We began gathering information for our study by preparing a cover letter (Appendix A), and survey (Appendix B), to distribute to the Flood Plain area. We sent one cover letter, along with five surveys, to six different persons that were involved with the flood. While waiting for the return of the surveys, our next step was to collect information regarding the flood. This included gathering articles, talking to professors at Michigan Technological University, and watching video footage of the trip that a few of our group members obtained through Bill Rose, of the Geology Department at MTU.
Upon the return of our surveys, we began to compile all of our information regarding the flood plain. We then began to analyze the risk communication process that took place between the media, the Rockport Island Army Corps of Engineers, and perhaps most importantly, the townspeople that the flood affected.
In gathering information for this project, we used several different sources. The first source of information came from the field trip that Dave, Kris, and Michelle went on with their GE404 Hazard Mitigation Class in February of 1994. While on their trip, they visited the "upper Mississippi" area and spoke with many people whom Professor Nancy Hanks, of Western Illinois University, introduced them to. The people they met with had varying backgrounds, which helped to provide valuable insights on their particular feelings about the flood, the effectiveness of the levees, and how the communication process was handled. Some of the people they met with included members of the Army Corps of Engineers, local townspeople, the Superintendent of the Sny Levee District, and a representative from a non-profit organization called River Action Inc. The entire trip was video taped and was representative of the actual damage that had occurred.
Our second source of information came from responses to the survey that our group created. The survey consisted mostly of yes or no questions that dealt with the communication process that took place during and after the flood. Personal feelings towards levees, and the characteristics of damage in the area were two of the topics we touched upon in our short-answer questions. Our reasoning behind the yes or no format was to provide convenience to the recipients. We also hoped that by using this format we would encourage individuals to participate and ensure a speedy return of the surveys.
We sent one cover letter along with five surveys to six selected individuals in the flood plain. The cover letter explained our project, explained the purpose of the surveys, and requested that these individuals distribute the surveys to various persons at their discretion. Three ofou r group members chose these persons, because they had the opportunity to meet with them during a Field trip this past February to the Mississippi Flood Plain. They, along with their GE404 Hazard Mitigation Class, were, as mentioned earlier, introduced to some of these persons via Professor Nancy Hanks. In addition, we circulated a number of surveys around the MTU campus to students, some of which had the opportunity to visit the flood plain area. Our main reason for doing this was to measure public awareness of the flood.
The third form of information came from personal and electronic mail interviews with people who visited the flood plain area. These interviews provided us with valuable insight and opinions on levees and the communication process that took place.
The final source of information came from magazine and newspaper articles we obtained from the local libraries. These articles provided us with hard core facts and valuable information; they came from sources such as, Life(*1), and Environment(*2).
The flooding of 1993 severely damaged nine states, including: Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. More than 1,000 levees that had been built throughout the years, that stretched over 6,000 miles, broke or were breached(*2). It has been estimated that there was $12 billion dollars in flood damage including damage to homes, water and waste water facilities, and the loss of crops. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will deliver approximately $650 million in disaster relief aid and allows individuals to apply for low interest disaster loans.
To get a closer, more realistic idea of the actual flood impact, Illinois alone had over 900,000 acres out of the state's 20 million acres of corn and soybeans wiped out. The total crop damage was approximately $610 million. Most of this damage was caused by floodwater that over topped the levees. Damage to the levees, terraces, and drainage ditches alone is estimated to be $75 million. In addition, 16,300 residents had to evacuate their homes, 9,200 jobs were lost, and 2,900 personal water wells were flooded(*3).
When making any decision about flood prevention, people must take into consideration what is most economically and environmentally feasible for themselves, their town, and their surrounding communities. One way that we think damages could have been reduced, is by the development of the flood plain area in such a way that allows the river to take its natural course. Decisions may have included making the water front properties into recreation areas, such as parks and baseball diamonds, instead of residential or commercial areas. One of the areas our group members visited, Davenport, Iowa, did just that. Other solutions may include using alternative methods of flood control, such as designing a house with a garage on the first floor, or by building a house on "stilts".
Another way to battle a river may be with a levee. Levees are often composed of clay, sand, or other earthen materials. The risk one takes with levees though, is that they have a tendency to disrupt the natural flow of the water through a channel, in particular, a series of channels that directs the river towards the Gulf of Mexico. This construction often results in backed-up water upstream of the levees, higher water levels, and an intensified impact on areas that are not protected by levees.
When people decide to live in the Mississippi flood plain, they constantly run the risk of being flooded. In some cases this may mean the river takes a turn through their living room. This is why the decision of how to develop the flood plain is so important. Persons that do decide to take up residency take on the responsibility of understanding that the chances for flooding are great.
This is one place that we as a group feel that communication may have gone astray. The groups that most often built or upgraded the levees happened to be, the Rockport Island Army Corps of Engineers. They however, did not communicate with the townspeople about the risks they faced by having a levee in their town. It appears, from the results of our surveys, that the Army Corps built or upgraded the levees, and then left, without discussing the possibilities that the levees might break and/or breach. In fact, we have learned from our studies, that a creature as minute as a worm or a "crawdaddy" could burrow into the levee, and weaken it significantly.
Other problems include the fact that if a town is down river from a levee, they are not always aware of what might happen to them. For example, if they are down river from a series of towns that have levees, they can almost always count on being hit hard. The Army Corps however, does not make it apparent that these towns downstream may experience more damage due to the rising water levels traveling through the restricting levees upstream. These levees essentially "funnel" the flood waters into their community.
After the Great Flood of 1993, many of these towns downstream are starting to face pressure from their neighboring towns, and the Army Corps of Engineers to build levees. We feel that this pressure stems from both economic and political interests. The problem that we see with this is that it is not in the interests of the townspersons. This is where we feel that the Social Constructionalist model of communication could be implemented.
The Interactive Jeffersonian model was used among Corps officials and residents. For some areas this worked, out but in many areas it did not. The communication process and situations would have improved if the Social Constructionalist model could have been implemented. This was especially evident in the video presentation with the Superintendent of the Sny Island Levee Drainage District - Dean Paben. He stated that the Corps would be much more efficient if they would interact with locals who understood their area rather than disregarding their input and taking most work completely into their own hands. Dean Paben relates it to basic bureaucracy and the inefficiency of congress.
Both sides could benefit from the Social Constructionalist model. It allows for more efficient and effective communication methods to be used. The Social Constructionalist model would also allow for a greater input from the townspeople. Another important thing that we must stress though, is that it is always better to implement your method before a disaster hits. We feel that planning ahead is the best policy.
*1 The Great Flood of 1993, Life Magazine, January 1994 *2 The Challenge of the Mississippi Flood, Environment, December 1993, Volume 35, Number 10 *3 E-mail interview with Professor Nancy Hanks, Western Illinois University