Floods Likely to Spur New Policies for Disaster Relief

In 1927, a great Mississippi River flood left hundreds dead and much of Mississippi and Louisiana under water--and it shook Washington so profoundly that, for the first time in the nation’s history, Congress declared floods a federal responsibility.

The result was a massive commitment to control the lower section of the river with levees, flood walls and water-diversion systems, which soon translated into construction and engineering projects that cost $4 billion and stretched over five decades. The Great Flood of ‘27, it turned out, had a profound impact not only on the cities and farms it inundated but on the programs and policies of a faraway federal government.

The destruction and economic devastation of this year’s Midwestern floods likely will be far greater--though the death toll will be far lower--as thousands of acres of farmland have disappeared, homes have been swept away and communities swamped. And, like its predecessor in 1927, this flood will leave its mark not only on mile after mile of countryside, but on Washington as well.

Federal strategies on floods and other natural disasters are almost certain to change, and the indirect effects of the flood of ’93 may ripple through a host of government agencies as well.

Already the disaster has brought a welcome reprieve for one obscure unit in the Coast Guard. In a recent spasm of budget-cutting, auditors demanded that it decommission the 75 flat-bottom boats assigned to the multi-state district headquartered in St. Louis. Adm. William Ecker, the chief of navigation safety and waterways services for the Coast Guard, said he was “chastised” for keeping the fleet because it was not used on a daily basis.

Since the flooding started, the bright orange boats have been manned around the clock, rescuing and giving emergency aid to flood victims, and Ecker said he believes that their future is secure.

More broadly, said Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), “this may turn out to be the greatest disaster in terms of cost in the history of our nation, and it is certainly going to have an impact on a larger number of people than almost any other disaster in our history.

“I think that will lead us to make some national policy decisions. Some will be expensive, but they are the kinds of decisions that need to be made.”

Among the changes that influential politicians and experts see as possible are these:

* A new federal strategy for preparing for and paying for damage caused by natural disasters, especially floods;

* An expanded role for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency charged with controlling the rivers;

* A new system for insuring crops destroyed by such catastrophes;

* New funding momentum for such varied agencies as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Park Service, the National Weather Service and the Coast Guard.

Early indications are that this year’s Midwestern flood will wreak as much as $15 billion in damage and that the federal tab for cleanup, repairs and relief could total at least half of that. President Clinton so far has asked Congress to allocate $5.8 billion for disaster relief.

Already reeling from the high cost of three recent hurricanes, many members of Congress are calling for a review of the way in which Congress responds to natural disasters.

Sens. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), two influential members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Norman Y. Mineta (D-San Jose), chairman of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, introduced legislation last week to create a new national policy for disaster relief. The proposal would make disaster coverage part of basic homeowners’ insurance. Money from each policy would go to a national fund that would be used to respond to earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and other catastrophes.

The move would make disaster coverage more affordable. In California, for instance, the average premium for earthquake insurance would be reduced from $240 annually to $53. The federal government would also save money because the fund would cover much of what emergency federal disaster relief pays for now.

“What is increasingly apparent from the flooding . . . is that a new national policy to contend with natural disasters is long overdue,” Mineta said.

The growing federal budget crunch makes change particularly urgent, these and many other lawmakers contend.

“The traditional response,” Sen. Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.) said in an interview, “has been a knee-jerk reaction: ‘Oh, we’ve had a disaster, let’s send money.’ ”

He suggested that the government establish a pool of funds that could be drawn upon when disaster strikes. The longtime practice of appropriating emergency funds after the fact only drives the country deeper into debt, he argued.

Part of the new emergency pool could be filled by restructuring the federal crop insurance law to make it more attractive for farmers to take out insurance.

“If people know they’re going to get disaster assistance if they don’t take out crop insurance, they won’t take crop insurance,” Durenberger said.

Sen. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), whose state has suffered more than $1 billion in crop losses and property damage from the floods, said he believes that making crop insurance mandatory would help avoid the huge bailouts of farmers that follow natural disasters.

Experts on flood control said the federal government should take a lesson from its response to the flood of 1927, when Congress ordered the huge project to control the lower Mississippi River.

“No one can see into the future to say what the government will do, but there certainly should be flood control protection in upper river systems similar to what we have down here,” said George Dregget, head of the Lower Mississippi Flood Control Assn., a group of private and public flood control organizations. “The government did not provide adequate protection on the upper Mississippi, and this flood proves that.”

He said the Corps of Engineers should be geared up to do another big project on the upper Mississippi.

