Research Assignment
Part V
Malisa Holt
Instructor: Craig Allebach
CRJ-424-A
August 23, 2014

I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined in the syllabus and the sections in the Student Catalog relating to the IWU Honesty/Cheating Policy. By affixing this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that I have not cheated or plagiarized in the process of completing this assignment. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I understand the possible consequences of the act/s, which could include expulsion from Indiana Wesleyan University.

The Flood of 2008 June 7, 2008 was a day like no other that Columbus, Indiana residents could recall. Torrential showers inundated the area with 10 inches of rain onto already saturated ground. This event would forever change the lives of hundreds of citizens of this small central Indiana town. The flood caused an estimated $180 million in damage to Bartholomew County homes and businesses, many of them in Columbus (McLaughlin, 2010). This piece details the response efforts of citizens, as well as local, state, and federal agencies. This paper includes the personal account of a law enforcement officer who, working alongside fellow officers, citizens, and business owners, responded to a flash flood that has since been referred to as the hundred year flood. Also included is the recollection of a flood survivor who nearly lost everything he owned. In addition, preventive measures which were in place in the event of such a disaster are evaluated, as are mitigation efforts that are currently coming to fruition. The flooding occurred at such a fast pace there was no time to prepare and there was little, if any, warning for the citizens of Columbus. Even the staff of the Columbus Police Department were unprepared as their building was quickly surrounded by incoming flood waters. In a matter of minutes police cars were literally afloat in the parking area. Flood waters had already swept through residential areas and were moving toward Columbus’s downtown district. Before calls for response could even be completed, some offices in the downtown area were Gary Myers, a Bartholomew County Sheriff Deputy, was enjoying his day off duty when he realized that his basement was holding water. His phone rang. It was a friend telling him that the small town of Columbus was making news on national television. He tuned in to CNN, only to see the downtown area quickly being inundated by the murky waters of surrounding creeks and waterways. News helicopters were giving aerial views of what was initially an unrecognizable area until the camera view panned out. That was when he saw the Columbus Police Department surrounded by floating vehicles and debris. Myers (personal communication, August 2, 2014) describes his first notification of the impending disaster, “I can’t say that I received official notification immediately. There was no time to do anything but react. There was no time for planning and no way that I would wait for them to call. It was merely a matter of diving in and doing what I could to help.” Myers was walking towards the floodwaters, nearly ten blocks from his home when his cell phone rang and he was directed to report to the downtown area. Myers has taken on many roles at the Bartholomew County Sheriff’s Department and had experience prior to that as a firefighter and an emergency medical technician. He was a dive team instructor, bomb technician, and worked in investigations. With vast experience, he was unsure of what his role may be in response to this disaster but he knew that whatever it was, he was prepared to help with experience, as well as dedication to the citizens of his hometown. Although the Columbus area was prone to flooding on a much smaller scale, the community was unprepared for a flood of this magnitude. Myers, with over twenty years on the Sheriff’s Department, knew emergency management officials, local and state law enforcement agencies, the local fire department, and emergency medical personnel were likely already in place or on their way, and reported to find out where his assistance was needed. The main routes into and out of Columbus, Interstate 65 and U.S. Highway 31, were both under water. Myers worked alongside the Indiana National Guard rerouting traffic and assuring that emergency medical personnel had adequate access to necessary areas, and that buses were able to get through to move people to a shelter north of Columbus. People were frantic trying to get home or escape to safety. Myers was initially given the responsibility of aiding in directing traffic and assuring motorist safety. Vehicles were directed to various parking lots while alternate routes were determined. “It was chaos. People were panicking and some tried to drive through the water to get where they needed to go. We had people trapped in cars, abandoned cars, and others that were driving in circles trying to find a road that would take them in the right direction. A woman had attempted to cut through to Hospital Road when her car washed into the ditch. She had two small children with her. I was positioned at the