United States Environmental Protc ISipncy
Environmental Financial Adjls oard
Funding for Pre-Disaster Resiliency
pApril 2019
X
-------
Table of Contents
EPA's Charge 3
Introduction, Background, and Need for the Charge 5
Defining Resilience and Framing the Report 6
Discussion and Analysis 8
Recommendations 11
Appendix: Case Studies in Resilience 15
New York - New York City Department of Environmental Protection Wastgjpler BajBtoence Plan 15
New Jersey - Super-Storm Sandy 17
Texas - Windstorm Insurance Association 190
Iowa-Multiple Resiliency Projects 22
Oklahoma - City of Tulsa: Resilience after the Storm 26
Page 2 of 28
-------
arge
In January 2018, EFAB received the following charge from EPA's Office of Water:
"Infrastructure design that mitigates risks associated with extreme events is critical to achieving
resilience capacity. Such designs are critical to mitigating post-event costs and service
interruptions to water, wastewater and stormwater treatment works. It is also critical to develop a
good understanding of what is an optimal resilience investment for a community given risks and
future expectations for high impact events and their frequency. In addition, natural infrastructure,
coastal ecosystems preservation and restoration can be a critical component to mitigation and water
quality impairment that can bend the resilience investment cost curve for communities with high
flood risk. For example, stormwater drainage can be designed to adaj
changing sea levels. It is now increasingly possible to measure the risks a
benefits of natural/green infrastructure solutions witi
infrastructure/defenses.1 Cost/benefit measurement can be appli
resilience investment.
;n
There are many federal programs that invest in ris
but they are often a by-product of other intended g<
Federal Emergency Management Agency (
Department of Agriculture (USDA). In aJjjressing
consider how EPA funding programs mesh ^^Mithe pro;
and identify opportunities for improvement.
Drinking Water SRF Funds, 319 grant programs
that program administrators CeithefcEPA or the states)
we request EFAB to respond to the
• To provide a fres
resilient inv
and reduce thU sts o
• Are thi
enhanc
cla
iter:
s associated with
mpare the costs and
ventional gray
;o rfood and drought
ing natural infrastructure,
Her federal agencies such as
orps of Engineers (ACE) and US
ing questions, we ask EFAB to
ms of the other federal agencies (or not)
t EPA oversees the Clean Water and
es and federal territories and WIFIA, and
establish project funding priorities/criteria
nt of how these programs serve as incentives/barriers to
tural and green infrastructure, designed to mitigate risk
eme events?
that could be made to the list of qualified projects that could
fund pre-disaster risk/cost mitigation projects? Could we add a
t qualifications as outcome-based? For example, should program
infrastructure intended to reduce FEMA payout for flooding or to reduce
y rates should the incidence for high impact events rise? Should program
fa addHls the potential value of risk and probability?
n it comes to post event response, what have federal and state partners done to assure
a robust and cost-effective response that can further mitigate event impacts on
communities? What incentives are given to rebuild to a greater degree of resilience than
before? Given recent events, what are the best management practices that have been
developed that can be documented?
1 "Financing Natural Infrastructure for Coastal Flood Damage Reduction", Lloyd's Tercentenary Research
Foundation, London, June 2017
http://conservationgatewav.org/ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/librarv/Documents/FinancingNaturalInfrastructure
Report, pdf
Page 3 of 28
-------
What can be done to encourage efforts to address resilience as viewed from a regional
and/or a watershed perspective? For example, can states/SRFs do more to facilitate regional
and/or watershed-based cooperation?
What changes, if any, are needed to EPA programs to assure that natural and green
infrastructure solutions are given proper weight in criteria setting given cost/benefit
impacts on resilience investment? Are there opportunities for connectivity across EPA
offices/federal agencies regarding the promotion of natural infrastructure acquisition, green
infrastructure (GI) and related Best Management Practices?
What metrics are there to measure/quantify Return on Investment (ROI) made to protect
critical infrastructure that mitigate extreme event risk or impacts?
Are there any good, quantified examples of proactive resilience investment expenditures
that resulted in net savings as analyzed after a relevant disasterjllnt?
How do we encourage communities to make investment in pre-miliualion infrastructure a
priority in their capital improvement nlans/budseting nrocess/lillw is rating agency
criteria affecting resilience investment?"
Page 4 of 28
-------
Introduction, Background, and Need for the Charge
"Disasters, both natural and man-made, will always pose a threat, and every community in
America will face a disaster at some point. A sobering fact is that the costs of disaster,
measured in lives lost and property destroyed, have been steadily increasing in the United
States over the past 50 years...
Not only does mitigation save lives, it is a more cost-effective, wiser use
Studies demonstrate that for every $1 spent on mitigation, between $4
avoided disaster-recovery costs.
It costs less to prevent and minimize damage and to strengthen ou
to simply spend resources on recovery afterward: a common-sense
our federal programs currently emphasize. Facilitating andJncent
most effective means of bending the cost curve for disasters
ayer dollars,
is saved in
Immunities 1m it does
but nolone that
mitigation is the
Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA), Transportath
Congress, in an op-ed for Investor's Busi,
Hurricane Florence and in support of resilie.
"It's frustrating to us because we repeat th
live in these areas, you've got to do it in
Federal Emergency Management Ag
discussing Hurricane Michael, on citize.
more consistent infrastructure and buildin.
(October 12, 2018).
According to the National
were 16 natural disasters that
combined loss
people and tot;
initial damage. tl
level
re r
'hair for the 115th
ng to the damage from
ember 25, 2018).
9 over again. If you want to
ion/
trator Brock Long, in a press briefing
ig evacuation warnings and the needfor
s to harden communities against flooding
nic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in 2017 alone there
caused at least $1 billion in losses and damage. Altogether, the
eat®r and climate disaster events, regardless of severity, killed 362
n losses and damage2. In addition to the sheer magnitude of the
ature of rebuilding and economic recovery - from the household
can be significant.
For example, approximately 3% of northern California's estimated 1,200 wineries were destroyed
by the 2017 wildfirll. Regional chambers of commerce estimate that Napa Valley employs over
30,000 in tourism-related jobs that generate more than $3.8 billion in economic activity to the
region, all of which is estimated to take at least some measurable hit in the near term. As this report
is being finalized, California is assessing the loss of life, property and economic activity as a result
of the 2018 wildfires. Apart from the direct impacts to the economy and the eventual increased
risk of landslides, wildfires can impact the quality of the water supply3. Lingering effects of natural
disasters can be seen in New Orleans, Louisiana where the estimated 2017 population of about
400,000 is still only about 85% of its 2000 census figure, more than a decade after Hurricanes
2National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration https://www.noaa.gov/news/2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-
record-for-us
3 Science Daily (https://www.sciencedailv.com/releases/2018/03/1803200844Q3.htm')
Page 5 of 28
-------
Katrina and Rita and even as the city struggled again with two extreme rainfall events in July and
August 2017.
Resiliency has developed into a key theme for local and regional governments in the U.S. which
is due in part to the rising acceptance that climate change-related risks represent exposures for
public entities and their infrastructure (highlighted during the 2017 hurricanes in Nlorth America).
