Flood Link Evidence to Alternative Performance STUDENT WORK_F23

 Located in the fertile valley of the Huitsan River.  The soil type in the area is predominantly silty clay loam and there is a meander in the river that generally surrounds the downtown area.  The cost of properties around city is higher than in the suburban areas.  The city has different neighborhoods but typically the suburban area is predominately white, with higher proportions of the population who are Black and Hispanic in the neighborhoods closest to the Jamuna River  The city has a long history of flooding since 1881. Assess if the Alternatives will meet the Objectives in the context of the city of Roslyn Some properties are still located in an area with 1% annual chance of a flood event and suffered a great damage in 2015 & 2019 flood. Any flood mitigation activities that will be implemented will likely be shared in cost between • the city of Roslyn (annual budget of $36 million for all operations) • the Bluestem NRD (annual budget of $8 million) • federal funds from FEMA’s flood mitigation assistance grant available Population 13,000, Households 5500 Employment in agriculture, railroad industry and food packing industry Flooding in 2019

Evidence 7: Case studies of flooding in multiple countries reveal that dikes and levees are becoming unreliable for managing flood threats as they escalate into the future. Countries that have relied on structural methods of flood control for centuries are now recognizing their limitations. They reduce the vulnerability for frequent, low-level flooding whereas increase the vulnerability for infrequent, major floods which affects the disadvantaged the most (Wenger, 2015). Evidence 11: Ecosystems-based approaches can be used to enhance the landscape’s natural ability to absorb and store floods through features, such as wetlands and vegetation, and are flexible, cost-effective and broadly applicable (Jones et al., 2012). Evidence 6: Levees increase land values, reduce the costs of flood insurance, and facilitate additional development of flood prone land through re-zoning (Wenger et al., 2015). Levees also have high visibility, which makes them appealing to both communities and politicians. Alternative A: Education, no policy action Performance score: ** Alternative B: Acquire properties/ buyouts Performance score: **** Alternative C: Adopting structural mitigation measures Performance score: * KEY: The evidences SUPPORTS that the alternative will reduce the impact of future flooding. The evidence REFUTES that the alternative will reduce the impact of future flooding. OBJECTIVE 1: Impact of flooding is reduced Alternative D: Enhancing natural system protection Performance score: *** Evidence 2: In a model of people’s home-buying behavior (Hemmati et al., 2021), researchers found that when people’s decisions are based on price, it will result in more choices in floodplains and an increase in future flood risk because the housing prices in the floodplains are less than housing prices outside the floodplains. However, if the individuals seeking housing are aware of the risk and make a fully informed decision having full knowledge about their choices and their consequences, the predicted sales in floodplains drops by about 15% . Evidence 10: Ecosystem-based measures are highly cost- effective since they are self-regulating, have low maintenance requirements and multiple co-benefits (Jones et al. 2012; Lal et al., 2012) but they are not without drawbacks. Ecosystem approaches often require large-scale changes and rely on available land which might be a significant barrier for local government (IJC 2000; Kousky et al. 2011); however, unlike levees, natural defenses will not fail completely; rather delay and reduce flood magnitude regardless. Evidence 1: According to a FEMA survey, the lack of flood risk awareness was found to be one of the principal reasons for the homeowners being unable to implement preventive/mitigative measures like- insuring home and other belongings, being prepared on what to do when flood strikes, retaining and creating natural green space around home to help reduce sewer overflows by reducing stormwater runoff (SAMHSA, 2017) Evidence 9: Haer et al. (2016) evaluated several flood risk communication strategies and affirm that communication campaigns do not always result in the expected action. They suggest that tailored and people-centered flood risk communication can be much more helpful compared to the usual top-down approach managed by policymakers and that the most effective means to disseminate flood risk communication are social networks. Evidence 8: In Nebraska, the proportion of people who rent their homes are higher in floodplains. Renters are not required to get flood insurance for the content of their homes, and in Nebraska only 0.4% of renters have flood insurance (Paine, 2016). Evidence 3 : With structural mitigation like levees, there can be a false sense of security (also known as the levee paradox, Palmer et al., 2015). They are able to get reduced flood insurance rates if the levee is accredited through FEMA, which complicates the message that there is still high flood risk in these areas. For example, the 2019 flood event resulted in 47 breaches (nearly 350 miles) to federal and non-federal levees (reported by USACE, 2019). Evidence 5 : By acquiring and removing structures and converting them to publicly-owned open space, buyouts stop future flood loss and discourage further development in floodplains (Zavar, 2015; Conrad et al., 1998) Evidence 12: Following a large, damaging flood in 1973, the City of Beatrice began acquiring flood-damaged properties, rather than rebuilding, which they knew would only result in those properties flooding again and again. Homes and businesses that were flooded or destroyed in the 1973 or other floods were reclaimed as parks, open space, ball fields, etc.. In May of 2015, the Big Blue River reached its third highest flood stage on record. According to this analysis, nearly $13 Million dollars in flood damage was avoided, with 95 structures avoiding damage. The damages that did occur were significantly lower than the damages that likely would have occurred if none of the flood prone structures had been removed (Vilá et al., 2022). Evidence 4: In March 2019, the Upper Prairie Silver Moores Project was completed to reduce flood risk in northwestern Grand Island. When the bomb cyclone triggered massive flooding in spring 2019, an estimated $47 million in damages were avoided by reducing the flood risk for approximately 800 homes and businesses and more than 14,500 acres of ag ground. The project also removed nearly 1,600 properties from the 100- year floodplain, saving home and business owners approximately $1 million in annual flood insurance premium costs. This $24.5 million project included dam sites as well as detention cells to prevent water from flowing too quickly into the creeks (Central Platte NRD).

