LEGALITY OF FLOOD PROTECTION CLAIMS QUESTIONED

Greetings, Cedar Rapids City Mayor and Council:

Do Council members realize the flood protection claimed for the east side of the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids is no better than the flood protection the Coralville dam was claimed to provide for Iowa City and Coralville?  As you recall, both cities were disastrously flooded twice in the past 17 years!! 

 There is a huge difference between dams, floodwalls, levees and flood protection—that must not be ignored. 

 The Corps Report itself, which Gazette columnist Todd Dorman claims to have read, stated the east side flood protection was just 91% probable.  If so, then how can the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Council claim flood protection is provided for either side of the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids, without committing fraud?  Such claims were made in the 1-23-11 Gazette editorial and Dorman column—both pasted below. 

 Are such claims not equivalent to the Gazette and Council telling readers and residents they are protected from losses at casino slot machines having a 94% payback?

Will the Council now refute those flood protection claims—and stop making similar claims about flood protection as well—and consider the inevitability of flooding and the need for flood insurance?

 It is troubling the Gazette editorial and Dorman column did not even consider flood insurance for those choosing to occupy the flood plain.  Surely the Council will now seriously consider such a solution. 

Sincerely,

 Iowalive    A  growing network of volunteer citizens and professionals for improving Iowa

1-23-11

THE GAZETTE'S EDITORIAL

Before any tax vote, provide road map

Do we protect both sides of the river from flooding, or do we settle for less?

That's the $375 million question facing Cedar Rapids' residents and leaders. And it's also being posed by Mayor Ron Corbett and City Council members as they consider extending the city's local-option sales tax for 20 years to pay for protection that covers both sides of the Cedar River.

The Army Corps of Engineers has recommended a $100 million protection structure that guards the east bank, including downtown and industrial sites.

The city prefers a $375 million project that protects 7.5 miles on both sides of the river.

Corbett has insisted forcefully that leaders will not abandon the west side. But standing firm for fairness comes at a high price. Figuring out how to cover it brings us to the sales tax question.

Options are limited. City leaders are seeking federal funding, but it's uncertain, perhaps even unlikely, that Congress will come through anytime soon to help pay for the Corps' even more limited recommendation.

Cedar Rapids is lobbying the Iowa Legislature for permission to keep a portion of state sales taxes collected in Linn County to help pay for flood control.

That plan also faces uncertainty.

While lawmakers deliberate, attention turns to local sources of funding. Selling construc­tion bonds financed by higher property taxes would be politically and economically tough to swallow. Some leaders cite gambling as a source, but the state gaming commission says no new licenses will be awarded anytime soon.

Some have argued that the city should cut its budget to come up with the money, but the bonds sold to pay for construction require a dedicated, steady source of funding for repayment. Annual reductions won't cut it.

That leaves the sales tax. It make sense to consider it, and the fact that it must be put to a public vote will spark a much needed public debate over a critical issue. It's tough to think of a decision more important than whether or not this city opts for full, partial or no new flood protection.

Much rides on the verdict, including potential private investment downtown and in core neighborhoods. Business owners and residents are waiting and watching.

Corbett and the council still have a considerable sales job.

Task one, in our view, is to explain how the city plans to manage all of its many recovery priorities, and pay for all of the projects that have been approved. The public deserves a clear picture of how all of these projects and obligations fit together, and where we face gaps.

The city must present its road map to recovery before asking voters to extend that road for 20 years.

■ Comments: thegazette.com/ category/opinion/editorial or editorial@sourcemedia.net

Ron Corbett

Cedar Rapids mayor

DORMAN COLUMN

Value vs.

risk with flood plan

Complexity is the mother of shorthand.

That's how we, especially we in the media, boil stuff down. It's natural and understandable.

But in many cases, it's also wrong, or at least misleading.

You've probably read or heard many times that the Army Corps of Engineers isn't recommending the city of Cedar Rapids' preferred, whole enchilada, both-banks flood protection plan. And that's because the Corps can't pick a plan that costs more than the value of the property it protects. So the Corps picked a cheaper plan that protects only the east side of the Cedar River because the west side isn't worth enough to protect.

But that isn't exactly so. Understanding what the Corps is saying is important, because its recommendation looms large in the local debate over whether we need a $375 million protection system, or can live with less. Some argue that if the feds don't think it's worth much, why protect it?

I dug, again, through the 200-plus page report.

And I called up Dennis Hamilton, chief of the Corps' project branch.

And it turns out shorthand comes up short.

Hamilton said the report's core concept is 'average annual damage.' Myriad factors go into figuring it, but it's basically how much damage the Corps thinks, based on its models, that flooding will cause here in the future, divided into annual chunks. The value of existing property is figured in, but only in terms of how much flood damage the Corps believes that property is at risk of sustaining. If you have a $1 million piece of property, the Corps really only cares about the fraction of its value that it concludes might get soaked.

And, in reality, the biggest factor that kept the Corps from recommending the whole enchilada is not property value.

It's that Cedar Rapids just doesn't flood much.

It takes a big flood to do serious damage here. And looking at 106 years of records, river flow rates, etc., big floods are very rare in the Corps' view.

So if the risk is low, the Corps believes it only makes financial sense to protect stuff that would be the most costly to replace if that tiny risk pans out. That's downtown and east bank industry, but even they barely make the cut. On the west side, the Corps is simply playing the odds that protection costs more than the damage those neighborhoods would sustain in a flood the Corps thinks probably won't happen.

So, really, the local debate should be less about property value and more about whether we're willing to roll the dice and accept the Corps' optimistic assessment of our risk.

We'll dig into that on Tuesday.

■ Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@sourcemedia.net

Todd Dorman

The Gazette