Additionally, the interlinked trends of growing and urbanizing populations, which bring
concentrations of social and economic assets in areas already susceptible lo extreme weather-
related events (such as hurricanes and flooding). Furthermore, nearly 40%iflffhe population in the
U.S. lives in urban, coastal areas that could be threatened by not only storms but llllksea level
rise.4
Drinking water, sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure,
safety in both urbanized and rural America. Improved resi 1 ien
perils - floods and droughts - could help communities not o:
suffered during these perils but also speed up the return to normal
crucial tor public health and
St thSfcko most common
reduce the damage and loss
Defining Resilience an rung the
The workgroup started with a definition of MMience thl| included key concepts from an existing
Memorandum of Agreement between FEMA and EPA that states "Smart growth approaches and
mitigation measures applied to pre-and post-disaster development and redevelopment are a major
part of ensuring that investments and future growth improve environmental, economic, and public
health outcomes. Smart growth will also help communities become more resilient to future hazards
that may occur, including!!
utilities in specific, it meanl|
from natural and matmade
more succinctly during intern;
an investment in the future to h
kind of pe
llient to the impacts from climate change."5 For
ater infrastructure systems to withstand and recover
to their functioning."6 One EFAB member defined it
orkgroup deliberations: "resilience is an insurance policy. It is
the community bounce back more quickly when - not if - some
This report will fociHtaainly, but not exclusively, on investments in flood control and stormwater
infrastructure - u liich are generally the function of the local or regional unit of government - and
analyze how sucllljpvestments can help with infrastructure resiliency. Equally if not more
important is investing in natural solutions such as wetlands restoration and preservation. Aside
from the pure economic argument as a potential lower cost alternative to utilizing nature rather
than investing in new grey infrastructure, wetlands offer measurable benefits not only to the
immediate riparian zone but also to population centers downstream and even upstream.
We view as out of scope any electric utility infrastructure assets, as most of the U.S. population is
served by investor-owned, rate-regulated utilities, typically subject to prudent investment
guidelines by state regulatory authorities, and each having local and regional discretion to put into
4 "Ocean Facts," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Ocean Service website,
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html.
5 Memorandum of Agreement between Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency
(DHS/FEMA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Section III, para. 1. (August 2016).
6 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Eligibility Handbook. EPA publication 816-B-17-001, Section 4.1, p. 19.
Page 6 of 28
-------
the rate base investments such as undergrounding of distribution lines to protect against ice and
trees, poles made from concrete or composite instead of wood as part of added system
reinforcement against high wind, and vegetation management practices as part of the operating
budget.
The working group acknowledges that flooding and drought are not the only natural disasters. Still,
much of the loss of life and property as well as most of the related resilience efforts focus on flood
and drought risks over investing in resilience against wildfires (currently mainly function of the
Department of Interior) and tornados and earthquakes. Local building codes have the potential to
promote resiliency in the case of tornados and earthquakes but those events are generally so
catastrophic that the focus is most often on post-event responses. We also do not view
cybersecurity, terrorism or other malfeasance or deliberate acts to beiflplTcope for this report but
agree that risk management at all levels needs to be comprehensive anMekn^ledse that natural
events are not the only causes of loss of life and property.
It is the Board's opinion that what should be included in the dis
create headwinds towards long-term operational and financial p
term plans, both the services that communities provide 011 a daily
and disaster planning that all local and regional go
includes:
Messaging by elected and adminis
do as well as what not to do;
Asset management;
Public sector accounting and financial re
Better collaboration between and within the
Lastly, it is the view of tl
United States. Nearly eve:
infrastructure fundi
responsible for most
mainly the Fed
units of goverl
become
public
fundimF- the
ain points" that
out effective long-
well as the contingency
e doing could suffer. This
on recommendations on what to
and,
:ederal government
both a Funding and a Financing problem in the
onal organization and academic institution has identified an
ional sources of money that have historically been
cture spending in the U. S. are the various levels of government;
/regional units of government. The real level of spending by all
ture has by all measures decreased for many decades and has
age further and non-discretionary spending for health care and
each budget full of tougher and tougher decisions. So, infrastructure
ication of financial and other resources - becomes more difficult.
The fmancihg problem is different. Traditional options for raising capital like the capital markets
work we^tthey are transparent, liquid and generally accessible and high functioning. Because the
money con^pfrom investors who are willing to put their capital at risk, a rate of return is expected.
Financing strategies also exist outside of traditional sources that could provide the capital towards
investments in resilience. As the units of government become more financially constrained, so
does their respective abilities to finance infrastructure projects. Thus, it also becomes an
affordability problem.7
7 Bipartisan Policy Center https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/infrastructure-finance-faqs/
Page 7 of 28
-------
Discussion and Analysis
We believe that the primary barriers to communities addressing key infrastructure pre-disaster
resilience is characterized by one or more of the following principles:
1.
Understanding the problem and potential solution. Not every local, regional or state
views stormwater and flood control as something that should be funded, managed and
operated by a dedicated non-tax revenue stream. This problem is the one of education and
we believe this is the easiest to solve, assuming that flooding - whethej^from extreme
weather events or sea level rise - is the most common peril.
Stormwater infrastructure is one aspect of flood control. Howevj
projects are eligible for state revolving fund borrowing, wh
lowest cost of funds for water-related projects. For examf
centralized wastewater treatment is already an eligible ^project
state revolving fund participation. But flood control proj
SRF borrowing if they can demonstrate a water qual
revolving fund programs for both drinking and
managed for decades.
EFAB supports the consideration of expandi,
tweaks of what constitutes an eligibh
Federal program, as further discus&m below'.
2.
name of public he:
message for con ting'
insurance po
and economic o
long-t
no
bs
of the i
ause
not all flood control
pically llmnong the
,te resilrence for
ory for clean water
only qualify for
rthermore, state
n proven and well-
igram, either by definition
creation of a new or expanded
Mindset and focus on long-term pla^teig. Efjn for those communities that may have
relatively greater financial resources and more discretion in how to strategically deploy
those resources, there is not always consenswregarding how to prioritize projects. Often,
leadership devotes attentio^fcd resources to the provision of drinking water and sanitary
sewer because the^are essenMLserajJpes that must be provided around-the clock in the
water is life' and demand is constant, conveying the
and risk management as what is essentially a prudent
p limit the loss of life and property - and perhaps population
t- can be difficult. Creating awareness for the need to engage in
just risk management against perils that do not occur often is
Creating political support to commit what is most likely
resources to hedge against those perils can be very difficult because
ctivity.
supports the use of objective tools to determine a measurable return on investment
to help communities and - if applicable - rate regulators - make more informed
deciMtns.
3. Asset management approach to track and monitor operational performance. Rather
than assuming a particular asset will "run to fail" and then be replaced, asset management
allows utilities to track and monitor operational performance with a litany of data. By itself,
this is not meaningful to resilience and mitigation. But data gleaned from asset
management systems can assist in aligning the entire organization and the messaging of
addressing a utility's weaknesses by, for example:
Page 8 of 28
-------
• providing the finance and back-office team life-cycle cost, inventory and
procurement-related information;
• providing compliance reporting to satisfy environmental regulators;
• providing decision-makers greater certainty that the appropriate levels of financial
resources will exist when the asset needs to be renewed or replaced; and,
• providing financial regulators enough information to support any rate case.
Asset management data could also help establish the justification for longer-lived assets
carrying a financing and depreciation treatment more in line with th^Ks^^mseful life. In
recent years, EPA has incorporated programmatic elements and policies w»n the SRF
programs that can promote resiliency investments.8 Incorpq^^ng/djyeloping a robust
program, system wide and regardless of whether it is water, wastewater or stormwater, can
pave the way for effective system governance.