Your explanations for each performance score. Name: Elsie Woerner Explain the performance score of each Alternative, giving specific details as to how, why or by how much the evidence supports or refutes the Alternative meeting the Objective. A. 2: I gave Alternative A a performance score of 2. This alternative supports using non-required education as a tool to lessen the damage done by flooding. When people are informed of a home being in a possible flood zone, they more likely to prepare themselves for a possible flood by getting insurance, building flood prevention methods, and other preventative measures (SAMHSA, 2017) . I believe this to be a measure of how we will decrease the amount of flooding, not how much. This evidence shows that when informed, people are more likely to take action to prevent flooding damage, showing how they will do it. B. 4: I gave Alternative B a performance score of 4. This alternative supports buying out properties in flood zones to decrease the damage done by flooding. This alternative has evidence supporting it that shows how much flood damage would be decreased. When implemented in Beatrice, around $13 million in flood damage was prevented due to buyouts (Vilá et al., 2022). This evidence directly shows how much flooding would be prevented if buyouts were implemented. I believe that this is an effective alternative because it prevents millions of dollars in possible damage caused by flooding, meeting the objective. C. 1: I gave Alternative C a performance score of 1. This alternative supports constructing levees and dikes as a preventative measure for flooding. This alternative shows how flooding would be prevented if it was implemented. This alternative has a lot of refutes, showing that when flood prevention was built, people were provided with a false sense of safety which caused them to not take personal preventative measures and their property is then damaged (USACE, 2019). This evidence refutes Alternative C, showing how the alternative fails to meet the objective. D. 3: I gave Alternative D a performance score of 3. This alternative supports building natural infrastructures to prevent flooding from taking place. It shows how flood damage would be prevented, by giving ways that the natural infrastructures would prevent flooding. They would work as absorbancy areas where water would either run off to or absorb (Jones et al., 2012).

