iffeasible, constructed later.

For Warren, the completed project will include an off-channel flood water retarding structure (reservoir) and4.1 miles of floodway that includes 1.2 miles of dike.The reservoir is located approximately 10 milesupstream from the city of Warren while the floodway islocated around the east and south sides of Warren. Floodwaters in Granite Falls, 2001

Dawson’s flood damage reduction plan consists of alevee around the sewage treatment plant, a levee orfloodwall along the Lac Qui Parle River, raising streets,and interior flood control features.

Other large projects involve funding from DTED,DEM/FEMA and from the local communities them-selves. Some of these include the following:

Granite Falls suffers from over bank flooding of theMinnesota River which affects public, commercial andresidential structures. The city had requested a Section205 (small flood damage reduction) study which was

Downtown flooding in Granite Falls, 2001

August, 2001April, 2001

Chokio has purchasedland and is constructingan upstream flooddetention impoundment,repairing or modifyingthe existing channeldownstream of theimpoundment throughthe city, and improvingthe storm sewer systemwithin the city.

recently completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers. Unfortunately, the study concluded no projectwas feasible for participation by the federal govern-ment. Protection will have to be provided through stateand local funds. The completed FDR project willinvolve the acquisition and removal of residentialstructures along Minnesota Avenue and 15th Avenuealong with the acquisition and/or relocation of thecommercial buildings along Prentice Avenue.

Chokio

Ada has completed a project which includes the repairand rebuilding of previously constructed levee loops onthe northeast and south side of the city. Storm sewerimprovements, outlets, and pumping stations havereconfigured and added to control internal drainageduring flooding events.

Oakport Township, which is located just north ofMoorhead, had requested a Section 205 (small flooddamage reduction ) study which was recently com-

pleted by the U.S.Army Corps ofEngineers. Unfortu-nately, the studyconcluded no projectwas feasible forparticipation by thefederal govern-ment. The township

Levee closure across a road opening in Afton

24

and DNR Waters are investiga-ting a proposed project which includes levees, interiorflood control and a control structure in Oakport Sloughwhich protects the township to a frequency of floodingto be determined.

Lake St. Croix Beach/St. Mary’sPoint/Afton: These St. Croix communi-ties are working to determine the bestoptions to address their recurrentflooding. They’ve already completedsome levees and house elevations. Theyare considering permanent pumpingstations, flap gates on drainage pipes,road elevations, and bank stabilization.

Austin has been battling flooding fromthe Cedar River for many years.They’ve been purchasing homes andremoving them from the floodplain for anumber of years. So far, they’ve re-moved 163, but more are planned withrecent grants from DTED, FEMA andMN DNR.

Elevated home in Afton

All MN DNR FDR Program grants involve some cost share dollars. But some types of projects have special costshare distributions. Here are some of the typical kinds of funding splits. In all cases, the MN DNR share can beless than or equal to the share shown.

1. Standard Grants

50% MN DNR 50% Local*

2. Post-Federally declared Disaster FEMA Grants

75% FEMA (HMGP) 12.5% MN DNR 12.5% Local*

3. Federal Corps of Engineers Projects

50-65% Corps 17.5-25% State 17.5-25% Local*

4. 2% Median Household Projects In 1999, the Legislature passed an appropriation and rider language to provide state funds to pay the local share that exceeded 2% of the median household income of the community for the following cities: East Grand Forks, Warren, Breckenridge, Ada, Crookston, and Oakport. Additional legislative action is needed with any new appropriations.

* Local share can come from Local Units of Government, other State Agencies like DTED, fromprivate agencies or from private landowners.

25

Cost Share Distributions

26

The level of funding in 1997 was extraordinary because of the resources made available after the presidentialdisaster declaration. The work done in advance of the spring floods of 2001 has demonstrated how effective use offunds for mitigation can reduce loss in the face of flooding.

The goal of flood mitigation projects is long term protection of the local economies. These projects save valuablecity infrastructure like sewage plants and prevent hundreds of hours of labor and expenditure of general-funddollars in city budgets to fight floods.

DNR flood mitigation funding in the future will be spent first to purchase more of the older homes remaining inthe floodplains around the state. People must be moved out of harm’s way. And second, the funding will be spenton comprehensive flood mitigation projects to bring flood protection to all of Minnesota’s communities that needit.

Because of the large number of rivers and lakes in Minnesota, there are dozens of flood mitigation projects - largeand small - waiting for funding. No community can fund big, expensive flood mitigation projects on its own. Thepartnership of federal, state and local dollars makes it possible. Our weather history shows that floods will occur.Additional funding, spent efficiently and effectively through smart partnerships, will protect the health and safetyof Minnesotans in communities across the state.

Minnesota Residents Still Need Protection

Future Program Needs for the FDR Program

Henderson is protected during the2001 flood by a Corps levee

All of the significant known community flooding problems in Minnesota could be resolved with an investment of$40 to $50 Million.

MinnesotaDepartment of Natural ResourcesWaters

“Helping people ensure the future of our water resources”

flood damage reduction(to roads, bridges, public buildings, etc.) damage total for minnesota from...

Documents