Findlay, Your Flood Problem Can Be Solved

The following is from an essay by Jackie Fuller of Findlay, originally submitted in an Owens Community College class:

Over the last two years Findlay, Ohio has flooded 10 times. While flooding is not a new problem, the frequency of it is. There is a solution for the city’s flood problem. With the help of the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership, the solution will be found and implemented.

The city sits in a valley and has been prone to floods since it was built in 1812. In August 2007 the river reached its second highest flood stage ever when it crested at 18.46 feet. With the loss of businesses, lost school days, and damages estimated at over 60 million dollars the city knows that something has to be done to prevent future floods.

Residents of Findlay have been in search of the best solution to prevent another major flood, though there are ongoing disputes as to the main cause of the flooding. It does not seem to be any one thing in particular, but a combination of too much rain, bridges built to low, and development built in the wrong place.

One major cause for all of the recent flooding is so much rain over the last two years. Area residents contend that the flooding cannot be blamed just on the rainfall. Facts given by both the National Weather Service and the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership Web sites to an extent disagree.

According to the National Weather Service the country is currently experiencing the La Nina weather pattern. Ohio records abnormal rainfall for every time it has experienced such a pattern. Presently it is not just Ohio getting more than its fair share of the rain. Several rivers in the country are in flood stage at this time and are cresting at record levels.

When the river flooded in August 2007, 9 inches of rain fell over the a wide area. That amounts to 82.4 billion gallons of water that fell in 24 hours. The rainfall levels of the 1959 and 2008 floods over the same area were only 3.14 and 3.38, respectively. But both floods happened in February when the ground was frozen and the water was unable to soak into the soil.

Even though 3.14 and 3.38 inches rain does not amount to 82.4 billion gallons of water it is still gallons upon gallons of water. With no soil to sink into, it went to the only place it could: directly into the Blanchard River, driving it to flood stage and beyond.

Eventually the weather pattern will change and the city may not see a flood for several years. After the 1959 flood the city did not flood for more than four years.

The solution to corralling all of this rain that happens periodically is to build an earthbound levee while diverting Eagle and Lye Creeks. The flood proposal of 1962 suggested exactly these measures when it was submitted to the City Council. The proposal was even voted in by the council and sent to Congress in October of 1963.

So why was it not done forty-six years ago?

Findlay Mayor Pete Sehnert explains that there are several theories as to why the project was never completed. One such speculation is that after the loss of President Kennedy in November of 1963 there was so much upheaval in Washington the proposal was forgotten. Another theory is that the federal funding for the proposal was not available at that time. The Army Corp of Engineers is currently looking into exactly what happened to the forgotten flood plan.

The earth levee proposed in 1962 was to be built near the reservoir. The levee was to stand 3 to 4 feet higher than the level of the 1913 flood. The levee would be able to hold water running at 32,000 cubic feet per second. This is the best solution for taking care of the rain as the levee would keep the city from filling with water should another major flood occur.

Diverting Eagle and Lye Creeks would begin to the south of Findlay, taking Eagle Creek to the east where it would meet up with Lye Creek. The channel would then turn north and be able to hold water running at 8,500 cubic feet per second. A weir would be constructed downstream from Eagle Creek allowing for a gated conduit in the levee barrier. A second gate would be placed where Eagle Creek merges with the Blanchard River. The gates would allow for run off to flow into the river.

During high water the gates would close, thereby alleviating the flooding to the city. Lye Creek would be permanently diverted into the channel. These are the best solutions for the heavy rainfall Findlay sometimes experiences, according to the Army Engineers. These solutions are again being examined by the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership and are likely to become part of the overall plan when its feasibility study is completed.

Another cause of flooding is the height of the Main Street and Cory Street bridges. The bridges were built too low, and they act as a dam for the water. During a major flood the water backs up, cutting off roadways through downtown. The flood proposal of 1962 suggested that the bridges be rebuilt to 100-year-flood specifications.

