Red River Basin Disaster Information Network
On-Line Workshop
November 18, 1999 -- 12:00 Noon CDT

Impacts of Flood Recovery Assistance on
Basin-wide Disaster Resilience

Mary Fran Myers
Co-Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado, Boulder

with

Jacquelyn Monday
Program Manager
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado, Boulder

and

Emdad Haque
Professor of Geography
Brandon University
Brandon, Manitoba

[Introduction]

Amy Sebring: Good afternoon, and welcome to the Red River room of the EIIP Virtual Forum.

First, if you see a blue Web address, you can click on it and the referenced Web page should appear in a browser window. After the first one, the browser window may not automatically come to the top, so you may need to bring it forward by clicking on a button at the status bar at the bottom of your screen.

Please do not use Direct Messaging to our guests or the Moderator, because it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. You will have an opportunity to ask questions during this session, afterwards in open discussion, or email follow up.

Background information for today's session may be found at http://www.emforum.org/redriver/workshop/wk991118.htm

We are pleased to welcome Mary Fran Myers and Jacki Monday from the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Their biographies are posted on the background page, however, I will note that I did not realize before, Ms. Myers has spent some time working with the National Flood Insurance Program in North Dakota! Jacki Monday also has a background which includes experience with the National Flood Insurance Program with FEMA in Washington D.C., and is interested in flood hazards and disaster resilience in particular.

We have also been joined by another member of the research team, Emdad Haque from Brandon University in Manitoba who will assist with answering questions from the Canadian perspective.

We will start with a presentation and then follow up with a question and answer period. We will review the procedure for submitting comments or questions just before we start that portion.

Please note that due to time constraints we are briefly summarizing some of the highlights of the full report of the study, entitled "An Assessment of Recovery Assistance Provided after the 1997 Floods in the Red River Basin: Impacts on Basin-wide Resilience."

The full report in Acrobat PDF format is available for download, either from today's background page, or directly from our File Bank, and we encourage you to follow-up for further detail.

[Presentation]

Mary Fran Myers: Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to participate in this session today.

As I'm sure most people on-line know, in June 1997, the governments of the U.S. and Canada asked the International Joint Commission (IJC) to analyze the causes and effects of the devastating floods on the Red River that occurred in the spring of that year and that in response to this request, the IJC appointed an International Red River Basin Task Force (RRBTF) in September 1997, charging them to make recommendations on how to reduce the impact of future floods.

In the course of their work, the Task Force recognized the importance of recovery assistance in contributing to reduced losses in the future and, among other actions, commissioned a study to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the recovery assistance programs in the two countries. The task force approached us, the Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center (NHC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and requested that a proposal be submitted to undertake this study.

We, in collaboration with colleagues at Environment Canada, prepared a proposal that was subsequently funded. Environment Canada later subcontracted its portion of the study to our colleagues at the University of Manitoba's Disaster Research Institute (DRI).

Our mission was to determine if the recovery assistance provided in the wake of the floods contributed to, detracted from, or made no difference whatsoever in long-term flood resilience. In other words, did recovery assistance make the Basin more able to ‘bounce back' quickly after the next inevitable flood without permanent, intolerable damage, or disruption, and without large amounts of outside assistance.

An ideal flood resilient community has many characteristics, and they are displayed in Figure 1.

[Figure 1]

Mary Fran Myers: Due to the limitations of time to carry out the work, our study examined the effect of recovery assistance on only one category of flood resilience, that of structures (residences, commercial/business buildings, public facilities, and infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and treatment plants). The project team analyzed the many kinds of recovery assistance that were provided in light of criteria deemed to contribute to the resilience of structures:

• Reduction in numbers of buildings or structures in the floodplain;

• Increased protection for buildings that do remain at risk;

• Speeding recovery in a future flood;

• Promoting self-sufficiency and responsibility in individuals and communities;

• Promoting flood insurance;

• Enhancing community livelihood, environmental quality, or quality of life;

• Supplementing flood-free building stock; and

• Providing for mitigation.

We analyzed each type of recovery assistance that was provided for structures in both countries in light of this criteria. You can read the detailed analysis in the full report.

In essence, however, we discovered that, in both countries, some forms of assistance did contribute somewhat to increasing the level of protection for at least some structures; to increasing the local stock of flood-free buildings to some extent; and helping build local self-sufficiency in some ways.

For other types of assistance, the impacts varied. In the United States, recovery assistance was used to permanently remove hundreds of structures from floodplains; to encourage the purchase of flood insurance; and to fund some mitigation measures. In Canada, removal of structures from harm's way and promoting repairs that would reduce future damage did not occur systematically.

In Canada, there were problems in delivering recovery assistance, at least initially, while the U.S. effort was fairly well coordinated. In neither country did recovery assistance strongly foster individual responsibility or self-sufficiency, or taking steps to prepare for a future flood that may exceed the design levels of the structural flood control works. In fact, the sense of safety generated by structural flood protection (levees, dikes, and floodwalls) in both countries may work against the long-term resilience of the residents.

