Jun 26
2009

Reuters Media The Supreme Court recently upheld a permit issued under the Bush administration by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow a mining company to dump tailings from an Alaskan gold mining operation into Lower Slate Lake, which is located in the Tongass National Forest.  The Clean Water Act is supposed to prevent such discharges into natural waters, which is essentially what the appeals court had said in its previous ruling that the Supreme Court has now overturned.  Instead, the mining company, Coeur d’Alene Mines Corp, argued that the lake was the most practical and environmentally sound method of disposal.  Though this is likely to kill all aquatic life in the lake, it was argued that the lake could always be restocked with fish and restored once mining operations had ceased.  This claim seems suspicious to me, however, as gold mining operations have usually been associated with arsenic and I would suspect that such high levels would persist for some indefinitely long period of time.  Nonetheless, the 6-member court majority had said that deference must be paid to the “reasonable” decision made by the Corps of Engineers.  Unfortunately, what I read into this description is that one can get away with whatever the regulator can be convinced into allowing, however that might be accomplished.

Tags: , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Media  


Jun 25
2009

In a May 8, 1984 file photo, Josephine Thompson, seated center, is joined on her porch by daughter Bernice Thompson, left, Michelle Clemmons and Vernie Akers, right, as floodwaters rise around her house in Martin, Ky., at the confluence of the Left and Right Beaver Creeks in Floyd County. Martin has flooded no fewer than 37 times since 1862 _ four in the past decade alone. Rather than give up on Martin, townspeople have enlisted the federal government in an ambitious project to rebuild it on higher ground. (AP Photo, File)

When do you just give up and leave?  For one town in Kentucky, its when you have been flooded out about once every 4 years since 1862, including four times in the past decade alone.  Martin, a coal mining town in the Appalachians, is being relocated to higher ground with the help of the Army Corps of Engineers.

I am not as familiar with Corps of Engineers programs as I am with FEMA, which has mitigation funding of its own that has been used for similar purposes.  Specifically, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides planning, projects, and technical assistance that is aimed at reducing the risk of loss within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  Projects can elevate, acquire, or relocate structures.  The way one may qualify is by suffering one or more flood-related losses greater than $1000 in value within a 10-year period.  The community must participate in the NFIP and, though this is not clear, the property owner may have to have a flood insurance policy.  This is just one more reason to get flood insurance, especially if you are anywhere near a stream and its floodplain.

Tags: , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Media  


Jun 16
2009

time-logoTime Magazine has a story about a request by the Army Corps of Engineers that the EPA and FEMA not disclose the location of coal ash ponds.  It seems that the EPA and FEMA were assessing the hazard posed by these ponds after a spill in Kingston, Tennessee that covered 300 acres in sludge and destroyed or damaged 40 homes on December 22, 2008.  Since then, it has been concluded that 44 of these ponds across the country, used to store waste from coal fire power plants, pose a high hazard to the surrounding public.  After making this assessment public, the Corps of Engineers requested that the EPA and FEMA not disclose the location of these ponds, much as the National Dam Inventory had been removed from public access after 9/11.  The reason for both of these moves is, of course, to make it more difficult for terrorists to identify good targets.

The problem with this approach of making hazards confidential is that it does nothing to remedy the original threat.  The high hazard coal ash ponds and dams are still out there and people are still vulnerable with or without the aid of terrorism.  Will anyone be moved to do anything about these hazards if the public does not know the danger they are already in?  Admittedly, the high hazard status does not necessarily mean that these structures are an imminent threat to fail, but necessary supervision and maintenance is much easier to put off if the public is not aware of its importance.  Doesn’t this more mundane and everyday threat trump the extraordinary one of terrorism?  Moreover, would public knowledge lead to construction of fewer of these high hazard structures in the first place, thus making the terrorism concern moot in the first place?  It’s something to consider.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Media  


Jun 3
2009

dallasmorningnewsThe story linked here details the costs (at least $29 million) and delays (at least 20 months) imposed upon a major highway and toll road project in Dallas, Texas by the levee that is to protect it.  It seems to have been taken for granted that the levee along the Trinity River would be able to protect this major new piece of infrastructure that is to be placed behind it.  However, the city has been instructed by the Army Corps of Engineers to verify the structural integrity of the levee before potentially risking the lives of thousands of drivers, especially in light of new and more stringent regulations in place after Hurricane Katrina.  This appears to be a failure in planning, but it also calls to mind similar issues caused by levees.

FEMA requires that a levee have at least 3 feet of freeboard in order to remove the land behind it from the regulatory floodplain.  The levee may have met this standard at the time of construction, but a new study may revise the floodplain elevation upward so that the levee no longer has the required freeboard.  At this point, FEMA would have the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) changed so that the land once considered protected behind the floodplain is now in the regulatory floodplain.  The effect of this is that mortgaged properties in this area will likely be required to obtain flood insurance.  This may be costly and would likely both inhibit development and depress property values.  The alternative is to upgrade the levee so that it, once again, has the freeboard required by FEMA.

The unfortunate part of the above situation is that FEMA has an all or nothing policy that does not recognize that the levee, assuming it is structurally sound, does still offer protection from events lesser than the regulatory 100-year flood.  It assumes that the land behind this de-listed levee has the same flood risk as if the levee did not exist.  A number of communities, many of which sit behind such levees that predate FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), have become quite vocal about this policy and have pressured their Congressional representatives to change it.

The last thing I will mention here is the implications of a properly designed and maintained levee.  There are costs here that are completely ignored.  Specifically, though the event may be rare, a lot of damage will occur the moment the levee is breached.  If the levee is 20 feet tall, it is likely that structures behind the levee would be flooded by at least 20 feet, which causes a lot of damage.  Risk here is damage multiplied by frequency and results in the annual expected loss in dollars.  The large amount of damage may offset the low frequency to result in a significant risk.  Failure to account for this, along with the failure to account for structural deficiencies and maintenance issues, has contributed to the insolvency of the NFIP.  Witness New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Tags: , , , , , ,



Trackback  •  Posted in Media