The Main Street and Cory Street bridges have been redone in recent years yet they are still too low. Even building them to the height of the proposed floodwalls would be a huge help. The floodwalls are to be put at locations where relocating a building would be more expensive than erecting the floodwall.

According to city councilman John Urbanski raising the bridges would involve a lot of money. It also would necessitate taking down one full city block to the north and south.  It would seem that the city authorities can’t see spending the money even though it was recently stated in The Courier that the city is banking over a million dollars a year. Yet the money would be well spent and there would no longer be a need to reroute all traffic to the interstate during a flood.

Another main cause of all the flooding is early development in the city. Letters to the editor in The Courier have blasted the city authorities for allowing Wal-Mart to build in an area known to flood. People are also upset that the city voted to let Swale Park and the old tire dump be developed into RiverPlace Center. Some residents though believe that development in flood-prone areas act as a dam of sorts, pushing the water back towards the river instead of letting it soak into the soil.

Mayor Sehnert, Councilman Urbanski and Hancock County Commissioner Ed Ingold all disagree with the view that development has been a major cause to the flooding. According to Mayor Sehnert, all of the building in the city over the last 50 years has not changed the floodway through town.

If, at anytime, development played a major part in the flooding it was when the city was first built. Back in the 1800s when Findlay was settled the area was known as the "Black Swamp." Water completely covered the area from Findlay to Bowling Green. The water had to be drained into surrounding streams and rivers so the area could be settled.

It's not as if RiverPlace will never flood; it will, unless solutions are put in place. There are a number of provisions for RiverPlace. The planned baseball field will be built more deeply and could act as a retention pond. The floodwall proposed in 1962, which is again being looked at as a citywide solution, would take care of the any chance that RiverPlace would flood. The proposed floodwalls also would benefit the site of the Trenton Avenue Wal-Mart, where the river flows just south of the store in a low-lying area.

Whether RiverPlace development will make other areas flood worse, only time will tell as to who is right or wrong on this issue. If anything is wrong with the RiverPlace idea, it is that the citizens did not get the chance to approve the plan in a citywide vote. It is a great opportunity for growth, and as RiverPlace becomes popular the downtown area becomes active as well. It is upsetting that city authorities took it upon themselves to put the development into motion without consulting the taxpayers, yet in the end our city will benefit from all that RiverPlace will have to offer. 

Taking a look at what other cities have done to address their flood problem is an excellent way to help find Findlay’s perfect solutions. Ingold personally visited Grand Forks, N.D. in late 2007. Several officials were to make the trip to North Dakota, but as a result of circumstances Ingold traveled alone. After the August flood, county and city officials wanted to know what (if anything) could be learned from others. Ingold reaffirms that there is definitely something to learn from Grand Forks.

The city is similar to Findlay as it is very flat with several low-lying areas and sits along the banks of a river. Grand Forks experienced the most devastating flood in the state's history in April of 1997. Starting in November 1996 a wave of blizzards swept through the city along with regular snowfall, accumulating 98.6 inches of snow over the next six months.

Flood stage for the Red River through Grand Forks is 28 feet. That spring, the National Weather Service had predicted that the river would crest before 49 feet, but it was off by more than 4 feet. The river crested at 54.11 feet. All 50,000 residents had to be evacuated to other areas. A gas line rupture started a fire in the historical downtown, but fire crews could not reach the blaze because of the high water. Eleven building were either completely destroyed or heavily damaged. Residents could not inhabit the city for more than six months after the flood. More than 20,000 volunteers came from all over to help them recover.

After this devastating flood, Grand Forks officials knew they never wanted to see another one like it. They implemented a feasibility study and found their solutions. With the help of the federal government Grand Forks under took a $400 million dollar flood prevention plan. The city has since built a flood wall along the banks of the Red River, accommodated by a series of levees complete with four pump houses spread through the city. The pump houses were specifically designed to match the area of town in which they were built. Two of the pump houses in the business district look just like any other business office. Two were built in residential areas to the specifications of the residents. Ingold remarked that if one did not know any better they could pass right by the pump houses thinking they were just anther home.