Our team concluded that there was more opportunity for using recovery assistance to foster flood resiliency in the Red River Basin than was used after the 1997 floods. Our recommendations for improvements (both basin-wide and country-specific) are listed in slide # 1.

[Slide 1]

Mary Fran Myers: In particular however, we believe that:

• More assistance to permanently remove structures from flood hazards areas would improve resilience,

• Conditions requiring the purchase of flood insurance or the adoption of mitigation measures could be more widely attached to recovery assistance,

• Information about resilient recovery techniques could be shared across the border,

• Recovery assistance provided by non-governmental entities could more fully embrace the tenets of resilience, and

• The relationship between the levels of acceptable flood risk on both sides of the border should be weighed again, with an eye toward resilience.

We also identified some needs for further investigation and these are summarized in slide #2.

[Slide 2]

Mary Fran Myers: In particular, a key subject for future research is the impact of recovery assistance on other aspects of resilience, since the narrow focus of this study is but one influence on the long-term flood resilience of communities.

[Question and Anwer]

Amy Sebring: We will take audience comments and questions next. Please indicate you wish to be recognized by sending in a question mark at any time. Then compose your question but hold it until you are recognized.

Amy Sebring: I am sure Mary Fran and Jacki would also be interested in hearing your experiences during the flood recovery also. What are your observations as to whether disaster resilience has been improved?

Besides the structural aspects that were the subject of the study, which of the other aspects do you feel should receive continuing priority, either for research or for planning? Has improved planning for the next recovery taken place? Let's hear from you now.

Jacki Monday: Any of the other aspects of resilience that are shown in the figure; that is, environmental issues, public awareness, social aspects like connections, services, etc., economic aspects like business vitality, future economic development?

Mary Fran Myers: This is an extremely broad concept that is intended to embrace all aspects of basin life.

Amy Sebring: Mark Ewens and I were discussing in a previous session that participation in the NFIP seems very low given the recent experience. Last time, Gerry Galloway pointed out that their risk of flood was probably statistically higher than their risk of fire, yet no one would consider not having fire insurance.

Mary Fran Myers: One of the problems is that much of the damage suffered by GF, residents (i.e., basement damage) is not covered by flood insurance. Another problem was identified in the Pynn/Ljung study on perceptions about flood insurance in GF itself.. People just don't think they need it because they don't think it's going to happen to them.

Jacki Monday: This is a problem all over the country, not just in this area.

Amy Sebring: Yes, however we see flooding does happen all over the country! I am wondering if in GF they are waiting for maps to be redrawn for the new permanent flood control project.

Emdad Haque: Underestimation of risk justifies human behaviour, this is well known as cognitive dissonance.

Question:

Avagene Moore: I don't understand flood insurance not covering basement damage. Does anyone know the logic behind that?

Mary Fran Myers: That's a long, complicated question. Essentially, it's because the NFIP was losing too much money by covering flood losses in basements.

Avagene Moore: Just a comment based on NFIP reasoning. Then why do they expect people to purchase their insurance? I wouldn't if my basement were not covered.

Jacki Monday: They don't have any choice. They have to cover only what their premiums will fund. It does cover water heaters and other stuff in basements, but it is a drawback for some parts of the country, especially those where, arguable, basements are not a good housing style.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Emdad, there does seem to be something going on in Canada with respect to developing a national mitigation strategy. Can you tell us about where that stands if you know?

Emdad Haque: The insurance bureau of Canada is attempting to mobilize the federal govt. with a partnership with Emergency Preparedness Canada, a federal agency. Because of varied goals of these agencies it got stuck.

Amy Sebring: I see. Thank you.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Mary Fran, I was interested in your bio to see you are considering putting together some recovery teams to provide some expertise I assume. Can you tell us what you have in mind there?

Mary Fran Myers: Sure. We looked at this possibility, primarily to assist communities in long-term sustainable recovery. What we discovered is that there is a gap in information available about how best to link recovery/reconstruction with sustainable development.

Jacki Monday: That has led us to a plan for the next year or so to try to develop some training opportunities and materials to help both experts and local officials and staff learn how to incorporate resiliency into their day to day operations and planning for response and recovery. This ties in to the findings of the study we are discussing today, in which we found essentially that although some work was being done during recovery to bring the localities into a stronger position with regard to future floods, not enough is being addresses, and what is happening is not systematic.

Amy Sebring: Yes, kind of by accident when it happens! Tracy please.

Question:

Tracy Maconachie: I admit to not having read the background paper (yet) but looking at Figure 1, I wondered if in the "individual" element you considered studies that looked at why people prefer to remain in an area despite having undergone some kind of disaster (tornado, hurricane, flood) trauma, and if so, is it part of what you have identified as "good mental health" or does it not really apply to this particular situation ?

Mary Fran Myers: Tracy, thanks for your question. Our study focused on structures and not the whole broad list of components of resilience. As such, we didn't review the issue you raise.. Emdad, do you have an opinion here?

