Flooding. Lawrence H. Roth, P.E., G.E., D.GE, F.ASCE

Transcription

1 Thoughts on Levees and Flooding Lawrence H. Roth, P.E., G.E., D.GE, F.ASCE

2 Discussion topics 1. ASCE s Report Card 2. Levee certification 3. So You Live Behind a Levee 4. ASCE s Guiding Principles

3 Thanks to Greg Baecher, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Maryland Ed Thomas, Esq., Baker ASCE s Policy Review Committee Sybil Hatch, P.E., and ASCE s Inter-Institute Levee Committee ASCE s Critical Infrastructure Guidance Task Committee

4 Thanks aso also

5 ASCE s REPORT CARD

6 F-N curves

7

8 F

9 D-

10 Levees ees D- INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE 2009 Miles of levees ~100, Locally owned levees Population at risk Cost to repair 85 percent ~43 percent >$100 B U.S. National Inventory of Levees none

11 LEVEE CERTIFICATION

12 THE PERFECT STORM

13 Certification FEMA certification for levees requires judgment that a levee meets a minimum level of flood protection under the NFIP For FEMA to accredit a levee on its NFIP maps, a PE must certify that the system complies with all requirements Certification is a technical finding that there is reasonable certainty the levee will contain the base flood Unfortunately, neither certification nor accreditation verifies a safety standard

14 Certification A document that FEMA uses to prepare NFIP rating maps is not equivalent to a document prepared by a PE, based on the standard of care, that assesses the risk to the public safety, health, and welfare posed by a flood-risk-reduction system Unfortunately, certification May cause the public to erroneously believe that the levee will not fail during a 100-year flood Unintentionally places a PE in serious ethical and legal jeopardy by making it seem to confirm the safety of a structure that he/she has not designed Is contrary to the ASCE Canon of Ethics and good public policy

15 Certification = the poison pill There are only two kinds of levees those that have failed and those that are going to fail Juries in the U.S. are sympathetic to victims someone must pay (regardless of who is really at fault) There are two kinds of consultants those who care about their own risks and those who don't Do you really want someone certifying a levee who has already shown he does not care about his own risk? How will he deal with yours?

16 ASCE recommends e FEMA should develop and adopt a hazard-ranking system for NFIP maps that is based on either: The maximum flood that will likely be experienced e (PMF) A comprehensive plan for community development, land use, building codes, emergency preparedness, as well as a system of indemnification for the losses when levees fail FEMA should amend 44 C F R (b) to change FEMA should amend 44 C.F.R (b) to change the requirement from certification to NFIP evaluation

17 SO YOU LIVE BEHIND A LEVEE

18

19

20 Target audience High school education, some college + Registered, active voter Belong to community organizations Primary news source: TV Internet user Homeowner

21 Contents How flood size is determined Where levees are located What is a levee? Natural drainage Overtopping Breaching Signs of trouble Assessing your risk Levees and the probability of flooding Flood risk over time How safe are you? How communities can reduce risk What about flood insurance? What you can do in advance

22

23

24 LEVEE LINGO

25 LEVEE COMPONENTS BREACHING OVERTOPPING

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

33 What went wrong in New g Orleans?

34 What went wrong in New Orleans? Risk Experts knew that a hurricane like Katrina was inevitable, and that when it occurred, the city would be flooded No one heeded the warnings No one in a leadership pposition managed the risks, nor communicated them Systems The hurricane protection system was a system in name only It was not designed as a system, nor was it operated as one

35 What went wrong in New Orleans? Leadership Everyone was in charge and yet no one was in charge No one not the Congress, the Corps, nor the levee boards could say The buck stops here! Adapting to change The standard project hurricane was never updated Design elevations were never adjusted I-wall designs were not revised

36 The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of critical infrastructure systems must hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public it serves

37 1. Quantify, communicate, and manage risk Keep safety at the forefront of public priorities Quantify the risks Communicate the risks and decide how Communicate the risks and decide how much is acceptable

38 2. Employ an integrated systems approach Adopt a systems approach, including life cycle planning Consider the interrelationships between systems

39 3. Exercise sound leadership in decision-making processes Engineers must communicate sound advice to decision-makers Make decisions at appropriate levels Civil Engineering, June 2007

40 4. Respond to dynamic change Recognize that, over time, risks will change Establish mechanisms to incorporate changing information Update projects regularly based on recent Update projects regularly based on recent research, case histories, and new standards

41 Overarching gprinciple: p Hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare Demand engineering quality Engineers must place safety first

42 Remember. e.. Thank you