|
<br />001181
<br />
<br />PART n: CASE HISTORIES OF MULTJ.GOVERNMENT
<br />FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
<br />
<br />Introduction
<br />
<br />The case studies which follow illus-
<br />trate a variety of problems and ap-
<br />proaches in the management of flood-
<br />plains by multiple governments. The
<br />studies concern small urbanizing water-
<br />sheds located in six diverse regions and
<br />states: Mississippi, Oitlahoma, illinois,
<br />Tennessee, Minnesota, and Massachu.
<br />setts. While the nature of the flood prob-
<br />lem, the extent of urban development,
<br />and the laws and customs of each area
<br />differ, there is much of value to be
<br />learned from each case history which
<br />may be applied elsewhere in the U.S.
<br />The first two cases-the Pearl River in
<br />Mississippi and Haikey Creek in Okla-
<br />homa-depict "horror stories" of the re-
<br />sults of lack of intergovernmental plan-
<br />ning and coordination in floodplains.
<br />While each is complex in its facts, the
<br />Pearl River case involves principally a
<br />conflict between cross-stream jurisdic-
<br />tions while Haikey Creek presents
<br />upstream-downstream issues.
<br />The next four cases illustrate various
<br />approaches to multi-governmental coor-
<br />dination, with differing degrees of suc-
<br />cess. In the Salt Creek case, a county
<br />forest preserve district served as catalyst
<br />to an intercommunity floodplain acquisi-
<br />tion program. Maryville and Alcoa, Ten-
<br />nessee, under the benevolent encourage-
<br />ment of TV A agreed to coordinate their
<br />floodplain policies through an intergov-
<br />ernmental agreement. Lilydale, Minne-
<br />sota, was relieved of a chronic flood
<br />problem through extraterritorial action
<br />by Ramsey County which acquired the
<br />Lilydale floodplain and relocated its resi-
<br />dents. Finally, the Charles River case
<br />indicates the opportunities for coordi-
<br />nating federal, state, and local actions-
<br />both structural and nonstructural-to
<br />relieve flooding on a basinwide basis.
<br />
<br />1. JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI-PERIL
<br />ON THE PEARL
<br />
<br />Thi3 is the story of wishful thinking
<br />in .Juckson, Mississippi-by the local
<br />
<br />authorities, the local citizens, and
<br />the federal government-all of
<br />whom ignored the possibility of
<br />disaster until it struck on Easter,
<br />1979.
<br />
<br />The Setting: At the River's Edge
<br />
<br />The Pearl River rises in central Mi81lis-
<br />sippi and flows south for 240 miles until
<br />it reaches the Gulf of Mexico at the
<br />boundary between Mississippi and Lou-
<br />isiana. Its watershed is about 8,760
<br />square miles-usually drained in a lei-
<br />surely fashion, for the Pearl is in most
<br />places, at most times, a shallow, meander-
<br />ing stream' (average gradient, approxi-
<br />mately one foot per mile).
<br />
<br />About halfway down the Pearl-with
<br />3,110 square miles of drainage area
<br />above it-lies Mississippi's capital city,
<br />Jackson, on the west bank of the river.
<br />The natural floodplain at Jackson is
<br />around two miles wide, through which
<br />the Pearl plods sluggishly. However,
<br />neither the floodplain nor the river's
<br />course are still natural there: the ROBS
<br />Barnett Dam just upstream, extensive
<br />channelization, and levees on the east
<br />and west banks (all constructed during
<br />the 1960's) have caused subltantial river-
<br />ine changes.
<br />
<br />Nor has the city and its environs
<br />stayed the same. Between 1960 and
<br />1976, Jackson grew from 144,422 to
<br />205,100 in population (partly through
<br />annexation). Across the river, the city
<br />of Pearl's population has more than
<br />tripled, going from 5,081 in 1960 to
<br />15,750 in 1976 (although the small town
<br />of Flowood has largely held to its 1960
<br />level of 500 due to a lack of bridge ac-
<br />cess to Jackson. In addition, the wholly
<br />new city of Richland with a population
<br />of more than 3,000 has grown up on the
<br />east bank since 1960 (Fig. 13).
<br />
<br />Why all this growth? To some extent,
<br />it can be attributed to normal popula-
<br />tion change, but it is also due to other
<br />
<br />27
<br />
|