Amy Sebring: (The paper does include quite a bit on mental health during recovery, particularly on the Canadian side Tracy.) We seem to have lost Emdad for the moment.

Question:

Avagene Moore: Predictions for this winter are for a pretty severe winter across the northern US. In your opinion, Mary Fran and/or Jacki if the Red River Basin finds itself in the identical situation of 1997 is the RRB better prepared due to mitigation measures than two years ago?

Jacki Monday: Certainly there will be less damage to housing in many areas, because of much relocation, and there are some localized structures (levees ) in Manitoba that weren't there before. Schools in the Grand Forks area are in much better shape.

Comment:

Mark Ewens: Much of the Red River Valley is prepared for a flood of equal or greater magnitude than 97, although it varies quite a bit from city to city, as the local governments have all had varying ideas of what flood recovery means.

Mary Fran Myers: Mark, what do you mean by the RRV being "prepared" for a flood of equal or greater magnitude. What is different from 2 years ago?

Mark Ewens: For example the East Grand Forks community was much quicker to move ahead with relocation of housing and reopening the "greenery" to give the river a wider berth. Also they have built a higher flood wall in preparation for a flood of greater magnitude than 97.

Jacki Monday: Unfortunately, insurance coverage is still very low.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Emdad has made it back. We had a question about the individual mental health aspects of disaster resilience and I noted that there was quite a bit on this aspect in Canada in the report. Can you comment Emdad?

Emdad Haque: In Manitoba communities, this particular problem has been faced by many rural communities in particular. Most of the help to the victims came from non-governmental and community-based organizations, but there is a clear lack of systematic support from all levels of government. Such sufferings were prolonged by the fact that many victims could not even get back to their original place of residence yet (today).

Amy Sebring: There seem to be some really strong emotional ties to place?

Emdad Haque: Studies on 1997 flood effects on mental health have not yet been carried out, I mean, in the Manitoba context.

Comment:

Mark Ewens: In reference to the local Grand Forks residents waiting to buy flood insurance based on the redrawing of Grand Forks flood maps based on the new dike system, yes that is a reasonable and valid assessment. Although I don't have fast and hard data at my fingertips. There is a wait and see attitude which has been in place since the 1969 flood. And the city has been flooded 3 times since 1969. Many have, yet many more have not.

Jacki Monday: Experience around the country shows that the presence of a structure doesn't make that much difference in the decision to purchase insurance or not. And the main point is, being on one side or the other of a line drawn on a map should not be the main factor in a homeowner's decision to insure him/herself.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Mary Fran, can you comment on the point in the study that if there is a flood that exceeds the new structures, (or perhaps when there is), the residents may be more vulnerable?

Mary Fran Myers: Yes, if residents think a structure protects them, that means they generally do not take any other mitigation measures such as purchasing insurance or elevating water heaters, thereby leaving them more vulnerable to a catastrophic event.

Emdad Haque: In Winnipeg, flood diversion structure made a difference. How to address this false sense of security?

Jacki Monday: That is the 64,000 dollar question of the whole flood hazard program today.

Mary Fran Myers: Essentially, we need to change the nation's culture so that people and communities take responsibility for the decision s they make regarding risk.

Question:

Amy Sebring: I thought your point in the paper about measuring resilience is key. Are you planning any further research on how to measure all the various aspects of resilience?

Mary Fran Myers: I wish that we could. Right now we don't have any funding support to do so.

Comment:

Mark Ewens: I agree the line on the map should not be a factor. Yet in Grand Forks the location of the dike alignment has been a very hot topic, and the fact is that is what I hear from neighbors and on the news -- not to believe everything you read! So many are waiting for the dike alignment to finish.

Amy Sebring: Believe it when you see it, you mean Mark?

Mark Ewens: Yes!

Mary Fran Myers: Regardless of the alignment, people still need to accept responsibility for living in a floodplain.

Mark Ewens: I agree!!

Question:

Amy Sebring: Let me wrap up with one last question to all of you. There are many of our members grappling with these issues, and will be doing so for a long time to come. For those with responsibility in the region, what would be your overall advice regarding how to proceed?

Mary Fran Myers: Our study suggested several modifications to recovery programs, and further exploration of ways that individuals and communities can become more self sufficient is very important.

Jacki Monday: For example, our study recommended development of a new architecture style for the Basin (without basements).

Amy Sebring: Jacki? Multi-disciplinary approach, linking with sustainable development/smart growth?

Jacki Monday: Yes, the whole idea of smart growth, sustainability, is creeping into the conceptual ideas of localities everywhere and in the RRB, and that can only be a step in the right direction.

[Closing]

Amy Sebring: Our thanks to Mary Fran, Jacki, and Emdad for giving their time to be with us today, and thanks to our members for joining us. A transcript will be posted later, and we will notify you via mailing list when it is available. We will officially close the session for today, but you are invited to remain a few minutes longer for some off-the-record, open discussion if you wish.