Tgrams which can
:.s' a tool that utilities
EFAB supports better and more consistent use of asset
help provide utility governing bodies more and J|j|jj[ info\
use to improve reliability.
4. Money is currently limited. LRGs the entities that historically have provided most of
the waterworks, sanitary sewer and stormwater infral%ttcture - have competing priorities
but do not generally have financial aiwkjher res«"ces to address them all within any given
fiscal year. Generally, utilities derive \idually all of their operating revenues from rates
and charges. For municipally-owned utilities, this insulates the utility against flat property
tax revenues or economicffct-volatile local option sales taxes, as well as any cuts in state
shared revenues. For investofl«wned utilities, the singularity of operating revenues makes
rate regulation more straightforward. But regardless of ownership and governance, the
reliance on rates and charges to grow operating revenues means affordability is a "third rail
issue" in an increasin«^»erwcommunities. EFAB and others that follow drinking and
clean water seMfcce pension have observed that in addition to sensitivity towards rate
» are making considerations towards their rate structure,
ta per day consumption is flat or declining, some utility managers
ter have made revisions such as increasing the minimum charge in the base
the impact from the volumetric rates. But even these moves are intended
revenue neutral. Operating expenses, including fixed costs such as bond debt
ension payments, have tended to increase in a sector that is generally very
leveraged. The result for some utilities is a choice between pressure on the bottom
available cash reserves or raising rates.
Still, we believe there are a variety of financing strategies and ongoing funding options that
could be explored further, but financial capacity among local and regional governments is
inconsistent and willingness to borrow to invest in infrastructure varies wildly from
community to community. The private sector, including some very large investment banks
increa
ents o
8 Environmental Protection Agency, State Revolving Funds: Financing Drought Resilient Water Infrastructure
Projects, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/srf_drought_paper_-
_final_2_8-31-17.pdf
Page 9 of 28
-------
and hedge funds, have announced new commitments to infrastructure9. The U.S. has
considered, but not yet created, a national infrastructure bank.
5.
EFAB endorses the concept of aligning private sector interest with public sector necessity,
potentially complementing not only the state revolving funds and WIFIA but also efforts by
the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) all of which have sjffUar and often
overlapping infrastructure goals.
Collaboration among Federal agencies. While it is uncert;
President will agree upon and pass an infrastructure bill, th
consensus for the need for more leadership on messaging the p
the Federal agencies, especially in an environment of fina:
Historically, state and local governments have built the|j
infrastructure in the United States. This workgroup doe
making the messaging even more important. There is no si
pay for, and if not attended to with ongoing upkeep, infrast:
De-prioritizing risk management, including resilience planni
the community to the potential increase j
events.
ss and the
seem to be broad
ween aM among
resource scarcity,
ar amount) of the
,t to change, thus
. You get what you
ture failures could increase,
and preparedness, exposes
it alone tail risk from extreme
Several federal agencies - chief amoifllthem the federal Emergency Management Agency
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - have active roles in cost sharing and financial
incentives but also in establishing best practices and guidelines. It is EFAB's view that the
EPA is an equally impoiflfctpartner in pre-disaster resilience and mitigation. Given its
successful financing programs, EPA can also be a champion for pre-disaster resiliency in
a way that is still respectful of federal budget constraints
EFAB encourages tUMmgoing collaboration among all Federal agencies - FEMA, USDA,
US ACE, EPA, and others - with funding and financing programs that assist with
develojm^^een^^aswmcture or other innovative solutions that readily promote resilient
comm '
9 "KKR Closes $7.4 Billion Global Infrastructure Fund" (September 6, 2018); https://media.kkr.com/news-
releases/news-release-details/kkr-closes-74-billion-global-infrastructure-fund
"Blackstone Nears First Close of $5 Billion for Infrastructure Fund" (June 25, 2018);
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/blackstone-is-said-to-raise-5-billion-for-infrastructure-fund
Page 10 of 28
-------
Reeornm en ciati on s
The below recommendations from EFAB are rank-ordered in terms of most-preferred and most
likely to be actionable items for consideration by EPA to those that are more general observations
of areas of opportunity. The recommendations may not include new technology, processes or
protocols; however, they are what we believe will create headwinds for more efficient pre-disaster
resilience and mitigation planning and execution. (See the Appendix for case studies documenting
pre-disaster resiliency implementation success.)
1. Encourage Long-Term Planning and Use of Asset Management Plann,
Municipal and Investor-Owned Utilities.
Tools for both
We believe that the use of long-term planning and/or asset maj igement
help align utility leadership by ensuring the requisite financial res urce;
the replacement or renewal needs to be scheduled or hopefully
drought, but also creates more objective data to provid
engage and ultimately garner support from the commu:
this information should be presented to funding progra:
repayment terms. If, in the view of managers, llie appli
resilience-related asset is long-lived and has an expejled us
amount of years over which the final loan paym
can choose to consider that in the
both public (SRF, USDA, FE
Additionally, we believe that SRF ah
has in place or plans for a robust asset
that these projects receive higher funding
he deci
ing could
re in pr^e before
the next storm or
-makers who must
lso believes that
they consider the
demonstrate that the
life beyond the maximum
extend, that the managers
This approach can be applied with
,te"purees of infrastructure funding,
cants should demonstrate that the utility
system and that EPA should encourage
2.
Develop a Coordination
including EPA, ACE, (ISDA's,
gaps in funding pre-
EFAB endor:
2018. The inte
upgrad
infi
isk:
connec
to Foster Communication among Federal Agencies
FEMA. The team should set priorities and reduce
for public infrastructure.
Senate Bill 3021, America's Water Infrastructure Act of
of the Bill is to provide funding for ports, inland waterways,
systems and increase water projects. Section 4101, stormwater
skforce, specifically directs the EPA administration to develop the
a report. We believe that this report should specifically outline the
ndancy and gaps between and within federal agencies. For example,
om FEMA are critical in aiding the recovery of affected communities,
ever, by offering grant funds only for rebuilding after a declared disaster, an argument
made that the investment disincentives communities from pro-actively preparing
for disasters and investing in resilience measures. The report should develop an
overarching strategy with direction on programmatic changes to fund and encourage pre-
disaster resiliency for public infrastructure.
3. Consider the Creation and Authorization of a New Stormwater State Revolving Fund
(SWSRF) and/or Expansion of SRF or WIFIA to Include Additional Stormwater/Flood
Control Eligibilities.
Page 11 of 28
-------
Funding programs including the SRF have been well managed by the States to ensure
public health and the environment. The ability to fund stormwater/flooding pre-disaster or
mitigation projects, however, may be limited relative to the nation's clean water and
drinking water needs. The new SWSRF program or expanded SRF/WIFIA should include,
stormwater-eligible projects, without qualification, as well as flood control as qualified
projects also have a clear benefit to public health and safety as well as to the environment.
Should a new program be created, funding for this SWSRF would need to be obtained.
One possibility would be to coordinate with FEMA and use somjpnnount of the
appropriation for FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, authorized under Section 203
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistj|jfi Act. It is EFAB's
opinion that more projects could be funded by leveraging a loan program using existing
SRF structures and management teams rather than a federal grant wijjb state aSlpor local
matching. In fiscal 2018, FEMA's total budget for grants was about $2 billion, roughly the
same as the combined funding for the Drinking and Clean Water Revolving Fund
appropriations. EFAB identified a number of success stories from ilie%se of stormwater
infrastructure helping to improve flood control by the use of gray and green retention,
detention and barriers. These anecdotes tended to be irrespective of whether the LRG
creates funding through general taxes or stolijwater re\ enue fees and charges, although
the latter most likely creates an ongoing and more certain revenue stream and one that
could potentially be matched to federal and stale participation.