intersection of highway 31 and 25th Street. The road was under water one eighth of a mile south of the intersection. We responded immediately, of course, and carried them from the car to dry ground. People were just not thinking. People going south were at a standstill. Eastbound streets were impassable. Westbound streets were passable for a short distance. If you weren’t going north, you weren’t going anywhere” (G. Myers, personal communication, August 2, 2014). Admittedly, Myers ‘efforts did not utilize most of his areas of expertise, but one of the primary skills of responders is to keep people calm by staying calm. Local law enforcement agencies, Bartholomew County Emergency Management staff, Columbus Fire Department, and emergency medical personnel were assisted by federal agencies, volunteer organizations, and military personnel in response to the flood disaster. Marines from Camp Atterbury arrived to assist, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard who dispatched two rescue helicopters from the Great Lakes and a scuba team assisted with swift-water rescues and helped evacuate homes (Flooding ravages, 2008). According to a press release from the Department of Homeland Security, the State Emergency Operations Center activated at a Level 2 with full State Emergency Support Function activation (Daniels, n.d.). Aside from local agencies, volunteer organizations, and military personnel, others responding in Columbus and other nearby flood affected areas included the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana State Police, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indiana National Guard, Indiana Department of Homeland Security, Indiana Department of Transportation, Indiana State Department of Health, and the U.S. Coast Guard (Daniels, n.d.). If a resource was needed, it was certainly available. There was no delay in response, as has occurred during other well known disasters. The response was immediate. Columbus is no different than other communities when it comes to preventive measures in the event of a disaster. As Myers (personal communication, August 2, 2014) stated, “Hindsight is 20/20. Sometimes a problem doesn’t appear to be a problem until it’s too late. The storm sewers that had served their purpose for years were, to put it simply, overwhelmed by this massive amount of rain.” When asked what could have been done for the community to be more prepared, he replied, “Nobody plans for a hundred year flood until they’ve experienced one. We’ve had flooding and it always happens in the same areas, so people have learned to live with it and have taken measures to assure that it isn’t interference. But this, nobody ever thought that this would happen” (G. Myers, personal communication, August 2, 2014). According to Haddow, Bullock & Coppola (2011), floods are typically measured according to their elevation above standard water levels. This elevation is translated into the annualized likelihood of reaching such heights. A flood depth that has a one percent chance of being reached or could be expected to occur once across a one hundred year period would be considered a “100 year flood event”. Structures within areas likely to experience flooding in a “100 year flood event” are considered to be within floodplain. (Haddow, Bullock & Coppola, 2011). Many residential areas in Columbus are in designated floodplains. Following this event, it was necessary to expand the floodplains to areas previously thought to be free of the threat of rising water. The community leaders of Columbus have learned many valuable lessons since the events that occurred in June 2008. One of these lessons is how mitigation could have prevented much of the devastation that occurred. According to Haddow, Bullock & Coppola (2011), land use planning; a process that includes a number of strategies that support mitigation is a significant method of lowering the risks associated with events such as that which occurred in Columbus. Ordinances, easements, flood plain management, annexation, and subdivision controls are only some of the methods of mitigation that the leaders of Columbus are considering, and should implement. The National Flood Risk Management Program (NFRMP) encourages mitigation planning for communities such as Columbus where the question is not ‘if’, but ‘when’ a flood of this magnitude will occur. “Mitigation planning can be integrated with other ongoing planning: floodplain management, comprehensive planning, building codes, etc.” (Smith, n.d.). Oftentimes mitigation is not considered in community planning efforts because local officials tend to minimize the risks and fail to link the risks of flood with land use, storm water management, and wetland protection (Smith, n.d.). According to the mitigation plan set forth by the NFRMP, risk assessment is one of the initial steps in the process of mitigation planning. Risk assessment involves measuring the potential for property damage, economic loss, injury, or death that may result from a hazard event. There are three steps to completing a risk assessment: profile the hazard, inventory assets, and estimate