Evidence 5: For flood buyout participants with strong neighborhood attachment, this displacement can generate a secondary loss for flood victims and residents can mourn the loss of neighborhood or sense of place (Zavar, 2019). the loss of sense of place disrupts feelings of security and stability. Evidence 8: Communities that implement measures to protect and restore natural infrastructure functions lower peak discharge, and reduce storm surge. The result is added benefits in safer, more resilient communities (Cunniff, 2019). Natural area restoration can also help make low-income neighborhoods less vulnerable to other climate and health risks by lowering local temperatures, improving air quality, and offers opportunities for creation of natural recreational areas and parks, and provide wildlife habitat, all to the benefit of local residents (Nelson & Camp, 2020). Evidence 3 : A major concern about flooding in cities is that the residents who are most vulnerable—those who live in the lowest-lying areas or in neighborhoods without green space to absorb water—are often poor and members of minority groups. Research has shown that in states such as Illinois and Michigan, the costliest flood damage occurred in Chicago and Detroit—major cities with large black populations (Frank, 2020). Evidence 7: Dikes/levees are effective for reducing vulnerability for frequent, low-level flooding whereas increase the vulnerability for infrequent, major floods which affects the disadvantaged the most (Wenger, 2015). Levees protecting high value assets are most likely to benefit the affluent. The failure of the New Orleans levees in 2005 disproportionately affected people who were poor, of low status, the elderly and disabled, who had less ability to evacuate and recover (Tierney 2006). OBJECTIVE 2: Equity/fairness is ensured Evidence 1: With increased education regarding flood risk and zoning, the popularity of properties inside floodplains may be reduced, further reducing their price. With reduced price, those properties inside floodplains may become even more affordable housing option for low-income families, encouraging them to overlook the risk of flooding while buying houses (Hemmati et al., 2021). Both of these processes lead to unfair burden of risk to low-economic households. It is unlikely that raising general awareness and education about this disparity would be enough to change the availability of low-income housing outside of risky areas like in floodplains. Evidence 2: Floodplains in Nebraska play host to a far greater percentage of renters and that people living in floodplains are twice as likely to be Hispanic. Landlords do not need to disclose that rental properties are in a floodplain, so very few renters (0.4% in Nebraska) have flood insurance. In Nebraska non-floodplain areas 37% rent, compared to floodplain areas where 51% rent. And in certain communities the percentage of renters is even higher, for example 68% of floodplain residences rent in Lincoln (Paine, 2016). Evidence 4 : White neighborhoods are more likely to gain access to federal buyout assistance, though proportionately more likely to deny the buyout, instead making other choices that are available due to higher income, resources and options available to them. Nonwhite neighborhoods are more likely to accept assistance when offered making nonwhite neighborhoods the areas of greatest demolition (Elliott et al., 2020). In general, FEMA’s buyout is a “last resort” for when private- market options fail and neighborhood values fall in response to worsening flood hazards and declining rates of owner occupancy. These dynamics are less likely to unfold in whiter and more affluent neighborhoods, even in the face of repetitive flooding, because those areas have higher social status and better access to good schools, parks etc. (Elliott et al., 2020). Evidence 11: A buyout often doesn’t pay enough to build a new home in low-risk zone (Reinke, p.c.). Evidence 6: Another way to look at equity is to consider the cost and who pays for it. The financial cost of levee construction and maintenance is usually fully or partially externalized to wider society because the investment required is often beyond the means of local communities, which may not be fair to those people who bear the cost of something without getting any benefit from it (Wenger, 2015). On the other hand, this can greatly increase the appeal of structural mitigation works to those affected; by contrast measures, such as house raising and flood proofing, are more likely to be borne by individual homeowners. Evidence 10: Another fairness consideration is that some communities may not be able to meet the cost-benefit ratio for FEMA-funded projects (either home buyout programs or dam and levee construction programs) because their property values are low, or could not afford the 25% match required to build structures, so some communities may have more resources to protect themselves than others (Reinke, p.c.) Evidence 9: In restoring natural areas for flood mitigation, without appropriate foresight and regulation, the addition of new green spaces can impact property values—driving up housing prices and eventually pushing out low-income residents. This was the case for many Brooklyn neighborhoods and the High Line in Manhattan where environmental revitalization has displaced long-time low- and middle-income residents (Grinspun et al., 2020). Alternative A: Education, no policy action Performance score: *** Alternative B: Acquire properties/ buyouts Performance score: * Alternative C: Adopting structural mitigation measures Performance score: ** KEY: The evidences SUPPORTS that the alternative will ensure equity and fairness. The evidence REFUTES that the alternative will ensure equity and fairness. Alternative D: Enhancing natural system protection Performance score: ****