Depending upon the total funding needs, anothljj possibility would be to reconsider the
creation of a national infrastructure bank. Consideration would have to acknowledge that
the investor community'^interest in infrastructure investments both domestically and
abroad is very high. We dnot feel that a federal infrastructure bank would compete with
existing loan programs offered by the EPA or USD A, since the latter is most often utilized
by the medium, small and very small community water systems. The largest utilities
generally utilize the tax-exempt capital markets and now, perhaps, WIFIA. The U.S.
population i^tjjicreasingly collltl and urban, with most of the largest cities along the
Atlantic or Pacific Oceans or Gulf of Mexico needing to invest in resilience and mitigation
infrastructure. In casesIphere urban planning has already at least identified and even
designed projects, the construction phase is very costly and might have a decades-long
ultiple phases. This means they may simply be too large for existing
ternative solutions like catastrophe or social impact bonds or that funding
greatly delay readiness. However, a proposed national infrastructure bank is
ultimately capitalized would be at the discretion of the federally-elected
als, but EFAB believes that the time is right to reconsider the idea.
4. Recommend Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center (WIRFC) Develop a
Compendium of Information to Measure Resiliency Costs, Benefits and Best Practices.
There are a number of global tools, benchmarks and studies (proprietary and academic)
that attempt to measure resilience at the sub-sovereign (typically city) level. It is EFAB's
observation that all are valuable and useful in slightly different ways: some are focused on
social infrastructure, others on utilities and the environment, and those that look to mitigate
Page 12 of 28
-------
risks from manmade causes such as cyber or physical terror attacks. Even EPA has an
existing "Route to Resilience" compendium of best practices specific to water
infrastructure10. Just as there is no consensus on definitions, assumptions and methodology,
there is no universally accepted holistic tool. It is EFAB's view that without a uniform way
to measure the costs and benefits as well as best practices for resilience that community
leaders could face an information overload. Each study would seem to provide sound
recommendations, leading to analysis paralysis with no clear path to apolitically prioritize
mitigation investments. We also urge EPA, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other
federal agencies tasked with the provision of infrastructure to look to the private sector for
measurements of resiliency costs and benefits. The homeowner illjirance industry for
example, while generally regulated in each state, has valuable models in place to assess
risks by location. There are also private vendors that follow "tail risk" events and use the
data to build sophisticated models that predict destruction and likely population shifts from
storms and sea level rise. By achieving more robusl and transparent disclosure about
communities as a whole all the way down to an individual parcel as to the exposure of any
particular risk and any mitigation measures already in place - disclosure to potential bond
investors, to rate regulators trying to discern
or even to prospective homebuyers - market
and potential ROI based simply on collective
e ma
e threshold of "prudence,"
lp to achieve prioritization
Once the compendium of information is competed, we recommend that this information
is easily accessible on EPA's websil^^iven thBimportance of pre-disaster resiliency as
discussed throughout this report, EPA should consider having a "Pre-Disaster Resiliency
and Funding" link on its homepage under "Key Topics" section and reference to not only
the compendium informa^^and related matters but also to its Federal Funding for Water
and Wastewater Utilities in National Disasters (Fed FUNDs) page.
S u mm ary / Con clusi on
In response to the E
matter. In our,
infrastructure
potential sham on.
to track an
collmorati
min
From I]
2.
ater's charge, EFAB organized a workgroup and analyzed the
siMfcmarized the key barriers for communities in addressing key
ence to the following principles: (i) understanding the problem and
and focus on long-term planning, (iii) asset management approach
operational performance, (v) money is currently limited, and (vi)
eral agencies.
principles, we established the following recommendations:
ourage Long-Term Planning and the Use of an Asset Management Planning Tools
for both Municipal and Investor-Owned Utilities;
Develop a Coordination Team to Foster Communication among Federal Agencies
including EPA, ACE, USDA's NRCS and FEMA. (The team should set priorities and
reduce gaps in funding pre-disaster resiliency for public infrastructure);
10 EPA https://www.epa.gov/waterresilience/route-resilience-2018-drinking-water-and-wastewater-utilities
Page 13 of 28
-------
3. Consider the Creation and Authorization of a New Stormwater State Revolving Fund
and/or Expansion of SRF or WIFIA to Include Additional Stormwater/Flood Control
Eligibilities;
4. and
5. Recommend WIRFC Develop a Compendium of Information to Measure Resiliency
Costs, Benefits and Best Practices.
Given the long-standing, expensive and growing challenge to funding pre-disaster resiliency, there
is no easy solution. However, EFAB believes that our recommendations above ale an important
first step to understanding and addressing this nationwide challenge for EPA and our nation.
Page 14 of 28
-------
Appendix: Case Studies in Resilience
NEW YORK
Super-Storm Sandy - New York City Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater
Resilience Plan
In response to Superstorm Sandy, the New York City Department of Envir
(DEP) sought to identify its operational risks and vulnerabilities to floodin
weather and future sea level rise for the 14 wastewater treatment plants ind
operates, and quantify the capital investments that, if implemente
facilities against future damage. The October 2013 NYC Wastewater
determined that all of DEP's treatment plants and 58 of its pnmnin<> statio
damage. A key finding of the Plan was that with the implementat:
of protective measures, the City would be able to avoid $2.46
replacement costs over a 50-year period (costs in 2013
Protection
e to extreme
96 pump stations it
elp preset these
e Plan11 (the Plan)
ere at risk to flood
ely $315 million
potential repair and
Superstorm Sandy made landfall in New York City o:
$95 million, occurred throughout DEP's syst
and equipment that drive treatment process
of treatment to continue, DEP's Rockaway
operate for three days, only able to perform
plants were not able to operate for a period of
of untreated sewage was relea^^into local waterways. While the damage was extensive,
implementation of its Storm Preparedness Plan prior to Sandy's landfall enabled DEP to recover
and be able to treat 99% of the City' s wastewater within four days after the storm and then resume
secondary treatment citywil
12. Damage, estimated at
failure of electrical power
generators allowed varying levels
'verwhelmed by flooding that it did not
ction activities; additionally, two other
!)urs. Approximately 562 million gallons
DEP's Wastewater Resilience Plan provides a climate risk and adaptation analysis specific to each
of DEP's trealmenl plants and 58 at-risk pump stations. Many DEP facilities are located in low-
lying areasand are close lo bodies of water—a design feature that is common to the wastewater
industry as these locutionsracilitate transmitting and discharging effluent at lower costs than
highejaillleva lions These circumstances can make flooding an inherent risk of the wastewater
industry. DEP's climate analysis addressed this risk by mapping the location of current and
projected 100-year flood elevations at each of its facilities using recently updated FEMA maps. A
margin of 30 inches was added to the 100-year elevations to account for storm surge associated
with projected sea level rise by 2050.
The risk analysis identified specific items of infrastructure that would be affected in flood events.
Flood pathways were found and mapped at each treatment plant based on the flood elevations of
the climate analysis. Equipment was deemed at risk if it was within the flood pathway and was
critical to allowing the plant to continue to provide primary treatment. At Rockaway, the DEP
facility hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy, 689 pieces of equipment, more than one-third of all of the
11 New York City Wastewater Resiliency Plan
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/about_dep/wastewater_resiliency_plan.shtml
Page 15 of 28
-------
equipment in the plant, were found to be mission critical. The risk analysis also showed that 58 of
the system's 96 pump stations were vulnerable to the storm surge elevations indicated in the
climate analysis.