“Then these people would not have to go through another flood of 1993,” he said. “You can’t prevent a flood, but you certainly can control it.”

Members of Congress and Administration officials said it is too early to tell how far the federal government will go in improving the flood control system on the upper Mississippi. Nor is it clear exactly what form such a program might take. Many experts contend that future flood control strategies should be more in harmony with nature, preserving and expanding flood plains, for instance, instead of trying to contain floodwaters narrowly between levees that can fail catastrophically or, if they hold, make things worse downstream.

Durbin introduced legislation Friday calling for a Corps of Engineers study to determine whether the upper Mississippi needs a flood control system like the one that protects the lower Mississippi.

“A decision made 66 years ago has given peace of mind to the people living on the lower Mississippi,” he said. “We want to have that same peace of mind on the upper Mississippi.”

The Corps of Engineers, which in recent years has seen its once-mighty mandate and budget begin to ebb, expects to see its authority broaden as flood control systems in the area are rebuilt and the country re-examines how to protect farmlands, homes and businesses.

The corps has been criticized for failing to maintain some levees adequately and for contributing to the magnitude of the flood through its levee system. But federal and local officials said that the Corps of Engineers’ levees were far superior to those that were privately built.

More than 767 of the 1,091 levees that were built by private organizations had been breached by the floods as of last week), while only 33 of the Corps of Engineers’ 275 levees were breached and only two were broken, according to corps spokesman George Halford.

This record will strengthen the role of the corps when more money is requested to fund flood control projects, said Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development.

Federal officials who have been involved in disaster relief over the last decades said the biggest mark the flood will leave on Washington could be improved coordination among the 25 or so federal agencies involved in disaster relief.

“If there is a legacy, it’s going to be better federal government cooperation and coordination in future disasters of this magnitude,” said Dennis Kwiatkowski, a disaster assistance official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. “I’ve never seen this kind of cooperation before, and I’ve been doing this since 1975.”

Another crucial change is FEMA’s new policy of early response, which was instituted in the wake of criticism of its performance after Hurricane Andrew devastated South Florida last year.

Now, instead of waiting for state officials to summon them after a disaster strikes, FEMA officials head for the stricken area as soon as the threat is perceived.

The good marks that FEMA has received during the flood confirm the validity of the policy shift, ensuring that it will be made permanent, Kwiatkowski said.

National Weather Service officials are hoping that the agency’s performance in the flood will win it the political capital it needs to complete a $4.2-billion modernization of its radar and orbital satellites. Sophisticated radar gave forecasters a better view of the storms that poured water into the Midwest this summer, indicating where the next rainfall would occur and in what quantity. That helped communities prepare for rising waters.

“We’ve got six years to go on the modernization program,” said Bud Littin, spokesman for the weather service. “This kind of performance will be a boost to our efforts.”

At the U.S. Geological Survey, officials said the floods have shone a spotlight on federal and local officials’ inability to monitor the quality of drinking water during such a disaster.

“The floods have brought this to center stage. We’re trying to come up with some sort of approach to follow in the future,” said Paul Beauchemin of the agency’s water resources division.

While communities have been testing their water for bacteria from flooded sewer systems and septic tanks, Beauchemin said the testing has been spotty, and there has not been enough checking for less visible--and possibly more dangerous--contaminants from submerged railroad yards, gas stations and industrial waste sites that line the river.

Testing water quality when such huge quantities of water are flowing down the river is hard and costly. Analysis of just one bottle can cost up to $2,000.

“It’s a difficult problem when fiscal times are what they are,” Beauchemin said.

Water quality and other environmental concerns have played a larger role in this flood than in major floods of the past because of heightened environmental concerns generally.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been involved in the daily meetings of the federal response planning group.

The National Park Service said the floods are likely to affect its strategy for managing parks in the upper Mississippi and other areas that are prone to flooding.

The department will not change its policy toward the nature reserves that line the river because “Mother Nature has always been the governing agent in those parks, and if Mother Nature wants it that way, that’s the way it will be,” said Duncan Morrow, a spokesman for the park service.

But the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, the 19th-Century river-side Ft. Larned in Kansas and other parks honoring historic sites are a different story.

“The flood will cause us to re-examine how we protect these historical resources,” Morrow said.

It also may influence how the park service develops a 69-mile strip of land designated by Congress in 1988 as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. The flood has shown officials that they may need to purchase land on high ground for park facilities and roadways as well as riverfront land, much of which is now under water.