Zone X Resilience: Flood Preparedness

I just conducted a quick assessment of a cute little 2.5 mile brook in Portland that's popular with birdwatchers. 

Capisic Brook flows through residential areas just east of Portland and it's lower area includes a half-mile trail and 18 acre nature preserve. It's Portland's largest freshwater pond, although it used to be twice as large. The Capisic Brook's 1400 acre watershed (82% of which is developed and 31% of which is impervious), even got a $100,000 grant in 2009 for restoration and to address storm-water pollution issues. The city promised another million for restoration efforts. (Source: City of Portland, Trails.org). The Brook's TMDL Assessment is also useful because it describes the watershed and pollution issues.

 

My analysis is from red pin on this map at the outlet of Capisic Brook, up to Interstate 95. 

I included houses on Brigton, Harmon, Violette, Raymond, Dennett, Poe, Taft, and Holm.

Risk Analysis

There are at least 60 residential homes in what's called Zone X, above the official flood hazard area (the 100-year flood zone, or special flood hazard area (SFHA)). However, these houses are likely at significant more risk than what the official maps suggest.

In the final analysis, this situation represents $1.6 million of property value at significant risk. This is based on about $27,000 at risk per home from a one-foot flood, for the average 1,000 sq-foot house, according to FEMA's Flood Smart Risk Tool, and the primary damages are to floors, walls, insulation, kitchen, furnaces, and furniture. I used Google's elevation tool, town maps, and FEMA maps to conduct this assessment.

Capisic Watershed from the TMDL Assessment.

If you went to the city, the official response would be that there is a very low risk of flooding for these 60 houses. They'd explain that the USGS has determined there's less than a 0.2% chance each year that 18 of these houses will be flooded (a 500-year flood), and there's a 0.1% chance that the other 42 houses will be flooded in any given year (the 1,000-year flood). They'd say there's no cause for concern.

 

City of Portland's GIS Maps (source)

Proposed Preliminary Flood Zones 2013
The 500-year flood zone is the dotted blue area.

Compare the above map, the official proposed flood zone (which is essentially the same as the 1986 FIRM), with the map below, from the Flood Tools website, which shows that this area is at very high risk, based on the above flood zone, plus flood history, elevation, and "unique characteristics."

Flood Tools estimates a $170/y flood policy in this red zone. 

 The average claim in this county is $20,500.

Why the disparity? Official Flood Maps (FIRMS) assume that flood flows "are not affected by climatic trends" (Bulletin 17B, USGS). Observations and experience are to the contrary and official policy is not supported by the best available science. And I even talked with the people who are tasked with the flood zone determination updates and revisions, and there is no plan to amend this policy. Plus, the FIRMS are based on historical floods that are assumed to represent current and future floods (they assume flood frequencies are consistent over time, despite contrary evidence of increasing frequencies). Plus, FIRMS adjust the data for very large floods, considered "high outliers." So, they might not consider that last big flood. They're also based on old data, and are restrained by government reviewers with an incentive to underestimate predictions to avoid land takings.

If I were your consultant, I'd advise you that the best available evidence shows that the real risks are far greater than the officials estimate. The second map is more accurate. First of all, the city's flood zones were designated in the 1980s and do not reflect a flood of new information, increases in risk due to development, or big advances in our understanding about flooding risks. And even the proposed revisions that might come out by 2020 will be based on old data from 2010 or before and explicitly excludes the best available science about climate change predictions and the increasing frequency and severity of flooding due to climate change.

More importantly, big floods are not a low likelihood or low consequence risk. Realistically, what officials call a 500- or even a 1,000-year flood is very likely (great than 90% likely) to happen with in the next fifteen years. And the frequency and magnitude of flooding is increasing significantly, with the risk of a major flooding event now over 30% more likely than in the 1980s, so even these even these estimates are conservative.

The city and nation's proposed 500-year flood zone maps are very inadequate.  For example, one house within the Capisic Brook's proposed 500-year flood zone is 1.63m (5.34ft) above the Capisic Brook while several  homes that are listed as outside the 500-year flood zone is less than  0.3m (1 ft) above the Brook. In reality, all of these houses should be within the 100-year flood zone and the homeowners are almost certainly unaware of their risk. This is why over one-third of flood insurance claims are filed from outside the 100-year zone. Official estimates are very misleading.