Grand Forks officials and residents pulled together and found their perfect solutions to dispense with flood water. Findlay has that same chance, yet petty bickering has severely damaged any team efforts being made. The perfect solutions are sitting right in front of the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership; they just need the time to complete their feasibility study. A bit of patience from the citizens of Findlay would be appreciated.

An excellent compromise would be to put the issue on the November ballot. The earthbound levee, flood walls and the diversion of the two creeks would take care of the flood problem just as well now as it would have back in 1962. There may have to be some readjustment to the 1962 plan as development has occurred over the 46 years, yet it can be easily done. These are the best solutions both economically and development-wise. They will take care of the cities flood problem perfectly.

So stop bickering and put the solutions to work.

Comments

[SPAM]

Jackie,

Excellant, enjoyed your article,it was very informative and gave solutions to the problems rather than just complaining about them. Very proactive, which we need alot more of. I beleive you summed it up well with your last sentance " So stop bickering and put the solutions to work ", I like that. I can't beleive it's been almost 200 years since they discovered they had a problem and still have not resolved it. Our forefathers came to this God forsaken swamp with a vision of owning there own land, and with no more than a pick and shovel and a lot of sweat and tears, and a huge amount of heart and Gods grace, they were able to clear and conquire the Great Black Swamp,and were able to make it one of the most furtile crop producing land in America. What have we got to complain about, they did all the work,all we have to do is divert a little water. I would be interested in knowing how much time and money has been spent over all these years for accessments, surveys, reports, study's, etc., and yet still little to nothing has been done to resolve the problem. I would wager that they have spent more than it probably would have taken to complete the work. And as far as the government is concerned, we souldn't be sitting around waiting on them to solve all our problems, you have to remember they are people to and sometimes have other agendas that they feel are just as important. It's up to the people of Findlay to step up and be counted and resolve this problem. Now don't get me wrong we shouldn't turn away any assistance, but as you can see from waiting on someone else to act on our behalf didn't work so well. Forty six years later and millions of dollars in damages and were still at square one. I think the proposal in 62 sounded logical and with all the growth and improvements over the years taken into consideration if it is still the best solution, then I say lets go for it, lets get the wheels turning, as Nike phased it " Just Do It ". Nothings forever, they can always make changes as needed. That's just my opinion, which we all have one, and most stink, but we really need to leave this to the experts as far as how it should be done, after all it is there profession. Now it's time to get on board and support those responsible for making it happen.

[Findlayhawk]