The risk analysis also identified the facilities where future improvements should be prioritized.
The selection criteria for pump stations was based on the area population and critical facilities
(hospitals, schools, public safety) that would be impacted by the pump station's failure. The six
treatment plants where failure could impact bathing beaches have the highest priority for the
implementation of protective measures.
system's
esilience
de:
The adaption analysis addressed the potential strategies that would be;
infrastructure. The strategies were evaluated based on their feasibility, cost and
that they would provide at the facilities identified in the risk analysis. lj|j|e strategies
• elevating equipment above the critical flood elevation;
• flood-proofing equipment by using submersible pum
around electrical equipment;
• installing flood barriers around flood pathways
• sealing structures with watertight doors and
• temporarily deploying sandbags around d
event; and
• providing backup power generation
equipment.)
ritica
watertight boxes
windows before a surge
reatment plants already have such
The adaption analysis provided each treatment plant and the 58 pump stations with specific
recommendations on the proteqiye measures an^Bheir costs at each critical location. (See
accompanying pdf.) Costs for thellineasures (in 2013 dollars) were estimated at $187 million at
the treatment plants and SI28 milliorrmthe pjj§»ip stations.
Benefits were also
resilience would be
repairing and n
50-year period
plants, almost te:
investment
million cost o
uanti
pate that the returns to DEP for investing in disaster
ie benefits to DEP are the costs that it would not have to incur
|cilities, given the probabilities of recurring storm surge over a
Its were estimated at $1.76 billion (2013 dollars) at its treatment
17 million cost of recommended measures. The avoided costs for
resilience are $709 million (2013 dollars), almost four times the $128
lended measures.
Initiatives to implement report recommendations began the following year. DEP's first action was
to incorporate the new flood elevation levels and six adaptive measures into the repairs of existing
equipment altl in the design and construction of new facilities. Another important step was to
provide operators at each plant with placards that allow them to quickly see where protective
measures should be undertaken when storm surge advisories are announced.
Implementation of specific protective measures is being coordinated with other improvements at
DEP facilities. When feasible, protective measures are being scheduled toward the end of an asset's
useful life or in conjunction with other upgrades, significantly lowering the overall cost of the
improvements. Several adaptive measures are pending at the Rockaway treatment plant, as DEP
Page 16 of 28
-------
evaluates whether to convert the plant into a pumping station, given the significant cost of other
capital improvements that are needed at the facility. Four design contracts are addressing resilience
upgrades across the system and construction contracts are scheduled for bidding this year.12
The federal government and New York State have been important financial partners in DEP's
Resilience Plan. In the aftermath of Sandy, Congress appropriated $600 million in 2014 to the
state revolving funds of New York and New Jersey to reduce vulnerability tOi|future natural
disasters. New York State used these and its own funds to create a $339.7 million Storm Mitigation
Loan Program (SMLP). Through 2022, DEP has budgeted $206.4 million for resilience projects,
with $161 million being provided through SLMP loans and the balance through
POST-SUPERSTORM SANDY DAMAGE ASSESSMEN
REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PUMP STATIONS
Recognizing a unique opportunity to compare pre- and post^Mience costs of a singular incident
on similar, but independent, water/sewer components this analysis compares the impact from
MONMOUTH
Superstorm Sandy (2012) on four (4) pump
Authority (SMRSA) in four (4) adjacent t
and stakeholders, particularly managers of
water/sewer systems, to the cost - AND value -
systems prior to a severe event. TJfag limited scope
for all inquiries, rather it dei^*trates a cost/benefit analysis which furthers additional
considerations, questions and discusi«i. Frajexample, what other post-resilience savings exist
(e.g. lower insurance premiums) that further justify pre-event resilience investments?
the South Monmouth Regional Sewerage
nt cllthis analysis is to educate readers
er Relief grant programs and end-user
g in resilience measures for water/sewer
s analysis is not meant to provide answers
SMRSA manages a#teatment plant am a conveyance system consisting of eleven (11) pump
stations and one metenB^airKr for eight coastal communities in New Jersey. Prior to Hurricane
Irene ten of the ele\ en pump sl|pions were traditional brick and mortar stations located at low
elevation Mints in communities within blocks of the Atlantic Ocean. As sea level rise has
exacerbated the impact of severe storm conditions in recent years, these pump stations have come
und^*creasing risk of being damaged by high winds, excessive precipitation and tidal surge. In
October 2QM, when Superstorm Sandy landed along the central coast of New Jersey, these ten
pump stations were flooded and sustained major damage. However, the one mobile unit pump
station uWtea Girt, located just one block from the Atlantic Ocean and which had replaced a
traditional brick and mortar station in 2011, weathered the storm with minimal damage. The unit
mimics a single unit mobile home trailer on wheels with all electronic and computer equipment
contained in the trailer and the pumps and piping submerged underground. For the two occasions
when weather and tidal surge put the pump station at risk (i.e. Hurricane Irene and Superstorm
Sandy), upon notification of a mandatory evacuation, the electronic components were
disconnected from the pumps and the trailer was towed to higher ground until weather conditions
improved allowing for the return of the unit. The brilliance of this strategic approach is manifested
12 Fiscal 2018 Consulting Engineer's Report, page 18 of the New York City Water Finance Authority
13 One NYC Progress Report 2018. page 84
Page 17 of 28
-------
in the net cost of the damage to the Sea Girt pump station during Superstorm Sandy as compared
to the other similarly located brick and motor pump stations. The total loss to the Sea Girt station
was less than $19,000 versus the damage and resilience costs of the other three pump stations,
excluding life-cycle replacement costs, of between $0,683 and $2,464 million. Note that this
analysis covers the three pump stations for which SMRSA financed the rebuild and resilience costs
through the NJ Water Bank, New Jersey's SRF financing program and for which the NJ Water
Bank had cost figures. The Pitney Avenue and Lake Como projects received 90% reimbursement
of eligible costs from FEMA* while the Belmar project received a 19% principal forgiveness loan
(a grant-like award) from the NJ Water Bank through additional federal EPA SRF funds granted
to New Jersey specifically for Superstorm Sandy flood and resilience work.
Pump
Station
(Est.)
Storm
Costs
(Repair +
Downtime)
(A)
(Est.) Life
Cycle
Replace
Costs
(B)
(Est.)
Resilience
Investment
(C)
Actual
Dollars
Spent
(Repair +
Resilience
+ Life
Cycle)
(D)
A+B+C
Break-
even
Storm
Events
(Resilience
Costs
Storm
Costs)
(C/A)
FEMA or
Sandy SRF
Disaster
Aid Funds
Provided 4
(E)
Net Costs to
cover
Storm +
Increased
Resilience
Costs "
(D-B)-(E)
Pitney
Avenue
$902,714
$0
$368,656
$1,271,370
0.41
($1,126,998)
$144,372
Belmar1
$298,173
$2,100,000
$385,428
$2,783,601
1.29
($528,884)
$154,717
Lake
Como2
$1,853,349
$0
$610,711
$2,464,060
0.33
($2,217,654)
$246,406
Sea Girt3
(Mitigation
already in
place)
$18,556
$18,556
N/A
$0
$18,556
irement: Due to the magnitude of the destruction caused by Sandy
local match requirement was reduced from the standard 25% to just
lore typically, local municipalities and Utilities are required to pay 25%
costs as well as cover all non-FEMA eligible rebuild costs.