Maine has seen major floods in the 500-year magnitude every 13 years and so the official estimates for only a 0.2% chance are wildly inaccurate. The USGS, which facilitates flood zone determinations, reports that Maine saw record floods in 1987, 73, 73, 69, 54, 36, with a cumulative cost at over $426m or $72m per event. The previous big flood were in 1896, 70, 69, 46, 26, for an idea of frequency.).

This years snow, over 50% above average, is cause for concern for spring flooding, especially if there's a combination of high-temperatures and rain in March or April. Historical evidence suggests that the cost-risk for big floods in Maine is: 8.5% in December, 70% in March, and 33% in April.

Flood zone assessments are demonstrably inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, and flawed. The official methodology fails to meet the legal quality, utility and integrity standards and this results in many residents with a false sense of security. However, they are exempt from liability. People don't want to be in flood zones because it increases their insurance rates. But it also increases their risk of property losses. These homeowners are unaware of their true risk to the next big flood, and they should be notified, to have an opportunity to mitigate against property damage. I wrote about this in the paper, Zone X: Catastrophic Flooding & Flood Frequency Determinations in an Era of Climate Crises (PDF, 32p), which I summarize in Unity (pp.413-19). 

The 100- and 500-year floods disregard their statistical mandate. There were recently two 500-year floods on the Mississippi in 18 years, two in 15-years on the Missouri River, two in 11 years in North Carolina, two in 5-years in New York, and Tennessee was just one of a dozen places with a 1,000-year flood. Flooding records are being shattered all around the world. Over 40 million Americans were affected from these unprecedented extremes in the 2000s. Globally, there's a threefold increase in losses from floods since the 1980s.

The energy captured in our atmosphere by greenhouse gases has resulted in about 5% more water in the atmosphere, resulting in 8% more precipitation and a 30-40% increased risk of major floods in the past few decades. There's a 38% increased risk of 1,000-year floods! But this increased frequency and magnitude of flooding contradicts official policies for flood zone determinations.

Flooding is reported by insurance companies as the most extreme event, but the 500-year flood zone is given a low priority relative to other issues confronting local and state governments. The risk is not well recognized and this undermines good policy and public safety. Flooding hazards are significantly underestimated and the result is inaccurate flood maps, misled landowners, and ever-increasing damage.

The top eight floods in 2010 and 2011, combined, caused over 8,000 deaths, displaced over 85 million people from their homes and livelihoods, and caused over $180 billion in economic damage. 

Mitigation 
In Unity (p.403, citing Stein's When Disaster Strikes), I write about how preparedness should be guided by questions such as

• What hazards are in my area?
• What is my potential for being caught in a flood, storm, or fire?
• How long do I anticipate being without access to utilities or supplies?
• Do I have supplies and training?
• What do I do in an evacuation?

I recommend preparing a "grab and go" bag for a 72-hour emergency, and ten other actions.

I also recommend assembling a "Life-in-a-box", including emergency information, personal information, legal information, insurance policies, real estate information, investment information, and personal information such as computer back-ups.

Homeowners have several options to prevent or reduce damages and it all begins with being aware and educated of the risks. The problem is that because the government puts them in Zone X, they are not aware of their risks.

Relocation is the most effective option. The best-case scenario for homeowners involves an organized community effort for a map revision (LOMR), for the flood insurance rate maps (FIRMS) to reflect the reality of the risks, which would help residents get state and federal grants to facilitate a land acquisition and to compensate the landowners' relocation expenses. When the inevitable big flood comes, the taxpayers end up saving significant amounts of money from these types of land acquisitions. On average, for every $1 spent on preparedness and prevention, about $4-6 are saved.