I appreciated the essay by Jackie Fuller and that the Courier published it in this forum. Flooding should be a topic of discussion and debate as it is among the most serious issues facing the residents of Findlay.
I also applaud the efforts of the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership. Unlike Azrael, I believe their efforts will reap benefits because they are attempting to represent the views and needs of the community as they work with the Army Corp to reach a solution. It is the best way to approach the problem-work hand in hand with the Corp. Otherwise you end up with a solution that looks good on paper in Washington or wherever they are, but may not fulfill the wishes of the community. Think back on the Army Corp channelization solutions and it becomes apparent community input is as important as the design.
And it may seem like a small point, but the fact is the Army Corp doesn't have to come up with a solution, they only have to approve a plan. So if the community is willing to foot the entire bill for a design by someone else, a plan that the Corp may or may not approve, then you are welcome to do so. The downside is that if the plan is not approved then you get to start all over again. The civic leaders in Findlay and Ottawa, along with the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership are taking the right steps. Their efforts increase the odds of having a plan that is acceptable to a majority of those who live in the Blanchard Valley.
I would like to add a few comments concerning the levee and the idea of diverting Eagle Lye and creeks. While this is a great solution for the residents of Findlay, I am not certain of the level of support these ideas will have among the farmers and landowners who will bear the brunt of these solutions. According to published reports the 80 million gallons of water that fell in August would have required the same land area as 16 Findlay reservoirs. Since the reservoir is about 1 mile square we can assume the August flood would have required roughly 16 square miles of land to hold the water. We can all agree this unrealistic, but even if you assume we only need to hold 50% of the rain we are still potentially talking about 8 square miles of land. That is a lot of land from a lot of owners.
Additionally, diverting the creeks serves to protect Findlay but unless other measures are taken this will still lead to flooding in Ottawa. So we are not talking about simply rerouting the creeks as we currently know them. They will either be widened or additional land will be purchased to hold flood waters. How many farmers are willingly going to part with the amount of land these solutions will require?
Personally, I am glad the Partnership is already thinking about these issues. I am not a member of the Partnership so I can't speak for their current activity, but I have to believe they have this and many other issues under consideration now.
The causes of flooding are indeed many and in an article a couple of months ago the Courier interviewed a gentleman who discussed the impact of farming and farm drainage on flooding. (Sorry, I can't cite who he was) His point was that farmland is no longer the sponge we think it is. In order to compete and be profitable, farmers must control rain water. So they are dumping water into the ditches and creeks at an ever increasing rate. Based on this information, historical data regarding flooding may not be as important as we once thought it was.
I researched the subject of drainage in this area a bit and learned that after the civil war farmers often installed boards in an upside down "U" formation in trenches to help drain water. But the soft soils in the area tended to plug up these primitive drainage structures and the lifetime of wood in soil was not that great. Later, sometime around 1900, clay tiles were installed for drainage. But the quality of the clay tiles varied greatly. You can find research that will indicate vitrified clay tile has an expected life of 75~100 years. But in a lot of cases the tile in fields was not vitrified to the same standards we know today. Much of it was a lower quality version that didn't always last this long. So it is no wonder that in the later 1960s and the 1970s manufacturers were looking for an alternative solution. The clay tiles installed around the turn of the century were failing and fields that previously didn't have water now did.
Plastic tile eventually proved to be a far better and lower cost way to provide drainage. Improvements in trenching machines made installing plastic tile cheaper than the labor intensive method of installing clay or cement tile. These leaps in technology made it economically feasable to tile fields that previously were considered too expensive to tile. So over the past 30 years or so more land has been tiled than ever before.
Today a flood mitigation plan must consider things that were not a part of the equation in 1962. Much of the farmland we had then has been re-tiled and is far more effective at discharging water to the river. Previously ignored land is now tiled and sends water to the river faster than ever before. More recently, research has proven farmers can increase yields if they install drainage tile in a much closer pattern. So some farmers are now adding more tile to further improve drainage. And it all runs to the same little river that carried the floodwaters of 100 years ago. In reality, farmland that was once considered a huge sponge for rain water is no longer serving that role as effectively as it did in the past.
I am not blaming farmers for flooding any more than I blame Wal Mart or most other development. Farmers are doing what they have to do to be successful. Most of us facing the same reality would do the same thing.
I just want to point out a fact of life that has often been ignored in the local debate about flooding and the discussion of solutions to the problem. It makes sense that we have more flooding today than at any other time in our history. Certainly there has been a lot of development. But there has been far more tiling of farmland. And that El Nino thing is still with us.
In the end we can't simply blame development, the weather or farmers. It is a combination of all of these things. We are dumping more water into the river faster than it has ever received it before. Even it we have normal rainfalls, the speed with which the water makes it to the river can be expected to lead to more frequent flooding in the future. That is unless action is taken now. Fortunatley a lot of people are working to make that happen as soon as possible.

If anyone is interested in the farm drainage topic I can recommend 2 essays that explain it far better than I can. Underground Drainage:A secret of Americas Bounty by Don Comis was helpful. The one I downloaded was dated 9/1/05. But I think Ohio Farm Drainage Through the Years-to 2000 by Byron H. Nolte was even better. The work I referenced is dated April 17, 2000.

