FLOOD03268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

storing flood waters, then gradually releasing them., Maintaining the wetlands would 'eliminate the need for costly flood control structures in, the future. The final report, issued by .the. Corps in 1972, recommended a new direction in . . preventing flood damage through federal acquisition and preservation of these , upstream wetlands: "The logic of the scheme is compelling. Nature has already provided the least: cost solution to future flooding in the form of extensive wetlands which mod- erate extreme highs and lows in stream flow. Rather than attempt to improve on this natural protection mechanism, it is both prudent and economical to leave the hydrologic regime established over' the millennia undisturbed. In the opin- e ion of the study team, construction of any of the most likely alternatives, a ' 55,000 acre-foot reservoir, or extensive' walls and dikes, can add nothing." Using hydrological models, the Corps estimated the storage capacity of the wetlands and determined that approx- imately'8,500 acres would be needed to be. protected to absorb the maximum foreseeable flood. The ultimate 'objective of the Charles River Natural Valley Storage project was flood hazard reduction. The means of accomplishment, and thus an objec- tive in itself, was preservation of wetlands within the Charles River water-- . - shed. Additional objectives, compatible with these two, included protection of wildlife habitat, improving recreation opportunities and maintaining aquifer recharge. Criteria were set to identify wetlands to- be protected: . Wetlands must be of sufficient size and storage capacity for the volume of water expected. . Wetlands must be u~developed. . Wetlands must be under imminent pressure for development. This last criterion came partly from. observation of a several-day rainstorm in 1968. While 1955's Hurricane Diane was more severe, the 1968 storm caused a greater flood, in part be~ause of in: terim development in the watershed and resulting loss of wetlands. o 7 Based .on these criteria, seventeen individuill wetland areas were selected for preservation, ranging in size from 118 to 2,340 acres. Only three of the wetlands are on the main stem of the Charles; the others are on tributaries, where they delay the slirge of flood- waters into the main ,stem. Through- out' the five-year study, from 1968 to 19'(2, the Corps'worked with a ' Citizen's Advisory Committee, that acted to get public input at each stage of the development of the Natural Valley Storage idea. The concept was supported by both the public and the highest level of the Corps; the. Administration, howeyer, was reluctant to extend federal flood control authority to such a large-scale land acquisition. Senator Edward Kennedy introduc,ed legislation,ev- entually supported by the entire Massachusetts Congre~sional dele- I gation. The Massachusetts House and Senate passed resolutions sup- porting the Natur~1 Valley Storage ,concept. " The authorizing legislation for the project finally passed as part of the , .