Grand Forks was lucky. When the 1997 flood hit, the federal government had a budget surplus, the North Dakota congressional delegation had power and seniority, and the flood had America's attention (in part because there were few other disasters that year).
As a result, the federal aid flowed right away. The dike work quickly followed. And the city's solid flood-protection system was completed in less than 10 years.
Other cities haven't been so fortunate in the timing of their events. Tropical Storm Agnes pushed the Susquehanna River over its banks in 1972, flooding Wilkes-Barre, Pa., as completely as Grand Forks flooded in 1997. But the last component of Wilkes-Barre's improved flood-protection system was completed in 2010. That's 38 years.
Which timeline will Minot and Bismarck's flood improvements resemble most?
The bad news is that the federal deficit means cost cutting in Washington is the order of the day. The good news is that good ideas are surfacing to streamline the process so that vital flood protection work in North Dakota and elsewhere can progress.
ADVERTISEMENT
One such idea belongs to Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. It deserves Congress' support.
Hoeven introduced the FEMA Common Sense and Cost Effectiveness Act of 2011 earlier this year. On the floor of the Senate, he described this way:
When flood-protection work begins in Fargo and other cities across America, FEMA often buys out the most vulnerable homes, Hoeven noted. Besides giving the river more room to expand, the buyouts are "more cost effective than protecting the houses year in and year out."
But when FEMA buys out a property, it has a hard-and-fast rule that prohibits building structures on that property -- even flood mitigation structures -- to prevent development that might require future protection from flooding.
"It's a reasonable ban in some, or even many, cases," Hoeven noted.
"But not all.
"As a consequence of the rule, every year the federal government helps pay to build temporary levees to protect houses along the Red River. And every year, they're compelled to tear those levees down again at great expense to the government -- and ultimately, of course, to the taxpayer."
While permanent dikes clearly would be more cost effective, the current law forces cities to purchase still more property beyond the FEMA buyout zone. But few cities have that kind of cash -- so the project gets delayed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hoeven's proposal would "give the agency the flexibility it needs to make 'common sense' decisions in such cases." So, if an Army Corps-approved dike could be built on the land that FEMA had acquired, the new law would let that happen.
"Building those levees once, and leaving them in place, will provide better flood protection for people and property, better fiscal stewardship and save taxpayer dollars," Hoeven said to the Senate.
Here's hoping his colleagues were listening. Hoeven's reform could simplify a key part of a complicated process. That would speed up the process of building permanent flood-protection systems -- and that's exactly the kind of help Minot, Bismarck and Fargo need.