ISA: Excludes Life-Cycle replacement cost for the Belmar Pump Station of
* FEMA Loc
throughout the S
10% of elig
of the total
** Wat Q
$2.1 million.
1 Belmar, NJ: Pump Station was at the end of its useful life and already in need of replacement.
2 Lake Como, NJ: Pump Station was relocated outside the floodplain rather than replaced with a
Mobile Station.
3 Sea Girt, NJ: Mobile Resilient Pump Station (MRPS) sustained $18,556 in damage during
Superstorm Sandy (a SCADA antenna mast was bent by high winds and a backup control panel
was damaged by wind-blown rain).
Notes:
Page 18 of 28
-------
storm.
id was the
Innovative
SMRSA's design of the Sea Girt Mobile Station and ability to transport the station's electrical
components out of harm's way during a storm minimized damage to the pump station, reduced
pump station down time and related costs, and lessened the potential of sewer overflows.
Superstorm Sandy cost SMRSA approximately $10 million in total damage, submerging and
knocking out 10 of their 11 pump stations. Yet, the Sea Girt MRPS, which had been driven to
higher ground and then returned within 24 hours, was the only pump station that endured minimal
damage. SMRSA Management estimates that the Sea Girt mobile station saved a combined
$1.5 million dollars during Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy as the^pump station,
having been moved during both storms, sustained no substantial damage during
This MRPS design was deemed a Best Management Practice (BMP) by
recipient of the 2014 NJ Governors' Environmental Excellence
Technology
Conclusions:
• By investing and upgrading the Sea Girt pump station to a
removed prior to a severe weather event, SMRSA minimized i
and major expense, including down time of service for b
installation. In the very short run (within 3 years), SMRSA's l
to build and install the Sea Girt mobile station had a straight in
91.4% when compared to the estimated $1.5 million in damage repairs it saved SMRSA during
Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy Any future storms will likely further these return
savings.
ns were rebuilt using the same MRPS
will realize similar savings by avoiding
uring future storm events.
• Because the Belmar and Pitney Avenue
enclosure design concept, it is assumed
comparable damage as the SaHGirt pump statio
jt capable of being
stantial damage
eather events after
investment of $1,639,901
tment return of more than
• The Lake Como pump station
made inoperable and
Como pump station pr
options. SMRS
for the rebuild of these twi
Assistanc
damaged fa<
TEXA
Pitney
d at thj| opposite end of the lake from Pitney Avenue was
SMRSA minimized the cost of the Pitney Avenue and Lake
gxmizing availability of State and federal financing
eived approximately $1,127 million and $2,217 million
stations respectively through FEMA's Section 406 Public
ant to assist impacted communities with the cost of rebuilding
It was a net storm cost to SMRSA of just $0.144 million for the
nue pump station and $0.246 million for the Lake Como pump station, making
jal prafcner in the rebuild of both pump stations.
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association
In 1971, in order to combat the insurance market's unwillingness to write policies in the wake of
Hurricane Celia, the Texas Legislature established the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association
("TWIA" or "the Association"). The TWIA functions like an insurance company in terms of its
operations and revenue structure but differs in two distinct ways. All net insurance premiums and
other revenues made by the Association go directly into the Catastrophe Reserve Trust Fund
Page 19 of 28
-------
Texas First Tier
Coastal Counties
frf.
Refugio,
Ca noun
Aransas
Patricio
Nueces
Kleberg
efferson
Chambers
Galveston
Brazoria
Matagorda
("CRTF") every year. Second, because it is a residual insurer of last resort, it is not a direct
competitor in the private market and therefore more closely resembles a quasi-government entity
than it does a private insurance company. TWIA's primary funding channels consist of insurance
premiums, the CRTF, bond issuances, and reinsurance. The Association's debt obligations do not
currently carry ratings. The State of Texas has no obligations with respect to TWIA's bond
issuances.
The primary mission of the Association is to
provide windstorm and hail insurance to
residential and commercial properties in the
"designated catastrophe area" where access to
necessary coverage is not readily available.
Policy applicants must have been denied
coverage by at least one insurer in the private
market. The coverage area consists of 14
coastal counties and parts of Harris County as
shown in the map to the right. The shading
indicates the three building code standards in
this region - Seaward (red), Inland I (yellow),
and Inland II (blue).
In order to most effectively handle unfortu:
events that could result in high volumes o:
claims being filed in a short period of time
TWIA has developed the Catastri
Incident Response Plan. The plan
departments, the size and
TWIA's response to stake
funding to pay all
designed to assess
inflow of clain
Source: TWIA Media Briefing Book
staffed in
ntifies the roles and responsibilities of all internal
nt, gives instructions for filing claims, updates on
t importantly, outlines the steps necessary to secure
CAT plan makes use of a resource scalability model
of the impending storm before it makes landfall and thereby the
ted to follow. From there, TWIA can ensure that it is properly
involved in receiving, processing and closing claims.
hard to improve the CAT plan over the years. Its effectiveness was evidenced
le Association's response to Hurricane Harvey. When Harvey struck the Texas coast
£017, TWIA issued their first claim payments within 72 hours and processed and closed
approximately 90% of all claims made within the first 75 days. In total, TWIA had issued more
than $1.08 billion in claim payments by April 30, 2018 in response to nearly 76,000 claims.
TWIA's ability to make that many claim payments in such a short amount of time would not have
been possible without the policy changes that allowed TWIA to issue public securities. In 2005,
Hurricanes Rita and Katrina made landfall and initiated a sharp increase in demand for coverage
provided by TWIA, resulting in losses of nearly $3 billion for the Association in 2008 when many
policy-holders filed claims after Hurricanes Ike and Dolly. In response to increasing liabilities,
legislation was passed in 2009 and 2011 that allowed TWIA to issue Class 1, 2 and 3 bonds in
Page 20 of 28
-------
order to help restore reserves and finance the writing of future policies. All classes of bonds are
backed by a net revenue pledge of the Association, which includes net premiums collected and
other revenues. Class 2 and 3 bonds, after a finding of by the Commissioner of Insurance, may
also be repaid by surcharges on coastal property policies and Class 3 bonds may be payable from
member assessments.
Historical Funding Comparison
i Premium and CRTF a Assessments
i Class 1 Bonds ¦ Class 2 Bonds ~ Class 3 Bonds ¦ Reinsurance
S4900M Total $4900M Total $4900M Total _
S3S50M ToMl
S3150M Total
S2700M Total
S2236M Total
S2100M Total
S1600M Total
S1500M Total
S1000M | S1000 M a J500M
S230M S S1000M
2011
Funding for 2008 shown as it existed for Hurricane Ike, post-Hurricane Dolly; unlimited additional funding available via reimbursable assessments
Funding for 2009-2011,2013 assumes $0 Class 1 Public Securities issuable; 2012,2014-2015 include $500 Million pre-event Class 1 Public Securities
Funding for 2015 shown as of September 1,2015, incorporating SB 900
Funding for 2015-2016 incorporate bond repayments that differ from prior years
Funding for 2017 based on terms authorized by TWIA Board of Directors.
Source: TWIA Media Briefing Book
TWIA has experience'
above, TWIA
of its 201
millio
TW
pre:
TWIA
ecovery after a severely depleted reserve fund in 2008. As shown
increased its funding level each year from 2009 to 2017. As a result
balance of the CRTF available for the 2017 hurricane season was $737
,nce to date. Also, out of a total of 36 residual market plans nationwide,
est and has the second lowest operating expense, as a percentage of
average expense for all other plans is approximately 30% of premium,
penses have been under-budget for the past six years - a testament to the ability and
experience of TWIA's management team, which has over 150 years of combined insurance
industry expertise.