losses (Smith, n.d.). Location, extent, history, and probability are then factored into the plan. For Columbus officials, it was believed that the floodplain location had already been established; therefore the extent of possible damage would lie within those boundaries. There was no memorable history of such significant flooding, so the probability of future occurrences did not exceed the scope of the minimal flooding that was a yearly occurrence. Columbus officials, however, have learned from the disaster that the implementation of preventive measures are not just sensible, but are detrimental to the economic stability of the community and the safety of its citizens. Planning and zoning regulations have been reevaluated to include the consideration of a future flood disaster. Floodplain management ordinances are now in place, and enforced. Open spaces have been established to act as fill area should waterways overflow. Storm water management has been addressed and storm sewers are in the process of an upgrade to assure that they can handle large amounts of rain. Building codes have been updated to assure that structures are adequately elevated. For the most part, all feasible methods of mitigation are in process or are already in place. What have the citizens of Columbus gained from this disaster? According to Myers (personal communication, August 2, 2014), “Columbus has some amazing people. They’re strong, they’re grateful, and they care about their neighbors. They’ve learned a lot. They’ve learned that nature can be devastating, but they’ve also learned that no matter who you are or what you have, your neighbors are there for you.” Kris Wisner, a lifelong resident of Columbus lost nearly everything in his home. Wisner’s home is in an area that was designated floodplain prior to the flood in June 2008. He was lucky enough to have flood insurance, as required for homes in floodplains when there is a mortgage involved. When asked what he had gained from the disaster, Wisner (personal communication, August 2, 2014) stated, “You find out who your friends are and you also make some new ones.” Wisner, a carpenter by trade, had just arrived home when he noticed that the rising water which typically did not cross the road in front of his house, had reached the middle of his front yard. At that moment, Wisner had no idea that the next 6 months would be spent repairing damages in his own home rather than making a living repairing the homes of others. As for many of the citizens of Columbus, the wait began. “After the flood the surveyor had to check the elevation of the house to let me know if my home needed to be elevated three feet. If I had to elevate it and it wasn’t possible or I couldn’t afford it, I would be in the same boat as a lot of people, having to take the buyout and move somewhere else” (K. Wisner, personal communication, August 2, 2014). Wisner’s home was determined to be at a high enough elevation. “It took three weeks to get a building permit so that I could start working and another six months of work before we could go home” (K. Wisner, personal communication, August 2, 2014). Although the repairs to their home are now complete, Wisner and his wife still have a sense of dread on days when it seems the rain will never stop. The citizens and business owners in Columbus have faced financial burdens in the wake of this disaster. “A few business owners relocated to other areas of town that are on higher ground. It was less expensive than repairing a building that was already distressed before the flood. Other businesses closed for good. Some homeowners are still waiting for money for a home that will be destroyed so they are still displaced. Six years later and they’re still waiting. Some of the people who received money for their homes only received a fraction of what they owed on them” (G. Myers, personal communication, August 2, 2014). In response to the flood, Columbus leaders are, indeed, in the process of putting measures into place to reduce risks should a disaster of this type occur again in Franklin. The FEMA grant for flood hazard mitigation does not permit rebuilding in the flood plain. However there are plans for a park, now partially complete, new retail businesses, and a public venue. The city has also placed a memorial where nearly one hundred homes once stood. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has completed their obligation to the citizens of this community. The city received approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to buy and demolish up to 75 flood damaged homes, a project that was expected to cost more than $6.5 million. The federal government covered a portion of the costs, with the remainder being paid for through a state grant (Geoller, 2009). Six years after the flood, there are still a handful of homes that remain on the list for demolition. The city of Columbus has purchased some of the homes. Meanwhile, officials have reevaluated and expanded the floodplain and are in the process of putting in a new storm sewer system. