Faulty Flood Walls Spring Problems

  • Donna Smrdel stands in her backyard by the "flood wall." (Photo by Julie Grant)

Many people are drawn to live near rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. That means they have to take special care in case of floods, but flood walls and levees don’t always protect them. In one town, residents are asking why the wall separating their backyards from the neighboring river didn’t hold back the water. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports on the safety of floodwalls and building in a floodplain:

Transcript

Many people are drawn to live near rivers, lakes and other bodies of water. That means
they have to take special care in case of floods, but flood walls and levees don’t always
protect them. In one town, residents are asking why the wall separating their backyards
from the neighboring river didn’t hold back the water. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports on
the safety of floodwalls and building in a floodplain:


Dale and Donna Smrdel bought a condominium along a river just a few months ago.
This summer they’ve been sitting in the backyard on a wall overlooking the river and
watching the sunset. But now, that concrete wall is broken and falling away from the
bank. It’s crumbled in some spots and held together only by twisted rebar.


“This is where the largest portion simply fell away because of the water. It was a torrent.
It was so strong it picked up a camper and flung it over this wall. Because the water was
so high above the wall, that it was like a toy. It just floated away like a toy.”


People on rafts rescued everyone from
second floor windows. Donna Smrdel says they thought this wall would protect them
from flooding:


“I don’t think there was a single person here that believed this was not going to keep us
safe. I think we all believed that even if the water did rise that it wouldn’t hurt the
retaining wall. None of us are engineers. We looked at it, it looked safe. We believed
we were safe. We had no idea, we just had no idea.”


This story is not uncommon. Last year, people in New Orleans expected a flood wall to
protect them from rising waters brought on by Hurricane Katrina. People along the
Mississippi River expected levees and flood walls to protect them from the Great Flood
of ’93. Many flood walls hold, but when they don’t, the people who thought they were
protected quickly find out they’re victims. In the case of the Smrdels, it turns out that
wall wasn’t even meant to protect them from high water.


Painesville City Manager Rita McMahon says the Smrdels live near the exit of the river,
where ice often jams in spring:


“Well, that wall was built by the private property owner as actually a flood protection
from ice dams. It wasn’t intended to protect the property from this type of a flood. This
was a volume flood that came from the south to the north. It was just a wall of water, so
to speak.”


The Smrdel’s condo community was built in the 100-year floodplain 30 years ago. Back
then, there weren’t regulations on building in a flood-prone area. Today, new buildings
have to be elevated.


That’s better protection then a wall, but flood walls and levee protection give people a
sense of security. Often they don’t think about that protection failing them, and the
consequences of what that failure will mean to their homes and families. Engineers say it
is possible to live safely by the water, but homeowners have to do their own investigating
to find out the safety of housing elevations and flood walls. We spoke with Carm
Marranka, a structural engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers:


Julie: “When you look at Katrina, when you look at the Mississippi floods in ’93, and when we
look up here, do you think that sometimes flood walls, even those built by the Army Corps,
provide a false sense of security?”


Marranka: “I don’t know if it’s a false sense of security. I think
with the design and assumptions that I’m familiar with the factors of safety, those
structures are built at. And good maintenance, I think that’s a big issue. They have to be
maintained. They cannot be allowed to fall into disrepair.”


When the Army Corps builds a flood wall, Marranka says it’s usually up to the local
community to maintain it, but the local governments often don’t have enough money to
pay for that maintenance. Donna Smrdel doesn’t trust any of it anymore:


“I mean, even if they bulldozed it, what kind of retaining wall will they build next? If
this didn’t work, and we all believed it would work, what do you build next?”


All those other people flooded out of their homes will also have to decide whether they
trust flood prevention technology, and if living by the beautiful scenery is worth the
threat of floods.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Beach Combers vs. Beach Owners

  • A recent Michigan Supreme Court decision intended to solve controversy between lake shore property owners and beach walkers has stirred up yet more controversy. (Photo courtesy of the NOAA)

Many people enjoy strolling the beaches of the Great Lakes, and believe it’s as much their shoreline as anyone else’s. But there are a lot of lakefront property owners who believe that beach strolling amounts to trespassing. And in at least two states in the region, that dispute has wound up in the courts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has
more:

Transcript

Many people enjoy strolling the beaches of the Great Lakes, and believe it’s as much their shoreline as anyone else’s. But there are a lot of lakefront property owners who believe that beach strolling amounts to trespassing, and in at least two states in the region, that dispute has wound up in the courts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has more:


In Michigan, the state Supreme Court recently declared the entire 3,200 miles of Great Lakes coast is public property. But a group of lakefront property owners says the decision has created a host of problems.


They’re complaining that it appears to leave them with no recourse for dealing with people who cross the line of considerate behavior, such as loud picnickers, and careless dog-walkers. Ernie Krygier is with one of the most active property owners’ groups, Save Our Shoreline.


“There’s a lot of other instances that we’re concerned with, and it all goes back to ownership and control to the water’s edge. If you don’t own it, it’s going to be very difficult to control it.”


The Michigan property owners now want the state Supreme Court to issue a more-detailed ruling on what’s allowed and not allowed on the Great Lakes beaches. Krygier says they’re also hoping to win back at least some of the shoreline.


If not, he says, the property owners could file a lawsuit claiming the court’s action amounts to a seizure of their property, and they’re entitled to perhaps billions of dollars in compensation.


(Sound of beach)


A sign posted here on a Lake Michigan beach by a property owners’ association warns people who might wander past that they’re about to tread upon private property, but many people walk right past it anyway to enjoy a stroll on the shoreline. Jim Wright lives nearby, and says he’s walked this stretch of beach for twenty years.


“They, they put out little signs and that. But the signs, you know, are not anything official. It’s just something they got from a signmaker. And so we just kind of ignore them, and they accept them being ignored.”


The recent Michigan Supreme Court said it’s okay for Wright and everyone else to ignore the sign. The ruling said Great Lakes beaches are a unique resource, held in trust by the state for the public to use and enjoy.


The court said public access in Michigan extends from the water to the high water line. That line meanders from beach to beach, from lake to lake, and from season to season. It’s generally indicated by debris deposits, or the absence of beach grass and other vegetation, and Jim Wright says the court made the right decision.


“I’ve always felt that the whole shoreline belongs to the state and no one person, so that was a good ruling that they made and I think most people will be very happy with it.”


It’s a controversy that’s playing out in other Great Lakes states. In Ohio, officials are saying the Michigan decision supports their position that the Lake Erie coast belongs to the public. Shoreline property owners there are suing the state, asking a federal court to declare they own the beaches adjacent to their property.


Noah Hall is a Wayne State University environmental law professor who’s filed briefs on behalf of conservation organizations supporting public access to the entire Great Lakes shoreline. He says the Michigan decision will have a regional impact.


“I think that it would be completely reasonable and expected for another state to look very hard at Michigan’s reasoning and analysis in this case and probably adopt a similar line.”


He says the Michigan decision is a boost to those arguing the entire Great Lakes shoreline belongs to the public, and not to any private interest.


For the GLRC, I’m Rick Pluta.

Related Links