Lastly, TWIA remains focused on constantly improving their policyholder service. It receives
complaints on only 0.2% of claims and continues to receive positive customer survey results after
processing and closing claims, averaging 4.37/5 in 2017.
Page 21 of 28
-------
IOWA
Dubuque Bee Branch
The City of Dubuque has experienced six Presidential Disasters between 1999 and 2011 due to
flash flooding with damages totaling nearly $70 million.
In 1998, the City commissioned an engineering study to look into the nature of the flooding and
identify solutions to mitigate or eliminate the flash flooding experienced in the Bee Branch
Watershed. The end result was the Drainage Basin Master Plan completed and adopll|^ 2001. It
revealed that there were more than 1,100 properties at risk of flood da^fee asjkresult of the flash
flooding. A subsequent study in 2009 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
identified a flood-prone area with 1,373 properties. In addition lo homes, there are over 70
businesses in the at-risk area that combined employ over 1,400 people with over $500 million in
annual sales. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the impagjjji properties have buildings that are
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In fact, fifty-seven
percent (57%) of the 1,373 buildings are more than
The Drainage Basin Master Plan outlined severaF^mrov^tents throughout the watershed to
mitigate future flooding and disasters. Having identified the Hooding issue as a top priority, the
Dubuque City Council adopted the Drainage Basin Masw Plan and established funding, including
a stormwater management utility, to construct the firsi phases of the Bee Branch Watershed Flood
Mitigation Project in 2003. The Bee Branch Creek project is one element of the multi-phase Bee
Branch Watershed Flood Mitigation Project. The combined phases of the project will reduce the
volume of floodwaters, slaayhe rate the floodwaters flow through the upper watershed, increase
the safe conveyance of floodw aiers ilirouj|jfBie flood-prone area, and provide physical barriers to
prevent floodwaters from inundating the City's only potable water source.
The Bee Branch
city. It is chara
It drains t<
less tl
the
ts of 6.5 square miles of land located in the northeast part of the
slopes and bluffs that shed water quickly from the west to the east,
ek and ultimately to the Mississippi River. While it only constitutes
s area, over 50% of the 58,400 Dubuque residents either live or work in
rsHed.
The Bee Branch Creek project involves replacing almost one-mile of storm sewer with a creek and
floodplain that resembles the one that traversed the area approximately 100 years ago. This "day-
lighting" of the buried Bee Branch Creek will allow storm water from flash floods to safely move
through the area without flooding adjacent properties. During heavy rains, storm water will rise
out of the creek and fill the green space instead of flooding streets and homes.
Prior to the project, the creek was dead and buried in an underground storm sewer. As is the case
with many rural creeks, the Bee Branch Creek does not dry up in the days following a rainstorm.
It is constantly fed with groundwater. In the case of the Bee Branch, much of the groundwater is
Page 22 of 28
-------
carried to the creek through the storm sewer system. This groundwater discharge serves to keep a
steady flow of cool, clean water into the creek.
Large diameter storm sewers discharging into the creek were equipped with Nutrient Separating
Baffle Boxes (NSBBs) to help prevent garbage and pollutants from entering the Bee Branch Creek.
The NSBBs triple compartment scour-free design and screening system captures sediment and
suspends trash and debris in a dry state. Dry state storage greatly minimizes nutrient leaching,
bacteria growth, and odors leading to improved water quality for the surrounding water bodies.
The City has strategically placed the Baffle Boxes so that they are also easily accessible for
cleaning from the surface using a vacuum truck.
To further promote the infiltration and filtering of runoff prior to it re;
pavement was added in several streets, a parking lot and two alleys. The
alleys within the watershed into "green," permeable alleys. So ff
Seventy-four (74) of those alleys were converted to permeable
Water SRF Water Resource Restoration Sponsored Proj
Native plants that once dominated the Iowa landscape
to manage rainfall and diversify the landsc
coneflowers, brown fox sedge, prairie blaaill sta
extensive root systems, tallgrass prairie vegokjion help
matter content and ample pore space between soil parti
infiltrate most rainfall, while shedding little runo
attracts songbirds, dragonflies, h^^ningbirds, butterflies, and other desirable species. It is more
resistant to pests and disease. While aesthetically pleasing, it requires little maintenance because
they are adapted to Iowa temperatures and rain full patterns. This can lead to significant cost savings
when compared to labor inWjsiNc lurf grass. Prairie grass was also planted in multiple biofields
strategically located^bng the creek toWercept and promote the infiltration of storm water runoff
from small storm sewelllkstemBalong the creek.
meable
ans to convert 240
converted to date,
first Iowa Clean
~used along the Bee Branch
black-eyed susans, purple
flowers, and many others. With
' form deep, rich soils with high organic
2s. These soil characteristics absorb and
native landscaping along the creek also
In the su:
Branc
dro^pS
Pres
estimat
completec
rrain fell in less than 24 hours in Dubuque. With the completed Bee
property damage was largely avoided. In 2002, a similar rainstorm that
nn in a 24-hour period resulted in enough property damage to warrant a
Declaration. Based on the damage caused by the 2002 storm, it can be
lat the 2017 storm would have caused $11.6 million in property damage without the
Branch Creek Project.
The project was funded by weaving a variety of local, state, and federal funding sources, all with
different rules and regulations on how they can be spent. Funding was received from Iowa's Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Fund, US Department of Transportation (US DOT), Iowa Department
of Transportation (IDOT), Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), US Department of
Commerce Economic Development Administration (US EDA), the Iowa Economic Development
Page 23 of 28
-------
Agency (IEDA), and the Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
and Flood Mitigation Board (SFMB).
*ge durin^^avy rains,
fifteen years as a
rains,
to safely move
While the main purpose of the project was to mitigate flooding, the project has also improved
water quality, provided aquatic habitat and created greenspace in an area where low-to-moderate
income and minority populations call home. The City maximized the benefits of the project by
incorporating additional amenities for the community.
The Bee Branch Creek Project is:
¦ A storm water management and disaster prevention project:
o Over 1,300 homes and businesses were at risk of flood
o A Presidential Disaster has been declared six times i
result of the public and private property damage followin;
o Daylighting the creek will allow storm water
through the area without flooding adjacent prope
• An environmental improvement project:
o The restoration of 2,000 feet of a one
o Daylighting the creek and exposing if
areas allows for aquatic and rip
taking up organic and inorgzyjlp^ollu
reduced suspended sedimelllltireduced
bacteria.
o Installation of infiltration practices such as bio-swales and permeable pavement,
o Cascading water features have been constructed at multiple locations along the
creek. In addition to providing pleasing scenery and sounds, these mini-waterfalls
serve as aeration systems, introducing fresh oxygen into the ecosystem that fish and
plants need to thrive.
• A neighborhood park serving low-income and minority populations with:
o A comrmBlitv ollkard
its associated floodplain.
ireating natural creek bank
San improve water quality by
ing in increased dissolved oxygen,
lospTiorus and nitrogen, and reduced
Trails (Maintenance Access)
phi theater,
rist attraction:
A 2,000-foot hike/bike trail connecting to the 26-mile Heritage Trail hike/bike trail
between Dubuque and Dyersville (IA) to the Mississippi River and Mines of Spain
trail systems.