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers explored the possibility of diverting Young’s Creek from flooding the area again. However, it was decided that rerouting the creek by building structures such as levees would only create another floodplain. In their article, The Rising Costs of Floods, Brody, Zahran, Maghelal, Grover & Highfield (2007) explain that sometimes what seems to be the right solution may actually contribute to the problem when it comes to flooding. Damaging flood events are controlled by the way that society plans for and develops its communities, influencing where structures and resistant surfaces are placed and how hydrological systems are altered. They suggest that the alteration of naturally occurring wetland increases the damage caused by floods because it encourages development (Brody, Zahran, Maghelal, Grover & Highfield, 2007, p. 330). Wetlands are a key feature of hydrological landscapes and are believed to provide natural flood mitigation by maintaining a properly functioning water cycle (Brody, Zahran, Maghelal, Grover & Highfield, 2007, p. 332). Thus the authors believe that communities that employ mitigation efforts may feel comfortable developing the areas that would have remained undeveloped otherwise. “Altering or removing a wetland in order to construct a parking lot, road, or building reduces the local wetland capacity to capture, store, and slowly release water runoff, exacerbating local flooding (Brody, Zahran, Maghelal, Grover & Highfield, 2007, p. 342). They propose that planners should direct growth away from areas that are vulnerable to flooding to avoid disturbing nature’s own preventive measures. As a resident of Columbus, I evaluated the aftermath and I believed that there was no way that any amount of work or money would restore the damaged areas. Tombstones peeked over the flood waters in some areas of Greenlawn Cemetery. Abandoned houses and businesses seemed to be everywhere on my route to work. The belongings of families were piled in front yards waiting to be hauled to the landfill. I could not help but wonder how many lost literally everything. Donner’s Park, the most beautiful park I have ever seen, was a muddy and murky mess. Columbus, just days prior, was a quaint and comfortable looking town. A series of rain showers left much of it looking abandoned and destroyed. The public was invited to the meetings of city leaders who were making a staunch effort to respond to the needs of the citizens, reassuring them that financial help was in the works. Then I recall the waiting. Every flood survivor seemed to just be waiting, and for what seemed like an eternity. Extended families were moving in with one another. Friends were taking victims of the Kris Wisner and his wife were excited to find out that checks were being given to the flood victims so that they could obtain immediate shelter. “My wife picked up a check for five hundred dollars. We called hotels in the area but they were all full. Our vehicles were ruined so we couldn’t drive far for a place to stay for a week. We have no family in the area and our friend’s homes were full. So we bought clothes and necessities and moved in with an acquaintance. Then we just waited” (K. Wisner, personal communication, August 2, 2014). I have seen the many changes that are occurring. It amazes me that something as simple as spring rains resulted in such devastation. I am also amazed at how such a traumatic event can reveal the closeness of a community. As I drive around Columbus, there are still remnants of the events in early June of 2008. The flood is still a common topic at the local diners and family gatherings. Some homes are still abandoned and several businesses still sit empty. However, the restoration of the community is moving along. The downtown area is more beautiful than many have ever seen it. The green space and memorial do not seem to be a depressing reminder of the flood, but reveal a sense of hope and closeness. Columbus is recovering at its own pace.

References
Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Maghelal, P., Grover, H., & Highfield, W. E. (2007). The rising costs of floods. Journal of the American planning association, 73(3), 330-345.
Daniels Overseeing Relief Efforts. (n.d.). Latest Headlines RSS. Retrieved from https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=29788
Flooding Ravages Parts of Indiana. (2008, June 7). RTV6. Retrieved from http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/flooding-ravages-parts-of-indiana
Goeller, A. (2009). $6.5 million Franklin flood buyout plan of 75 houses gets ok. Indiana economic digest. Retrieved from http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp? SectionID=31&subsectionID=194&articleID=50198
Haddow, Bullock & Coppola (2011). Introduction to emergency management. 4th Ed. Boston, MA: Elsevier
McLaughlin, K. (2010). Flood leaves redevelopment opportunity for Franklin. Indianapolis business journal. Retrieved from http://www.ibj.com/article/print?articleId=18645
Smith (n.d.). Mitigation planning 2011 USACE flood risk management workshop. Retrieved from http://www.nfrmp.us/frmpw/2011/docs/WorkshopPresentations/3SMITHUSCOE_ FEMAV_TS8_11revised.pdf