Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />month period broughI 24.92 inches. In <br />Sl. Louis, the five year average for the <br />same period was 10.90 inches and in <br />1993 the May Ihrough July average <br />was 15.76.8 <br /> <br />These high levels of rainfall <br />were matched by equally high cost, to <br />Ihe sIaIe in terms of rescuing and <br />providing emergency services for <br />llood vicIims. building emergency <br />levees and laIer repairing damages. <br />cleaning up. and providing for !lood <br />victims reIorn to nonnal living. The <br />37,000 Missouri families whose homes <br />were damaged or destroyed received a <br />Iotal of over $72.9 million dollars in <br />emergency relief payments: $41.7 <br />million in Disaster Housing (DH) <br />assisIance, $23.4 million in Individual <br />and Family Grants (IFG) for uninsured <br />homeowners. and $7.8 million in <br />disaster unemploymenI payments. In <br />addition to Ihese payments. Missouri <br />businesses needed $40.1 million <br />through Small Business Administra- <br />tion loans 10 repair the damage they had <br />suffered. In addiIion to these payments <br />to individuals deprived of their homes <br />and businesses. taxpayers had to pick <br />up the tab for $130 million spent 10 <br />repair damaged public facilities such as <br />roads. water, and sewer treatment <br />plants.9 The cosI of such repairs is <br />staggering. Only 1,500 feet of highway <br />on US 54 north of Jefferson City cosI <br />$750.000 10 repair. 10 Fourteen miles of <br />Interstate 635 near Kansas City cost <br />$21 million to repair. When the linal <br />bill was calculated. Ihe Flood of 1993 <br />cost the taxpayers. the sIaIe. and Ihe <br />federal governmem $4 billion! II <br /> <br />Over and above that $4 billion <br />dollars loomed the statistical probabil- <br />ity of fUIure !louds. Since 1973. large <br />!louds in Missouri have compelled Ihe <br />Presidem of the United Slates to issue <br />thirteen separate disasIer dec1araIions. <br />The future would certainly not be <br />differen1.12 With that reality in mind. <br /> <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />Missouri's Governor Mel Carnahan <br />and oflicials aI the Missoori Stare <br />Emergency ManagemenI Agency are <br />detennined to take a new approach 10 <br />minimizing the impacI of !loods on <br />Missouri citizens. which would also <br />reduce the economic impacI on <br />taxpayers from !louds that are certain <br />to occur in Ihe future. <br /> <br />Their solution was the creation <br />of Ihe Missouri Community Buyout <br />Program. a plan that removed the threat <br />of repeated flooding from people's <br />lives by simply offering them a means <br />to leave their ruined homes and move <br />out of the !loudplain. These "aI risk.' <br />properties would be turned inIo public <br />land that would not need 10 be protected <br />from future flouds. The idea was noI <br />new: in fact. it had been available since <br />Congress had passed Ihe Robert T. <br />SIafford Disaster Relief and Emergen- <br />cy Assistance Act of 1974.13 However, <br />before 1993. victims living in the <br />!loodplains were reluctant to lake <br />advanIage of the program because they <br />believed. despite evidence to Ihe <br />conIrary. that floud destruction to Iheir <br />home was a one time event. if aI all. In <br />1993. however, Ihe !lood lasted for <br />eighI months. and the subsequenI long- <br />term displacement and disorder tlood <br />victims suffered convinced many thaI <br />anything was beller than living in <br />emergency housing for an extended <br />period. 14 Congressional legislation, <br />sponsored by Missouri Congressional <br />RepresenIative Harold Volkmer and <br />signed into law by President ClinIon on <br />December 2. 1993, amended the <br />Stafford Act, and offered Missouri <br />officials increased funding for buying <br />property. This legislation revised the <br />formula that determined the amounI of <br />money the Federal Emergency Man- <br />agemenI Agency could receive in order <br />10 distribuIe it to the individual Slate <br />Emergency Management Agencies for <br />the purpose of buying IhreaIened <br />property. This act evenIually made <br /> <br />$134.9 million available to Ihe nine <br />Midwest sIaIes Ihat had been devastat- <br />ed by the 1993 tlood. Missouri alone <br />received $30 million. A supplemental <br />appropriations bill from the Depart- <br />ment of Housing and Urban Develop- <br />ment, (HUD) Community Develop- <br />ment Block GranIs (CDBG) added $41 <br />million to the total amount available. In <br />addition. Ihe Federal Emergency Man- <br />agemenI Agency (FEMA) supplied <br />money for the demoliIion of structures <br />that had been deemed a public <br />danger. 15 The money generated by this <br />legislation was specifically earmarked <br />10 buyout property on the tloodplains. <br />An important provision of this econom- <br />ic help was thaI the stale would have 10 <br />match the hazard mitigation money on <br />a 75% to 25% raIio.lo Congress would <br />later make other, separate money <br />available to help tloodplain businesses <br />impacted by the tlood.17 <br /> <br /> <br />Federal Expenditures by State <br />for Hazard Mitigation Funds In <br />Millionsl8 <br /> <br />MO <br />IA <br />IL <br />KS <br />NE <br />MN <br />WS <br />SD <br />ND <br />Total <br /> <br />30.0 <br />27.0 <br />26.3 <br />15.2 <br />10.0 <br />9.7 <br />8.0 <br />4.5 <br />4.2 <br />134.9 <br /> <br />All nine MidwesI states thaI <br />suffered !lood damage took advantage <br />of the offer of Federal money to <br />persuade people to move from the <br />1100dplains, but Missouri uIilized the <br />program the most. No doubI Ihis was <br />due 10 the extremely large number of <br />