[Derek Boutwell]

Wonderful essay! It's refreshing to see that someone has FINALLY taken into account the fact that Mother Nature has played a huge role in the recent flooding. Residents of Findlay need to accept one fact, if you build a house or a business within a mile of a water source, you HAVE to be prepared for a flood! It still amazes me at the whining that goes on after a "disaster". After living in Hurricane Alley for quite a few years and experiencing real disasters, I became accustomed to the way the locals recovered. They understood that living on the ocean comes with a price. And after a community is wiped out, they work together to get everything back to normal so that when the tourists return, everything is operating so that they can make a living. Findlay needs to wake up. Whining about it will not solve the problem. Move on, figure out a possible solution, or move. The government cannot fix every problem. Shoot, call Al Gore. I'm sure he find a way to link Findlay's flooding problems to global warming.

[Azrael]

Oops, forgot to tell John there where I got my info from.

From an April 3rd, 2008 artilce written by John Graber, titled: "Flood reduction group debuts":

"The partnership is a group of businesses, located in the Blanchard River watershed, which have banded together to try to speed up the Army Corps' timeline for studying the flooding problem and making changes to the river.
The nonprofit organization was organized by Marathon Petroleum President Gary Heminger, and has a three-year expected life span."

From an April 4th, 2008, article written by Mr. Graber, titled: "Flood reduction: Who pays?"

"Partnership President Tony Iriti said after Thursday's meeting that the nonprofit group has a three-year life expectancy and a $1 million operating budget for that period."

And once again, I'd like to say that I'm sorry to Jackie about my mistake, though I may not have been to far off the mark:

"Flood group receives funding" in the 2/23/08 edition of the Courier;

"In 1962, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrote a report for Findlay recommending that a federal flood-reduction project be authorized. There was no community response at the time, which "left Findlay and Hancock County vulnerable to flooding," the Community Foundation said."

[Azrael]

Jackie,

You know...sometimes we do make mistakes, and apparently I made one yesterday when I posted my respone to your paper. I'm sorry that I said that the city voted down doing anything because of the expense. I did go back (in the archives) and look...and you were right. I'm sorry.

Cindy,

Maybe I will write a letter to you...though not in response to this article. And while I'm at it, I'd like to thank the Courier for putting the letters to the editor online, because now I don't have to waste $.50 to buy your paper anymore.

John,

It's MEDICINAL marijuana. There's a difference, believe it or not. And obviously it is an issue (though you'll most likely disagree), considering that there are 12 states in the Union which have medicinal marijuana laws.

[Jackie Fuller]

First of all Azrael YOU need to get your facts right. The city council DID indeed approve the 1962 flood proposal. I checked with more than one source. If it wasn't a fact it wasn't written in the paper. No, I know it's not perfect. I wish I had been able to check into more of the effects on citizens and wildlife. I had so much information I had to cut off part of what I did have.

Heather,

Thanks for your comments, and please don't think that I don't care about the citizens of Findlay I do. I also have family and friends that where all effected by the flooding. My sister was flooded not only in her business, but also her home. I actually made the research two papers and the first paper dealt with the effects on three separate families here in Findlay and their thoughts. And by the way NO Mayor Sehnert did NOT push me in the views I took. They are entirely my own after researching things out for myself. I actually cornered him for an interview at the meeting in April to introduce the parternership.
j

[Heather Franks]

This is a somewhat well put together paper for a college class. I am just wondering, did you bother to look into how these ideas will help the citizens of the community??? The projects you listed only covered how it would help the business and the new riverplace project, which is one of the dumbest things ever proposed in this town. Did you bother to look at the people it REALLY effects? I am sure the mayor pushed you in the direction you chose to go regarding how it will help businesses. Don't forget these businesses made the flooding worse.

Overall though, you did a nice job. Hope it got you an A!!