Insurance is another option.  Because homeowners outside the official hazard areas are not considered at high risk, their insurance rates can be very cheap, as low as $120 per year for about $20,000 in building and $8,000 in content coverage, which is what would be damaged in a 4-inch flood. This can be acquired by the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) Preferred Risk Policy.  Note how 25% of people outside the NFIP file claims and get one-third of NFIP assistance.  And, homeowners could be qualified for a 45% discount through participation in the Community Rating System (CRS). Just being educated about flooding risks can reduce insurance rates over 10%.

Insurance on the private market, the alternative outside the NFIP, is way more expensive. For example, rather than a $120/year policy, a policy premium may be $1,175 (for a below-ground foundation, $100K building coverage, $50K contents coverage, $2K deductible).  However, this is in Zone A, in the 100-year flood-zone, because there was no option to calculate a flooding policy in Zone X. Therefore, it's possible to negotiate a dramatically cheaper plan, especially if it's part of an organized community effort.

Sandbag protection is another great option that's relatively cheap. A $500 to $1,000 sandbag wall could prevent over $30,000 in damages and property loss.  This type of preparing for the next big flood is the most likely palatable and preferred response, although it has significant limitations. 

If I were living in this Zone X in one of these 18 to 60 houses along the Capisic Brook, my minimum preparedness would involve protecting my house with sandbags. Depending on elevation, I'd want to protect against a two-foot high flooding event, but considering the relatively small size of this watershed, I would probably build a one-foot sandbag dike. A two-foot dike would cost about $1,100, for about 2,100 sandbags ($800) and 20 cubic yards of sand ($260) to build a 100-foot length dike. A one-foot dike would cost about $600 (for 600 bags with 10 cubic yards of sand). And any dike would also necessitate a few shovels, buckets, 6 mil. plastic, and baggers to complete the project.

I would also integrate this into a cool permaculture and edible landscaping project, which may cost another $500-700 for plants and soil, blending it into an aesthetic landscape and creating a mico-climate for a diversity of valuable food crops and protective perennials. (See, The Resilient Gardener).

Additional Resilience
PreparAton!, FEMA's national campaign for action, recommends that community teams help their communities prepare for disasters by doing a 20-hour basic CERT training and going to Ready.gov to become aware of possible hazards, and how to prepare—how to make a plan and build a kit. (The comprehensive CERT PDF (322p) Training Manual is on the Course Materials website.) CERTs help plan and organize drills and community preparedness. This helps keep yourself, families, work, schools, and community safe in an emergency. It also involves practicing and participating in drills. FEMA also encourages CERTS to engage individuals and families in conversations about local hazards and appropriate protective actions. They suggest a door-to-door canvassing campaign to talk about preparedness, local hazards, how to stay safe, and the role of CERT in the community. 

FEMA also recommends downloading an  app (with safety tips, kit list, meeting location, shelters, and FEMA centers) and signing up for an alert and warning notification. 

If you're not prepared, the recovery will be harder. I've helped people with this process and dealing with FEMA is a pain. The biggest issue I saw was a failure of people to take photos or document damages to file claims with FEMA or their insurance.

For an idea of what disaster response looks like from an attorney's perspective, check out this legal manual for disaster assistance services that got developed after Hurricane Irene, on issues of Household and FEMA programs (pp.8-21), insurance (pp.24-34), small business loans (SBA) (pp.37-41), recording damages (pp.42-52), mortgages (pp.53-56),  landlord/tenant (pp.69-76), taxes (pp.79-81), labor and employment (pp.82-89), public benefits (pp.90-99), lost documents (p.107), and other issues.

Conclusion

Floods are the most common type of disaster. Over 90% of disasters involve flooding. Official estimates for risk are inadequate underestimations and so most people are unprepared and unaware of high-probability and high-impact risks. (Less than 40% of houses have discussed an emergency plan and less than 50% have emergency supplies set aside.)

Typical emergency management and disaster planning—which includes risk analysis and assessments, mitigation, response and recovery planning, and preparedness training—costs about $300 for a two hour consultation.  If you read this free post, you just got a $300 education: you're now empowered to prevent over $30,000 in flooding damages to your home. You're welcome: I probably saved your life, as well as your child's and pet's life—but only if you acted on it.  Be safe.