Your explanations for each performance score. Name: ___Elsie Woerner_______ Explain the performance score of each Alternative, giving specific details as to how, why or by how much the evidence supports or refutes the Alternative meeting the Objective. A. 3: I gave Alternative A a performance score of 3. This objective did not have a lot of positives for keeping fairness, but it had one of the lowest amounts of negatives. I believe it showed how equity and fairness would not be kept. When people are more informed about a house being in a flood zone, they are less likely to buy it and in turn the prices drop significantly lower than market price and lower income families move in, causing them to be the ones affected by flooding (Hemmati et al., 2021). This shows how different groups of people would be affected if this alternative is implemented. B. 1: I gave Alternative B a performance score of 1. This objective had the greatest amount of negatives with no positive evidence supporting it, and it shows how equity and fairness would be affected, not how much. The families that live in flood plains are generally minorities, low income families, and renters. These families would then be forced to move out of their houses when they are bought-out, where they receive little to no money and lose their home (Reinke, p.c.). This evidence shows how the alternative would not meet the objective if it were implemented. C. 2: I gave Alternative C a performance score of 2. This objective had a lot of evidence refuting it with no positives that would help it meet the objective of creating equality. It showed how it would be affected, not how much. Building levys and dams is very expensive. When funding the money to build these, families who are not at risk are having to pay to protect something that is not theirs, which is unfair while it is also unfair to expect the families living in areas that have flood risks to pay all the money to construct them (Wenger, 2015). This evidence shows how fairness would be affected, which is not in a positive way. D. 4: I gave Alternative D a performance score of 4. Even though this alternative had a negative, it was the only one with positive evidence supporting it. Not only do natural flood protections help prevent flooding in lower-income neighborhoods, but they also help reduce temperatures, make a place for wildlife or parks, and even lower temperatures (Nelson & Camp, 2020). I think that this is the most positive alternative when it comes to equity and fairness, which is why it deserved the highest rank.

Which Alternative will most plausibly reduce the impact of flooding in the Roslyn City? Alternative A – Education, no policy action Circle a number that indicates your thinking: Implausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding Highly plausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alternative B – Acquire properties/ buyouts Circle a number that indicates your thinking: Implausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding Highly plausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alternative C – Adopting structural mitigation measures Circle a number that indicates your thinking: Implausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding Highly plausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alternative D – Enhancing natural system protection Circle a number that indicates your thinking: Implausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding Highly plausible that this alternative would reduce impact of flooding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Explain your thinking, why are some of the Alternatives more plausible than others? Some of the alternatives have less negative affects if implemented than if others were implemented, making them more plausible to me. I believe that Alternative B had the most positives when it came to reducing the impact of flooding, which is why I ranked it the highest. Alternative C had too many negative problems such as high costs and lack of reliability, making it seem like the least plausible option for the city of Rosalyn.

Select the number on the scale to describe how you respond to a discussion of flood mitigation. Do not worry that the pairs are not exactly opposite of each other: Circle a number that indicates how you respond: When I hear about new information related to flood mitigation, I try to evaluate whether the new information matches my opinion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 When I hear about new information related to flood mitigation, I try to evaluate what the best conclusion is, based on all the available information. When evaluating the quality of information related to flood mitigation, I value the conclusions made by my family, friends, and public figures whom I trust. 1 2 3 4 5 6 When evaluating the quality of information related to flood mitigation, I value the conclusions made by experts on flood mitigation. If a politician were to make a claim about flood mitigation, I would believe them based on whether they are a member of my preferred political party. 1 2 3 4 5 6 If a politician were to make a claim about flood mitigation, I evaluate the evidence that justifies their claim to see if it is believable. If government officials were to impose new regulations regarding flood mitigation, I would discuss the measures with my family and friends before I decide if I will follow them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 If government officials were to impose new regulations regarding flood mitigation, I would try to understand the evidence that has led to the new regulation.