Overlooks that provide scenic views of the natural beauty associated with the creek.
A creek and linear park that connects to multiple City parks.
An outdoor classroom:
o An outdoor amphitheater next to the restored creek, adjacent to an elementary
school and along the national Mississippi River Trail through Dubuque.
o
o
Page 24 of 28
-------
o Interpretive signs with information on the history of creek, benefits of prairies, the
orchard, the fish habitat, and resurrected creek.
Middle Cedar Partnership Project
In June 2008, the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa was engulfed by flood waters from the Cedar River.
The river crested at over 31 feet, 19 feet above flood level. The flood surpassed the previous record,
set nearly 80 years earlier, by 11 feet. Floodwaters spread across more than 10 square miles of the
city. Over 1,000 blocks in the heart of the community were flooded. More than 300 public
buildings and 900 businesses were damaged, 5,400 homes housing more than
affected, and 10,000 residents were displaced by the disaster. The flood
in damages to the community.
Since that time, Cedar Rapids has implemented a flood control plan that
flood mitigation practices: floodwalls, levees, real estate ac
projects, 200 acres of new greenway and 8 acres of wetlands.
However, the city wanted to do more than just bui
could work with landowners upstream to capture the
water flowing downstream. Cedar Rapids
commodity associations and conservation dlgficts to
(MCPP).
citizens were
.4 billion
arner
many traditional
ter management
Jhey wanted to see if they
and reduce the quantity of
a variety of agricultural groups,
Middle Cedar Partnership Project
The MCPP was awarded a USD A Regional Cons^^pion Partnership Program (RCPP) grant of
$2 million. These funds will be matted with an addition $2.3 million in primarily technical, and
some financial assistance from the 16 MCPP partners. The partners include:
Farmers / Producer;
USD A N aturai >e sou'
Benton / Tama' unti
Bento:
Tama Soil < wai
ation Service
d Miller Creek Water Quality Initiative projects
servation District
'onservation District
Alack Hawk Soil and Water Conservation District
Dupont f^ijyper'
Counter oundation
Mature Conservancy
Iowwarm Bureau
Iowa Soybean Association
Iowa Pork Producers Association
Iowa Corn Growers Association
Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa State University Extension Service
Page 25 of 28
-------
• City of Cedar Rapids
The Middle Cedar watershed encompasses 2,417 square miles. The Cedar River is part of this
watershed. Not only does Cedar Rapids draw its drinking water from shallow alluvial wells along
the Cedar River but the river runs right through the middle of the City. The goal of the MCPP is
to encourage upstream conservation entities and local farmers and landowners to install
conservation practices to improve water quality and soil health and thereby slowing runoff to help
with flood mitigation.
The project will first develop watershed plans in five targeted si
effectively target best management practices (BMP) to high priority
The plans will incorporate conservation practice placement
landscape characteristics such as land use, soil type, topograph)
best placement of conservation practices to achieve maximum bl
These maps, and other information, will be used to prioritize place!
Conservation practices currently identified include nu
saturated buffers, wetland creation, and wetl
keep runoff from cropland to a minimum,
outreach will be provided to local farmers t
significant promise for nutrient reduction.
OKLAHOMA
City of Tulsa: Resilience a:
The City of Tulsa is in rf
multiple large tributaries ru
and began a period of yrowth
grew rapidly
Even in T
caused
million
which
t of BMPs.
atersheds in order to
in the watershed,
take into account
ation to identify
ing specific goals.
It, cover crops, bioreactors,
conservation practices help
idoption rates of conservation practices,
lefits of conservation practices that hold
ma,
along the banks of the Arkansas River with
community. Tulsa was first established in the 1820s
1900s with the discovery of oil14. The city's population
' development along the River.
community experienced devastating flooding. The flood of 1908
J2 million (in 2017 dollars) in damages and, as the population of the
did the damages. The 1923 floods left thousands homeless and caused
(in 20i|p dollars) in damages15. Flooding continued in subsequent years, racking up
millions of dollars property damage and lives lost.
The City ofmilsa chose early on to take a pro-active approach to address flooding. Community
leaders and affected residents demanded it. After the 1923 floods, City leaders developed the first
land-use plan, which set forth the foundation for development of the City. This development
featured methodically designed housing areas at higher elevations and designated the lower
14 Oklahoma Historical Society, Tulsa, Available at
http://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry .php?entry=TU003
15 City of Tulsa, Flooding History, https://www.cityoftulsa.org/government/departments/engineering-services/flood-
control/flooding-history/
Page 26 of 28
-------
elevations for parks and trails. Further, these Tulsa visionaries set aside more than 2,800 acres for
a park in the floodplain of one of the largest tributaries.
As flooding continued into the mid-1950s, the federal government also began implementing
structural controls designed to prevent flooding. The US Army Corp of Engineers completed
Keystone dam upstream of the City in 1964, and many residents believed that the flooding of Tulsa
was coming to an end. Flooding, however, continued and increased with the urbanization of the
City. With each flood, leaders took more steps towards resilience.
In 1970, the City joined the National Flood Insurance Program
moratorium on building in the floodplain. Later, the City developed
management policies, began drainage master planning and develope
new development. The City of Tulsa collaborated with neighboring
federal partners. They accessed federal funding as appropriate
floodplains.
The City of Tulsa solidified their commitment to re
stormwater utility fee to provide "stable funds for
entire fee exclusively for floodplain and storm
that they could be open to continued growth,
or enhanced flooding.16 This approach cont)
development.17
The City of Tulsa has identified
which provide benefits beyond ri
detention basins across th^city. Th*
walking trails when dry an
entiJBjy enacted a
prehensive floodplain
er regulations for
nities and state and
rty located in the
establishing a dedicated
lanagement... {with} the
[emenilt;tivities." The City believed
iwth could not and would not result in new
ITulslF s vision of land and infrastructure
prone areasipti turned them into parks and open spaces,
flooding. Furthermore, Tulsa has developed multi-use
nction as soccer fields, parks, open spaces and
rduring storm events.
One of the premie:
realized in the Mingo
collaborated
greenspac
levels afego"
out:
uisir s vision for progressive stormwater management was
ershed. The City of Tulsa and the US Army Corp of Engineers
dress the ongoing flooding by creating increased amounts of
ere initially skeptical of the plan, showcasing collaboration at all
essential in developing trust within the community. An intensive public
importance of stormwater management was critical to the effort.
Funding for the Milgo Creek Watershed project came from a variety of sources including sales
tax, bon^fcue funds, stormwater utility fees, as well as federal funds. In total, more than $437
million doll* went into the project. Since the implementation, there have not been any major
property losses due to flooding. Ancillary benefits seen as part of the increased green space in the
Mingo Creek watershed include water quality improvements, reconstructed wetlands, and
community wellness.
16 Naturally Resilient Communities, Mingo Creek, Tulsa, Oklahoma, http://nrcsolutions.org/tulsa-oklahoma/
17 Learning from Disaster: Tulsa's Resilient Floodplain Design - 100 Resilient Cities.
Page 27 of 28
-------
Stormwater management continues to play an important part in the City of Tulsa. In 2018 the City
unveiled its Resilient Tulsa Strategy1*. The strategy goes well beyond flood resilience and echoes
the benefits and importance of green space for stormwater management.
18 City of Tulsa, Resilient Tulsa, available at https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/7673/reslient-tulsa-digital-web.pdf
Page 28 of 28
------- |