[ONLINE EDITOR]

References were included in the original essay. They include: National Weather Service and its Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Serivce, www.weather.gov; U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, "Survey Report of Flood Control at City of Findlay," Flood Control, Detroit Office, Department of Defence, 1962; Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership Inc., www.floodpartnership.org; Hancock Regional Planning Commission Flood Quiz, www.hancockrpc.org; Michigan Tech Department of Geological Engineering and Mining Sciences; The Courier, March-April 2008 editions; and interviews with Hancock County Commissioner Ed Ingold, Findlay Mayor Pete Sehnert, Findlay City Councilman John Urbanski and Findlay resident Kellie Tooman.

[Holly Ramos]

Quite an impressive paper and one worth a second read.

[John McDow]

Azrael,
Don't be so rude when you are judging her paper. That is not necessary. I enjoyed the paper and I am glad that someone is atleast willing to offer their suggestions. We don't care about your papers or that fact that you want to legalize marijauna because they don't do anything to help the city. Also, I would appreciate it if you could include references or links to where you found your info, you too Jackie. Both statements could be made up without a reference.

Jackie,
Any idea what the effects would be on local wildlife and fish? Just curious if you looked into it or not. Good paper though, thanks, John

[Cindy Moorhead, editorial page editor, The Courier]

To Azrael -- Anytime you (or anybody else) would like to submit a paper presenting your opinion on a public issue as a potential column, feel free to do so. We published Jackie Fuller's paper on the blog just to offer an alternative viewpoint on the issue. We published on the Viewpoint page an opinion column by Ms. Fuller, rewritten to meet our requirements. The requirements are that the column be original, about a public issue, include your opinion(s) about the issue, and be written reasonably well. We also require writers to let us take a mug shot of them and include a sentence or two giving their background. The word limit for columns is 500-700.
Feel free to respond to Ms. Fuller's piece in a letter to the editor.
Or consider submitting a column concerning something you care deeply about, and on which you've done enough research to have an intelligent opinion.

[ONLINE EDITOR]

The Courier always welcomes content from its readers, in a variety of ways. This particular author brought her flooding material to The Courier for consideration. Since flooding is obviously a particular concern for our coverage area, the material seemed valid for public comment.

[Azrael]

Jackie,

I'd like to begin by saying that your paper is pretty good...though not perfect.

The fact is that back in the 60's, Findlay City Council voted NOT to go ahead with the recommendations from the Army Corp because it was too costly at the time (as reported in the Courier this past summer). Though considering what the proposals are this time around and what the cost will be to Findlay/Hancock County, the price tag way back then will be a bargin when compared to the price tag we'll recieve in a few short years.

Additionaly, the reason why the city is saving money at this time, though I'd have to disagree with you that it's 1 million + a year, is that this will go towards paying for our flooding solution which will be in the tens of millions. If part of the solution is to raise the Main Street bridge(s), then so be it. But, untill we know for certain that this is necessary and/or recommended, it would be foolish for the city to raise them at this point in time considering the cost involved.

As for the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership; as far as I'm aware, their feasibility study won't ammount to a hill of beans because it will be up to the Army Corp to come up with a solution for flooding in NW Ohio and issue the permits for ANY work that's done ont he river. Also, I find it interesting that it's been reported that the life expentancy of the Northwest Ohio Flood Mitigation Partnership is 3 years; it'll be disolved at about the time for a former mayor of ours who leads this "partnership" to run a campaign again for public office. Also it should be noted that the reason given for it's formation was to get businesses in Hancock and Putnam counties together and to put pressure on the Army Corp to rush our project through....not to come up with their own mitigation plan.

But like I said...you wrote a good paper for your class. Why, exactly, is it being published in the Courier, I don't know, though I'd like to know why. Maybe the Courier would like my papers regarding the use of corporal punishment in America, leagalizing medicinal marijuana or the numerous contributons to modern science, theology and astronomy that Galileo made during his life (all A+ research papers by the way).